Thursday, January 23, 2014

My draft of words for tonight's event -- Socialism and the New Age Movement

There are 3 major aspects of the New Age Movement:  New World Order; New World Religion; and a messianic figure to head both.  Its toolbox is mysticism, ie, "alterered states of consciousness."  You may hear it described as "meditation." Its economic system as described in the seminal writings of its mothership organization is a type of moneyless barter and exchange system -- the wikipedian definition of "Socialism" is 

A socialist economic system is based on the organizational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[6] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labor-time in place of financial calculation.[7][8] Distribution of output is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution. The exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of debate within the broader socialist calculation debate.

Socialism and New Age beliefs are almost inextricably linked.  Once folks are plugged into the New Age mindset, they come to view its components as religion -- a "New World Religion. 

A "conservative" variation on a theme is called "Social Credit."  Many people who believe they are justifiably fighting the Federal Reserve Board are being ushered into advocacy of that system.  It too entails a cashless society with total tracking required.

Think about all of this when you hear common TV ads telling us about the advantages of a coming "Internet of Things" where EVERYTHING is connected!

The mothership of the modern New Age Movement is the Theosophical Movement and the many groups spawned from it including the Anthroposophical Society, Lucis Trust, and many others.  They worked to blend the mysticism of East and West.  It was intrinsically hostile to monotheism in general and Jewish/Christian beliefs in particular.  Indeed, all three monotheistic religions are deemed "peoples of the book."  They must go as the New World Order comes in the mind of New Age adherents.

Indeed, those standing in opposition are "cancerous cells in the global brain."

The New Agers speak often of "harmonic convergences."  Indeed there are many "harmonic convergences between New Agers and important Socialists.  Most of those following the Socialist Movement are familiar with the Fabian Society.  Two very important Fabian names that were clearly prominent early and militant New Agers are Edward Carpenter and Annie Besant.  Both were instrumental in the founding of that organization.

Indeed, there are also those considering themselves "Conservative", "Libertarian" "socialists."  One such site easily findable on the internet is "socialistmystic.blogspot.com."


Early British Socialists who clearly were involved with mysticism, the altered state glue of the New Agers included William Blake (1757-1827); Robert Owen who also formed a socialist utopian community in our neighboring state of Indiana.

One important resource on the subject is a paper you can find in .pdf form on the internet:  "Socialism and Political Atavism" by Libertarian Alliance Robert Thomas.

Then there is the Liberal International which says it is "a world federation of liberal and progressive democratic political parties."  Its founding document, the OXFORD MANIFESTO of 1947 was drafted by prominent European Theosophist and internationalist, Salvador de Madariaga.  Salvador de Madariaga was the grandfather and/or uncle and/or cousin depending on which genealogy one accepts of those put forward by Javier Solana.  He was "grandpa" until Madariaga's Theosophy was emphasized to the public.  Then he suddenly became "great uncle."  He is "great uncle" because Solana's grandfather and Madariaga were "cousins."  That would make him a very distant cousin indeed.  I suspect he was grandpa and it is not convenient for Solana to make the relationship clear.  Solana was on the USA's subversive list for years and then one early December day in 1995 was suddenly made the new head of NATO with powers never granted any other NATO head before since.  I spent several years researching Solana who still plays an extremely prominent role in 'global governance' circles.



Madariaga's drafting of the Oxford Manifesto, the founding document of Liberal International was purportedly inspired by Lord William Henry Beveridge, a prominent Fabian.  How much good there is in the worst of us and how much bad in the best of us -- Lord Beveridge, to his credit did take steps to help Jewish academics escape Hitler's holocaust -- something more than the entire British government can take credit for in those years.  Salvador de Madariaga was the inaugural president of Liberal International in 1948 after drafting the Oxford Manifesto in 1947.  He was close to the Sufi Movement, Krishnamurti and he and his wife Constance Archibald were active Theosophists who raised their daughter Nieves (either Javier Solana's mother or cousin, depending on which genealogy one accepts) in same.  Her favorite guru was Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.

And, to add to this confusion, of which there is much.  Salvador de Madariaga was also a member of the Mt. Pelerin Society of Ludwig von Mises fame.  If you want to know more about that school of economics, read my friend Harry Veryser's book, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.  [Please note, I'm not calling the Austrian School of Economics 'New Age,' but I am saying that obviously there was Theosophical / New Age penetration of it as about everything else.  Harry Veryser believes the Austrian economic notions could have spared us our present recession lasting from 2008 onwards.]

A global takeover is the New Age Movement aim.  Socialism is their economic system of declared choice.  That is for the 1/3 of the global population surviving should they accomplish their concurrent aims for population reduction.  Barbara Marx Hubbard, one of their primary current leaders, a lady whose name was once placed in nomination for the Vice Presidency at a Democratic Party Convention claimed to have channeled these words printed in her unpublished manuscript and later published book financed by Laurance Rockefeller that the voices said to her, "we come to bring death.  We do this for the sake of the world.  The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you.  They will separate the wheat (New Agers) from the chaff (the rest of us).  This is the most painful hour in earth's history."

May the Lord grant us all discernment.  And may the Lord help us all!  Education played a huge role in slowing them down for 30 years.  Education may well play the same role now.  A favorite slogan of the New Agers is besides "think globally, act locally," is CRISIS = OPPORTUNITY.  Their declared primary crisis per Barbara Marx Hubbard in her 1988 Seattle Unity speech was "the Environmental Crisis."  First "A New Ice Age" (1970s') then "Global Warming" (late 1980s onwards) and now Climate Change" are flags they are currently flying.  CHANGE, we must have CHANGE, we are all "change agents", facilitating THE NEW SOCIETY, THE NEW AGE, THE NEW CULTURE.

They are sometimes called New Agers, sometimes "Cultural Creatives, sometimes "Progressives".  The name may differ but the game is the same:  New World Order, New World Religion, and some type of a new messiah to lead us in that direction, a direction of a total tracking globalized economy "socialist for the poor," elitism for the rich, for all surviving to join their "new species" of "Homo Noeticus.  

There is no benefit, either in the here or the hereafter for signing up for that.

Comments: 1 – 200 of 357 Newer› Newest»
Strongly agree Constance, von Mises and the Austrian school of economics have it right and the Keynesians are mistaken and dangerous. (Although having heard of them from someone other than Veryser, I was confused by your wording and at first thought you were attacking the Austrian school.) Easiest intro is How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by the Schiff brothers.

Agree too about New Age/NWO, but watch out for Islam coming out of left field too. It has been Western Civ's oldest and most implacable enemy for 1300 years now and it is rising again. Don't think that just because it got the idea of a universal Creator God from Judeo-Christianity that it is compatible with those. It preaches and increasingly practises universal jihad.

 
Thanks Constance. Another very good post staying on track (and only proves you have been tracking well all along).
 
Austrian School of Economics out of University of Chicago is absolutely New Age and full of wickedness.
 
Ukraine is spiraling out of control.
 
Dear 4.57pm, economic theory cannot be New Age or Christian or Islamic or anything else; it is either correct or it is not. (For instance, if you change the interest rate from 3% to 4%, what will that do to inflation if nothing else changes?) The motivation of people for finding certain answers to economic questions more congenial or less congenial can certainly be ideological, of course. I simply believe that Austrian economics is the correct way to analyze an economy. A politician can use it to do what he likes, of course.

Now, what do you actually MEAN by asserting that the Austrian school of economics is New Age?

Anon/3.30pm
 
Wow, Constance !
I wonder if the new bitcoin will be the credit system.
Everybody just seems to loves it.
I noticed that it's Cisco that has busted out of the gate
as claiming the "Internetofthings" as it's own, so to speak.

Great post Constance!
I'm going to read it again.


 
No, Anon@4.57PM, Chicago and Austrian schools of economics are not the same.
 
The premises of Austrian school of economics include the following:

1) There is no God
2) People are only motivated by money
3) It is good that people are motivated by money
4) Those who are not motivated by money are weak and need to die

The University of Chicago Economic department follows the Austrian school.
 
Anon. 7:33,

Can you cite any works by an important economist from the Austrian school that includes all 4 of the things you listed? Or is this a general list compiled over time from various sources?

I was not aware of any serious economic theory that includes any statements about the existence of God. Those two things are completely different topics of study.

Places like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (very solidly in the Austrian School of economics) have a tendency to attract the Ayn Rand / Objectivist / Libertarian type of person, who by and large are agnostic in their beliefs about God, or even downright anti-God and anti-Christian. But not all Libertarians are that way. There used to be something called Paleo-Libertarians, who believed in God and morality and who also believed in minimizing the power of the state. I think they even put out a newsletter for a while. Murray Rothbard and a couple of other guys I think?

I used to get Libertarian mail order catalogs, and the anti-Christian / occult materials available in them made me sick. Lots of Ayn Rand "worship", if that isn't too strong of a word. Not to speak for you, but I think that's what you might be referring to in your 4 points? But that has more to do with a world view than with a particular economic theory.

Regardless of the crowd that it attracts, I have to agree with Anon 5:53 that "...Austrian economics is the correct way to analyze an economy."
 
Economics as a discipline is really just a philosophy. There is little to no "science" behind it.

 
I think bitcoin is the precursor to the economic system in the book of Revelation headed up by anti-christ. Might be wrong but then again might not.
 
Constance, so very exciting to hear you speaking this-a-way....soo back in the saddle. You go girl. its me, tony in vt. luv ya,.....blessings
 
Dear Constance,

Excellent post. Socialism is the political arm of the New Age Movement......whether it be of the Stalinist variety or that of an Adolph Hitler.
 
My jury is still out on the Austrian school. Harry Veryser's book is published by the Chicago University Press. Harry has supported my work against the New Age Movement virtually from the beginning -- since early 1982. I was speaking about it more to illustrate the confusion and crossing of lines -- how Mark Satin says to the effect that the New Age Movement has something for everybody. Frankly, economics is not my forte. I do know Harry Veryser to be a good honest guy and brilliant financial writer, something I decidely am not.

Constance
 
I am personally outraged. Amazon is selling my book for $49.95. Nobody has the right to sell that book for profit but me. I placed it in the public domain on the condition that nobody edit it and nobody sell it for profit. I reserved the rights to sell it for profit. I gave away rights to reproduce it for friends, etc., as long as it was not marketed for profit. I just spent $49.95 to purchase it as EXHIBIT A - evidence against the commercial theft of my copyrighted intellectual property.

Download it for FREE. You won't need to spend $49.95 for that.

The link to an online copy is under "Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow" under my links.

Constance
 
I did not say that the Austrian School of Economics was New Age. I did say that at least one prominent New Ager of his day, Salvador de Madariaga, had been involved with its founders and the Mont Pelerin Society.

Constance
 
Remember that GOD is NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. I spoke to this to point out the deliberate blurring of lines and created confusion.

Constance
 
Pope Francis recently wrote that he is opposed to global capitalism. Before he became the pope he wrote that he promotes "democratic socialism."
 
Constance and all,

Check out the tuesday January 21, I, Pet Goat 2 decipher @ www.openscrollblog.com

Watch the video first. Very interesting stuff here. Nothing NA though right? Are these folks "spilling the beans" as Bob says, or is he reading too much into this? If concealing, and revealing are part of the craft, then perhaps not?
 
Constance,
Is there any chance your speech was video taped? I would really like to see it.
 
Rolling Stone just published an article about one of the leaders of IHOP. Thought you'd be interested. It's a long article. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/love-and-death-in-the-house-of-prayer-20140121
 
To John Rupp:

I'll have to have Glenn Clark ask around. I saw somebody in the back of the room who looked like he was running a camera on either video or audio mode. There was a very good crowd for the meeting and it appeared to be well received.

What I have here is the gist of what was said there, except I added a little and there was an extensive Q & A session. They kept me there until past 11 pm, 10 for the meeting and then many questions for the next hour.

Constance
 
I've been asked to be a speaker in an Oregon seminar from April 14 to 21st of this year. I will post more details as I get them.

Constance
 
I just finished reading that Rolling Stone article about IHOP posted (Anon 7:49)

It is a little hard to read as the author jumps around a bit. I would love to hear your insight about it. They teach against the new age and identify the heresy in the modern church yet they are dominionists. I think the most chilling evil is the kind that is disguised as Godly & good.
 
Snowing again in the New Ice Age Michigan. I'm setting up to do the radio program in 8 more minutes. Join us by going to
www.themicroeffect.com
and "listen live" or better still,
in the chatroom by going to
chatroom.themicroeffect.com

Give yourself a handle/name and a password and help me with the show!

Constance

 
When people reject the good news of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, their default
setting is paganism, and/or mysticism.
Very few people can operate without
acknowledging something supernatural.
Thus the new mantra among people
filling out questionnaires and/or surveys
about themselves, ( as in dating sites ),
etc., is; "I'm spiritual but not religious."

Even hard science tells us that something
like 95% of the universe is invisible and
undetected.

 
The IHOP Movement which was founded by Bill Britton is decidedly NEW AGE, a presentation to Christians and hardly against it. I will talk about it and explain in detail on this morning's program!


Constance

 
Constance,

I'm not aware of any direct connection between Bill Britton and Mike Bickle who founded Kansas City Fellowship, now IHOP. But there's no doubt a spiritual connection and similar theology. I've researched the beginnings of Bickle's KCF at some length, and I've not found any overt Britton connection - though I'd love to!

http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-sandy-foundation-of-the-international-house-of-prayer-ihop/
 
I'm Anon. who gave you the link to the Rolling Stone article. I'd give you my name but I was in a Church movement that is apart of the Third Wave and was associated at one time with Bickle. In 2007 I began questioning their teachings. I found you at that time when I was moving a former Paster of that Church (who had been fired). He handed me a box of books and Hidden Dangers was in it. I have learned so much through reading your blog as well as Apprising Ministries over the years. I am thankful that God saved me out of that deception. Getting out was not easy either. Once it was obvious we weren't coming back we were shunned. Being shunned is horrible. We were dead to them, we didn't exist anymore. It may not seem like a big deal since we were trying to leave but we had been emersed in that church community and didn't have friends outside of it. Sadly, most of our friends who left with us are now back there. When I ask them why they shrug and say, "the Church has so much to offer! Look what good it's doing in the community!" I could write so much more and maybe I should. It is so evil.

I did listen to the last 30 min. of your show today. Why do you think Rolling Stone did this article? I wouldn't think this would be standard faire for them.

I found this today: http://apprising.org/2014/01/23/interviews-on-dominionism-a-la-ihop-and-the-nar/
I think it's interesting that they just posted this a couple days ago.
 
Anon 6:10,

The writer of the RS piece contacted me via my blog and I agreed to be interviewed. I was apprehensive at first, and told him so, given RS' antichristian stance. I stressed the fact that orthodox Christianity does not align itself with IHOP, or perhaps, more accurately, vice versa. I also stressed that he identify this fact in his article or I'd not want to be interviewed. As you can see, it's not in there, so the takeaway from non-Christians is that IHOP represents Christianity, at least in large part. I have been told, by another individual who was interviewed, that Tietz' article was edited - by how much I'm not certain.

Overall, it's not a bad article, considering it's in RS, as I'm glad they exposed the Deaton murder, some of the goings on within that group, and the similar things at IHOP, plus it was made obvious that IHOP did "damage control".

Here's another article, by an individual who knew Deaton and was familiar with the background:

http://thecosmiccathedral.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/what-rolling-stone-didnt-tell-you-about-tyler-deaton/
 
Peace doves released by pope at mass viciously attacked this morning
 
funny the IHOP thing came up. It and the whole New Apostolic Reformation movement (such as Bill & Beni Johnson/Kris Vallotton/Jesus Culture of Bethel, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Bickle, Todd Bentley, C. Peter Wagner, Stacy Campbell etc) seems like christianized occultic new age spirituality. One of their big groups called the Elijah List..I get their daily emails and their daily so called prophecies from the "lord" always seem to teach a parallel teaching to the new age stuff I get mailed daily from Stephen Dinan (The Shift Network) with the exception of a few christianized words the messages seem fairly identical. The NAR also ironically call themselves Joel's Army- the demon hoard that eventually comes out of the pit in Revelation. The delusion IHOP ers and NAR followers think they are going to become gods in perfection BEFORE Jesus comes back and its THEM who execute the judgements of god during the tribulation. Rick Joyner prophesies a coming civil war in the church where they execute judgement on those in the church who wont submit to their delusional authority....hello? anybody say same message as barbara marx hubbard? check this article out by herescope in regards to IHOP/NAR http://herescope.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-passion-of-presence.html
 
also this whole "new breed/seed" youth generation doctrine connected to this movement sounds something straight out of hitlers eugenics. creepy creepy stuff. straight from the pit of hell itself
 
Tony Blair: Extremist religion is at root of 21st-century wars.

Religious difference, not ideology, will fuel this century's epic battles.

Tony Blair has reignited debate about the west's response to terrorism with a call on governments to recognise that religious extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world.

Time to increase the attack on and control of monotheistic religions, especially Christianity, as the cause of the world's problems.

Interesting that Rick Warren (Purpose Driven author) is, or at least was, on Blair's board.

http://tinyurl.com/pftm3rj

Dave in CA
 
Fascinating stuff Re: the IHOP / NAR / Joel's Army group and some New Agers. This is what I've been studying most these days. I was even beginning to be sucked in by some of their teachings through a website called End Times Prophetic Vision (ETPV) run by Bill Sommers. He posted anything and everything prophetic - some good, most bad. Bill passed away several years ago, and the site is no longer there, but it's available through the Wayback Machine at archive.org. Just search for eptv.org.

Anon. 2:04.... Are there any links to both the Elijah List and the Shift Network where these newsletters you speak of can be found online? If not, can you send me links via email? If you'd rather not, that's fine. I have a friend who is really into the prophetic. Or at least, she was trying to deepen her relationship to God by establishing online relationships to a particular fellowship that teaches things close to NAR-type teachings: Dave Eells at UBM. His big thing is the Man-Child teaching, which is similar to Joel's Army. Having some solid "evidence" to demonstrate the similarities between some of the New Age prophets and the "Christian" ones would be very beneficial to helping her understand where she went wrong.

If you are willing to forward me those newsletters, click on my name, I think it will take you to my Blogger page (which I don't really update or post anything on), and there should be a contact link there somewhere.

I think the coming delusion that will suck in a lot of "Christians" is related to all this.

 
addendum to above post:

I meant to say can you email me the newsletters?
 
Anon 2:04,

Constance wrote about the Joel's Army / Marx Hubbard connection a while back. I was made aware of a much more recent example of this, and write an article on it a bit over a year ago:

http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/chuck-pierce-hosts-conference-referencing-one-new-man/
 
Tony Blair: Extremist religion is at root of 21st-century wars... Time to increase the attack on and control of monotheistic religions, especially Christianity, as the cause of the world's problems."

