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
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 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.
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.
357 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 357 of 357Christine bit the bait,
so now we wait,
and not to worry,
cause she's in a hurry.
With lies to bog,
as a giant clog,
to finish off,
what's left of this blog.
bit the bait, eh? so you made the invite?
shows what a hypocrite you are, if you are so worried about me polluting the blog you wouldn't invite me back but be glad for my silence.
sounds like you just want to have an excuse to trash someone or trash the blog by trashing someone, filling it up with rants, while pretending to defend it.
reminds me of hypocrite families where they abuse the kids or little sibling, destroy any reason the kid has to live, but "defend" against outsiders doing so, because they are the only ones who get to trash and vomit all over the relatives who are their property to abuse at will but an outsider is an affront to their ownership of other people by being related to them.
likewise, you pretend to defend the blog while filling it with irrelevance.
Nope.Not me,Christine.And by the way..whose invite should it be be? Constance put her own limitations on you.You should honor her own mandate for her own blog but instead you take it from elsewhere.How like you...
Probably one of your friends Christine, who issued the invitation which you so "graciously" took as a comeback call. 200 posts and no mass requests calling you back. This once serious blog died off because it became so overloaded with fringy information and quarrels. People just stopped checking in. I have no idea how to lure them back.
New Ager, Marianne Williamson, now 61 years old, is seeking 'prayerful bid' for political office. She's trying to convince voters to send her to gridlocked Washington, D.C., in her quest for California’s 33rd District seat.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/07/marianne-williamsons-prayerful-bid-political-office/
Planned Parenthood does one third of all abortions in the U.S.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/06/planned-parenthood-now-does-one-third-of-all-abortions-in-the-u-s/
The Great Lakes are FROZEN!!!
http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/02/great_lakes_added_11_percent_i.html
My problems with some of; okay, lots of, the things that Christine has said, are right here for anyone to see, not that they'd want to.
Christine has gotten on my nerves more than once.
But these anonymous posters such as @12:59 above who answer a question with; "nope it wasn't me." as if we know which anonymous you are, is just too stupid for words. Then the follow up @ 7:25...OMG.
If Christine is irritating, you're whatever is beyond that. You don't seem to have anything to add except that you hate her. Congratulations.
Oh yes, that plus that this blog USED TO BE really cool, when it was all about YOU, but now it's all
gone to seed because Christine has wrecked it.
Not really.
Get over yourself. It's Constances blog, it always was, and she doesn't feel the paranoid need to ban anyone.
I can tell you this; if you don't have enough courage to sign your name, no one is going to read your comments. That's the way it is. There has to be a personal connection in the message. There has to be a person that it's coming from, as opposed to an empty space.
I'd rather read Christine than you any day.
And your last grand contribution to this blog was when Paul? Waiting.....
I don't see the long line of readers waiting for your next words. At least Christine has a following of sorts.
https://soundcloud.com/phattyguitarbuckle
Some here just don't think it necessary to state a name because don't need or want a following. (unlike others perhaps) So what's your point Paul? Opinions are like navels right? Everybody's got one, and, if they want to weigh in to like or dislike a post then big so what. Christine thought she knew who made a comment and maybe she did and maybe she didn't so again, big so what. She slings the word hypocrite around and do I care? Not one bit. Keeping Christine within the perimeters of what Constance set for her is a task for the blog owner. What is sad for this blog is that it became necessary for Constance to publically limit Christine in the first place. And yes I will once again sign anonymous.
I thought some here might find the last statement in this post excerpt refreshing.
"[besant and Leadbeater] identified ancient heroes and gods, including Heracles and the Buddha, as extraterrestrials from the moon, from Mars, and other heavenly bodies in their 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither. I’d quote from it, but their writing is so confusing that it would take the whole blog post just to explain what they were talking about."
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2014/02/h-p-lovecraft-and-fringe-history.html
the ancient aliens as our progenitors and civilizers has a pedigree going through horror writer H. P. Lovecraft back to Theosophy
(as distinct from dubious to downright evil aliens up to no good sort of reports.)
neo nazis run Ukrainian effort to join EU.
and while you all worry about Europe and America in situ, here's these two obnoxious players have been up to farther afield, with all kinds of potential harm to the average person from blowback.
http://www.constantinereport.com/washington-collaborates-ukrainian-neo-nazis/
http://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests
http://www.ibtimes.com/svoboda-rising-spectre-neo-nazism-ukraine-974110
VERY GOOD LEAD Christine. I searched using "New Age Ukraine" and came up with many places the term New Age is used, some general and some specific. It seems the country has been conditioned to be familiar with the term. Knowing what happened to Christianity in Germany, I found this link particularly interesting. http://www.ascendedmasteranswers.com/blog-rss/798-was-jesus-a-new-age-guru-new-book
World vigil for February 2014
2014-01-28
Mother Mary requests that people dedicate their vigils for February to the double goal of Ukraine and Russia.
Read more...
Was Jesus a New Age Guru? NEW BOOK
2014-01-22
This book focuses on the question of whether Jesus taught instant salvation or a gradual path of mystical initiations. It is the first in a series of books with the series title: Reinventing Jesus. The books in this new series will replace I Am a Thinking Christian, The Secret Coming of Christ and I love Jesus, I Hate Christianity. This book covers some of the topics in the previous books but is newly written material.
Connection with the US, anti-semitism, revolution etc. All of the pieces are there.
"whether Jesus taught instant salvation or a gradual path of mystical initiations" this would be a classic warping of Christianity in the issue of what protestants call sanctification. EO and Byzantine Rite Catholic (under the pope but otherwise Orthodox) put the whole thing under salvation. I am saved, and I am being saved.
The warp is to turn this into a series of initiations.
Which in itself is a red flag, because an initiation is a moment, a series of such would be a series of jumps. While salvation from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light might be a gradual thing, its main single jump is accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and thereby as Savior, and baptism the one initiation. After that, more gradual development of varying speed at times, and some backsliding maybe, but it is not a series of jumps or initiations.
David de Plessen of the charismatic scene seems to have originated the notion, or else brought it forward into recent times, that one can be perfect and sinless in this life, such notions crop up in some ancient heresies (which some Baptists like to put in their pedigrees simply because such didn't like organized church).
While one could backslide totally out of the kingdom of light, aka lose one's salvation, one could also jump back in aka repentance. In lesser degrees not so extreme as full loss, one might sin and repent, but while these might be viewed as jumps, repentance is a return to the original "initiation" of salvation.
But this format tells me this particular PR effort of the New Age is geared to two targets, the Fatima focussed RC (since Fatima made a big deal of consecration of Russia to Mary or to her sacred heart, whatever, the sort of thing EO calls "body parts worship") and to the Orthodox or Orthodox influenced scene, where salvation is recognized as ongoing, saved first from the kingdom of darkness, and then ongoing saved from imperfections and backslidings and also as The Bible speaks of clearly, from various temporal dangers, though an over spiritualization has rendered some psalms a matter of being saved from demons and bad inclinations only, though of course that is a big deal.
"The Secret Coming of Christ" is part of the pre trib rapture group of ideas, totally impossible given plain teaching of Scripture unaided by complicated typology allegory and "spiritualization" of everything that gets in your way, the same way heretics in past handled Scripture.
"Mother Mary requests that people dedicate their vigils for February to the double goal of Ukraine and Russia."
hmmmm. wonder if a direct demonic influence is in all this stuff in the Ukraine instead of just compatibility of long range bad ideas with euroism? I notice they talk about "decrees" which is the same sort of terminology the charismatics use.