Hold it, he's half-right, quranic Islam is at the rot of most wars going on today; if you doubt this read the stats in Huntington's Clash of civilizations book, particularly where he asserts and proves that Islam has "bloody borders". Trouble with Blair is that he hasn't the guts to say that quranic Islam is different from NT Christianity. Let us not go along with that blurring even 1%.


 
here is the link to to sign up for the Shift Networks emails and e-zine. http://theshiftnetwork.com/main

and here you can sign up for the daily swill coming from the NAR's Elijah's list

http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=001K_4EBhhTrxSL4iPtMy5H3ooQOw735xZDayNYt2HFc8K0xuu_D-Fu-hPUKjQP-JnQwQ2g0NAen6EvmBxOyo7mwfizcZqHWy4ZomCma_1KGITj0goyOa-iqg%3D%3D
 
I see that we are on the verge of entering a new age, as prophesied in the scriptures, but I would warn those who "know" what is going on to consider that nothing they "know" is absolute truth. But rather, when ideas are presented which conflict with the ideas (programmed) in our heads by religion and dogma, that we consider the words presented and pray and compare to verifiable facts we have. Then with logic and the spirit of the Most High God, we can begin to know that we know exceedingly little, and much of the little we know, is not true or complete. My God is a Very Big god.
Think on that.
We are very small potatoes and infants in a large universe with an immense god. We are just infants. Thus, when the Christ came, he came to be with us, new and astounding ideas were presented which conflicted with the ideas in mens' heads and with their financial and egotistical goals. Any conflict you have with the truth will be a stone of stumbling, as the Truth was when The Word came to man. The Word of God was The Most High God -- an exact representation (Constance: you know the "legal" meaning of that).
So, let us go, then, you and I. To investigate overwhelming questions. To break free of stale ideas with no basis in the scriptures or in fact. Let us break our misconceptions with logic and the words of those who are sent to show us The Way. To bring us back to the way, the truth and the life.
 
A somewhat accurate transcription of:
Deagle on Rense 9/23/13 Talk

@ 11:00 min into the talk
I want to teach people a few things that are part of the 90% that I usually do not talk about,
because our current world is basically a godless world.
People who are so called “churched” or believe in some
sort of social agnosticism, or athesim or (transhumanism)
They do not really believe in a trangenic creator or that we are a higher order being.
They believe in the mechanization of the human creature. That we are an advanced biological machine
that are either evolving or soon to control our evolution which is just plain stupid.
Umm. Human beings are more than a physical being and if you were to ask the questions to an astrobiologist or astrophysicist,
they will tell you that the equations tell you that there are 100's of billions of stars in our galaxy alone that could support life for billions of years.
The fact is that if you look at the cosmos there are roughly 460 trillion galaxies at least in our known universe.
The number of civilizations that exist could be 100's of billions which have advanced beyond the level that they have (extinguished) life and have advanced intelligence.
Now, I know a lot of people have the parochial view that their little local religion on earth, whatever that is, is the do all and end all of the creator of the universe, but they would be very mistaken.
Now the God of the universe is a very large god. A god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth
to other beings, both the humanoid and non-humanoid across the vast galaxy and vast universe. Our universe is being watched, it says right through the bible, in any ancient holy book, but it's clearest evidence in the bible,
(that we are being watched) by advanced beings. I mean, everywhere through the bible it tells us that we have interacted with the fallen ones,
advanced beings called angels and beings that have creative and destructive power that are far beyond the imagination of the human.
The problem is that people do not understand that our civilization is steered by these beings, both good and evil, throughout our history. It's not something that's new to the 21st century or the 20th century where
people start to pay attention to strange craft or strange beings. The fact is that people have known intuitively that, even ancient or native cultures, that there is a hyperdimensional spirit world
that there is a reality that is beyond the pariochial reality we have. Very few people have lived in that unless they have died and come back.
Some have a very brief experience with that. Others have a much more extensive one. I am one of those who has had a much more extensive one.
And some of the things, I can't talk about many of the things, but I will talk about a few.
The first thing, I want to give people hope. Uh... The earth will not be abandoned to the wicked.
I hear a lot of people saying that the earth is bound for destruction. YOU KNOW, THE EARTH IS IN DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.
We are about to be rescued. We are about to have an intervention, and we are not talking about ET intervention. We are talking about something way more advanced than that.
We are talking about the Angels, the witnesses, the beings of the Most High God are going to intervene on earth, because mankind is repeatedly incapable of rescuing himself.
At least a very tiny minority “get it” and the vast majority are becoming less and less concious, in fact, if anything, they are becoming almost like cybernetic machines – fused to their cell phones or I-phones
either that or their HDTV or the computer and they do not really sense things with their spirit, interact with living things including each other or the living world around them. Nor are they harmonically connected
to other beings around them or have any empathy.
 
(Dr Bill Deagle on Rense 9/23/13 Talk, continued):

That's why we carry out social policies or blast those people because they are of a different skin color or race but in fact they are different cells of the same body and, uhm, human beings have been under observation. People do not realize that we are constantly being under surveillance and that surveilance is by the angelic hosts that are watching to see what will be done,
and if it will be done and if the particular criteria to do something are met, which are required, but (we might) call it cosmic law, the laws of the Most High God. Those people who are godless, have no hope. They think it is a mechanistic world where everything is chaos, everything decays to nothing, and there is no future. But they are sorely wrong. Now the soul, the transdimensional portion, is not eternal.
But it's much more (than) – it's called superimortal. In other words, it exists much longer. Just like the superimmortal beings who are infesting this world, the minds of the leaders of our so called world
which in many cases the best way to describe them would be the middle ages term of the demonically posessed. I like to refer to them as being transdimensionally avitared by superintelligent dark intelligences
that are () beings that control our global elite. They have been bred to be controlled like avitaring a robot from a distance. They have been bred specifically to be controllled. And most of them have been the product of reichian mind control, sex-magic rituals, and human breeding to create a phsical biological machine to be controlled and the avitars that rule our world.
People might find this hard to believe, but it's true.
And what that does, it puts us in a position where if you know the truth, the truth will set you free. But most of the public religion including Christianity, who should know this better than anyone, don't really want to preach this. They want to preach what I call, milk and cookies gospel.
Jeff Rense: Well, that's an easy sell.
Right, and they don't, even the hebrews but they did not (instead of ) learning the truth, and Barry Chamish is a Jew himself who would say that half of the Jews started to follow, centuries ago, Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank () antimessiahs that were bringing the gospel of satan. I have said this before, but every public religion on earth including secular humanism, agnosticism, socialism, transhumanism are all different versions on the shelf of the super store of satan. The relationship with the creator god is essential and without the relationship, you can not decide what is good or evil. And the problem is that without connectedness. Without these simple principles that someone like my daughter with downs syndrome could understand, you can't do good, you can not connect with each other. You would not do evil if you had connectedness. You would not .... {and he goes on to list some bad things that we do or allow to be done. Sorry for the errors, gaps and loss of some of the transcription. Go listen to it for yourself on youtube for the intonation which brings the message, better and clearer} And remember, google generates a lot of unverified hearsay 'evidence'.
 
From the Dr. Deagle quote above:

"And some of the things, I can't talk about many of the things, but I will talk about a few. The first thing, I want to give people hope. Uh... The earth will not be abandoned to the wicked. I hear a lot of people saying that the earth is bound for destruction. YOU KNOW, THE EARTH IS IN DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. We are about to be rescued. We are about to have an intervention, and we are not talking about ET intervention. We are talking about something way more advanced than that. We are talking about the Angels, the witnesses, the beings of the Most High God are going to intervene on earth, because mankind is repeatedly incapable of rescuing himself."

This throws red flags for me.

If you are a Bible-believing Christian whose "hope is built on nothing less that Jesus' blood and righteousness" (as the song goes), then we have ALREADY BEEN RESCUED, and are in need of no further rescue. What this man says - the tone and flavor of it, and the mixing of truth and lies, is very close to what I think the deception will be that will draw Christians away!

I never trust someone who says things like "And some of the things, I can't talk about many of the things, but I will talk about a few." It's like there are some things that need to remain hidden, things that relate to the truth this person is trying to share - esoteric knowledge, which is a hallmark of New Age teachings. Real truth does not need to be held back - no part of it - for ANY reason. That's the kind of truth that sets us free. And it's only in Jesus Christ that you will find that kind of truth.

Sorry Dave from CA, but I can't buy it. This guy has bought into a part of the coming delusion, whether he wants to think so or not. That's how I see it anyway. And yes, you are right, I don't have the big picture - none of us do. But we can pick things out of what this guy is saying and compare them to scripture and the truth revealed there. Anything different/contradictory, or EXTRA, immediately becomes suspect. Maybe others here disagree with the "extra" part, but in these days, does it pay to try and walk as close to the edge of a cliff that you can, just so you can see a "bigger picture" as you peer over the edge?

A central message and theme in the coming delusion will be "Humans have screwed things up so badly that you need us to help you save yourselves from certain destruction." They will masquerade as angels, or whatever they need to masquerade as, to deceive as many as possible.
 
I ran into an interesting organization called "Club de Madrid". I think I have heard of it before. I noticed in their web site they have a story on making Javier Solana an honorary member. I recognized a few other members such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Mikhail Gorbachev. They call themselves the "World Leadership Alliance". There are 92 members all elite world leaders and also including Kofi Annan former SG of the United Nations. Members are from 61 different countries.

http://www.clubmadrid.org/
 
John,
The Green Agenda - The First Global Revolution
green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html‎
The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural ...
 
Dave, Barry Chamish did not say half the Jews followed Shabtai Zvi. Your say that half are is either antisemitism or lack of research on your part. He said that many followed him and Frank, but you would have to know how many messiahs have shown up in Jewish history. The qualifications needed for someone being seen as a messiah figure are different in Judaism than the definition of the word in Christianity. Making a comparison such as you did isn't accurate.

Everyone is free to speculate about the supernatural such as you did in your posts, but a high level of verbal ability does not mean the information posted is accurate or even close.
 
Recently I did some research in order to teach a person what transhumanism is. Here is what I sent. As few people understand the scope of that movement, let me suggest you copy this and keep it available.

Remember in Genesis the serpent said to Eve If you eat of the fruit you shall be as gods. Well there is a group of scientists, philosophers, medical people, etc. who believe they can bring about a new species of humans by tinkering with body and mind. While on the surface it appears to be technically enhancing the body for a longer and better life, they are tinkering with the body and mind in very dangerous ways. They want to redefine what makes a person human. They want to extend personhood to animals and take it away from people who don't make the grade. This is the eugenics movement brought up to date. People with disabilities know how dangerous the movement is as it ties in with the bioethics field leading to determinations on who shall live and who shall die.

I know this is a long list of links, but you can always just open and scan what's on the page. This is only a small part of information available on this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/04/transhumanism-pushing-rights-for-non-human-persons/

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/leadstory121.htm

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/darpa-to-genetically-engineer-humans-by.html?m=1

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/bisk20121210

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converging_Technologies_for_Improving_Human_Performance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity%2B

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20110527

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Transhumanism To get an idea of how vast the field is, look at the list of transhumanist technologies on this page.

The Trouble with Transhumanism - Discovery Institute
www.discovery.org/a/17311‎
Discovery Institute
Aug 9, 2011 - The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network ... For those who may not know, transhumanism is a Utopian social movement and philosophy ...

ThinkBeyond.us | What Is Transhumanism?
www.thinkbeyond.us/‎
transhumanism, n. ... That's the definition of "transhumanism" the Web offers up. ... its ethics; the study of transhumanism is, in large part, the study of bioethics.
 
Does anybody out there know anything one way or the other about Heifer.org? Their approach of giving goats for milk doesn't seem like a bad one for me. I looked over their sponsors and didn't see too many red flags. Their TV ads are frankly compelling. There are children out there dying of starvation.

Constance
 
Here is an interesting message on the vatican peace gesture.

www.parablesblog.blogspot.com
Monday, January 27, 2014
False Gestures/Jesters of Peace
 
Constance

I briefly read through the Heifer site. There is nothing wrong with sustainable agricultural practice. I clicked on "Empowering Women" and this gets a bit NA. There usually are strings attached to great ideas.
 
It appears there is some confusion regarding my postings above, but thanks for reading them. I am not sure how much sincere and deep thought was expended by the commentators above, though.
Firstly, my first posting was my introductory commentary. The second two postings were almost entirely my largely accurate transcription of Dr. Deagle's talk on Jeff Rense's show on 9/23/13. Hopefully you have listened to it before commenting on my transcript of it.
Marko, I appreciate that you shared your perspective and am glad to get others' impressions of Dr. Deagle's statements, since you may be able to bring some things to light that I did not see.
So let us examine the Facts and Logic regarding the analysis.
A reaction or feeling: "this throws red flags for me". I can not say if this is evidence of clear thought, preconceptions, a knee- jerk mental reaction or intuition etc.
"... we are in need of no further rescue" Well, Christ spoke of his return, the removal of the wicked (to where ... where the eagles are gathered, see Matt. 24). The state that the world system is in, that we are being subjected to and is prophesied (wars, enslavement of the mark, beheadings for the witness of Christ) is clearly something we would like to be rescued from. But more importantly, we may need to be rescued from the nature of man and the spiritual inability to be responsible for the technology we have (e.g., atomic bombs going off worldwide).
"The mixing of truth and lies": Please identify what the truth and lies are in his discussion. I would like to know. It does not appear that there is a mixture of truth and lies in his speech.

 
So, let us continue examination of Dr. Deagle's speech in our Court.
Marko, I must say that you have not provided any strong evidence to the court. You have not quoted any scripture, but merely a sentence from a song !
Here I will cite facts, use logic and quote scripture or other texts or documents. I hope you can do the same to generate a strong argument to the court -- OUR COURT making this a productive effort !
Marko wrote: "I never trust someone who says things like "And some of the things, I can't talk about many of the things, but I will talk about a few." '
Paul: How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (II Cor. 2:4)
So let's ask: Did Christ or anyone else in scripture ever say that there were things that he could not tell (us) ?
I submit to you that all truth is not revealed to us in the scriptures. Do you really think it is, that we could comprehend the length and breadth of all knowledge at this time ?
The man of sin: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;(2 Thess. 2:3)
This is an example of something hidden that will be revealed.
It is written:
(Daniel 12:8) And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
(9) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
(11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
(12) Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
Marko said "Real truth does not need to be held back - no part of it - for ANY reason. That's the kind of truth that sets us free. And it's only in Jesus Christ that you will find that kind of truth.
"
The scriptures cited above do not agree.
Marko said "This guy has bought into a part of the coming delusion, whether he wants to think so or not. That's how I see it anyway."
The presentation of a man is as that of the scriptures; taking one small portion out of the context of the entire scriptures is not valid when the conclusions drawn are contradictory to the entirety of scripture. So is it with the words of a man and the words of a prophet.
It appears to me that Marko has not heard the myriad of talks and presentations by himself and with his numerous guests. That part is understandable. But Dr. Deagle has had those on talking about the UFO deception in the past and he has added his own commentary.
Marko wrote "Anything different/contradictory, or EXTRA, immediately becomes suspect."
I agree that one must be a SKEPTIC, test what is stated and check facts, scripture, logic and prayer to determine if it rings true or false. Be a skeptic. Convince me with a convincing argument. And most of all convince the court -- our court here that we have done some homework validating a conclusion.
M wrote: "or EXTRA"
It is written: (Revelation 11:3)
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Prophecies typically involve new information, new revelation. This is true regardless of man-made or church/seminary doctrine.




 
At 4:24 PM: "Anonymous said...
Dave, Barry Chamish did not say half the Jews followed Shabtai Zvi" ...
As you may be able to discern, the transcription is not perfect especially in the portion you are referring to. Please listen to that portion of the talk.
Regardless, the transcription written above says that
"Barry chamish would say half ...". It does not say that he said that half of...
Anonymous, It seems difficult to converse with you in English, since it appears English may not be your strong language.
If you can direct us to some quote of Barry Chamish regarding the false messiahs followings, that would be a welcome contribution.

Later I may comment on some "Christian Doctrines or beliefs or strong feelings" which are not in the scriptures.... Imagine that ! I think that Marko brought up some of them in his commentary.
 
Dave, I have written to Chamish asking if his is the idea that half the world's Jews followed Zvi is accurate. If what was posted is correct, I will apologize.

I have copied your words in my note to him.
 
Dave @ 8:54
This Deagle guy said:
"I like to refer to them as being transdimensionally avitared by super intelligent dark intelligences".

I don't really have to hear much more than that to
place this dude in my list of bull**** artists.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit...
Blessed are the meek...
Blessed are the pure in heart...
etc...
Jesus never sounded like an arrogant, elite,
intellectual. He said that unless we come to God like a little child we will in no way inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
Here come Dr Deagle who wants to change the
simplicity of the Good News into an intellectual
exercise For Academics Only.
I could continue to tear apart his arrogant lecture
but I'll just leave it at that.
He's full to his eyeballs with conceit and would only turn people away from Jesus with his self-serving attitude.
 
Its amazing to me just how long suffering YHVH has been with this nation! At some point this will end. It may be sooner than we think. Another 'in your face God' at the Grammy Awards:

theopenscroll.blogspot.com
click on Youtube video link
 
Anonymous & Paul,
It's great to hear (read) your different opinions.
Anonymous: Please do the following:
1. We need to double check the transcript in that part of the talk to see if the transcript is accurate there. Sometimes when Dr. Bill spoke in certain portions, and that is one of the portions, it is either muffled or somehow hard to pick out the words.
2. If you email Barry, please give him our most accurate version of the transcript.