Even in St. Paul's day there were deceiving spirits operating among Christians, he had to tell them that no one inspired by The Holy Spirit is going to curse Jesus, duh!
I think someone here once said there is no such thing as a carnal Christian, well, the term is out of Scripture and St. Paul had to address two lengthy letters to such (the Corinthians) and raised the issue in Hebrews.
"Mother Mary requests that people dedicate their vigils for February to the double goal of Ukraine and Russia."
Um, she's not said it to me and I consider myself a committed Christian. Who says that she says that; on what grounds; and what is their track record?
If you go to that New Age cult's website taking a neutral position, you'd learn how they are attempting to manipulate religious views to bring about government change. The topic of cults is too big to go into here.
http://www.transcendencetoolbox.com/en/world-change/world-vigil
I think 5:01 was being sarcastic, to which I would answer "who said it?" nobody worth listening to. "What is their track record?" bad to worse.
yes they are manipulating religious views, but also trying to instill them in the first place. Once you are into new agey stuff you might gravitate to anything with that subject and get to one of these type sites, even this one.
now, they are also trying to manipulate political views to bring about religious change.
Christine,
Not sarcastic but satirical, although my questions were serious.
Anon AT 5.01 am
After further investigation, an above post requires further comment and clarification. Although I have not shared the substance of each talk by Dr Deagle over the past week, after listening to them, my impression is that he brings many brilliant points to us which seem to draw us to (1) a better understanding of reality and all that is going on in the world today and (2) to a closer understanding of The Way. Now, if one listens closely, they may find an occasional error, but that is no surprise, or excuse to not listen to the core message.
Regarding the following post from above:
"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." 5:27 AM
My overall response to this post is that small minds do not think very deeply at all -- they just react to something that seems strange to them. And this is quite disturbing.
So in the above post, here are some obvious illogical, week or unsubstantiated statements:
1. "But he clearly doesn't regard the Bible as definitive (as I do), because Hebrews 9:27 rules out reincarnation.:"
What ? How do you conclude that he does not regard the bible as definitive. Where did Dr. Deagle mention reincarnation and what did he say about it, if he did ?
2. "all I ask is that he make clear his own beliefs before lecturing others on the state of the world today." Did you really ask him to do that ? What is the use of someone writing down a set of extra-biblical beliefs which they wrote down and which give others with their own list cause to disagree with and discount ? Is this not the manner in which the denominations separate each other, by each arguing "we are right" ?
3. The following provides no solid basis for disregarding a prophet message to you "Jesus Christ died and came back to life and I prefer to trust his word for what goes on in the spiritual realms."
Perhaps we can investigate what he has to say, see what good it does for us when we apply it to our collective situation, and take a look to see if we detect something wrong in his direction or if there are strange errors or anomalies in some of what he is saying. And combine that with prayer.
1, dave, its either in your own excerpts from his stuff you have posted or in the interviews I posted links to and commented on. reincarnation is invalidated in an additional way. Since the soul, body and spirit are a coherent whole you can't have some other person's spirit in except as possession or inhabitation (along for the ride).
2. Whether Deagle takes The Bible as touchstone of truth against which to judge everything else or not, may not be too relevant to his ability to analyze current events. People who DO so take The Bible are often total failures at this.
However, he has one good point going for him, harping on preparedness. There are a lot of places you can go to study this without spending time with Deagle, indeed, most of it in print and only some in videos. Lots of stuff in less time.
3. yes that is a good basis for disregarding a "prophet message" you start there and then see, does this "prophet" fit this picture or not? I'd say not.
precisely his "prophet message" is what you can do without. stick to solid historical to current analyses and prepping.
two reason you don't need to listen to a "prophet message" 1. spiritual cooties if he is more than a fraud but also demon influenced, and such can seem very nice like New Age gurus all sweetness and light actually there is something sickening about them but most don't spot it I guess.
2. since you take him as a prophet you won't likely do your own research, and will disregard anything that conflicts with his take on something.
if he is wrong and you rely on that, you can be in trouble.
This degree of devoted gullibility is unlikely to be directed to a strictly secular source.
Dave,
I am the author of the post at 5.27am some way above which you quote from and criticise at 9.11pm immediately above.
In that post I wrote "But he [Deagle] clearly doesn't regard the Bible as definitive (as I do), because Hebrews 9:27 rules out reincarnation."
You respond: "What ? How do you conclude that he does not regard the bible as definitive. Where did Dr. Deagle mention reincarnation and what did he say about it, if he did ?"
Kindly read your own transcription of Deagle's talk at 8.41am some way above, part of which runs as follows: "people have known intuitively 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."
So Deagle believes that people may die and come back. That is the definition of reincarnation, is it not? And reincarnation is contrary to Hebrews 9:27, part of which states in my Bible that "people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment".
Will you retract?
You also criticise me in personal terms for saying ""all I ask is that he [Deagle] make clear his own beliefs before lecturing others on the state of the world today.""
Deagle is free to disagree with me about anything in the Bible or out of it, but if you think I am asking too much of him here, it perhaps reflects on you rather than me.
anon 6:08 that statement of Deagle's leaves wiggle room left by itself, because the exact same wording can be used for reincarnation, or for a near death experience.
However either in the same transcription elsewhere in it, or in the interview I linked to, he states that he was alive some 500 years ago, died and "was sent back" so EITHER he is saying he had an NDE 500 years ago, and has been alive on earth since then, which means his birth certificate and early days photos and childhood references put the lie to that one,
or he is talking reincarnation,
or he is claiming to be a "walk in' which is like a willing possession of someone and he claims he is the spirit doing the possessing. The last two options include one which is unbiblical and one which is evil.
take your pick.
Noted Christine, and thank you, but they are called NEAR death experiences not post-death experiences. There is no wiggle room.
Anon@6:08 AM
I agree there is no wiggle room in reality, but someone might interpret it or sloppily say they died and came back, and clinically they ARE dead, but not long enough for the body to start neurological decay or full disconnect between body and soul to occur.
My point was that before any deagle fans could backpedal for him, I would cover all possible excuses and still he looks bad.
and if he were just being sloppy about NDE, if he's such a prophet why is he so sloppy? and this supposedly happened 500 years ago? I am sure there is evidence of his being born and alive to now in normal timeframe. This means he is lying or deluded.
Yes Christine, we stand together on this.
Anon@6:08 AM
Anonymous at 6:08 AM.
I am finding very little substantive thoughts in the responses above regarding Dr. Deagle. In a cursive reading I have only found faulty thinking ! Come on. It is not necessary for me to point out all the illogic posted above point by point.
The request was for substance and logic. What did Dr. Deagle really say that was wrong. If you listen to his talks, you might find him misspeak about something here and there. The question is, is it anything of substance he said that is incorrect ? How does what he said indicate that he is on the right or wrong path ?
What is wrong with folks brains here ! ?
Dr Deagle did not say something happened 500 years ago that he was involved with. Don't you understand that a day is as 1000 years with God -- he stands outside of the limits of time. I know personally of people who have died and come back who can recount an afterlife experience. People were raised from the dead in the scriptures, also. How many came out of the graves ? Lazarus was dead for a few days and raised to life.
If you have not listened to his description of his death (medical) which he describes was brief on the earth but extensive in the afterlife, then why do you go on and on in ignorance about something you don't understand and have not made a serious effort to investigate ? This is abusurd, and useless. What is your life worth?
Dr. Deagle never claimed to have been reincarnated. Again, you who anon refer to reincarnation in conjunction with Dr Bill have not stated what he has said about reincarnation. Have you even heard it ? If so, where, what day and time did he say it? With some real data of substance we might make some progress. Otherwise it's seems a waste of time.
substance and logic? you are way off track. The substantive statements are that he claims to be a prophet, that he claims to have died before and come back and this was 500 years ago, which you will find in the interview archive I linked to.
The logic is, this is in conflict with The Bible therefore he is not a prophet.
More substantive statements: nothing he has to offer cannot be found elsewhere, as far as facts and speculation from them and some things that may not be entirely factual.
Therefore he is unnecessary and irrelevant.
Since he falsely claims to be a prophet, and since you are looking for a non existent thing - one or more of The Two Prophets before the time of the antichrist - you are predisposed to error.
Read Revelation for yourself, forget everything you got from the prophecy experts and ignore your fleshly desires for specialness and excitement, and watch out for a false sense of peace.
Current events analysis, recognition of the existence of an overarching evil pattern and plan of the military industrial complex itself part of the picture but not all of the picture, and concerns about cataclysm on the horizon and/or WW 3 were all things that I knew of, and even posted here in the past about, WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM DEAGLE. Get it? Got it? Good.
I am not a prophet.
And you don't need Deagle for whatever good information he can give you. There are lots of people out there who give similar information, and "in a multitude of counsellors there is safety" or wisdom whichever, in Proverbs.
Anyone who blathers on for two or three hours a day has to have something wrong with him, unless the bulk of the time is spent dealing with people phoning in.
Does he lead you into a state of mind you find compelling or something while listening?
ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, he has said in that interview, which I quoted exactly, that all these differing religions incl. Christianity and Judaism can and should be gotten beyond and the commonalities found and worked from.
This is exactly New Age talk, this is what RC calls "religious indifferentism" accurately enough, THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF THE POISON SLIPPED YOU ALONG WITH SOME TRUTH AS BAIT. Maybe a lot of truth in terms of what is going on nowdays as bait.
Another poison is the constant focus on the not easily perceived, the "spiritual" the transdimensional, whatever.
This is not a good mindset for us finite beings. We are not designed for this, and all kinds of non human things dwell in that realm, most of whom have nothing good in mind for us, however nice they may act at times.
This is all proof he is not a prophet of God. Where do you find more than hints about this scattered through the entire Bible? This is not something we are to focus on, The Bible gives us what we need to know to live right and get saved from the Last Judgement wrath and have eternal life in The Kingdom of Heaven.
We do not evolve into angels. Humans and angels are totally different species. I am not sure if he is specifically pushing this idea, but it is nothing inconsistent with the little I do know of him.
Dave, you dismiss as non substantive and illogical anything substantive and logical that goes against your idol. This is merely throwing around substantive sounding phrases, but in face is non substantive but deceptive, either you know what you are doing and are deceptive, or you are deceived yourself and therefore pass the deception and the deceptive ways of defending it on.
BEWARE.
Christine !
You posted a lie again. Who is your father (of lies) ?
You see, when you lie, you are acting outside of the kingdom of God and have a different father.
"2. since you take him as a prophet you won't likely do your own research, and will disregard anything that conflicts with his take on something."
Your premise ('you take him as a prophet') is wrong. I am asking that we do some work to determine what the nature of Dr Deagle's work is...
Dave you are the liar. you have repeatedly used the word prophet, prophet message on this page alone, etc. clearly you take him as a prophet.
It doesn't take much work for me to know what the nature of his work is. The legitimate part is, preparedness for cataclysms and for social upheaval and war famine and plagues.
Anyone can do that.
The not so legitimate part is to tune us in "spiritual" directions that are flabby at best.
you sound in this last post like the sort of weaseling my biological so called mother the liar and monster and deceiver used to do.
I recognize trouble.
Your use of the word prophet is not claiming anyone is a prophet. Neither is mine.
In your post of 9:57 AM states
"ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, he has said in that interview, which I quoted exactly, that all these differing religions incl. Christianity and Judaism can and should be gotten beyond and the commonalities found and worked from. "
Now this statement is made with no verifiable reference. I did not hear Dr. Deagle say this in his 9-23-13 talk. Nor did I ever hear him make that statement. So did you just make it up ? Posting false statements is not a good way to support a point.
So rather than discourse foolishness, I choose a more productive day.
Unfortunately, it has been observed "David always tells the truth".
Dave,
What do *you* take Deagle's words (as transcribed by you), to mean, please? I refer to the passage "people have known intuitively 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."
If you explain what you think this means then I hope we may have a constructive discussion. Please cut out the insults.
Anon@6:08 AM
There are heavens. The Most High God is in a different "place" or situation than we are in. Our pariochial reality I take to mean the generally accepted reality each of us acknowledges, often by acceptance of assumptions made and expressed to us in our upbringing and the view of the majority, normally. One can die and have a "near death experience" where they return to life. Their spirit and perhaps soul has an experience beyond the 4 dimensions here on earth (3 space & 1 time dimension). Thus Dr Deagle is stating that his experience amounted to the equivalent of 500 years in our time. There is an account of Paul being taken up which appears to be of the same nature -- traveling beyond our 4 dimensions to the heavenly realms.
Well, sorry for any insults, but when people are not being honest in their efforts, we are just waisting time. My opinion was honest. Thanks for your clear, concise post.
No one has commented on the Sea of Galilee prophecy here, which was mentioned far above. Has anyone found a prophecy related to the Sea of Galilee in any biblical passage ?
Dave,
Deagle says that he "died"; Paul, in his experience of being caught up in the 7th heaven, didn't say that. If Deagle means that he had a near-death experience then he *didn't* die - he merely came near to death, which is not the same thing. I can come near to my neighbor's house door but it is not the same as going inside. You have an interpretation of Deagle's words which suppose that he is using the word "death" sloppily whereas I take him to mean what the dictionary means, in which case he accepts reincarnation and consequently denies part of the Bible (Hebrews 9:27). I don't think this can be settled between us without further information, but if Deagle is alive then you can ask him if you wish!
Anon@6:08 AM
Anyone tried googling Bill Deagle? The results are alarming...
You can call it "near-death" and he can say "death". It's all part of the same process.
Let's not try to slice doctrinal truth too thin, when we do not really understand much about death.
Lazarus came back from the dead ! Many people rose from the graves. Deagle is not claiming to have been reincarnated from one life form to another. I am not aware that bible mentions reincarnation, so it does not state that reincarnation does not occur.
Sometimes our focus is just to look through our narrow view and discount people who state the same things just using different words. The truth is not in the words, alone, but in the concepts. Let's not squeeze out other's ideas and make Premature Judgements -- jumping to conclusions.
It's like talking to someone from a different culture. They see things differently, but it is always a rich experience to talk to people from other cultures and see how they think and the cultural views they project.
We can be right in our own eyes. Let's try to realize when others are right by looking through their eyes, even if we have to broaden our view or perspective. You see, reality is very large, but our understanding is very small.
sea of gallilee prophecy is an islamic prophecy which therefore can be safely ignored.
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_islam2.php
St. Paul's experience unsure if he was in the body or out of the body and a similar statement in the beginning of Revelation validate bilocation not reincarnation and have nothing to do with NDE or death.
"In your post of 9:57 AM states
"ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, he has said in that interview, which I quoted exactly, that all these differing religions incl. Christianity and Judaism can and should be gotten beyond and the commonalities found and worked from. "
Now this statement is made with no verifiable reference. I did not hear Dr. Deagle say this in his 9-23-13 talk. Nor did I ever hear him make that statement. So did you just make it up ? Posting false statements is not a good way to support a point. "
that is contemptible game playing and lying on your part, I documented it in an earlier blog post
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
"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...."