Paul,
I am seeking the truth, and as such we need to be truthful. That means we need to present facts, use logic, and if we are comparing things to the scriptures then we use the scriptures as accurately as we can. We need to be honest... with ourselves and with others.
Your comment is a bit stunning, and it seems good to hear divergent opinions to consider. But I will examine the comments as factually and logically as I can.
Name calling is considered the lowest form of argument; it is baseless or at least we can truthfully say When someone speaks in a different language, do we call them BS artists? Likewise, when Dr. Deagle uses a complicated phrase to further describe what we call "demons", is he wrong or right ? At the outset, we do not know.
I can relate to your knee-jerk mental response, because the first time I heard him say that, it made me wonder whether he was on the level or not or what level he is on ! But upon hearing him speak many times and seeing the depth of his paradigm of reality, I now more fully understand what he is saying and why he uses those terms.
You see, the bible tells us many things, but some things it does not tell us. This is where I must bring up one false assumption propagated in many "christian circles". It relates to what the bible does say and what it does not say. Now I understand that many are shocked and in their mind were Programmed to think certain thoughts which were never from the Most High God (but from the god of this world) who has come to us with a bible in his hand, so to speak, as they said about communism coming to our land.
The bible never says whether other creatures were created elsewhere than on earth. It simply relates a story of creation on this earth. (and the description of the creation account is mysterious and does not include all the details at all etc).
So the origin of what we call Demons is not fully described in the bible, nor perhaps all the types of demons that may exist etc.
So when Dr. Deagle comes to us and says that he is 1. occupying the office of a prophet, we must, if we fear God, consider that he could be a prophet and be cautious in speaking glibly (without any factual and logical cause) against him. In other words, we must simply speak in truth.
And he also says that he has had an experience where he died (twice) and was taken and shown by God many things, many that he can not speak about because we would not understand them. So when someone comes and says he has spent the equivalent of 500 years' experience where the Most High God is (in the "eternal now") and was sent back to us as a prophet for this time, I have to take notice. (now there was another who claimed this and wrote a book called 'God's Final Witness" but specific prophecies in that book simply did not come true so he was shown to be false).
Now the fact that Dr Deagle may be confident in what he says, in no way makes him proud or arrogant. Perhaps he is just right. Perhaps he is clearly delivering a message to us today.

Blessed are those who hear and do the will of the Father.
Paul, What facts did he say that are wrong ? What facts did he cite that are correct ? And how do we know that our ideas, being somewhat different than another's, are correct when they are not factually and logically verifiable in this court ?
There was just a claim of conceit and arrogance, when someone was simply informing us of some things.
Thanks for your responses, but I think sometimes we need some deeper analysis.
 
"Please prove you're not a robot"

OK, so let's prove we can think -- using logic and facts.

Escaping our belief system, or should I say, advancing our beliefs by thinking, not merely reflex responding according to programmed beliefs. Let's question these beliefs when they present.

PLEASE PROVE YOUR NOT A ROBOT
 
Dave,
I apologize.
I did indeed spit out a knee-jerk comment without
any due process to speak of.
Guilty again.
But my problem with the guy being quoted was that the
focus of his words which was on the angels and not the Most High God, who
created them and commands them.
I guess that my gut reaction to people who want to focus on angels is that they are
usually selling their new book about Angels, which is an enormously popular
( and profitable) subject these days.
So after reading the verbose Mr Deagle's comments again, I'm in the weird
position of owing him and you an apology because I think I might agree with him,
but I'm really not sure.

I'm sure that the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to the world,
no matter how smart sounding a christian apologist gets.
From my standpoint, it's all about Jesus.
My battle is to get the Gospel of Jesus out.
And the battle going on right now on earth, invisible to us, is indeed being fought by
angels, and Archangels against Principalities and Powers and Rulers in high places.
But the battle belongs to the Lord of Hosts. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

 
As long as everyone keeps looking for some future tense wealth redistribution system, you are going to keep missing the one in existence currently pilfering large portions of GDP away from developed nations. Where does everyone think the money in World Bank comes from? What is the Bank of International Settlements for? Funds are funneled up through each central bank, then lost to the oblivion of whatever crack pot dictator is pet project of the month. It looks like commerce at the local level, capitalism at the national level, and socialism at the international level. It's hidden under constant streams of inflationary periods and loss, but all you really have to do to see it, is think about how much debt EVERYONE carries, magnify it up the food chain of commerce, then realize most of it is bogus numbers simply drawing interest. At the tip of all of this sets the UN/World Bank/BIS system pulling interest and leveraging penalties on each central bank. New Age socialism, in your face and you don't even see it.
 
Regarding the illustrious Dr. Deagle:

Isn't the internet great! I found that someone has already done a lot of the research I needed to do, and so I don't have to stretch my brain to put my own thoughts down about the guy. :^)

Seriously though, there are detractors and supporters of Dr. Deagle. Who to believe?

It really comes down to: People believe what they want to believe, for the most part, and find others who agree with them as "evidence" that what they believe is correct. That seems to be how about 95% of the discussions on the blogosphere go regarding just about any topic. I am guilty of this.... who isn't?

Anyway, for further reading by some critics of "Dr." Deagle, please check the following posts out.

First is a post by someone who has been physically harmed by him. Yes, yes, hardly a "unbiased" opinion of the man, huh? Just like a police report of a sexual assault victim describing the event (and the perpetrator) is hardly "unbiased". That doesn't make it untrue, however. Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.christianissues.com/deagle.html

Next, is a much more in-depth analysis by someone who doesn't appear to have a dog in this fight, other than his hobby is exposing frauds. It's in two parts:

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr_27.html

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr_5372.html

As is mentioned in Part 1 above, "On December 7, 2006 Deagle gave an epic 4-hour speech to the Granada Forum, 'Conspiracy Realities of 9/11 to Avian Flu and Beyond'." In that speech, according to the author of the above posts, Beagle made an interesting statement, which for me, seals the deal that this guy is to be avoided: "Turning his back on the fundie roots that got him where he is today, Deagle now says that Christ was not divine. The myth of Christ was invented by the Luciferian Catholic Church."

--+------

We don't know the half of what goes on in the spiritual realms - but this guy is wacky beyond wacky, and seems dishonest and arrogant to boot.

I know that believers will be called "wacky" for their "old-fashioned" beliefs, once the New Age is in full bloom, but that is wackiness as defined by the world, "the foolishness of the Gospel". But this guy is wacky on an entirely different level. And maybe fraudulent.

Interesting that some New Agers don't like what he has to say, and others do. I think it's because some New Agers think there will be dark days ahead, a period of chaos and war and darkness, before the New Age of Enlightenment comes upon us, and others think that if they just sing Kumbaya enough and hold enough harmonic convergence sessions, the collective unconsciousness will go POOF and all of our brains will be in tune with the New Age, and we can avoid all that chaos and war and darkness.

Deception, Disinformation and Distraction. The tools of our enemy, Satan. Much of this falls into one of those three categories, I think, because it's fascinating to our thinking in the flesh. "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3)
 
Marko,

The person who runs swallowingacamel.blogspot.com is nearly as wacky as Dr. Deagle. She believes everything in the world that is controversial is a hoax, or conspiracy theory. I scanned through a fair bit of her blog, and found links posted to porno sites. Marko, this is not the kind of blog you should be reading or posting a link to. This person is not credible.
 
Recall, I said above that:
Google is a way to procure hearsay evidence.
TTYL.
 
My apologies for posting links to the Swallowing A Camel blog... it is not the best place to have linked to (to use understatement....)

However misguided her morals may be (she seems to be a typical "skeptic" a la Reason Magazine and the Ayn Rand branch of Libertarianism), she apparently put lots of research into Dr. Beagle, and a "bad person" can still do good research. I wouldn't have her teach a Sunday School class, but that's not what we're looking at here. We're only looking at "facts and logic" as Dave has pleaded, and she claims that one of those facts (which I'm sure I could verify if I had time to watch the hours-long speech referred to) is that Beagle believes that Jesus Christ is a myth.

Either that claim is true or false. If you won't accept the above blogger's word that Beagle said it, then further research is needed. For myself, I am satisfied that Beagle is everything I've said he is in my previous post.

 
Dr Bill Deagle is preaching' "another Jesus". According to the Word of God, that makes him accursed. This is a "Yea, yea" "Nay, nay" matter.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:8
 
I will present a short analysis of Marko's recent post at 5:12 PM:
First, Marko, did you listen to any talks given by Dr. Bill Deagle before making your comments ? If you did, did you then, as he says, go and pray to the Most High God about it ?
Did you tune in to a recent show to listen the day you made these comments? Did you listen to the shows on Tuesday 1/28/14 ?
Secondly, please seriously ask yourself if you are seeking the truth fervently, voraciously, at the expense of any relationship with others people or public image that you have (i.e., are you willing to give your life and suffer persecution) ?

Court of Logical Analysis:
Marko claims "a post by someone who has been physically harmed by him."
Do you have first hand knowledge of this harm -- were you present when the harm was done and what did you see the nature of the harm was ?
(if you do not have first hand testimony, your statement is an unverified claim).
Point: We do not know whether harm was done based on hearsay evidence in a post on the internet !! Wake Up.

Marko wrote: "In that speech, according to the author of the above posts, Beagle made an interesting statement, which for me, seals the deal that this guy is to be avoided: 'Turning his back on the fundie roots that got him where he is today, Deagle now says that Christ was not divine. The myth of Christ was invented by the Luciferian Catholic Church." '
This is clearly hearsay. Did you listen to this talk to determine what Dr. Deagle really said ?
You are using a statement in a post on the internet to conclude that ('seals the deal') "this guy is to be avoided". WHAT ? Your thought and action is very lazy and may be defamatory to Dr Deagle. Let's do some real -- more SERIOUS -- investigation, not waste post space and reader's time. Do you seriously want to find out the truth. This guy claims to be a prophet, so give God some respect, in case what Dr Deagle says is true ! You have presented only hearsay and your claim is not verifed in this Court.

Saying he is "wacky" is stooping to name calling and has no validity in this Court.

I find no verifiable facts presented in the last paragraph regarding Dr. Deagle.

Please do your homework. We need to THINK with the brain God gave us using facts and logic then asking him about it.

(Note: as I said to Constance the other day, man is being reduced to a non-thinking bot being (robot). Now we see verification that there is a lack of real logical thought, and we see mechanical responses according to one's programming (in their brain or mind). When we see Programmed responses, are we not dealing with a computer rather than a sentient being who can think ? Please, let's advance beyond this level !! Otherwise, we are going to waste a lot of time and get nowhere.

PLEASE PROVE YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT
 
Marko,

Now, this is almost the MOST Lazy Response (the laziest one would be to have done nothing; at least you did something):
Marko wrote "(which I'm sure I could verify if I had time to watch the hours-long speech referred to) is that Beagle believes that Jesus Christ is a myth.

Either that claim is true or false. If you won't accept the above blogger's word that Beagle said it, then further research is needed. For myself, I am satisfied that Beagle is everything I've said he is in my previous post."

SATISFIED WITH HEARSAY.

OK, now I will be called to testify.
I, going by the name Dave, have heard most of the presentations by Dr. Bill in the last 5 years. Dr. Bill Deagle has repeatedly made statements to the following effect MANY times. Repeatedly, so we would see and hear it and respond, rather than simply ignore a one-time statement.
(Fyi: Dr. Deagle has admitted he is fallible. )
Dr. Bill has repeatedly said that
Jesus was the father in the flesh. He has had multiple shows with an ancient archeologist demonstrating the proof and logical analysis showing the Christ came, died and was buried in a tomb etc etc.

Jesus (Yeshua Hamashiach) was the father in the flesh.
It is written:
"I and my father are one."
"If you have seen me, you have seen the father."
The scriptures are consistent with his statement.
I realize that his statement frees me to see the truth stated in those two scriptures. A truth that is rejected, hidden and spoken against by RELIGION.

Yet his statement may be in conflict in the minds of many who attend churches, stand in the pulpit or go to bible schools.
PERHAPS we need to consider the truth in Dr Bill's comment, rather than rely on the impression of our knee-jerk reaction or rely on the words of men claiming some unnecessarily complex theology, which, as I see it, obscures the truth. Who deceives and obscures the truth ?
It is difficult to conceive of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit, but somehow we have made it too complicated thinking in man's terms about something at a more advanced level.

If you continue to use the name "Beagle", I will use the phrase "OffTheMark-0". That would give you a grade of "-0" in this court which is optimistic, since your input is truth and negative truth mixed. BUT AT LEAST you are Trying. I will say that Dr. Deagle's ideas are often hard to accept or consider due to our Preconceived Ideas -- our own belief system. Now if our belief system was programmed into us by Religion, what we need is instead a Relationship with the creator (which is what Dr. Bill said in my first transcript posts far above in the blog).

Marko, I want to be friendly, but not pull any punches. I am not trying to be "nice" as society speaks of being nice. My concept of being nice is telling the absolute truth to your face so that you will not perish in a sea of bad ideas, imprisoned in the a bondage to demonic programming.. yes, Demonic & Satanic lies.

Let me ask one question.
If you are deceived, do you know you are deceived ?
 
RuthTruth,
You have made the below claim to Our Court but presented no evidence or facts proving your claim. Please provide some verifiable evidence with facts and logic.

RuthTruth said...
Dr Bill Deagle is preaching' "another Jesus". According to the Word of God, that makes him accursed. This is a "Yea, yea" "Nay, nay" matter.
 
Dave,

I am done arguing with you, since you have already prejudged what is true and what is not true. You cannot accept anything outside your own rules for argument in YOUR court that you set up here. You say anything on the internet is hearsay, and is suspect. Well then, that makes YOU hearsay and suspect. This whole gathering of private investigators on Constance's blog is then suspect. Anything we post relating to personal experiences we have or personal knowledge we have about anything is hearsay.

What rubbish.

Sometimes we make cursory and quick judgments about things without taking the time to do an in-depth study, often because we have no other options. Sometimes those judgments are wrong, sometimes not. If I am wrong about Dr. Beagle, then so be it. God will judge me, not you.

I stand by my (admittedly) cursory analysis. You don't have to pick up, smell, and taste dog poop to know it when you see it. If it turns out later that it was a chocolate bar, I will gladly join the feast.

 
It is not about you and me, but about the collective us (mankind).

The above poster has provided no verifiable facts regarding Dr. Deagle. We should take someone who makes such strong claims as Dr. Deagle (end-time prophet) seriously. I have not found him to be false. Have you even listened to one who comes at this time as a prophet ? We could ask ourselves whether he is or is not. Sometimes merely watching events and what he says will help us determine that.

If you would like to know some things he has said that are true or have come to pass, options are to listen to him or to ask me or to call into his show.

Remember that 6 of the 12 virgins were not even admitted to the feast -- wait and it could be too late. We can not tell what a day may bring forth. The foolish virgins made no real effort.
 
^ this and then some
 
Dave,
Big deal if he says he's a prophet.
In Rev. 19 the definition of prophesy;
the very spirit of prophesy, is given to us and it's
very simple.
"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy."

If I'm not supposed to use my spiritual "instincts"
then what good is having the Spirit of Truth in my
spirit ?
We aren't called to be academics for Christ. We aren't called to be intellectuals for Christ.
We ARE called to be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpents. We ARE given discernment.
The discernment comes from The Holy Ghost,
which is an explanation that is laughable to Dorothy, etc., but which has always worked for me.
Faith is faith.
The sheep of His flock know the shepherds' voice.
Intellectual pride is often a trap; you never arrive at a point of everyone believing you because of all the degrees you may have.
Jesus didn't have any degrees and it's not even mentioned that he "studied under" anyone in particular, like Paul for instance, who needed to let everyone know that he had studied under the great Gamaliel. Jesus never even mentioned Socrates, or Plato or Lau Tsu etc.
The scribes and Pharisees called him unlearned and
kept trying to trip him up.

What are you trying to do ?
 
Barwin's Voyage of the Deagle?
 
And Dave,
The foolish virgins were foolish because they didn't have any oil (Holy Ghost) in their lamps.
It wasn't because they weren't smart enough or
lawyerly enough, or diligent enough.
The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God,
and the foolishness of God is wiser than men.

Also, I don't find the term "end-time prophet" in the scriptures. But I do notice that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the LAST of the Prophets (Luke 16), and in that same chapter Jesus says: ..."that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."
 
Paul,

Why do you ask ?
I have to say here to understand the role of the New Age Movement in the broader context of understanding all that is happening in these times.

Here are some answers.

1. Wake people up.

2. Alert us that someone claiming to be an end time witness is on the earth today speaking every day to every issue. Calling us to take action. To occupy the kingdom on the earth by taking action publicly about every issue presenting itself against us.
"Occupy till I come" Has he not ruled and reigned from heaven for 2 millenia ? Have we taken up the scepter ? = do something

3. To become more aware of end time events (see presentations of guests on Dr. Deagle's show)
and to use our two witnesses given to us:
#1 our brain to think logically using facts (that means to simply be honest)
#2 to ask God to clarify in prayer

4. To question the broad way -- the crowd view. This was patently obvious to me when I discovered church organizations and people stating as truth a hypothetical scenario such as the a pre-tribulation rapture which is no where stated in scripture, with rather says:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2 Peter 1:20)

It is not a matter of our opinion or private interpretation.

5. To ask better questions.

6. Help us to rise above our belief system in seeking truth.

Anyone here who would like to do any of these, let us know.
 
Regarding the prior post at 7:50 PM,

I do not see that the scriptures state that the oil is the Holy Spirit. But it is written in the scriptures:

Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

2. Jesus did not say that John the Baptist was the LAST of the Prophets in Luke 16. .It is a logical fallacy to conclude that he said John was the last prophet.
a. Luke 16:16: "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." It is false to state that this verse states that John was the last prophet. It merely speaks to the time before and up to John and since that time. Likewise it does not speak of the time before the creation of man, specifically.
b. Jesus Christ mentions prophets in the latter days in Revelation 11:3
"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."




 
First, it is quite disheartening to see such resistance / hardness.

Regarding the prior post at 6:53 PM:

Revelation 19 does not define Prophecy in the following verse but rather mentions the term "spirit of prophecy". :
Rve 19: 10: "... and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
It is an interesting passage. Thanks for sharing it but please understand the grammatical structure.

The rest of that post seems to be just cliches strung together which in no way forms a logical argument. Interesting point about being intellectual. In this regard:
Matthew 25
"25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:"

Take away: You were given a brain. Use it ! It's really there for a reason.

If my brain offends you, I'm not going to cut it out ! (that's the truth in jest)





 
Dave,

I don’t have a horse in the race of this Deagle guy (don’t feel the need to research him), but of concern to me at present is your misapplication of 2 Peter 1:20 to counter the pre-trib “rapture” view. While I believe the pre-trib view is a mistaken one, your statement that Peter is referring to those individuals who interpret Scripture privately could just as well be turned back on you re: your stance on pre-trib (or even me here). It’s self-refuting. And, while this seems to be a popular interpretation of this passage within Evangelicalism, the context illustrates otherwise.

Taking the whole of verses 19-21, and the larger context beginning at verse 12, reveals that “prophecy of Scripture” (v 20) refers to the legitimacy of the prophet’s prophecies, such as those in the OT. That is, the prophets themselves were mere men who “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” with their prophecies not originating “in the will of man” (v 21). Thus, their prophecies are valid as opposed to emanating from “their own interpretation”. The context is about the authentication of the prophets and the prophecies by those prophets of Scripture, and not the interpretation of prophecy by any individual. That is, the prophets did not speak of their own minds, but by the Spirit of God (v 21).