Deagle is saying we're consubstantial with God, definitely New Age, some of whom expect cataclysms and so forth.
...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...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?
in part two, he denounces the luciferic lie that we are gods ourselves and don't have to go higher than ourselves, but he constantly claims we are incarnations of God which while it may put us in the position of being lesser gods supposed to obey the top GOD YHWH, it still makes us a lot more divine than we are, and is essentially the New Age line of talk.
Michael Aquino of the temple of set on the Geraldo Rivera Show decades ago, said that the New Agers are satanists but DO NOT KNOW IT, because they say we are gods, but don't understand the implication of that statement.
Reason to pull back from anything resembling it.
Deagle claims an experience NDE from an artery cut in a tonsillectomy, but perhaps he could provide documents about the event? In any case, NOTHING IN THIS EXPERIENCE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MADE UP USING INFORMATION OUT THERE ABOUT SUCH THINGS
"Part of it is, our civilization has been conceived almost like in a spiritual womb -- Earth -- and the timeline that we are selecting corporately will decide whether or not we’re stillborn or aborted or whether our civilization will move on to join the Ben Elohim, the Council of the Eschaton, the advanced civilizations that are literally the incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, in whatever form, whether they’re human, nonhuman, or other civilizations..."
from part three of that interview http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/bill_deagle_interview_transcript_3_en.html Deagle states that this occurred but The Bible does not say anything remotely resembling this, except that it vaguely resembles the rebellion of Dathan and Korah, who were judged by God Who made the earth swallow them up for their presumption:
"As you know, the sister of Moses went before the council of the people back in the ancient times and said, you know: Are we an ear, and not only prophets?
And the voice of god spoke through the pillar of fire and said: There is not a man on Earth, hand to hand, eye to eye, mouth to mouth, who does not speak as another man speaks to his brother.
That’s the kind of relationship I have with God. I literally can talk and hear him instantly, [snaps fingers] like that."
so yes, he is claiming to be a prophet.
Interesting ideas. I will comment on them later.
If the demons believe in God and we do also, are we demonic ? Do we say that belief in God is demonic ?
You see, the demons have knowledge of the truth. So do others.
Dave, you need to stop twisting Scripture or else actually read it in context quote it with context and apply it correctly.
the Bible says, James 2:19,20
"you believe there is one God you do well. Even the demons believe and tremble. But do you want to know, o foolish man, that faith without works is dead?"
The demons believe and are afraid of God because they oppose Him and He is stronger. Their faith is not coupled with obedience to God.
Saving faith is that which leads to works expressing that faith.
The knowledge the demons provide is tainted. They may know most of everything but they share it deceptively and at too high a price.
No finite being incl. angels fallen or otherwise can know all the truth.
Now, "the truth" incl. things like, here's this physical realm, there's the bus I can get somewhere on it.
Which has no bearing on my eternal wellbeing.
"the truth" also includes the whole range of invisible stuff and things about the physical we only see part of and some we see nothing of, because visible only in other light spectra than we can see.
you could perhaps go out of your body, keeping close to this realm, and go visit some place instead of riding the bus.
you might be able to see the universe in its full visibility, something described in two TV series and horked from a book as
"indescribable beauty and indescribable horror."
And it would have no bearing on your eternal well being.
Ecclesiastes details one man's search for knowledge and his discovery that all was vanity, and he concludes
"Hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandment, for this is the whole man. For God will bring every work into judgement, including everything that has been overlooked, Whether it be good or evil." Eccl 12:13,14 LXX (KJV pretty much the same).
Fear God - which even the demons do - and keep God's commandments - which the demons don't do.
Dave,
You wrote: "You can call it "near-death" and he can say "death". It's all part of the same process. Let's not try to slice doctrinal truth too thin, when we do not really understand much about death." I mean you no disrespect but I will not remain silent when you distort the meaning of words. We know lots about this side of death from watching others die and from near-death experiences, but all are firmly on this side of death. What we know about the other side, I take as a Christian from Jesus. If you are not a Christian then you will not be impressed by his words; that is up to you. But Bill Deagle either believes in reincarnation or he doesn't; and either he believes he has himself been reincarnated or he doesn't. He said, according to your transcription, "people have known intuitively 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." You, Dave, cannot tell with certainty from these words whether he is speaking sloppily of a near-death experience or means that he believes he has been reincarnated. In asserting the former you are making a speculative comment, deny it or not.
You also wrote at 11.20am, "I am not aware that bible mentions reincarnation, so it does not state that reincarnation does not occur."
I have quoted several times Hebrews 9:27, which includes the statement that "people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". Feel free to disagree with it, but this quote shows unequivocally that the Bible rules out reincarnation. Are you aware of it now...?
Christine,
OK, since you don't Get It when I send out a hint to THINK, I will be direct.
Because Deagle holds as true an idea that the New Age Movement, the JW's, the Baptists, the Buddhists or any other religion states, does not make him a member of any of those groups. So when we say we believe in God and the demons do the same, it does not make us demons.
I don't even need scriptures to make such an obvious logical point, but I hoped it would be clearer to you than brute logic. So to start labeling people as an "x", "y", "new ager" or "
Some of this discussion is really so STUPID it is almost silly to have to point out the stupidity. Other points are worth investigating. In my next post, Let me see if I can focus on some of the worthy points you made above.
The following question remains unanswered. And, yes, it is a riddle to make you think.
Has anyone found a prophecy related to the Sea of Galilee in any biblical passage ?
(I was not asking about an Islamic Prophecy but about a passage in the bible).
Hint: There is a passage in the Bible related to the Sea of Galilee which may have prophetic significance.
1. Yes, we agree that the bible does not say Paul died when he made the trip to the heavens. So what ?
2. Many others died and came back to the life in the bible. Their incarnation was given life on earth again. I do not call this reincarnation. Hindu style reincarnation involves incarnation as a different kind of being on earth (fly, rat, eagle etc.). I do not see this type of reincarnation mentioned in the bible. Nor do I see a passage that states that it does not occur; there are many crazy processes that the bible does not mention, such as hyperconjugation or solvent separated ion pair formation which have both been demonstrated. There are others we could postulate which may, like reincarnation, not occur at all. The fact that one scripture says that man dies once and after this is the judgement does not necessarily mean that reincarnation does not occur; the man could die once and come back as a rat (real rat, not a politician) and die, providing that "the judgement" occurs some time after the man dies. Now, to me, this is simple logic. So to draw some wild conclusions from a passage which does not state explicitly your conclusion, is silly.
(the name posted on this post is the "Type the text" for authentication of non-robotism ! There is a message in these things. Sounds like something that would be in Obama's reverse speach "forceIBlessu"
Still looking for something valuable from Christine's post at 9:55 AM. The points come a bit later. But what I find first is puzzling.
3. Christine said in a 9:55 AM Post:
"ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, he has said in that interview, which I quoted exactly,"
She does not specify in this message what interview she is talking about. (in a later post she says it was on the project camelot interview and gave a reference).
But, looking at the text of the transcript of the Project Camelot Interview (Prognosis for Planet Earth) Part I,
Christine said at 9:55 AM:
"ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT, he has said in that interview, which I quoted exactly, that all these differing religions incl. Christianity and Judaism can and should be gotten beyond and the commonalities found and worked from. "
This appears to be her interpretation of what Dr. Deagle said.
Here is a portion of the transcript mentioning Christianity and other religions; I do not see that this is what Dr. Deagle was saying at all.
The transcript states (see: http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/bill_deagle_interview_transcript_1_en.html
Part I, referring to ReLiGiOn, he says:
"And I call it “real lies going on”. And it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Atheism.
All the “isms” in the world fall into two categories: Either you hear the Voice of the spirit that created you and created all that exists, the continuum -- because without a single voice there is no universe -- one “I” voice, I call it. There is no one “I” voice.
So, therefore, it’s either your will – the will of, in other words, deciding for yourself what is good or evil -- or hearing the Voice. In other words, you don’t need to tell people what’s right or wrong. If they’re in contact with their higher self and with the Creator that created them, they know what’s right or wrong."
I see that this part of the talk describes quite brilliantly and accurately our present state on earth.
This brings to mind the statement in Genesis 1
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Funny, now I just read his prior paragraph in the transcript and it mentions that passage:
"BD: Because there’s lot of suppression of the technology that we already have, because spiritually we are very... what I call a Zero Order culture.
BR: Yep.
BD: We’re still in the playpen or the crib of civilization and we’ve been actually quarantined for 3 shars, which is Zecharia Sitchen’s “passages through the galactic plane of fire,” it’s called.
The two perspectives tie in with either being in touch with that Higher Self, which is the “I AM,” the one that says Let there be light, the spirit that’s in us.
And all great spiritual leaders that spoke truth that they knew in their heart -- whether it was Buddha or Zoroaster or whatever -- all of these great leaders have spoken something. And many times it’s been converted, or perverted, or twisted.
Or they themselves didn’t have the whole truth, they just had portions of it, so then it became a “religion.” Now, religion is a substitute for relationship."
Christine had an interesting question at 9:55 AM, namely,
"Does he lead you into a state of mind you find compelling or something while listening? "
He frequently brings the message that (1) we are in a situation which is rather disturbing (2) because we have not taken action against evil. A "christian" has to be doing something about these evils, not sit around with their head in the bible when their brother is taken off to war, babies are aborted, drone strikes kill our kins men (anyone on earth) without cause etc etc. The latte church full of do nothings thinks they are rapping on the gates of heaven, but their fingers are on fire.
This brings to mind many concerning scriptures. We have to be doers and have to give our lives.
I am not sure if I am GIVING or WASTING my life here while on this blog... but there is hope we can understand teh truth and take Some action.
4. In your post of 9:55 AM, I do not agree that we should avoid considering demonic entities which the scriptures state we are warring against. Well, if we are Doing Anything to war against them. I would say that this is a time that the evil forces are being defeated and his mention of them, is perhaps part of his necessary message as a prophet. It is a topic which is not well-treated in churches.
I am seriously not convinced that the following is being executed:
quote from 9:55 AM post: "The Bible gives us what we need to know to live right and get saved from the Last Judgement wrath and have eternal life in The Kingdom of Heaven.'
Actually, it says that many will not even realize what was required. Easy believe-ism does not work. "Matthew 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"
That's one of those concerning passages when you sit in the pew and it is read. :
5. There are repeated false statements about me...
Oh, well. No need to lie, Christine. Or why would you resort to lying ?
9:55 AM: "Dave, you dismiss as non substantive and illogical anything substantive and logical that goes against your idol."
10:07 AM "Dave you are the liar. you have repeatedly used the word prophet, prophet message on this page alone, etc. clearly you take him as a prophet."
Read my posts. I am looking for the truth in the matter.
But I'm getting lies !
OK, finally I get to some statements by Dr. Deagle that most of us would question.
6. From Christine's 11:57 AM post,
Dr. Deagle said:
"Yeshua Ha Masaich, which means The Father in the Flesh."
He has said this so many times I can not count them. I do not know where he gets it from. It is not clear whether this is a possible translation of this name or what.
7. From the same post:
A. Deagle said "They were not called Jews". I believe this is correct. They were Hebrews. Jews refers only to the tribe of Judah or to one of 20 other definitions today, and thus is a virtually meaningless and useless term.
B. I see that 'people of the book" does refer to (certain) Hebrews. The fact that it was a term used in Islam for those following a monotheistic religion, does in no way invalidate Dr. Deagle's statement. They were called "people of the book" as far as I can determine at this time.
Dr Deagle is saying that the Hebrews way back in OT times were called:
The People of the book, not Jews or Israelites.
This appears to be corret on the first two counts (not sure about "Israelites").
8. A Key point here is:
"Jews" is a meaningless term.
Jesus was not Jewish, but he was of the tribe of Judah. He did not have religion. He had God, and a relationship with God.
Paul made it clear that those who were spiritual Hebrews is the key; not genetics (or claims of being a religious jew).
9. Not sure about this statement:
"and that we’re an incarnation of the Creator." but those who have the Spirit of God, could it not be said that they are God incarnate. I do not dispute this statement. What do we really know about incarnation ? SO how can we really dispute this claim ?
10. Really. The bible never says that we are made out of nothing. Man was made out of the clay. Many would contend that the creation was not made out of nothing. I suspect it was not made out of nothing. But clearly, I would not claim that the creation was made out of nothing - it does not say this in the bible and I don't recall seeing it happen.
11. well to round out the discussion of the 11:57 AM post. I am not a new age expert. Let's see whether he begins to follow New Age Doctrine teaching (I don't even know what it teaches, except folks have mentioned it does not validate Jesus / Christ. Well, Dr. Deagle certainly refers to Jesus as a central part of his beliefs.
PS: the "gods" I think is a misprint in the transcript, or means "God's". Sweet dreams.
dave, I am just waking up and not up to dealing with everything, from the way you redirect and shift ground I am not sure it is worth it.
Sea of Galilee
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?version=NKJV&search=sea+of+galilee&searchtype=all&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73
here are all the references and none of them involve a prophecy, unless you are talking about Jesus telling the fishermen He would make them fishers of men instead of fishers of fish, which was fulfilled when He made them Apostles and evangelists.
Sea of Galilee Prophecy is not then in The Bible but part of Islamic hadith (extra koranic stories from mohammed compiled after his death).
Re New Age teachings if you are not acquainted with them then go get acquainted. Read Constance's book in pdf free. or find some online Christian articles about cults new age etc. using google.
Most of these oppose some evils, that is not the point.
The term people of the book is not biblical, sure Jews weren't called Jews in OT but WERE CALLED ISRAELITES.
The material you cite from the Deagle interview is not the same material I posted from the same interview, either you are not on the same segment or you are somehow blinded or are playing games. take a phrase from the part I posted, put it into "find" search the page tool, and you will find the phrase where it occurs on that page. It will include the exact quote I cited.
If Deagle is so incoherent he can be MEANING orthodox Christianity while SAYING unorthodox stuff, then he doesn't need to be speaking publically anyway. I am surprised he is not constantly embroiled in lawsuits because of misunderstandings in contracts.
hindu reincarnation is not just about coming back as another kind of creature but as another human being.
the dying and coming back to life in The Bible is coming back as your same self in your same body. That is resurrection not reincarnation.
And it is not relevant.
If Deagle - thanks to his incoherence - has been misinterpreted on this matter, that doesn't solve the problem, because of the other things he says.
As for this being the time when evil is being destroyed or something like that, this war ranges back and forth over the centuries and from one place to another. The final battle is not in our hands, but God's hands when Jesus returns to strike down the antichrist.
Dave wrote, “…but those who have the Spirit of God, could it not be said that they are God incarnate.”
An emphatic NO!