If you doubt that this is correct, look at “present truth” (prophecy fulfilled) in v 12. In v 16 Peter states they did not follow fables/stories, but by their own eyes witnessed prophecy fulfilled in Christ by the very words of God the Father (vv 17-18), resulting in “the prophetic word confirmed” (v 19). And this is because those prophets “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (v 21) rather than “by their own interpretation” (v 20).
 
Well, on one level the above view of 2 Peter 1:20 may be entirely or in part valid. It's what you got from the passage using context etc.

The word of God is multidimensional and may reveal different truths to us and others at different times. Not conflicting truths, but different truths. There is a lot packed in there and we do not have the entire picture -- yet.

But what I see from the passage 2 Peter 1:20 is not locked into what was just presented above. I saw in reading this passage that no prophecy of scripture is appropriately treated by one's own private interpretation in deriving meaning from it. Neither the prophet delivering the (unadulterated) message or the reader. As it did not come of the will of man before, neither should it come of the will of man today... when we read it. Let's consider whether prophecy can be interpreted by those who have the gift of prophecy, not by those who are merely students of prophecy -- who can understand the glimpses of prophecy but may not have a or the entire larger picture, which is the entire interpretation of all prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled. There is one truth. There is one true scenario but I see people proposing many ideas about it and demonstrating that they do not have the whole picture. Maybe prophet(s) will come along who can help us with this !

 
Dave,

Just like regular discourse has a flow, whether written or oral, with context given by the larger context, so does Scripture. Taking that verse out of proper context as you have is proof-texting, plain and simple. And, as I've said earlier, by your own interpretation of the passage, you've just privately interpreted it, thereby illustrating circular logic. You may claim that it was by the Holy Spirit that you interpreted it that way, but I contend that the Holy Spirit does not proof-text.

Given your exchanges with others on here, I sort of figured that you'd continue to defend your view, rather than concede that you just might be incorrect.
 
Dave,

I see you’ve brought out Joel 2:28 as a yet future prophecy, however Peter in Acts 2:16-18 states that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I’m not making a statement about whether prophets are still today or not, I’m illustrating that the Scripture you used to back up your stance has been explicitly fulfilled. In this case, Peter’s words are VERY specific.

 
Craig,

I just argue points hard to get to the truth. I can argue from multiple directions to test the logic. Hit it hard, and u might "get it". My mind is not made up on many of these issues. But I can't tolerate foolishness.

The above wrote:
"by your own interpretation of the passage, you've just privately interpreted it, thereby illustrating circular logic. "
That's a bit mixed up logic. The word "interpret" is most often used regarding translating from one language to another, or is applied to Prophecy.

I did not give a private interpretation of prophecy. The Peter passage refers to "prophecy". Please clarify how there was circular logic. Circular logic is saying that X is true because X is true. Or saying X is true because Y is true, and X = Y.

The passage states that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. The passage does not state that this is only applicable to the prophet who prophesies. Claiming that context states that is presumptive. A presumption is an assumption. I do reject such presumptions. Applying the statement "no prophecy is of any private interpretation" to the reader of the passage, I understand that scripture is saying that it is not appropriate to provide a private interpretation; the prophecy is the prophecy; it can be understood in the vast sea of prophecies given by different viewers from different standpoints (Daniel, Isaiah, David etc) by one who SEES THE ENTIRE PICTURE.
Now the strict meaning of the passage may be entirely what you said in the first post. But this may be the most evident (primary) meaning not withstanding secondary meanings. I am not convinced either way at this point.

So, did you listen to what Dr. Deagle said today ?
 
I would just like people to listen to what Dr. Deagle has said. Let's not focus so much on what I am saying. What did he say ? Was it of any use ? Were you moved by it ?
If you want to hear a talk which was moving to me and others, please let me know and will post where it is at. Thanks.
 
That's a bit mixed up logic. The word "interpret" is most often used regarding translating from one language to another, or is applied to Prophecy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret?s=t

The very first definition here is “explanation”. I think you are the one whose logic is “a bit mixed-up”.

I did not give a private interpretation of prophecy. The Peter passage refers to "prophecy". Please clarify how there was circular logic. Circular logic is saying that X is true because X is true. Or saying X is true because Y is true, and X = Y.

X= your interpretation (explanation, if you’d like) of 1 Peter 1:20 is that it means no one can give their own private interpretation. You arrived at this interpretation by X. It’s circular logic. As I wrote in my first comment, it’s self-refuting.

So, did you listen to what Dr. Deagle said today ?

I’ve already stated earlier that I “don’t feel the need to research him”. It doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
 
I'm not talking about a dictionary meaning of interpretation. I'm talking about the scriptural uses of "interpretation". Generally the word refers either to translation of a language OR to a prophecy or dream.

Making a statement is not circular logic. It is merely making a statement. I made a statement about 2 Peter 1:20. You made many other statements. The statements themselves are not circular logic. It's better if we look up 'logic" and "circular logic" in the dictionary.

I take notice when I hear someone say that they:
1. They are a prophet and speak prophetically when they state that something is a "thus saith the Lord"
2. They died and were sent back to us to be a witness at the end.
3. They will be alive at the end of the age.
4. They had a post-life experience which was more extensive than most others; it was equivalent to something like 500 years time on earth.
5. Things they saw and were explained to them we could not handle -- we do not have a basis to understand them (such as Paul's being taken up and experiencing unspeakable things).
6. He is a witness of the end, a talk show host right now but his ministry will begin when the peace treaty is signed which will initiate the last 7 years time clock. Will be speaking more forcefully as the signing of the treaty begins.
7. He is a witness from this age to the 24.
8. He knows why he will be killed, not the date but the timing of it.
He says many other things which may be stunning to you but perfectly consistent with scripture, just often not consistent with our belief systems or understanding at this point.

SO, I take notice since this is one of the landmarks along the prophetic road through time -- the two witnesses of revelation.

As explained earlier, i took notice of SOMEONE ELSE making a claim to be one of the final witnesses and examined the work of one who wrote "God's Final Witness". Perhaps because I felt it was getting near the time for them to appear. It was not too long before I read through his book and specific prophecies with dates, to find that the dates passed and it appeared that the prophecies were not fulfilled. So I simply tested his words (see Ronald Weinland). It was kind of comical, as his wife turned out to be the other witness ! Not impossible but u can see it sounds funny -- hokey.

(Constance: Please forgive me or give me the chance to see how this discussion relates to "Socialism and the New Age Movement")

 
Dave - the more I read from you and your friend Dr Deagle, the more I realise that we are all going to need to hold on hard to the Word of God in these last days - sola scriptura!

I grew up in a liberal family - my father was a well-meaning Fabian socialist and we attended an episcopal church.

I lost my faith even before university and only got back in the 2000s. Yet now I find myself more and more in agreement with the 'fundamentalists'. ie., those who believe the Bible (the King James version,at any rate)to be the inspired Word of God.

This website belongs to a lady who took the Word literally and used it mightily against the lies of the New Age.

Dr Deagle strikes me as a disinfo agent and a confidence trickster. He is clearly good pals with the egregious Jeff Rense - need I say more?

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matthew 24:10-13
 
From Dave's transcription (above) of Deagle's talk:

"people have known intuitively that... there is a hyperdimensional spirit world[,] that there is a reality that is beyond the pariochial [sic] reality we have. Very few people have lived in that unless they have died and come back. Some have a very brief experience with that. Others have a much more extensive one. I am one of those who has had a much more extensive one. And some of the things, I can't talk about many of the things, but... The earth will not be abandoned to the wicked."

Deagle is free not to navigate by the Bible; all I ask is that he make clear his own beliefs before lecturing others on the state of the world today. But he clearly doesn't regard the Bible as definitive (as I do), because Hebrews 9:27 rules out reincarnation.

It is not clear from the above whether he regards himself as reincarnated or simply regards it as possible, but if the former then I would not trust him enough to read any further.

Jesus Christ died and came back to life and I prefer to trust his word for what goes on in the spiritual realms.

 
Dave,

You stated: Circular logic is saying that X is true because X is true. Or saying X is true because Y is true, and X = Y

Yes, or its converse of:
X is false because X is false; or X is false because Y is false, and X = Y; or,
–X is true because –X is true; or –X is true because –Y is true, and –X = –Y.

Point 4 of your post at 7:54PM states that the pre-trib view (a “prophecy of Scripture”) cannot be valid [X] because, in your view, 2 Peter 1:20 refutes this notion, stating that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” [Y].

You are thus affirming that the pre-trib view is a “prophecy of Scripture”; so, “pre-trib view” = “prophecy of Scripture”

Hence, to rephrase 2 Peter 1:20, according to your understanding: “no pre-trib view is of any private interpretation” [Y].

It matters not whether when is pro+ pre-trib or anti-pre-trib, as each are a “prophecy of Scripture” and neither can use 2 Peter 1:20 to refute the other because each one is a “private interpretation” [X] by your own definition/understanding of the verse [Y].

We’ll call adherents to pre-trib the +pre-trib and your anti-view the -pre-trib

Therefore, stated another way, your position is such that: “the +pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [X] which violates 2 Peter 1:20 because “no +pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [Y]. Using your same logic, the +pre-trib advocate can make the counterclaim, i.e., the converse, based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 such that:

“The -pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [-X] thus violating 2 Peter 1:20 because “no -pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [-Y].

Their pro view of pre-trib is thereby refuting your anti view of pre-trib based on your own interpretation of this verse.

Stating yet another way, if the pre-trib adherent agrees to accept your view of 2 Peter 1:20, the adherent can use your common interpretation of this verse to refute your anti-pre-trib stance by claiming yours is a private interpretation of pre-trib.

In other words, in your view, pre-tribbers are refuted by 2 Peter 1:20 because they are privately interpreting pre-trib (“prophecy of Scripture”) based on your private interpreting of 2 Peter 1:20 which refutes the pre-trib view (“prophecy of Scripture”. You’ve deemed the pre-trib view false in the very way in which you claim the pre-trib view cannot be true. That’s circular logic.
 
Craig said...

Dave,

I see you’ve brought out Joel 2:28 as a yet future prophecy, however Peter in Acts 2:16-18 states that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I’m not making a statement about whether prophets are still today or not, I’m illustrating that the Scripture you used to back up your stance has been explicitly fulfilled. In this case, Peter’s words are VERY specific.

10:46 PM

Bingo.
 
Thanks for the reference from Acts.
So we are left to ask some further questions. Why was the ball dropped and why did these things stop when Christ was ruling from heaven all this time ?
How many times will this prophecy be fulfilled?
Is this prophecy still being fulfilled with ongoing activities on earth and in heaven ? (there are many examples suggesting these things are still occurring)
Let's not think that once a prophecy comes true that it will not come true again, providing there are no time limits on the prophecy. Somethings to think about.
Are we honestly thinking yet, or sticking to stale ideas and unnecessary limitations to our thought (chains) ?

Sometimes we think we have attained a great deal of knowledge, but we need to realize that our God is a very big God. The expanse of knowledge is far beyond our comprehension. We are just little infants or fetus (plural) waking up to reality as we learn and begin to open our eyes.

"Now, I know a lot of people have the parochial view that their little local religion on earth, whatever that is, is the do all and end all of the creator of the universe, but they would be very mistaken.

Now the God of the universe is a very large god. A god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth
to other beings, both the humanoid and non-humanoid across the vast galaxy and vast universe." (see presentation transcript, above in blog)

 
Dave,

I will address Joel 2/Acts 2 a bit later, but, the most pressing thing right now are your words here:

Now the God of the universe is a very large god. A god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth to other beings...

WHOA NELLY!!!

Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Word made flesh. He did not "incarnate the Father". Are you a modalist? That is, do you deny the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

Jesus came to REVEAL the Father; He did not AS the Father!
 
Those were not my words, but from the transcript of Dr. Deagle's presentation of 9/23/13 in my second post on this blog.

I see you are making claims in your last two paragraphs. These claims are presented without any proof, facts, biblical references so they are unsubstantiated statements. Sometimes we need to alter our thinking -- which is not logical thinking but a response to programmed ideas in our head.

What Jesus said is consistent with what Dr. Deagle said, above: "he that has seen me has seen the Father. "
The reality of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- the reality and mind of God himself -- is something beyond our comprehension. As is eternity, multidimensional reality (>4 dimensions) etc. Many things that exist are beyond our comprehension. So is the Godhead. So is God.

Just consider the plight of the people hearing him introduce the concept of Father, Son and Holy Ghost when they knew Jehovah, Yahweh etc.

When Christ said things like this they wanted to stone him. When I present similar ideas, do you want to destroy them, also ?

I am not interested in accepting Religion or Orthodox views. Instead, I would like the truth, whatever it is, and if I need to throw out or modify my own ideas and belief system to do that, I am fully willing to do that, as the scriptures admonish us to do. Furthermore:
Revelation 12:9
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world ..."

Doctrines of men are what I do not accept. Nor do I necessarily reject them. A doctrine of man is an idea and it may be partially correct, totally incorrect etc. Doctrines may in some manner come from non-men also, such as Satan.

As to what I am and claim to be. I claim to be a man. That's all. Not a label or a defamatory name. I am dealing with thinking and logic, not violent attacks based on name calling.

Let's keep to facts and logical thinking, and we will be on a better path..... to prove we are not robots !
 
Dave,

You wrote, I see you are making claims in your last two paragraphs. These claims are presented without any proof, facts, biblical references so they are unsubstantiated statements. Sometimes we need to alter our thinking -- which is not logical thinking but a response to programmed ideas in our head.

That’s a rich one coming from you! However, I think John chapter 1 backs up my claim quite nicely, specifically John 1:1-5, 10, 14, the latter of which specifically states “…who came FROM the Father”. That’s not to mention John 1:18 which refers to this “word made flesh” as the one “who is at the Father’s side [Who] has made HIM known”. (Also, see John 5:17-18, etc….)

You like to wax on about not much. And your method in discourse with others is to try to beat them down to ‘prove’ your point. Your tactics lesson any credibility you may actually have in your writings. Moreover, you have the audacity to claim that others don’t have back up for their claims when you use your own words most times to back up your own. Thus, your credibility is reduced to nil.

This Deagle guy is a modalist and/or Oneness Pentecostal. If you agree with his view, then you are same. Modalism is a heresy almost as old as the Church, going back to at least Tertullian.

You’ve proof-texted one verse to support your claim “he that has seen me has seen the Father”, yet, by the context of that verse, Jesus’ point was that He REVEALED the Father.

Seems like you’ve violated your own interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 yet again.
 
OK, now you have started to insult my work. I am not trying to prove my point ! I am trying to present proof of points; I am asking the readers to prove their points; I am asking the readers to prove or disprove the points made. I am seeking the truth and proving to ourselves here what is true and what is false; and what we really know and what we really do not know.

I wonder if this is a useless exercise or if we can turn it out to be productive.

1. I did not provide a private interpretation of prophecy.

2. The point is that when we try to understand God in man's terms, we can not explain the Godhead adequately. Your above argument is based on man's view of God -- reducing him to what we see and know. This is necessarily a bad approach to understanding God.

3. You can not prove that Dr. Deagle is anything of the sort you claim. Just because he presents an idea which another group may (or may not present, I do not know those groups) does not mean that he subscribes to the group's ideaology.
Again, if you have not listened to his talks, how can you even have an opinion about his views?

4. If I present some ideas and advice to direct the readers' thinking, they are just ideas. If they are not accompanied with factual backing, they are just to ASK you to think, maybe a little differently than you have thought. An idea is simply an idea.
A claim is something different; it is true or false; it can either be proven, not proven, or proven false using facts and logic.
That should explain the difference between an idea and a claim.

I am trying to prove whether we are able to think logically and hold a logical discussion. Maybe that's too much said. Please understand and pray.

 
Regarding the last two sentences of your above post:

1. Regarding the last line of your post at 1:22 PM:
I have never provided a private interpretation of prophecy in this blog.

2. Regarding your second to last sentence of the 1:22 PM post,
My claim was:
' What Jesus said is consistent with what Dr. Deagle said, above:'

What Dr. Deagle said was:
"Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh"

What Jesus said with more context:
John 14:8-10 (KJV)
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Dr Deagle's statement with more context:
"Now, I know a lot of people have the parochial view that their little local religion on earth, whatever that is, is the do all and end all of the creator of the universe, but they would be very mistaken.
Now the God of the universe is a very large god. A god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth
to other beings, both the humanoid and non-humanoid across the vast galaxy and vast universe. "

I again claim that Dr. Deagle's statement is consistent (CONSISTENT) with Jesus's statements about himself.

Let's try to agree on ONE thing. We agree that John 14: 8-10 is true. Agreed ?

Now, his show is on from 3 - 6 PM EST at GCNLive.com. He takes call in questions during the first hour on many days... that's now. Feel free to give him a shout, anyone.
The reality of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- the reality and mind of God himself -- is something beyond our comprehension. As is eternity, multidimensional reality (>4 dimensions) etc. Many things that exist are beyond our comprehension. So is the Godhead. So is God. '

Thanks for your input. Got to get some other things done today !
 
You wrote, I am trying to prove whether we are able to think logically and hold a logical discussion. Maybe that's too much said

No, you’ve indicated earlier that you’ll use circular logic to ‘prove’ a point (2 Peter 1:20 – the proof is in some of my previous comments illustrating this in you), and you’ll proof-text Scripture for same. You’ve insulted others all the way through this thread (“prove you are not a robot”, ad nauseum). And I got tired of watching you do it.

You want logic? Here goes. You quoted Deagle. The quote explicitly states that Jesus “incarnated” (as) the Father, i.e. Jesus = the Father. I asked a question if you were a modalist (assuming those words were yours initially). You seem to have affirmed this position by your response. Therefore, the view of Deagle as presented by you and supported by you appears to match the doctrine of modalism – that God is one entity appearing in three different modes, but never any more than one of them at the same time. That is, God is not Triune. A central doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity in which there are 3 ‘Persons’ in the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh), and the Holy Spirit. To deny that is to affirm heresy. That, my friend, is simple logic and very straightforward.

And, I see now you continue on providing more back up for Deagle, thereby just digging yourself in deeper. What about the FULL CONTEXT of these passages you cite? Let’s add John 14:16-17:


16 And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

So, does Jesus pray to Himself (“I will pray to the Father”)? And, who’s this “another Helper”? That’s the Holy Spirit. So, Jesus will pray to the Father, and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. THAT is the Trinity. And when Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in John 1:18, who will “abide in you” (from John 14:17 above)? The Holy Spirit. Three different ‘Persons’ in one Triune God. The Trinity.

 
Well, the word "Trinity" is not in the bible. It is a doctrine of men, at best. An attempt to understand God in our terms. I can not explain the Godhead. Let's look beyond the concept of the Trinity and question its validity.

The full context of the passages is the entire text of the scriptures. Any conclusion we make should be consistent with the entire message.

I explicitly attempt to not insult anyone. I have not called anyone a name or labeled them with a term. Ask yourself, what you did.

Now, as an admonition, I have asked the same thing this blog asks: Please prove you're not a robot. We should prove this to ourselves, first. Judging ourselves.

I have not used circular logic here in the blog. WHERE do you get that from ?

Let's not degrade the conversation to citing lines from doctrinal statements ! Let's get over our stale ideas and begin to have a better understanding of God.
 
I will let the readers and writer examine the post at 3:22 PM to see if there are any illogical statements therein.
 
Constance, please comment on this statement above in the blog. It is utterly irrational.

Statement:
"X= your interpretation (explanation, if you’d like) of 1 Peter 1:20 is that it means no one can give their own private interpretation. You arrived at this interpretation by X. It’s circular logic. As I wrote in my first comment, it’s self-refuting. "

1. No one knows how I arrived at making that statement.
2. Making a statement is not, in itself, practicing circular logic.
3. Stating that a statement is true because the statement is true, is circular logic. The statement is either true or false because it is either true or false. It is what it is.

Irrational.
 
PS:

1. No one knows how I arrived at making that statement.
refers to the following statement I made:

"The passage states that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation."

Whether the meaning I inferred from the passage is accurate or not is another matter.
 
?Darkness is not the opposite of light, but the absence of it. And by bringing these things to light is not to bring terror to the people, but to bring comfort, to bring control, to bring a sense of empowerment to everyone who hears this."

"The greatest sins are the sins of silence in the face of evil."

Dr. William Deagle
 
At 7:58am today I illustrated your circular logic in interpreting/explaining 2 Peter 1:20. Of course, I don't expect you'll concede.
 
Constance, Please point out the flawed logic in the statements at 7:58 AM. I will enlighten in case it is not obvious.

 
I'm not at all knowledgeable about Deagle, but nt=y antenna is disturbingly up from what I'm reading here. Dave and I need a LONG TALK after I'm done reading and digesting.

Constance
 
At 7:58 AM how many falacies do I see?

1. The post at 7:58 AM made a false statement:
' You are thus affirming that the pre-trib view is a “prophecy of Scripture”; so, “pre-trib view” = “prophecy of Scripture” '

I do not and did not claim that the pret-trib view is a prophecy of scripture. I said it no where is found in the scriptures.

2. This false statement was used as premise in Craig's argument. A logical argument based on a false premise is false. Don't you see how silly this is. Then the text continues with other flaws - folks can read it.

2. 7:58 Post continues saying:
' Hence, to rephrase 2 Peter 1:20, according to your understanding: “no pre-trib view is of any private interpretation” [Y]. '

What ? This is not an english ! It has no clear meaning.

3.

Therefore, stated another way, your position is such that: “the +pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [X] which violates 2 Peter 1:20 because “no +pre-trib view is of private interpretation” [Y]. Using your same logic, the +pre-trib advocate can make the counterclaim, i.e., the converse, based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 such that:

3. The post stated:

' Their pro view of pre-trib is thereby refuting your anti view of pre-trib based on your own interpretation of this verse. '

The view I expressed could best be described as an anti-private interpretation view -- not an anti-pretrib view.

4. The 7:58 post stated:

' Stating yet another way, if the pre-trib adherent agrees to accept your view of 2 Peter 1:20, the adherent can use your common interpretation of this verse to refute your anti-pre-trib stance by claiming yours is a private interpretation of pre-trib. '

I did not express an anti-pre-trib stance above. Your premise is wrong here and the argument is invalid.

The rest of that post is so mixed up, it's like unraveling a knotted mess inside a tar ball -- you only get both hands and feet stuck to this silliness. This is like the endless theological discussions of one trying to discount another. Crazy.
 
Dave,

Perhaps your cognitive dissonance is preventing you from seeing the fallacy inherent in your argument. You wrote:

I do not and did not claim that the pret-trib view is a prophecy of scripture. I said it no where is found in the scriptures.

Q: And, how do you KNOW it is nowhere found in Scriptures? A: By your interpretation of Scriptures!

So, by the measure you claim pre-trib adherents are not right (“it no where is found in the scriptures”), you are using the same measure (the Scriptures) to “prove” adherents are wrong.

OK, how can I say that, you might think? FOLLOW MY CLOSELY ON THIS. You’ve implicitly affirmed pre-trib IS prophecy by stating THAT “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”. If you had claimed that it was not even prophecy, then you couldn’t have used this verse to ‘prove’ it’s not; however, since you HAVE used this verse to support your claim, then, again, you’ve implicitly affirmed that the pre-trib view is a prophecy – and a prophecy, like all prophecy according to your interpretation, that cannot be privately interpreted. Hence, you cannot interpret the pre-trib view as either true or false. No one can if you agree with your interpretation of the verse and your explanation/interpretation regarding the pre-trib view as applied TO this verse.

If you wanted to prove the pre-trib view wrong, then go find an adherent, follow their Scriptural argument and attempt to dismantle it from there.
 
It's this simple:

Claim:

The pre-trib version is not in the scriptures.

Proof:
No where in the scriptures does it state that a rapture will occur prior to a 7 year tribulation period.

Verification:
Search the scriptures for "tribulation" and"rapture"

If it is not in the scripture, it is not a scriptural prophecy. Simple.
 
See, this is misdirection also:

"If you wanted to prove the pre-trib view wrong, then go find an adherent, follow their Scriptural argument and attempt to dismantle it from there."

Dismantling someone's argument does not disprove their conclusion. A faulty argument is simply a faulty argument. The conclusion is independent of the argument. Right.

 
Dave, the Trinity-denying logician, wrote in response to one of my statements: Dismantling someone's argument does not disprove their conclusion. A faulty argument is simply a faulty argument.

And that's the basic thrust of my words re: "Dismantling an argument".

Here’s R.C. Sproul on 2 Peter 1:20. I initially thought he was affirming the explanation/interpretation of Dave (which, again, is a very common view), however, reading further I find he’s not. He’s merely stating that others (wrongly) view it that way. Then he examines the problems inherent in this view:

When engaged in disputes as to the interpretation of a particular Scripture text, I have often been rebutted with these words, “Well, that’s your interpretation.” Of course it is my interpretation, since I just state it as such. My objector means that I interpret it one way and he in another way and that we are all entitled to interpret it however we wish. However, God has never given us the right to be wrong about the Word of God. That is why we guard our interpretation carefully, looking at the best commentaries that we can find, studying diligently, and not relying on our naked ability. We consult the giants of church history and the confessions of the church. Even though they do not have binding authority over us, they certainly can inform us and help us out of errors born of our ignorance. Private interpretation always carries with it the heavy burden of accurate interpretation.

That being said, I do not think that was Peter’s point. If we look at the statement in context, it is not the interpretation of the Bible but the authority of the Bible that Peter is talking about. He is saying that prophecy, that is, the declaration of the Word of God, did not arise out of the private interpretation of human beings…
[St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary: 1-2 Peter, Wheaton: Crossway, 2011, pp 238-239]

The other two commentaries I have on this verse agree with the basic thrust on the last paragraph. If we take Jesus’ words in Luke 16:16 that the OT consisted of “the Law and the Prophets”, which, of course, we do, then the first 5 books of Scripture are “the Law”, while the rest of the OT is “the Prophets”. This is the main thrust of Peter’s words in context.
 
As I mentioned above, the primary meaning of 2 Peter 1:20 may not be the one I cited.

Regardless, making up some elaborate end-times timeline scenario is just that -- something made up which is not in the scriptures. It may be correct or it may be incorrect. But if it in in conflict with other scriptures, then it must be incorrect.

Do you find the postulation of a "rapture before a 7-year tribulation period" to be inconsistent with any other scriptures ?
 
Dave, the Trinity-denying logician, states:

It's this simple:

Claim:

The pre-trib version is not in the scriptures.

Proof:
No where in the scriptures does it state that a rapture will occur prior to a 7 year tribulation period.

Verification:
Search the scriptures for "tribulation" and"rapture"

If it is not in the scripture, it is not a scriptural prophecy. Simple.


No, “silly” is a better word.

Just like “Trinity” is not in the Bible either (like you stated earlier), right?

“Rapture” may not be in the Bible, but there’s a Greek word (transliterated) harpazo, which is rendered “caught up” in 1 Thess 4:17 that is understood as such. I may not believe in that specific doctrine myself, but I don’t claim it isn’t true based on such a silly assertion that “rapture” is a word not found in Scripture.
 
After creating and beating the straw man, my question remains unanswered. So I will ask it globally:

Does anyone here find the postulation of a "rapture before a 7-year tribulation period" to be inconsistent with any other scriptures ?
 
Jesus was asked about the signs of the End on the Mt of Olives, and he ran through a very specific sequence of events (recorded in the 3 synoptic gospels). It mentions the Tribulation but makes no mention whatsoever of a pre-trib rapture.

To pre-tribbers: Why Jesus' silence?
 
Someone who isn't articulate enough to outline their own points, might be better served leaving this type of theological debate to the "prophets" they are supporting.
 
Dave, the Trinity-denying logician, states:

Dismantling someone's argument does not disprove their conclusion. A faulty argument is simply a faulty argument. The conclusion is independent of the argument. Right.

With the benefit of some sleep I read this a bit more closely. I am not sure what “Right” was meant in this context. I cannot determine if it was sarcasm, or if it was agreeing with the previous three sentences. Since I cannot be sure which why, I’ll address just the first three sentences, taking them at face value, because it seems best to understand this, given the rest of your context, as a direct response to my previous comment: “If you wanted to prove the pre-trib view wrong, then go find an adherent, follow their Scriptural argument and attempt to dismantle it from there.”

Your premise “Dismantling someone's argument does not disprove their conclusion” is faulty, with your conclusion not necessarily true even independent of your premise: “The conclusion is independent of the argument”. When humans reason logically, we reason best by systematically arguing our position until our conclusion is reached (“Given X, Y, & Z, then XYZ”). However, yes, a conclusion may well be a correct one despite our poor argument (think of the college student who finds his/her correct answer while failing to adequately show the work involved with getting there).

But more likely, our conclusion is deduced from our argument, and in cases of a fallacious conclusion somewhere along the line one or more points of the argument are based on some incorrect data (misunderstood, manipulated data, etc.). This will very likely result in a faulty conclusion (unless the individual uses subsequent data which effectively negates the other faulty one, thus the two cancelling each other out). And it only takes one faulty input (one incorrect part of the argument) to reach a wrong output (conclusion). Consider following a recipe as an analogy - one wrong ingredient and the dish is not what was intended. Hence, a faulty conclusion (dish) is made.

Opponents to the Wright Brothers efforts to fly may have said something to the effect of, “The law of gravity proves you’ll never be able to achieve sustained flight”. Their conclusion was based on insufficient data, as obviously mankind has been successful in sustained flight. Thus, these detractors had a faulty argument (“The law of gravity”) causing them to reach an incorrect conclusion (“you’ll never be able to achieve sustained flight”).

The unbelieving Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the Christ, even though the information was right there in the Scriptures. They were convinced Jesus was not the Christ, despite having all the evidence. While I believe the pre-trib view is wrong, this does not mean that I, or you, can be 100% certain this is not so. However, having seen part of some others’ argument for the pre-trib Rapture, I can safely say that at least that one particular aspect is wrong, to those using this particular support (and not all do).

Yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecy is best seen in the rear view mirror.
 
I see a few comments but did anyone find some passages against the pretrib ? Something that shows it violates some scripture ? With all the students we have here.
 
Dear 10:12am, no single sentence of scripture decisively disproves the pretrib rapture, but no single sentence proves it either. There is more to Bible reading than proof texts. Why, if it is correct doctrine, did Jesus not mention it in the very specific endtime sequence of events that he set forth on the Mount of Olives as recounted by Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Funny how it has become popular in places where the church has forgotten what it feels like to be persecuted. Jeremiah (6 & 8) warned us of false prophecies of " Peace where there is no peace".

 
Anonymous at 5:00,
"...very specific end time sequence of events."
What are you talking about? Jesus' words in the Olivet discourse are not as easy to place in chronology as you say. in fact there may be a two thousand year "gap" between some of his sentences.
He was talking TO his disciples two thousand years ago and they thought AT THAT TIME that he was just about to begin his kingly reign and overthrow the Romans out of Jerusalem.
He had to somehow speak to them, to everyone between then and now, AND to people today.
And that's just what he did.
To say that he never even infers that we will be taken away from the wrath of God is wrong altogether.
He said: "But unless those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved, but for the elects sake
those days will be shortened."
And he also said that "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be before the coming of the Son of Man."
The simple truth is that Noah and his family did NOT
suffer the wrath of God. They "rode it out over the storm", and then came back down to earth ! How much of a picture do you need ?

As far as being objective and not letting the traditions of men overtake the commandments of God, I agree with
Dave. We should always be wary of a too comfortable
attitude, and/or set of doctrines, particularly when they're wrong.

So whether one calls it a pre-tribulation Rapture or a pre-wrath Rapture, the result is the same.

Maybe there haven't been enough Christian martyrs for you yet. There were over a million in the Roman Colosseum two thousand years ago, countless slaughters since them, such as the 1930's in Mexico which Constance has pointed out, or 1909-1913 in Armenia, for which they coined the term "Genocide", and Christian martyrdom going on RIGHT NOW in Saudi Arabia, China, Sudan, Kenya, North Korea and quite a few other places.

God is a righteous judge.
I think of Job and how his friends kept insisting that his suffering was judgement for his sins and that if he would just confess his sins to God,then maybe God would ease his pain. But Job knew in his heart that he was a true believer who prayed to God every day and that even though he was admittedly imperfect, this was not a result of his wickedness.
God has different reasons for giving us tribulations,
but He doesn't punish people who love Him except for a little season, to teach us a lesson.
The kind of wrath that is coming to this world soon is
reserved for the hard hearted godless sinners who have no intention of repenting.
Notice that I'm not at all saying "Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace.

 
Paul,

This is Anon@5:00AM & 1:58PM who is skeptical of the pre-tribulation timing of the rapture.

Please do not use phrases to me like "Maybe there haven't been enough Christian martyrs for you yet". I am attacking a doctrine, not a human being, and I ask you to do the same. We are brothers in Christ. I am in a congregation where some people believe that the universe is 14 billion years old and some 6000 years old; I'm not going to say which I believe but the point is that we all get on fine. Let it be the same regarding differences over the timing of the rapture.

Corrie ten Boom, who nearly died in a Nazi concentration camp (and some of whose family did) for sheltering Jews, knows a thing or two about persecution. She wrote of this doctrine, "I have been in countries where the saints are already suffering terrible persecution. In China the Christians were told: "Don't worry, before the tribulation comes, you will be translated, raptured." Then came a terrible persecution. Millions of Christians were tortured to death. Later I heard a bishop from China say, sadly: "We have failed. We should have made the people strong for persecution rather than telling them Jesus would come [for them] first." Turing to me, he said: "Tell the people how to be strong in times of persecution, how to stand when the tribulation comes - to stand and not faint."

On the Mt of Olives Jesus gave four signs to look for, in order: (1) increasing wars, famines, earthquakes in the world; (2) universal persecution of Christians, whose numbers will dwindle (obviously a process of purification of the church), coincident with the gospel having reached every people group; (3) the abomination that causes desolation, a phrase which Jesus refers to Daniel's prophecy of a man exalting himself in Jerusalem as divine; (4) darkness in the skies.

We are well into (1) and (2) is on the horizon. There is no mention whatsoever of a sudden disappearance of the faithful form the earth, and it would be such an extraordinary event that it beggars belief that Jesus would not have mentioned it if the timing of the rapture were pre-trib.

Yours in Christ,

Anon@5:00AM & 1:58PM
 
Anon
I was wrong to use the term ..."enough for you yet".
I am sorry about that.
I don't know the timing of how God is going to do all the things that He's going to do either.

Is it safe to say that we agree that the Tribulation period is rapidly approaching ?

I appreciate the gentle correction.
God bless you.


 
The event which Paul referred to in I Cor. 15
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

The Last Trump which we find mentioned in the Bible is in Revelation 11
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

At that point, the witnesses have been prophesying for 3.5 years, died and rose again. How can one then suggest that the "we shall all be changed" occurs prior to the start of a 7 year tribulation period? What is the real time line? How does Daniel's 70th week enlighten us further?



 
Dave asks, "Do you find the postulation of a "rapture before a 7-year tribulation period" to be inconsistent with any other scriptures?"

A resounding YES. 2 Thess. 2:2-8. Jesus won't come back until the antichrist has arisen, AND Jesus will destroy him with the brightness of Jesus' coming. Ergo, Jesus comes back AFTER the tribulation against the Church, ergo the rapture is AFTER the tribulation ergo the Church goes through the tribulation.

pretrib requires speculation, mis- and over-application of typology and allegory, even inventing new forms of it, and ignoring or spiritualizing away anything that contradicts pretrib. Midtrib requires the same. Anything that fails to position the church throughout the entire tribulation defined as persecution by the antichrist, up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ does the same.

This is of course the same way heretics handle The Scriptures. Also the developers of sex and murder cults. Which makes pretrib and midtrib dubious from the gitgo.

Pre wrath in some forms at least is just a variant of midtrib though at least makes the distinction enough between the tribulation or persecution and the righteous wrath of God to which we are not appointed, that one can end up effectively post trib adhering to this.