To incarnate is to have bodily form, to be embodied in human flesh. Humans are already an incarnation. When a human accepts Jesus Christ as Savior and receives the indwelling Holy Spirit, s/he is Holy Spirit indwelt, i.e., s/he has the Spirit of God within. Upon receiving the Holy Spirit indwelling we do not “incarnate God” because we are already an incarnation.
When the eternal Word “became flesh”, the eternal Word added a human nature/body to Himself. He began a new mode of existence, an existence conjoined to a human body (though not wholly contained BY His human body, as He remained and remains a spirit being, just as the rest of the Godhead), hence an incarnation, and, of course, not a reincarnation.
This is why we call Jesus’ life on earth the Incarnation. Note the definite article “the”; there are no other “incarnations”. This is the distinction between being GOD IN THE FLESH, i.e., Jesus Christ, as compared to Christians. We are NEVER to be thought of as “God incarnate”. God incarnate died on the Cross to atone for the sins of the world. There was only one. And He was not “the Father in the flesh”; He was the Word made flesh”, or “the Word become flesh”. The Father was not once identified as “the Word”, and the Son is always distinguished FROM the Father in Scripture.
craig i love that post, so concise and hits all points.
The Holy Trinity (all present at Jesus' baptism) God The Father, God the Logos/Word The Son, Incarnated and has the Name Jesus (YHWH Saves) Christ (Messiah), God The Holy Spirit.
The word "Trinity" used to describe all this briefly.
1. Jesus clearly said "I and my Father are one" "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". These statements are consistent with saying that he was the Father and he was the Father in the flesh. Just because you can't conceive of it or do not look at it this way, does not make it invalid.
2. Whether and how Y.H. could be translated as Deagle has translated it is the question which remains. His statement regarding this translation seems to be quite different than we understand and translate it. Maybe I should ask him on the show and see what he says. In that case, please brief me on the references you use to translate Y.H.
3. I do not really care about "we" calling Jesus "the incarnation" -- this is totally an extrabiblical creation and using it as a valid source of truth is absurd.
I see that your understanding of man and the incarnation of in Jesus has man totally distinct from the incarnation of God. But in Deagle's view, he sees man as a (potential, I would say) incarnation of God. If Christ is in us and living through us, then what's the difference ? Not much.
So it appears to me that he just has a different way of looking at the same facts and understanding them. His view may be entirely true and may be a clearer understanding than is taught in the churches.
Your approach is a bit different than mine. The last place I would look for truth is Orthodox Christianity (whatever that is). Simply read the scriptures, concentrate on them and pray.
Craig, the substance of your post is largely (very much so) just extrabiblical ideas. You state these as if they were true. You see, people like to sit back and write elaborate doctrinal statements which are "right" in their own eyes, and in doing so they divide those who agree and those who do not agree, finally thinking they have attained a full holy knowledge that amounts to anything other than a set of doctrines to argue over. These are not scriptural -- are extrabiblical. But as a wise man once stated, and applies here:
"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. "
Ok so Deagle claims, in your terms, to be resurrected.
Christine said: "the dying and coming back to life in The Bible is coming back as your same self in your same body. That is resurrection not reincarnation."
Or an 8 year old on the hospital table "resussitated" in the terms and from the viewpoint of the doctor. Many times we describe the same thing in different terms than someone else who has a different viewpoint. It is still all the same thing, just called something different. Some of the description depends on the level of understanding of the observer.
"1. Jesus clearly said "I and my Father are one" "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". These statements are consistent with saying that he was the Father and he was the Father in the flesh. Just because you can't conceive of it or do not look at it this way, does not make it invalid. "
There is no difficulty whatever in conceiving of such unmitigated bullshit, it is EASY TO THINK OF and DEAD WRONG, it is easy because it is the quick and fleshly simplistic interpretation of a phrase run through at least two languages to get to.
The meaning of "one" is variable. you can say that you and your wife are one in one sense but not in another. you can say people in total agreement are one, but they are not identical.
orthodox Christianity came from people who knew and learned from the Apostles and those who learned from them, and who read The Scriptures all the time.
SCRIPTURE: Baptism of Jesus, there is Jesus, and The Father says from heaven "This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," and The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove on Jesus.
These are clearly distinct Persons, individuals, but they indwell each other (aka perichoresis). They are infinite so each occupy the same space at the same time and beyond space and time.
The Father is without origin. The Son and The Holy Spirit are co eternal with The Father, but originate in a sense that does not involve their having a time before which they were non existent, in The Father Who is Their ground of being.
I am afraid you are an example of what happens when people take bits and pieces of Scripture and do fast search and DON'T read and CONTEMPLATE. not "meditate" which blanks you out, blurs, but CONTEMPLATE, keep your mind actively on the Scriptures you are reading AND THE SURROUNDING VERSES aka context and the rest of the Scriptures that relate to them, here a concordance can help.
in the end when you do this you have orthodox Christianity, but the protestant denominations and RC with both be notable for deviations.
"If the demons believe in God and we do also, are we demonic ?"
You are exploiting an ambiguity in the phrase "believe in". It is possible to believe that the Bible is factually true about God yet hate Him. That's what the demons do, whereas Christians love Him.
myumber William"The fact that one scripture says that man dies once and after this is the judgement does not necessarily mean that reincarnation does not occur; the man could die once and come back as a rat (real rat, not a politician) and die, providing that "the judgement" occurs some time after the man dies."
Nice logic, but this loophole is removed by other scriptures. A man simply cannot come back as a rat because a man has a neshamah - what God blew into Adam to make him in God's own image - and a rat does not. It simply doesn't fit. Also, other scriptures in the New Testament outline the after-bodily-death scenario, and it is not this.
I urge people to do exactly what Dave wants: look at Deagle for themselves. Google him and find out what he says and what others say about him. It is most revealing and it might save people who wish to dialogue with his disciple here a lot of time.
Dave,
We’ve already been down this trail before; if you wish to deny the Trinity, a well-revealed doctrine in Scripture, and thereby reveal yourself as a heretic, then, of course, no one can stop you. But, to claim this is an ‘extrabiblical idea’ is not exactly so. How would you explain the Spirit descending upon Jesus, along with voice in Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22?
Luke 3:22 [NIV]: And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him [Jesus], and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”
We have (1) the Holy Spirit who descended as a dove upon (2) Jesus, and (3) a voice speaking to/about Jesus identifying Him as “my Son”, so logically the voice came from the Father. Hence, Jesus is NOT ontologically identical with the Father, and Jesus is NOT “the Father in the flesh”. I’ve previously illustrated that the larger context of the words you proof-texted “I and the Father are one” and “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” show clearly the Trinity, but I suppose I’ll have to be more explicit:
John 14:6 [NKJV]: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Once again, Jesus and the Father are not ontologically equivalent; there is an obvious distinction in ‘Person’.
Continuing, from above:
John 14:7: 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
Did Jesus just contradict Himself? Continuing:
12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
How can Jesus “go to My Father” and “the Father…be glorified in the Son” if, as you claim, they are one and the same?
Continuing: 15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 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. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
Here Jesus prays to the Father, does this mean He prays to Himself? And He (the Father) will give them (disciples) “another Helper” – that’s the Spirit of Truth (v 17), the Holy Spirit.
Again, you can deny nearly 2000 years of Truth revealed from the Scriptures and explicated by the Church at large for most of those years (yes, it took a while for the Church to fully come to grips with the doctrine of the Trinity), but that does not deny the Truth of the Scriptures.