Posttrib requires none of that, it IS in the Scriptures very plainly, without needing special elite interpretive knowhow.
http://lol.witnesstoday.org/Demon-Doctrine.htm a good analysis of pretrib origins. This notes that Darby and Scofield were connected to Zionists, but the issue of kabbalism and zionism is irrelevant since God can use His enemies for His purposes, and the prophecy of the ingathering refers to them combing back to the land of Israel in a state of unbelief. The connection is logical, based on the dispensationalist notions, BUT YOU DO NOT NEED THEM TO HAVE ZIONISM, because the prophecy is in your face.
http://maranathaweb.com/ excellent source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmZHDb_sP8#t=278 excellent study, and details how the pretribbers will claim Matt. 24 is not about the Rapture, until they get to one verse then suddenly Matt. 24 is bout the Rapture, typical wrenching of Scripture.
Early church was not pretrib Ephraim the Syrian quote is out of context, refers to the tribulation that will come on the earth because of our sins, the wrath of God against the antichrist and his followers, not against the believers, elsewhere he states posttrib regarding the rapture or catching up of believers to meet Christ. We will be lifted up out of the way of the wrath of God, which falls on the antichrist after he has been persecuting the church, NOT out of the way of persecution. It is an honor to die or suffer for Jesus Christ.
In the quote http://www.arewelivinginthelastdays.com/com/ephraem.htm

NOTE THAT this tribulation "is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." in other words, this is not the unrighteous wrath of the antichrist, but the righteous wrath of God. And we are not appointed to the wrath of God, but we are repeatedly warned of persecution aka tribulation and have suffered such throughout Church history.
at that site read carefully from 6 to the end and it is totally post trib, and the blindness of those who posted this to support pre trib is incredible!

Posttrib teachers seem to confuse tribulation with the wrath of God. almost sounds like the view the devil has of it, makes me suspicious in itself of the spiritual origin of this or influence behind it.
 
Dave brags he doesn't accept dogmas of men, uness of course invented or promoted by Deagle, but The Trinity dogma is from Holy Scripture, not a mere human invention. The WORD Trinity is a quick summation of John 14:16-17 and many other OT and NT. Do you want to have to recite half a page or more of Scripture every time you mention The Three Persons of The Godhead or just use one word? understanding God in man's terms - that's what Dave and Deagle are doing. The Trinity is what you get when you read the WHOLE Bible.
Jesus present, The Father speaking from heaven, and The Holy Spirit appearing as a dove at Jesus' baptism are the penultimate proof of The Trinity.

OT Isaiah 48:16, and the verses before and after it is preincarnate Jesus speaking Who has been sent by The Father and also sent by The Holy Spirit so He is a Person who can DO things like send someone, or in the promise of the Comforter in John's Gospel, can teach, hear from God and speak to us.

"Let's look beyond the concept of the Trinity and question its validity."

Let's not.

"The full context of the passages is the entire text of the scriptures. Any conclusion we make should be consistent with the entire message."
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PRODUCED THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, it is from the entire text of Scripture, which defenders of The Trinity from the early second century (ADs 100s) onwards were steeped in. indwelling is not the same as incarnating. The Three Persons of The Trinity indwell each other and the Second Two though co eternal with The Father have their origin or ground of being in Him.

Notice how Dave and Deagle often use terms like "beyond" appealing to the sin of pride and vainglory and/or positioning himself and his idol Deagle as ahead of us. With that mix you can do masochistic submission to the brilliant one who is beyond it all, while feeling superior to everyone else.

Dave you say no one knows how you arrived at the private interpretation statement. The verse you cited is the only possible source of your idea, unless you are using this to support a presupposition that no one but a prophet i.e., Deagle can interpret Scripture, and if that is your game you are in the category of cult recruiter.

THIS VERSE ISN'T ABOUT INTERPRETATION BY READER, BUT ABOUT THE PRODUCTION OF THE PROPHECY, as the rest of the verses make clear. "interpretation" is a bad translation, unless it means the prophet didn't get an impression (like Deagle)then interpret it to mean thus and so (like Deagle) but got the explicit words and visions from God.

 
Dave presents a kangaroo court trying to sound like Josh McDowell in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, or more likely got the idea from the so called Eschaton a cosmic court Bill Deagle got hauled before, more on that later (Eschaton does NOT mean court). All negative info about Deagle is dismissed as "hearsay." Well, no it isn't.

the girl who claimed harm IS testifying first hand in this "court" once her article is linked here, so you can read her words just like the words of any here. CO licensing records do not show Deagle as current I checked, I guess Dave didn't.
This gives credence to her story.

http://www.nutrimedical.com/products.jhtml?method=toStatic&page=about_bio here Deagle makes like he is currently a licensed physician.

here, I have subpoenaed and brought to testify yet another witness in your socalled court. http://williamricharddeagle.blogspot.com/2008/12/william-richard-deagle-maniac.html
the search med lic records link here is not done right so it doesn't go there. use https://www.colorado.gov/dora/licensing/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx

Deagle (why insult a good dog by calling Deagle "Beagle") is absent. no license. search his license number DR.0033863 instead of name and state, YES IT WAS REVOKED AD 2007 with links to details.

 
Now here are Deagle's own damning words if you scroll down through the gibberish,
http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/bill_deagle_interview_transcript_1_en.html part 1

"We’re at this nexus or crossroads where we either are going to have the law as Jesus Christ said himself, which was one of the great teachers,"

NOTE THAT! Deagle says Jesus "was ONE OF THE GREAT TEACHERS."!
That is how the New Age talks.
"Yeshua Ha Masaich, which means The Father in the Flesh."
No it doesn't. Immanuel is God is with us, Yeshua or Joshua means Yah (short form of YHWH) is Savior. HaMaschiah is The Messiah or Anointed One, Greek is Christos.

"...And we are the father in the flesh. So are you! As we wake people up, it manifests what’s always been there. It’s the manifestation that counts...."

he gets asked about "The Eschaton" he got hauled before, some kind of cosmic court. Eschaton does not mean that. "eschaton is a time period described in eschatological writings...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschaton_(disambiguation)
se also http://biblehub.com/greek/eschaton_2078.htm

Deagle is saying we're consubstantial with God, definitely New Age, some of whom expect cataclysms and so forth.

Deagle doesn't give any info not available from other more down to earth sources, he is a "gate keeper" who puts this kind of subject matter into the category of loony. from part 2 of the Project Camelot interview
"And so the “People of the Book,” which is what they used to be called -- they weren’t called the Jews or the Israelites" TOTALLY FALSE, read The Bible and archaeology. people or religion "of the book" is an islamic term for abrahamic religions.

"Even if they [Israelites, Jews] went off and they went through a reformation or they learned from other religious groups, whether it’s Buddhists, or Hopi, or natives, they’d eventually start getting beyond religion"

These are at worst false religions, at best mere starting points, Yahwehism is the True Religion. Deagle equates it with these other things we should renounce to find the truth.

"...10,000 years from now will there be anything called “religion”? Of course not. It won’t exist because we’ll have a full knowledge of the Creator Gods"
NOW IS THAT PLURAL A MISPRINT OR IS HE TEACHING PLURAL GODS NOT ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS?
"and what they are." WHICH IS WHAT?
"...the real goal [of the holocaust] was to wipe out the idea of a Creator God"

correct, satan targets Jews because Jesus is Jewish and because they are the bearers of the revelation of YHWH.

"and that we’re an incarnation of the Creator."

SAY WHAT?!

Contra this, Jesus is the one and only Incarnation of God, interface between creature and Creator. We are made out of nothing, not out of God. (Or out of dust which was made out of nothing not out of God.)

"...Since the breakup of the control of the Roman Catholic Church," sure, appeal to fear of tyranny and injustice and to the rebellion as an end in itself misapplication of such concerns

"and all the spinoffs and everybody trying to get into the New Age, and all the other religious things, where there’s a return to spirituality...The big move right now is not toward religion, it’s toward spirituality, whether they’re coming from a Christian viewpoint, a Jewish viewpoint, a Buddhist viewpoint. And they’re all starting to kind of compare notes and realize that, even though they use different terms, they’re starting to understand there’s a commonality there."

How more New Age can you get than that?
 
Well said Christine! I've been one of the larger critics of your writing here and I agree with just about everything in those posts immediately above. Thank you.

 
Thank you. I don't feel like taking the trouble to do more research, but maybe someone can go check his credentials with the institutions he claimed to have studied at or worked for. If the educational facilities never heard of him, it wouldn't be the first time fake medical degrees had been accepted by a licensing board.
 
I agree in part with Christine’s position that 2 Thess 2:2-8 (though I’d certainly include verse 1 in the analysis) precludes the pre-trib rapture, as this is what I made a passing reference to above at 7:41am (“However, having seen part of some others’ argument for the pre-trib Rapture, I can safely say that at least that one particular aspect is wrong”). But, some adherents to the pre-trib view interpret this a bit differently, to include, to my disappointment, J. Vernon McGee (I have a printed document reflecting the following somewhere amidst all my paperwork). These adherents claim that the “falling away” of v 3 (which is rendered less ambiguously as “rebellion” in the NIV), which is from the Greek (transliterated) apostasia, is akin to harpazo of 1 Thess 4:17. Consequently, they believe v 3 is speaking of the Rapture.

An important part of this position is the distinction that vv 1 & 8 refer to the “coming of Jesus”, while v 3 is the Rapture which precedes both Jesus’ Second Coming and the revealing of the antichrist in the latter part of v3.

That’s just bad exegesis.

In any case, some adherents still affirm the correct understanding of apostasia as being the “rebellion” with its connection to the latter part of the verse (3) as the revealing of the antichrist, as opposed to the bad exegesis that it pertains to the Rapture, yet keep the claim that the larger context of vv 1-8 is about Jesus’ Second Coming. In this view, silence here does not preclude the possibility of pre-trib Rapture somewhere else in Scripture. But, an argument largely from silence is not a good argument.
 
Given these words “and that we’re an incarnation of the Creator" that Christina picked up re: Deagle and the other words quoted earlier on here describing “a god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth to other beings...”, I can now state more confidently what I had already assumed and not yet noted: Deagle is teaching that Jesus, rather than being God incarnate, metaphorically incarnated God the Father, providing the example for the rest of us. That is, that Jesus was not actually God, the 2nd ‘Person’ of the Trinity, but had so ‘communed’ with the Father in a mystical union that He “incarnated” the Father in a metaphorical sense. As our Exemplar, we can and should do the same.

This is the theme of John Hick’s book, with the title making this obvious, The Metaphor of God Incarnate. The late Hick self-identified as a “Christian”, staunchly promoting religious pluralism.
 
Given these words “and that we’re an incarnation of the Creator" that Christina picked up re: Deagle and the other words quoted earlier on here describing “a god who can incarnate as Yeshuah Hamishia – the Father in the flesh – here and bring the witness of truth in any other world and bring the truth to other beings...”, I can now state more confidently what I had already assumed and not yet noted: Deagle is teaching that Jesus, rather than being God incarnate, metaphorically incarnated God the Father, providing the example for the rest of us. That is, that Jesus was not actually God, the 2nd ‘Person’ of the Trinity, but had so ‘communed’ with the Father in a mystical union that He “incarnated” the Father in a metaphorical sense. As our Exemplar, we can and should do the same.

This is the theme of John Hick’s book, with the title making this obvious, The Metaphor of God Incarnate. The late Hick self-identified as a “Christian”, staunchly promoting religious pluralism.
 
Christine,

Your statement, above is a lie and is thus defamatory toward me:

"Dave brags he doesn't accept dogmas of men, uness of course invented or promoted by Deagle"

That' statement is untrue ! Why are you spouting such a lie ?

Your analysis of Pretrib etc is quite interesting.
 
Just getting ready to go on air -- please join me at
www.themicroeffect.com or BETTER STILL

chatroom.themicroeffect.com

give yourself a handle (name) and create a password for yourself and join us on the air, or you may call in to 888-747-1968.

Constance
 
Christine,

I notice you are focusing on the things he says that are surprising to you or in which you may see "a newager under every rock". There is such a thing as having an evil eye, seeing others as necessarily evil.

If you focus on his statements on what is going on and his description of those things, you may find some enlightening truth. And through this truth, you may realize that he is not false.


.
 
""Dave brags he doesn't accept dogmas of men, uness of course invented or promoted by Deagle"

That' statement is untrue ! Why are you spouting such a lie ?"

No lie at all, your words that you don't accept dogmas of men, and your verbal actions in support of any dogma spouted by Deagle.

"I notice you are focusing on the things he says that are surprising to you or in which you may see "a newager under every rock". There is such a thing as having an evil eye, seeing others as necessarily evil."

nope, its called "from the treasure of his heart a man speaketh" said Jesus, and Deagle's words (along with his documented actions) red flag his heart treasure as bad.

There is such a thing as blindly accepting someone or at least being too charitable, and ignoring the red flags.

I am 62 years old, going to be 63 in June. I have learned not to ignore little indicators in other matters why should I ignore them in this and these are damn serious. They don't "surprise" me they put me on alert. I am looking for heresy in teaching to assess this person, and I found it.

"If you focus on his statements on what is going on and his description of those things, you may find some enlightening truth. And through this truth, you may realize that he is not false."

I don't see one thing from him I don't know already from better sources, who are more down to earth. All he is doing is cobbling together info out there for years, some of it decades in print, and either following other analysts without crediting them or doing some educated guessing when he predicts anything.

I am surprised Physicist hasn't weighed in here on this, some of the Deagle stuff is the sort of thing I get lambasted for posting about here.

Deagle is either barking up the money tree or is an intelligence asset to make this all look loony to more sensible and average distracted people who should be paying attention to some of these subjects. Or both. (not to mention a tad deranged.)
re Craig post about apostasia and harpazo, that's not just bad exegesis that's hilarious. Apostasia is where we get the word "apostasy." Apparently McGee is so dedicated to pre trib no matter what that he will equate catching up by Jesus to rejecting Jesus or some key point about Him.
 
Craig, I suspect that Deagle is not just claiming we can metaphorically incarnate The Father (perhaps that would be called sanctification and godliness and being perfect like your Father in Heaven is perfect as Jesus said), but that we are of the same substance as (consubstantial with) The Father, and just have to realize this.

The former is called theosis or divinization in Orthodoxy, that you can participate by grace not by nature in the divine nature as Peter said, but the New Agers and pantheists (incl. the sort who posit a more personal than impersonal god concept) mean by this being of the divine nature either already or able to acquire it, being essentially one of the (in this scenario many billions) of persons of the er, trinity? billioninity?
 
Christine,

It's been a while since I've read the book, but as I recall Hick's position is the New Age / New Spirituality position of divine spark/seed inside all (including Jesus). This may not be explicit, but it implicit in the work. I construe Deagle is teaching same.
 
yes, being in God's likeness and image is not the same thing as being God Himself or a smaller same thing version.

If I had an official authorized photo of myself on my blog, it might be my image and likeness, but it certainly isn't me nor does it even the original consist of the same stuff I consist of.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
addendum re: "If you focus on his statements on what is going on and his description of those things, you may find some enlightening truth. And through this truth, you may realize that he is not false."

This phrasing "he is not false" sounds like you are saying that his presenting facts about current events (incl. hidden stuff) and secret agendas supports his claim to being truth incarnate or a prophet or something. That HE HIMSELF is not false ergo HE HIMSELF is true.

That is a nonsequitur. ("it does not follow.") Telling the truth about these physical activities has NO BEARING on him as a physician, alternative medicine esxpert, let alone God ordained prophet.

Anyone can give correct information and still be as bad as hell. Some of the best researchers in some things are anything but simon pure personally. Some who get upset about bad stuff do so only when they realize that their families might be negatively impacted, but would participate as long as no threat came near their own safe zone.

Some of the best witnesses in court against criminal syndicates were themselves members and traded info for less sentencing. While the credibility of such is challenged by people with more starry eyed idealism than common sense, the fact is, as one person put it, "conspiracies hatched in hell don't have angels as witnesses."


 
Good post at www.pastorbrianroberts.com on the peace treaty the quartet is trying to force upon Israel. We all may get some first hand tribulation here soon!

As concerns the rapture, i believe Ted Montgomery has a good two part teaching on it at his site:
www.tedmontgomery.com
Click on 'bible commentaries', and then on his teaching on the rapture.
 
There is an interesting passage we could the Sea of Galilee Prophecy or type or picture or analogy. Has anyone seen this ? What does it mean to you ?
 
OOPs,left out a word: CALL

an interesting passage we could CALL the Sea of Galilee Prophecy
 
Just starting to catch up on most of this discussion. I've watched enough of "Dr. Bill Deagle" to know I could NEVER endorse him. Also, thanks to references here which I have cursorily read and then decided I needed to view the discussed object for myself, I just watched the Heliophant Goat II production on Vimeo. I also watched Alex Jones' discussion with its producer. I have to vehemently disagree with Alex on it. I can't presently explore the producer's heart and mind. He might be as pure as the driven snow, but it is clear to me after viewing the video and reading the author's explanation that he has at best been totally INDOCTRINATED with New Age thinking and symbolism and he is, even if inadvertently, advancing the New World Religion which is part and parcel of the Illuminati he says and may believe he is opposing.

Constance
 
addendum on my own statement "Some of the best researchers in some things are anything but simon pure personally"
the reason for this, is that their ideas of good and evil and ours are somewhat different, BUT DO COINCIDE ENOUGH that for instance, Alex Constantine can support sex drugs and rock n' roll at its worst, but hate Nazism and creeping fascism and document it very well, also many people into some evil openly dislike hypocrisy and out others into the same evils because they hide. Never underestimate the value of information that shakes out when some undesirables squabble amongst themselves.
 
Thanks for your comments so far. I am not convinced either way on Dr. Deagle's work - true or false. One proof for me will be where he ultimately goes with it.

I am analytical and look for simple false statements and true statements. The nature of any false statements are then importance -- a simple error or a glaring error that makes no sense why it would be there.

In this regard, Christine has pointed to the meaning of Yeshuah Hamisha(ch) as far as she understands it indicating that what she understands in the proper translation is not the meaning Dr. Deagle presented. This, too, was a question which appeared to me but i do not have the deep expertise to have an informed opinion on it. Simply reading some Hebrew-English dictionary and "translating" is not at all convincing to me; the issue of proper and alternate translations, language and etymology is a rather deep field with I simply do not have a depth of expertise in. Etymology is key since words have changed in meaning over time and is one variable in the analysis of his statement.

So, although I see a great deal of truth and a deeper understanding in what he says in describing God, Jesus, demons and evil forces in the universe, the nature of evil, and his descriptions with experts who present on the show information about fulfilment of prophecy and current events including the nature and steps to implement the mark on the world. This information seems exceedingly plausible and correct as far as I see. I should give specific examples of these points, and will in one case.

1. He said the evil is the absence of good, not the opposite of good.
2. He made statements to the effect (my best recollection) that to hear and do the will of the Father is doing good; everything else is evil.

So if anyone can show me some specific errors in what he said -- please also be fair and show what is true that he has said -- I would like to understand such errors.

Otherwise, what I hear from Dr. Deagle is some very useful information, truth and different ways to look at the facts we have (passages) than have been traditionally presented. Christ did very similar things and was not accepted by orthodox religion in his time. So, if this is the case, what I would have to watch for is a change from truth to, say, following some demonic alien invaders posing as angels of light. Let's see what the future brings, but more importantly what you con convince me of (the "court" I referred to previously is the court of my logical mind -- can you convince me ?)
 