Dave, you wrote: I see that your understanding of man and the incarnation of in Jesus has man totally distinct from the incarnation of God. But in Deagle's view, he sees man as a (potential, I would say) incarnation of God. If Christ is in us and living through us, then what's the difference ? Not much.
So it appears to me that he just has a different way of looking at the same facts and understanding them. His view may be entirely true and may be a clearer understanding than is taught in the churches.
The view that Deagle puts forth, and you, his disciple, espouse, is really not much different from what New Ager/Theosophist Alice Bailey teaches – that we are potential gods, and that Jesus is our pattern, having been the first to successfully ‘incarnate God, the Father’.
In your words, how do you explain John 1:1-5, 10-14, especially v 14 in view of the former?
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Once again Father/Son language. And, how about verse 18?
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Once again, a distinction.
Don't expend your energy debating theology with Dave, folks; all he wants to do here is get us to look at Bill Deagle, whose prophet he is. Do it! Then, if you wish, take Dave up on what you find. I guarantee that you will find plenty...
Constance,
I would like to know your thoughts on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-2Rfuq8NBU
This looks to me something like peppering the world with some truth leading to the old world order is so corrupt that we need a new world order.
It has the familiarity of Zeitgeist or "humanity ascending" bait and switch type of thing going on.
Your thoughts?
Dave ignores that the verse says you DIE ONCE THEN THE JUDGEMENT, repeated incarnations are ruled out, because this would mean dying more than ONCE.
If you want to argue that some resurrected violate this principle, this fails, because they are in their OWN bodies or in bodies regrown from their souls and spirits, and if such then die a second time, this is UNUSUAL. The general rule is live and die ONCE then the judgement.
anon 4:31 while your conclusion is correct the reason is wrong. Neshamah is also in all life, as Genesis shows in detailing all the creatures besides human who died in The Flood, "all that had the breath of life."
"God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he BECAME a living soul" we do not HAVE souls we ARE souls, the other creatures are different kinds of souls.
The argument that we can come back as a rat as long as the judgement is after that ignores that it says we are to die ONCE that DIE ONCE not several times through several lives, and applies whether the other lives are human or animal.
The soul, body and spirit are one continuum, and therefore you cannot have a spirit reincarnate, all it can do is inhabit or accompany a creature along with that creature's spirit, but unlike that creature's own spirit the second spirit can be cast out.
there is also possession which is inhabitation plus control. But again, this is not reincarnation. The body being used and the soul (spirit body interface, but also the entire soul body spirit) being compromised does not belong by nature to the possessing spirit.
All the past life memories and so forth are easily explained as information acquired from a passing spirit (or even a demon) or picked up from the residuum of a locality, by a suggestion barely formed person (infant or toddler) who mistakes it for their own memory of their own past.
There are a few cases of children who seem to have a full blown memory and personality of a past person. East Indian tradition is that these do not live very long.
Most likely this is more of the same on steroids, so to speak, possession of the child from near birth or a severely strong cowallking.
A person who has such memories is likely inhabited by a spirit, but it is not their own spirit. It is possible to have correct information about an event, but mistake it as acquired by experience, if one is suggestible, has undeveloped personality boundaries, and experiences the memory as if happening to oneself, seeing through the eyes of a participant.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/13/john-podesta-key-player-in-administrations-regulation-drive-has-also-helped-un/
anon 8:51
yep, Agenda 21.
recommended reading
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-passion-of-presence.html
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2013/12/selfie-scriptura.html
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2013/11/sola-camouflaga.html
A clear 98% of what is written above by Craig and Christine is their own words. Logic does not lead us from the scriptures to their conclusions, but rather it is underlying assumptions which result in the conclusions they derive. These doctrines do not save us. But let me suggest theology of today binds mens' minds to one viewpoint. A closed mind can not be open to the truth. Question your assumptions, open your mind so you can find out what the scripture is telling you to do. It does not tell you to spend endless hours debating your view of theology with other's view. Rather, learn from each other and be open minded. What is God telling you to do ?
Theology is what we think about God.
The real test is what God thinks about us.
"A clear 98% of what is written above by Craig and Christine is their own words. Logic does not lead us from the scriptures to their conclusions, but rather it is underlying assumptions which result in the conclusions they derive."
Totally false.
What do you make of the scene at Jesus' baptism? John 3:16, 17
The supposed presuppositions are what Scripture itself has laid down.
The Scriptures say specific things, some of which APPEAR to be in conflict. the conflict is resolved by putting ALL THE SCRIPTURES TOGETHER ON A TOPIC.
We may use our own words to express the result, but the logic you speak from must be illogical, or else NOT based in Holy Scripture (which does not include anything other than Jewish OT deuterocanonical and standard NT which as St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies shows is what the Apostles gave us, he wrote c. AD 180 and was disciple of Polycarp disciple of Apostle John.
Lies promulgated about Scripture being decided at Nicea I (not even on the table but already established by usage) or a later one (which merely reiterated the known accepted Holy Scriptures as opposed to illegitimate forgeries) can be ignored.
I did the research instead of accepting presuppositions and proclamations of people who want to establish their own false traditions (whether allegedly Christian but deny the Nicene Council which reiterated the tradition based on Scripture against Arius' twisting and denial of Scripture clear teaching or New Age etc.) and pretend to save you from traditions.
such people attack some legitimate point and then exploit that to draw you into their illegitimate ideas and attacks on legitimate materials.
" It does not tell you to spend endless hours debating your view of theology with other's view. Rather, learn from each other and be open minded. What is God telling you to do ?"
first off you can't tell what is God talking and what is your own corrupt fallen nature and self deception or worse some fallen angel pretending to be an angel of light, unless you are grounded in Scripture.
secondly, the last thing you want to do is learn from anyone except perhaps Deagle.
Dave,
Let's show the readers here how you exegete the following. This is just one of the questions I posed to you:
In your words, how do you explain John 1:1-5, 10-14, especially v 14 in view of the former?
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Who was/is "the Word" and what the relationship to God(vv 1-5)?
The Word aka Logos the latter is an organizing principle ordering and maintaining the universe, deduced by platonists. John wrote to the Greek culture people. Platonism had the Logos as IMPERSONAL, but John reveals Him as PERSONAL a Person.
This is The One known as The Second Person of The Holy Trinity.
Now, this Person became flesh (incarnate means enfleshed from Latin) and He is the Only Begotten Son of God, and was given the Name Jesus as per the orders given by God to Mary through the archangel Gabriel.
NOTE "ONLY BEGOTTEN" The only consubstantial (same substance as) Son of God, we believers are sons by GRACE NOT BY NATURE, Jesus alone is God's Son by nature.
This being the opening words of John's Gospel which is all about Jesus Christ, clearly this passage is about Jesus Christ.
Jesus is still incarnate and always will be, note I John 4:1-4, Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh, He is limited and definable in His humanity, but always remained and remains infinite in His divinity.
You do not see the logical errors in your writing when I point them out. So I ask you to analyze the logic in your postings.
What are the logical errors in Christine or Craig's posts?
Now, there are plenty of issues for us to deal with in the world; let's get out and do something about them. Maybe we can see more clearly later.
I do not use that word ...gete.
"You do not see the logical errors in your writing when I point them out"
you have never pointed out a single logical error. what is a nonsequitur for instance between Scripture and orthodox interpretation of it?
you merely prate that it is illogical. Kindly explain WHY.
John's Gospel is about Jesus, God in the flesh. The ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God Who became flesh and dwelt among us, must therefore refer to Jesus. In fact, he ends this opening by referring to Jesus. How can you logically break this up to mean a hellslew of contrary things?