Further, I should add:

If someone states an idea that the JW's, Hindus, Baptists or New Age Movement adopts, those
1. are simply ideas
2. it does not mean that the person adopts the doctrine of the JWs, Hindus, Baptists or New Age Movement.
3. Those ideas may be true. There is some truth in all of these "religions".

In other words, when someone says Dr. Deagle projects New Age Ideas. Well, what idea are you referring to? Is that idea correct ? Do we jump to a conclusion that if accepts one ides of any of these religions, then he is following that religion ? Certainly not. At least I'm unwilling to jump to such conclusions.
 
"So, if this is the case, what I would have to watch for is a change from truth to, say, following some demonic alien invaders posing as angels of light. "

This might or might not happen, I think he mentioned there were good guys out there so it could, but it isn't necessary.

The real issue is, is he a legitimate prophet sent by God, and the answer given his theological statements wild claims and behavior is no.

The two philosophical points can be yanked from any highschool textbook on philosophy and comparative religion.

The secular weirdness information can be found, in more coherent form and often closer to the original source whistleblowers or whatever, in print and online before he was doing his thing.

Deagle is at best unnecessary. If you never heard of this stuff, just list the subjects as a starting point, and google them and follow links in articles, try to avoid the sensationalistic (look for boring) and you can do fine without him.

Richard Dolan is a real good source and there are others out there. Since he starts with the UFO phenomenon and via the coverup gets into the intelligence scene, you get a real good education there. Add Alex Constantine and others on the Nazi angle and the subject Vril, Maria Orsic and DUMBs or Deep Underground Military Bases and Georgia Guidestones and UN Agenda 21 and the depopulation plan and you will be on your way to a Deagle free and hopefully breathless sensationalistic (though not invariably) free course of study.

While you're at it, look up victor, alien on youtube. especially the second interview.
 
Constance,

What is the antecedent to "he" in the following from your above post:

' that he has at best been totally INDOCTRINATED with New Age thinking and symbolism and he is '

The the last prior name mentioned was Alex (Jones).

Did "he" mean Alex Jones, or Dr. Bill Deagle ?


 
Christine,

My statement above was clear as day to me; please do not read things into it or add ideas to it. The quote from me was:

"If you focus on his statements on what is going on [in the world, current events, globalism law etc etc] and his description of those things, you may find some enlightening truth. And through this truth, you may realize that he is not false."

I am saying, if you would simply listen to some of his recent presentations, you might become convinced that Dr. Deagle is on the right path. If you just read what I post or hear some of his more esoteric talks about "the other 90%', you might walk away wondering since he has a different way to look at things or is talking about things that you really have little basis to understand on your own from your training and prior thinking. In regard to current events, he gives a more common sense and logical presentation that is easy for anyone to grasp.

 
I listened to Deagle once or twice, I am underimpressed. I got better sources on all this stuff, none of whom I take as absolutely reliable all the time. Its not their fault necessarily. (one of my favorites just made a fool of himself.) The other 90%? of what? I probably know more about non occult alternative medicine or where to go to get the information than he ever did. Everyone I listed in the other post is alternative and to the fringe of the fringe, add Dr. David Jacobs and Derrel Sims and Karla Turner (deceased).

Maineprepper on you tube is a good one also. Tom Lupshu, stormcloudsgathering, and caspianreport on youtube. Gerald Celente. With a few exceptions, there really isn't that much developing fast enough to have a worthwhile weekly show on these recondite subjects.

Suspicious0bservers is another good one, he has a New Age personal bias that doesn't show except once or twice on his page.

Bear in mind I didn't start out learning with these people, I already knew enough to know they were pretty solid. For the rest of what's going on you have to dig through sites that are murky swamps, but clearer sailing than Deagle. Speed reading and having a lot of time on your hands helps.
 
Christine,

I see only some general statements in your last comment about Dr. Deagle.

What specifically did you hear Deagle say? What talks did you listen to ? What is not developing that fast to have frequent shows on ?

Please be more specific, so I know what you are taling about.
 
I don't listen to anyone's shows live except Constance's I heard an interview and listened to a couple of youtube uploads of his show.

The stuff not developing fast enough usually is the whole alien, NWO, prophecy scenarios and secret government projects and so forth he goes on about in that Project Camelot interview, and the shows on youtube I am not sure I even finished and don't remember anything of it, just a general impression of projecting certainty and talking too fast over too much stuff. I forced myself to give him a chance because of the recommendation on the John Moore Show, which I don't trust that much, but has some good stuff. preparedness of course is part of his shtick, but you can get that lots of places. Somehow he gets on my nerves. if I knew he was claiming to be one of the Two Prophets I would never have given him a chance.
 
In three and a half hours I am going silent again, maybe for a month. Anybody got anything else they want to talk about?
 
Christine,

This makes no sense.

If someone claims to be a prophet from God, are we to ignore them ? What if they are a prophet from God ??

Deagle has not explicitly claimed to be one of the two witness of Revelation (yet). He has claimed to be the "witness of Ephriam"/

If I can not get some specific statements about Dr. Deagle, I do not think I will be convinced of anything about him. On the other hand, i can give specific statements made on his show, and we can see what substance is there.

Constance's statement was clearly inconclusive, merely stating that she could never endorse Deagle. Does that mean she can't tell whether she would or would not endorse him. The question is not really one of endorsing someone, whatever that means, but rather to show that what they are saying is true or false. We can not prove motive or tell if the person may not deviate from truth at a later date even if they are dishing out truth now.


 
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_ThirdSign.htm

Looking at this, I was puzzled than an event like the Bartholomew Day's Massacre far from the Middle East, a blip in European history most never heard of nowdays, would be of interest.

But a google and Wikipedia search turned up a different picture.

This event led to the radicalization of Calvinist elements of the Reformation (in America we don't hear much of Lutheranism, which is different) and development of Christian rather than secularist heretical sources talking about following your conscience, that phrase rather than figure out truth and follow that. This laid the groundwork for the Thirty Years War, and definitely for the respectability of revolutionary subjectivistic thinking.

In effect, a chain of events began at the Bartholomew's Day Massacre that led to the French Revolution and the Revolutionary movements and eventually communism in general, because it was the spirit of revolution per se and the easy involvement of Christians however nominal because only in the French Revolution and in the Communist Party did it show itself as hostile to Christianity.

The second incident of the icon bleeding was five months before the outbreak of WW 2. why silent before WW 1? probably because WW 2 laid the groundwork for the development of the covert Nazi mystic and arab and oil networks of evil disguised as liberty loving and so forth and the secret development as well as overt development of bad technology. And of course, The Holocaust.

Guess what happened five months after the third bleed? 9-11 which laid the groundwork for the present buildup to WW 3. Granted it might break out in the Pacific instead of in the Middle East, but Russia and China are on Iran's side as well as Syria because of all kinds of shared interests especially oil. China gets a lot of its oil from Iran.

Millions are already dead from machinations in the Middle East. And the radical islamists are worse and more numerous than before, and Christians are in the crosshairs more than ever in the Middle East.

Modern jihadis are more interested in killing Christians than in collecting dhimmi tax and leaving them alone. And killing moslems who covert to Christianity.

The fourth horseman looms on the horizon. I wonder if it will bleed again? if it does, whatever happens exactly five months later should be taken note of. With this miraculous icon's track record, it will be some event that may or may not be horrific in itself but will have much greater consequences on a world scale.
 
"Constance's statement was clearly inconclusive, merely stating that she could never endorse Deagle. Does that mean she can't tell whether she would or would not endorse him."

WHAT? YOU HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH?

The statement that one COULD NEVER endorse means WILL NEVER CANNOT EVER however you want to put it. It was a VERY EXPLICIT REJECTION.

Dave, I don't know what's wrong with you. Are you mentally fogged or trying to talk everyone Constance incl. into a trance and into accepting some bullshit we have sized up and rejected?

"The question is not really one of endorsing someone, whatever that means,"

It means, as everyone means when they say it, that they agree and support and will put their good name back of the person or product. "I endorse peanut butter" vs. "I could never endorse adding arsenic to toothpaste"

"but rather to show that what they are saying is true or false"

Specific subjects he covers, like, there are deep underground military bases, there are aliens, there are conspiracies, etc. etc. is true enough.

That's not the point.

Deagle handles them in a way that makes them loony, he is looking to have a following promote himself this way, and the spiritual stuff he talks about is mostly FALSE. That is important,

The "spirituality" is the poison that is slipped with the drink of telling you all kinds of hidden stuff.

AND HE IS NOT THE BEST SOURCE. The information is out there for decades, some of it.

Go to those sources. Leave the loon alone.

Dave, I have given you specific, statements, YES IF SOMEONE CLAIMS TO BE A PROPHET FROM GOD WE IGNORE HIM.

Take a quick look first. Does this guy teach correctly? NO. I already demonstrated that.

Does this guy have public proveable miracles to his credit and fulfilled explicit prophecies? never heard of any.

If he does, but doesn't teach correctly, ignore him. And if he has a laying on of hands succession going back to William Branham, ignore him.

If you want to party with prophets of God, they are a dime a dozen in the Kansas City/Vineyard/IHOP crew. We ignore them here, why not ignore Deagle?

Now you say he doesn't claim to be one of the two witnesses, but the only reason I thought he did was something you said, unless it was in the Project Camelot interview.

When the Trinity is denied, when the unique literal enfleshment (incarnation means that) of God as Jesus is denied and the rest of us put in Jesus category, either Him downgraded to us or us upgraded to Him, then this is a false prophet.

The two witnesses will be obvious when they turn up.

Deagle's claims and transdimensional excuses are New Age to the core.

Did he ever test this angel Gabriel as I John 4:1-4 says to do? there are slippery answers that can be given. RC and other visionaries almost never even try to do this. Jesus IS the Christ (the only one) Jesus IS in the flesh (alive now and forever having come back to life).

The very fact Deagle in his own words says that Jews and Christians and Hindus and whatnot should get away from religion and get to their commonalities puts him in the trashbin.

Commonalities are not to be clung to, but used to draw the heathen out along the commonality line from their error into the truth.
Deagle's views are precisely the one world religion side of the one world government/NWO thing.


 
Dave, that bit about linguistic is disingenuous or to be less polite, DISHONESTLY TRYING TO DUCK THE ISSUE.

you don't need to study linguistics, just take any interlinear English Greek or English Hebrew Bible. Look ANYWHERE online except Deagle, you will see that Yeshua ha Mashiah means Yah(weh) is savior, the Anointed One (of God).

Do you need to study linguistics to know how to learn to say please and thank you in Spanish? just look in a book.

you have a prior bias pro Deagle and won't listen to facts. I guess you like his vibes and the trance state perhaps you get from listening to him jibber jabber till your eyes glaze over and your mind fogs over?

guess what, that is false peace and should be fought tooth and nail.

Really, Dave, how can anyone take anyone seriously with a photo like that on his web page, trying to look spiritual, looking far beyond while that broad adores him the superior man and somehow this resembles pirate with girlfriend art as well in something of the shirt and positioning.

The trend to photograph leaders, preachers, etc., looking into the distance (or else dead into your eyes dominating and controlling you) is a sure giveaway of prelest (spiritual deception state of minor or major degree).
It is at best phony and staged. If you had any discernment you would have nothing to do with someone on that basis alone. But it doesn't help all that Roman Catholic medieval art and later RC and prot but RC influenced art that has holy people looking up with sanctimonious looks, like this sets the stage for what we expect holy people to look like.
 
David Icke has some real good factual information also, but it is interspersed with NAM stuff all over the map. I don't recommend him if you are not used to pulling wheat out of chaff.

If you want some real interesting information, his interview with Credo Mutwa has a lot. tells you a lot about traditional muti witchdoctor culture. And interestingly enough, though Mutwa doesn't seem to notice the implications of what he tells, when he got grabbed by reptilians his goddam traditional teachers treated it as okay though it filled him with shame and horror.
 
Mutwa should have turned back to Jesus for help but he was too devoted emotionally to his traditional people. Watch out for emotional bases for your decisions.

The monsters who grabbed him took him underground, not into a flying saucer, but same kind of critter and same reproductive materials taking procedures, also I think a sexual assault as well,
and his instincts were in revolt and he had no buried memory to retrieve, he remembered it all.

That the response of his teacher was more supportive of the monsters than of him, should have made him reconsider his devotion to the old ways.

Both he and Icke dislike the human sacrifice stuff, and grosser things, but exactly that IS done by many in the muti witchcraft also.

Mutwas gives some interesting insight on a mystery of The Bible. When David was old and failing and his body growing cold, they tried putting a Shulamite or Shunamite woman into bed with him, no sex, but it did no good "he got no heat." Exactly where Shunam might be what a Shunamite was is unknown. The procedure itself was evident to me as a measure to have David do the kind of automatic life energy feed that the ill sometimes spontaneously do. In China it was considered not a good idea for children to sleep in the same bed as the aged, who might draw on them automatically, and reduce the child's energy and health while increasing their own, a kind of spontaneous thing.

Apparently the Shunamite was a woman with unusually strong energy production, like the reverse of a vampire. And the same thing is done in other cultures and in Mutwa's culture at times.

Some people take a woman, do sex and torture after some time of sexless bedding, then kill her with the whole group standing around to feed off the released energy, Mutwa said this is especially sad because so unnecessary, to prolong life by such feeding no pain or killing is needed. And no sex is necessary, indeed, it is essential she remain a virgin, non virgins don't quite work right.

Mutwa may represent a kinder gentler version of muti, but the vicious kind is well entrenched. It may be that to wean him off Christianity he was made by parents or whoever to join, he was only given the nicer version. But where it has been imported to England, missing black children body parts keep turning up.

Mutwa tells tales of reptilian type beings having bred with ancestors of African elites, the tribal rulers descend from them.
Supposedly the same in Europe.

Frankly, I got my doubts about this. Claiming "divine" descent always played a political role in Asia and Africa from antiquity on. Greco Roman culture was unusual in not being like this. Christianity of course eliminated it.

Deagle is right about one thing, people who think they see reptilians disguised as humans turning reptile briefly are NOT seeing a real morph, but their spiritual sight is picking up on the evil spirit attached to the human.
 
26 minutes left and I go silent again for maybe the rest of the month. anyone got anything to ask or complain about?

aside on Missler, Horn, Marzulli, etc. the focus on the nephilim and hybrids (and these people totally mistranslate and misapply Hebrew terms and supposedly the rephaim won't rise in the Resurrection, all that passage is saying is that your enemies are down and won't be able to attack again, they are destroyed, says nothing about the general resurrection and "fair" is not "fit extension", and messing up messianic bloodline is never even hinted at only lust as reason for fallen angels marrying women),

these preachers are creating the mental environment needed to do a search and destroy on known or suspected hybrids.

Missler is NWO credentialed just look at his resume. Horn with his pretentious "raiders" persona promotes aggression by that style.

All you need to keep Christians however compromised theologically from rebelling against roundup and extermination, is to persuade them that these people really aren't human and don't have souls.

Then anyone can be labelled nephilim (never mind if such a thing exists or not, never mind if they are such or not) and safely gotten rid of.

Whether this is in the minds of these men consciously or not is not the issue. There is no way that their line of talk cannot lead to such as next step thoughts in some others. And thoughts become words. And words become actions. Or failure to act.

Rather than angelic DNA, what is more likely is that the women who bore children to these angels were in fact those used in DNA manipulation, and the children were putative children of the fallen angels. Genesis chapter FOUR shows a sudden increase in knowledge and skills in Cain's lineage. Probably also in Seth's. Chapter 6 is an overview, but the giants it refers to were there BEFORE AND AFTER the angels married women, and were perhaps the reason the angelic experiments in genetics occurred, human leaders wanted more such anomalous humans, and even better, so non human animal, reptile, insect, DNA got thrown into the mix.

Enoch is nothing to trust, but it goes into much more detail about the increase of knowledge and blames it on the fallen angels, and most of the knowledge is evil or of little good use.

If higher tech (and all traces of such a society would have been lost in the Flood) existed and weird kinds of modified human were developed, and some were in outer space when The Flood came, then the "aliens" we see were not separately created elsewhere, nor evolved, but descend from Adam.

When the aliens, real or fake, arrive, the PR we are seeing now, that they engineered us, will probably be in use.

The BEST ANSWER TO SUCH PR (public relations) is THAT WE ENGINEERED THEM, not them engineered us.

Evolution has always been presented as an alternative to Christian and Jewish belief, and though it can be tweaked to side with The Bible, its pedigree is occultism, it is a core doctrine of the NAM, and it is open to serious question as my previous debates with Physicist shows.

Don't be deceived by his pomposity. The fact is, you don't solve anything by figuring out what mechanism causes atoms to change, or why they don't all change at the same time, as things are NOW. The most you get is maybe a hint of what might be influenceable to change timing.

But all possible catalysts CANNOT be known.

and ROUTINELY one radiometric system gives radically different results for the SAME tested object than the other radiometric dating system.

Someone once said that someday a bunch of scientists will climb the last mountain in their quest for knowledge and arrive at their goal, to find a bunch of theologians who have been there all along, waiting for the scientists to catch up with them.
 
Christine,

That was a long discussion. Although it is not conclusive in the manner I was expecting, nor completely documented, it provides a strong basis for reasonable doubt. You hit some high points. For me to analyze it and pick apart every statement would not be productive. Getting the general drift of what you are saying is key. I will have to think this over and we can do some honest further disection of Deagle. At least, I may do that, since I have been exposed to the evidence (his words) and am aware of many things he said.

Thanks for potentially saving me 2 hours a day, listening to him, although I may continue to follow him, but from a different point of view.

Regarding, I think you mentioned, his photo on the internet. Well, he has a young 20 ish years old photo of himself on the website. But the real kicker was when someone heard him speaking and said "he sounds like a fat guy". Immediately I recalled the Project Camelot video where he appeared sitting in a chair looking rather obese,such that he gut was falling down between his legs. Now this is not a sign of a prophet or of a false prophet. But it immediately occurs to everyone, why is a guy who is so fat selling health supplements and trying to make us believe they worked for him ! ?
This is one anomaly (or, perhaps, red flag). If you want more, I can keep digging. It is not conclusive, but merely an anomaly.

Well, one clear example of something like the Hegalian Dialectic was presented to us in Khun and Popper's Book: THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. I read this book in college and never forgot about it. They point out that new scientific theories develop as follows. A theory is postulated to explain observations. Further observations are collected which at some point do not fit the scientific model (theory); these are called Anomalies. Now this is where I need to get the book back out and read. But the result is that a new theory is then developed to explain all the data including the new data was was an anomaly to the prior theory.

It is interesting that Khun and Popper's work, which was very interesting to me (being a budding scientist), was taught in the same Global course as another book which was very interesting to me called Justice and Economic Distribution, which now I see is something that can be used as the bases for a global communism or charitable christian giving.

So I will have to rethink some things with a different perspective. (note: I did not stay up this late, but just woke up in the middle of the night and decided to take a look at the blog). At least is is a quiet, non-distracted time to think.

Thanks for your input.


 
"When David was old and failing and his body growing cold, they tried putting a... Shunamite woman into bed with him, no sex, but it did no good "he got no heat." Exactly where Shunam might be what a Shunamite was is unknown. The procedure itself was evident to me as a measure to have David do the kind of automatic life energy feed that the ill sometimes spontaneously do... Apparently the Shunamite was a woman with unusually strong energy production, like the reverse of a vampire."

It might be evident to you, but others would wish to question this extraordinary interpretation.

What elderly man is not given a boost by the sight of a beautiful young woman??

 
Dave,

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was a book by Thomas Kuhn alone, although it would have been impossible without Karl Popper's earlier work. Trouble is, I think they have an error in common, namely the rejection of induction. When induction and probability theory are understood properly they are one and the same thing. Yet Popper rejects induction while accepting probability. That is fundamentally incoherent. And Kuhn follows Popper in rejecting induction. Now, probability is the only way we have of *ranking* theories: you prefer one theory to another if it is more probable, given the experimental data. That is why relativity was preferred over galilean mechanics, for instance. But if you do not allow induction/probability then you have no way of saying that one theory is better than another, which is why Kuhn asserts that scientific theories ('paradigms') come and go with no more reason than fashions in clothing. He was a good historian of science but a poor philosopher of science.

Physicist

 
Christine @ 2:18 p.m.
Vampire alert! (just had to slip that crap in somehow)
 
Christine,
You make so much sense and then you turn around and say really ridiculous things. This is your pattern. You know all the right things to say to sound Christian, but you always add silly superstitions to the picture. You can't seem to let the truth be truth. It's what you refer to above as boring.
I want to ask but I'm afraid you will answer; what in the world is your definition of "energy" as it pertains to humans? You've used the word many times; when referring to your youth and when referring to David and the Shulamite woman.
Its a vague undefined, hippie word that you use, this "energy".
You say that the Muftis have inside info on a mystery of the Bible and then you say very confidently, (apparently you didn't even check), that no one knows who or what a Shulamite was, and you imply that Shulamite and Shunamite is probably the same thing. Wrong, and wrong. Shulam was a town and Shunem was a different town in Issachar. Shulamites are mentioned twice in the 6th chapter of Song of Soloman, and Shunamites are mentioned five times in 1Kings and three times in 2Kings. It was the name of one of Soloman's wives. She was famous for her beauty.
The story about David SAYS it was about warmth. You know, heat. I'd ask the Physicist to explain it to you but you wouldn't believe him because he's so steeped in logic and facts, but woefully uninformed about vampires and aliens.
The Bible never mentions "vampire energy", or this stealing of one's life that you've alluded to before.
You could have left out the whole Mufti business but you couldn't resist sounding like you know something that very few know.
I wish you'd quit mixing the sacred and the profane.
If someone makes you weary just call it what it is,
because the result of mixing sacred and profane is always profane.
But that's what you always do. And that's why I say that you Christine are a disinformation agent and a jammer.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
The anecdotal evidence of the existence of structure, manipulatable for good or ill, in the soul is a bit too strong to be ignored.

And you and your kind of course thereby leave the subject, and those affected by problems involving this, in the hands of the NAM to exploit for their purposes, instead of providing appropriate Christian solutions to the problems. If you insist The Bible rules this out, which it nowhere does, then you leave them to the mercy of the New Agers who find a place for them.

The majority of the vampires end up in the cult scene, as do the majority of those who grow up seeing and hearing spirits they are told don't exist.

One vampire web site remarked that there is "a small and despised Christian contingent in the vampire community." Note the word "despised." These people hang onto their faith in Jesus Christ despite opposition they meet in dealing with their vampiric issues possibly every day. I can only imagine what it would be like for a Christian to find a donor or company of someone who doesn't think him or her crazy, and these people are anything from non Christian to anti Christian. But you need them for "food" and company. Well, it would be like a Christian living in a hostile Moslem environment with maybe one other Christian or two somewhere across town.

definition: life energy as a fluid so to speak and detachable part of the soul (immortal and life supporting interface of body and spirit, nephesh incl. both this and the entire spectrum. we do not have souls, we are souls.)
Bible in Ps. 91 prays for protection against various things incl. precisely the sort of dark things in the night that prey on us like this.

In the Bible discussions I read in books, the Shunamite was a mystery as to origin. Mutwa suggests it was a term related to a quality. Perhaps both are wrong, but the OBSERVED FACT that one person can pull on the aliveness of another, increasing their own and decreasing (if done enough) that of the "donor" or victim, puts this out of the category of superstition.

The lilitu were vampire spirits, and some reference to this under a term derived from it is in Isa 34. this is abylonian "mythology" but like most mythology probably reflects a reality or it wouldn't have been mentioned in Isa. 34. SOMETHING with that word source base is referred to.


my experience in vampirism is not someone making me weary, nor that the easy description of the situation with others, though the more subtle players may be careful to not do more than that.

But I have seen one man psy fed off to momentary collapse and unconsciousness, and myself I was brought to my knees with major blood pressure drop as my pet vampire fed off me from hundreds of miles away, he feeds from the heart center, I think I got him to stop that approach, to try to cure his hernia. From childhood he found he could take from others to heal himself of whatever.

I didn't say why I asked, or on lesser incidents when I asked, but I called up and asked was he feeding on me? Yep. Then I yelled at him about this is too dangerous.
 
Christine,

I had a hernia for several years. When it got too large, and painful i went to a reputable surgeon, and he did a very good job! Never resorted to any "feeding" off anyone.
 
This guy has had two surgeries. screwed up the second because he thought it was unmanly to wear a corset. mesh has slipped. can't afford another surgery. hates doctors anyway. when he was a grown man his mother dropped him off at a VA hospital to see a doctor, who calls up wondering where is he later? seems he went in the front door and out the back, no see doctor, oh no.

Ask me if this guy is an overgrown teenager. yep. Part of the problem is, if you get into anything obsessive incl. drugs, then whatever chronological age you are when you quit, you start growing up from the mental age you were when you started. in his case, late teens. Hydrocephaly also, big plate in head, right where the liquid pressure damage if any affects emotions and so forth, making an on again off again psychopathic quality possible.

I had an instinct BEFORE knowing about this to accompany him to a doctor appointment even go in the exam room with him. Guess I was right. oh well. I don't know how successful he was anyway, perhaps there was some improvement. we are talking about a tiny percentage of a percentage of the population.

Reports from here and there, plus practical experience of my own, incl. some I never understood till years later when I read up on it, equals there is something real about this stuff.

anyway, it is feb 2 and I don't want to continue discussions any more on my policy to avoid doing so more than one day a month.

Mutwa said the smallpox vaccine blocks the sight. In epigenetics, it seems there is an issue of how genes are expressed, and of outside issues affecting this. So this is credible. In the case of the two men I know with "sight," one had the vaccine as a child and can only "see" if he tries to. The other didn't have it until adult in the army.

In my case, apparently I could see as a child, but not after my shot. My father did something that many years later I realized was an effort at invisibility (which means telepathically messing with the potential viewers' heads), I saw him come through the front door, very quietly, very carefully close the screen door on his back so it made no noise while he watched my biological so called mother. (as to why I call her that, google the term in quotes, add cumbey and you should find the posts here that explain this.)

Then he sneaked through the living room to the back of the house, smirking. ENVELOPED IN A VIOLET PURPLE HAZE. Meanwhile my biological so called mother was standing at such an angle she should have seen him, but didn't and didn't respond to his presence. I said he had just come through the house, she said no. But he did.

Nowdays I don't see anything unless it is extreme and only a trace of it. In those days I saw a lot more of something extreme, but I don't remember seeing auras of a normal condition.

Generally if something is extreme enough to see, something is wrong.
 
Thanks Christine.
I rest my case.
 
7:49, either you don't have the capability to energy feed, or are too ethical to do so, and the ethical angle on the vamp community is extensive enough now you don't know of any unethical vamps if you are a vamp. (believe me, this guy was anything but ethical. And I tend to be a slob. I work on his ethics and morals, and he works on my social presentability.) given the predatory potential and human fallenness, it is impossible that a predatory type vampire element does not exist, but you probably won't find them broadcasting as such in the vampire community any more. Like in the one several years ago on an egroup who rebuked vampires for concern about donor well being "these humans are your food" etc. it was weakness to care about mere mundanes mere humans, etc. etc.
No body spoke up for him but I wouldn't be surprised if a few quietly emailed him offlist seeking support for their similar attitudes that were becoming increasingly social unacceptable.
 
Christine is proving once again that she is steeped in the new age genre. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and we hear her loud and clear. Garbage in garbage out.
Just as you called it Paul. Just as we have called it for quite a while and why she has zero credibility. Very poor exegesis besides. (Why not just let the Bible speak for itself and when it is quiet be quiet also?) She tries to mix light and darkness and the result is darkness. Don't know if this is willful or just ignorance. God knows that part so He can judge that but we are to test the spirits according to God's word and her "stuff" too often does not pass the smell test.
 
1 Timothy 2: 11-14

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to learn in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
 
"Christine is proving once again that she is steeped in the new age genre."

I don't have ideas or learn from a genre. I had experiences, LONG BEFORE I EVER READ ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH, LONG BEFORE I EVER HEARD OF THE NEW AGE OR READ ANYTHING RELATED TO THEM OR BY THEM,

and I ran into information that explained some of them.

Some of the experiences includes that calling on God meaning The God of Abraham in The Bible not a metaphysical brahmanic blur but the God I read of in The Bible when very very young, I was reading by age 2, will stop a demonic attack. That was a turning point that sent me back to Jesus Christ after a teen through early 20s hiatus.

I made the mistake of getting political however. That stilted my walk with Jesus. It took a long time to sort out. The right is as evil infested as the left, a classic pincher movement, and as the books Power Quest part one and part two by Doug Woodward on amazon.com will show, this country has had an occultism problem long before the 1960s.
 
Christine's 8:16 p.m. post does smell of deception. Either her own or hopes that we will swallow what she deceiving with? Do I detect a root of bitterness involving her mother? And something weird in the relationship with dad??? Mind games...played for a very long time...........

Do not talk Bible, Christine. Your "house" is way out of order to teach anyone anything.
 
the biggest deception or one of the biggest deceptions, is the message your post implicitly states.

that such things don't exist, ERGO NO NEED FOR SPIRITUAL WARFARE which works regardless of the immediate source of the problem, corporeal or incorporeal.
 
People who believe they are reincarnations generally hold a demon that might (or might not) have been in previous people but which certainly feeds them delusions of that sort. I believe that all this talk of vampirism has a similar explanation. Let us pray for the deluded, and may they be aware that demons can be expelled by Christians filled with the Holy Spirit.
 
Physicist, probability and induction are not identical, just usually paired, but separatable.

"If one idea about inductive inference has taken root in recent philosophy of science, it is that inductive inference and probability theory are intimately connected. Indeed many people seem to believe that probability theory provides the One True Logic of induction. Probability theory didn't start out that way. It was originally developed as a physical theory, the theory of chances associated with gambling. Very soon, it was noticed that probabilities behaved just like we'd want degrees of belief to behave. The connection to inductive inference was made."

the article goes through a long explanation and examples, and ends with

"It will, however, be harder for us to see precisely what that logic is because we are uncertain of the the pertinent facts. Indeed it all seems to be working out just as it should. In real world cases, we do struggle to see just which is the right inductive logic to be applied. That is just what you'd expect from the material theory of induction when we are unsure of the facts that govern the uncertainties. We routinely misdiagnose this problem, however, as our continuing failure to have lighted upon just the right universal logic of induction. The assured failure of our quest for this One True Logic of Induction in turn, it seems to me, go a long way in explaining why induction has perennially been such a murky topic."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/I_without_P/
 
Christine your 2:41 post is correct about the existence of these things. However...
..the trouble is that you study and greatly explore on the pagan side (that ends up new age) to understand the Biblical concept about how the spirit world works and connects to this one. A skewed view at best and a deceptive one at worst.
 
Christine, I understand exactly what probability and induction are because statistical physics is one of the fields in which I have published research papers and it was necessary to go back to the logic before applying it. Tell me what you understand by the probability of A, given B, conventionally written as p(A|B), and tell me in your own words* (anybody can paste from an online dictionary) what you understand by 'induction', and I'll let you know if you are on the right track.

Physicist

 
Regarding Physicist 12:15 PM post.

If theory #6 has no anomalies, it appears to be the best theory we have.

If one theory #5 has 26 observations which do not fit the theory (anomalies), it is ranked as a lesser theory than theory #6.

If theory #6 has 3 anomalies of the 26 anomalies in theory #5, we have to rank theory #6 higher than theory #5 while acknowledging that theory #6 is not a totally valid way to explain all of reality.

The criterion used is "the number of anomalies".

 
Dave,

Trouble is, you can't just classify some datapoints as anomalies and others as non-anomalies; how do you decide? Consider trying to fit a straight line to a set of datapoints on a 2-dimensional plot representing the observed values of one variable (plotted along the y-axis) when you set the value of the other (plotted along the x-axis). Theory predicts a straight line but does not predict its gradient. The points do look like they lie roughly on a straight line but some points are farther away from the best-fit straight line than others, which lie very near it. You can't just say that datapoints are anomalies and don't fit the line whereas others aren't anomalies and do fit the line; it is all about how far they are from the line; deviation is presumed to be due to noise in the data and the statistical distribution for the noise can be measured.

Physicist
 
What are some examples of scientific theories that progressed from an early theory, through anomalies to a subsequent theory and on to another theoretical model when new anomalies are found ?
 
Furthermore, by theory, I mean a scientific postulate that can be proved by making observations which are repeatable and have been repeated.

Thus, the theory of evolution of man from lower life forms, or the claim of creation of man by God in 7 days are not scientific theories. The question is historical. What really happened to give rise to man on earth ? It does not rely on repeatability and can not be proven as a scientific theory. So many things that are postulated are not provable by the scientific method. Those types of "theories" are not what I mean by "theory" above.

I meant "scientific theory" as described above in this post.
 
Dave,

I am talking only about physics, where data is quantitative; remember that Kuhn was a historian of physics, not biology. I simply reject Kuhn's claim, which he never had the guts to put in simple English because it would have alienated too many people, that changes of 'paradigm' in physics do not bring us any nearer to the truth. Changes of paradigm are made because they allow us to predict the result of experiment more accurately, which is a pretty good operational definition of "nearer to the truth". To explain what "more accurately" means, you need probability theory - remember that all data is subject to noise, which has certain statistical properties. Probability theory, done correctly, IS induction done correctly. But Kuhn rejected induction, and that is why he reached his irrationalist conclusion that paradigms came and went as arbitrarily as fashions in clothing. He got his rejection of induction from Popper, although they agreed about little else.

Physicist
 
So we agree on this point:
Changes of paradigm are made because they allow us to predict the result of experiment more accurately.

That's the point. And changes of paradigm are necessitated by the recognition of anomalies.
 
"So we agree on this point:
Changes of paradigm are made because they allow us to predict the result of experiment more accurately."

Yes Dave, agreed. (In physics at least; I am not saying that this is not the case in biology - which I greatly respect - but its methodology is not always quantitative and I simply do not wish to comment on it.)

"And changes of paradigm are necessitated by the recognition of anomalies."

Ah, we might have been using the word differently. I took it to mean individual datapoints that were off the theoretical curve. you are in effect meaning that the experimental curve assembled from the datapoints isn't the same as the theoretical curve, give or take the noise. In that case I agree with you entirely.

Physicist

 
Yea, if we don't know of any anomalies, there is no need to revise the theory. An anomaly is the red flag telling us something is wrong.
 
Christine,

Thanks for your comments above regarding Dr. Deagle's work. But after listening to a few hours of his talk today, I really do not find anything wrong with anything he is saying. Rather it is enlightening to see his viewpoint and leadership regarding issues we are currently facing.
 
Interesting observation on the super bowl by Joseph Herrin at:

www.parablesblog.blogspot.com

Monday February 3 post
 
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump."

Constance
 
http://www.getnymi.com

Device one places on right hand and uses biometric data to buy or sell with bitcoin
 
Funny, that's just what Dr. Bill Deagle said about Bitcoin. A dry run for the mark.
 
"If you want to weigh in on this topic, you can call in at 800-259-5791. And we have great questions from our people. Our people are some of the smartest, most spiritual that listen to programs anywhere. And it's important because if you don't have your heart right, if you don't have your well set and steeled to actually be hearing, shamat, hearing and doing God's will, you can't have real peace in your life, you also can't have health in your life, if you don't have peace. You can't make the right decisions if you're always narcissistically think that you can figure out what is good and evil. In fact that is the very basis for evil itself. That's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And I tell people for prepping, start off with simple things. Food, ..."

Dr. Bill Deagle, Hour 3, Feb. 4, 2014, 41 min (last segment -- see GCNlive.com)
Book discussed: Survival After the Next Shoe Falls by Frank Walter
 
Please replace"
"well"
witn
"will"
in the above post.
 
Spot on Constance. I am proud to say we got rid of the Bagwhan's sidekick (Sheila) and all the 'orange' people that came with her to my town in Australia in the 1980's. After that things went downhill for Ms Sheila and company.

Regarding Barbara Marx Hubbard - the 60 minutes programme in the USA avoided mentioning she was the guest speaker for the LCWR which was part of the reason the Vatican was 'concerned' about the direction they were taking. If only the media would tell the truth.


Thanks for your efforts Constance.

Concerned, from OZ.
 
Christine come back. There are few postings in your absence. You seem to be the life blood of this blog.
 
Going on air in just a few minutes. Please join me in chatroom at

chatroom.themicroeffect.com

and you can listen live at same time or listen live by going to

www.themicroeffect.com

Much to talk about today -- UN report on Vatican, attack on Creationist Ken Hamm by "Mr. Science", etc.

Constance
 
"Christine come back. There are few postings in your absence. You seem to be the life blood of this blog."

okay, if you say so, everybody who doesn't like this can blame anon 9:27 from Feb. 7, AD 2014
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrAV0xE_L4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NnMjnL_ee4

two new videos I made.
 
1 – 200 of 357 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]