What are the illogical statements you made in this blog?
exactly. in these past few posts about theology don't change the subject.
what specific points are illogical and WHY are they illogical? what rules of logic are you applying?
Dave,
In your own words, explain the following
John 1:1-3 (NKJV): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
This is the basis for the doctrine of The Trinity, regarding the first Two Persons.
All three are God, ONE GOD WHO CONSISTS OF THREE PERSONS.
This describes The Father and The Son, the latter became flesh and was named Jesus.
Two DISTINCT PERSONS ARE DESCRIBED, God and His Son Who is also God. All things were made by The Father and by The Son, and by The Father THROUGH AND FOR The Son.
These have always existed. They were there in the beginning, therefore they were there before the beginning (of time which is itself a creature).
craig,
Thanks for your rationalization, which is merely a rationalization. It's probably not an idea that initiated with you, so let's say "the rationalization" you restated.
Dave,
I'm waiting for your own interpretation/understanding of John 1:1-3. It's a simple, straightforward question. Let's hear your answer.
dave, you have not explained why something is a "rationalization." you have not proven that Deagleism is Scripture compatible. YOU are the one rationalizing. if it can even be called that.
Craig presents clear statements of Scripture you dismiss them as rationalizations.
I think you do not want to use Scripture or rely on it except as a starting point that you then jump off to go elsewhere leaving Scripture behind instead of building on it.
Here are the rules: Scripture is the ONLY basis and test of truth. Truth is objective reality not subjective fantasy personal truth blah blah.
There is an interface between Scripture and observable reality because the same God made the universe and wrote Scripture.
Where there is apparent conflict, it is resolvable.
All personal experience of the any unusal sort must be judged by Scripture.
The whole Scripture not just some proof text out of context and ignoring the rest of Scripture on the subject.
you are trying to get us to let go of our anchor/flotation device in high seas and float off with you to drown with you in your delusions led by your deceiving heart.
The heart is deceptive and wicked and cannot be trusted, so warns OT and John or James.
The heart is not only emotions but deep level of mind or nous in Greek.
Rule of logic: sound premises, followed by a deduction from that, which leads to a conclusion.
IF the premises are flawed or IF some intermediate point does not follow from the premise then the conclusion will be wrong.
our premise is Scripture, yours is vanity (appealed to by lure of being as gods, the original lie of the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and Deagle.
We are not going to accept your premise.
disagreement pursuant to our refusal to let go of solid truth is not lack of logic on our part here. nor is it rationalization. It is refusal to be led by the nose away from safe paths onto slippery slopes filled with loose rocks near a cliff.
Christine,
I will mention one of the least likely examples of an illogical statement made in one of your posts.
Here it is in a "9:55 AM post":
"Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
substance and logic? you are way off track. The substantive statements are that he claims to be a prophet, that he claims to have died before and come back and this was 500 years ago, which you will find in the interview archive I linked to.
The logic is, this is in conflict with The Bible therefore he is not a prophet."
First and least important to the point I am making, you start with a false statement as part of the premise:
"he claims to have died before and come back and this was 500 years ago, which you will find in the interview archive I linked to."
I have described in above posts how this statement is false. I hope it was merely a misunderstanding on your part. But such misunderstandings are indications that (1) you are not doing your homework before posting and (2) you probably have a nonobjective viewpoint which causes you to react emotionally and jump to a Wrong conclusion about what he was saying.
Dr Bill claims that this occurred when he was 8 years old, I believe, if you will check his statements, not 500 years ago. He claims to be about 60 years old right now with another birthday coming this week.
The bible makes no mention of Dr. Bill Deagle by name. Yet you state: "The logic is, this is in conflict with The Bible therefore he is not a prophet." There is a huge jump of illogic from a statement which is untrue to a conclusion with no logical path -- no evidence presented that anything that was said is in conflict with the bible. Furthermore, you are not the judging authority; just because you have the opinion something is in conflict with the scripture, does not mean it is. You, I and Dr. Bill are all fallible.
The Key missing element here is that you have not provided a list of criteria for a prophet from God. And you have not shown the Dr. Bill violates any such criteria. Remember, he is claiming to occupy the office of a prophet, not that of a pastor or teacher or any other office of the church mentioned in the scripture.
So if you would strictly stick to the words of the scripture that are explicitly relevant here, you might come up with some logical conclusion that derives from scripture.
Otherwise you are on your own and it will burn.
Again in a "9:55 AM" post you state the following without any scriptural basis for criteria for a prophet (or false prophet):
"This is all proof he is not a prophet of God. Where do you find more than hints about this scattered through the entire Bible? "
So the points you did make turn to a garbage conclusion -- a baseless conclusion.
Dave,
You are not dodging my request for your explanation of John 1:1-3 are you?
So, I hope you all think about this. Examine whether there is any proper use of logic and make some progress today.
Maybe some day I will tell you what I and others really think and observe. You really should make some progress and quit wasting your life.
Christine,
Let's give Dave a chance to explain, in his own words, John 1:1-3.
craig,
You are locked into one way of thinking.
You asked me to do something which I do not participate in. That is some theological method of x-jesus (sort of how it is pronounced). Perhaps it sounds that way for a reason. So I am not going to answer a foolish question along such foolish methods of thinking. U gotta break out of the mold, the programming placed in your head ! (now, I'm being really honest with you). Don't feel like you have attained full knowledge of God thru theological study. Look instead for what he really wants you to do than have your nose in theology books and the bible references when we should be helping the wounded samaritan, our neighbors, dealing with the evil presented to us on earth. It's happening on your watch. you are aware of some of it. So let's get started building the kingdom here and now. ?? ?
Dave, how does it look like I dodged anything? The text says what it says.
the Word (Greek Logos) is God and WITH God so two separate Persons are here described and all things were made THROUGH The Word so Someone Else was making them THROUGH Him.
Two Persons and at Jesus' Baptism we HEAR from The Father, we SEE The Son havng been baptized and we SEE The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove alight on Jesus, and Jesus also speaks later of sending Him From The Father, that He proceeds FROM THE FATHER (not The Father and The Son) and that HE will teach therefore this is also a Person, conscious, does things like teaching.
The Trinity.
Now, as for building the kingdom of heaven, we do not do that. God brings it into fulness when Jesus comes back, but we are citizens of it and it is here through us in us like for instance a US embassy abroad is a piece of US property right there in the midst of the other country.
you sound like you think the Kingdom of God can be made to happen here and now in the dominionist sense that we will defeat the devil and present the kingdom installed on earth to Jesus at His Return but this is post millennialism which is against the clear teaching of Scripture.
We have a taste of the kingdom now, but God will bring it in its full reality in HIS time not ours.
and the antichrist appears before Jesus does, Jesus destroys the antichirst when Jesus comes back from the sky very visible to all not merely a spiritual phenomenon.
Do not judge Scripture by Deagle but Deagle by Scripture.
yes, we are to fight against evil (when Jesus said not to resist evil He said same sentence to turn the other check to a slap and His example was to denounce publically and oppose much more serious evil).
But that is not the same thing.
you on the other hand, Dave, duck and dodge away from giving your explanation when the same question is asked of you that you asked of me.
I think the problem is that you are defining terms in Scripture vastly differently from what Greek and English means by these terms, you see some word or phrase, bliss out and put a contrary interpretation on them. This is the way of self deception perhaps aided by a deceiving spirit aka demon making nice who gives you good feelings when you think like it wants you to think. Maybe even a telepathic alien with a bad long range agenda and there is a case can be made that the aliens made a deal with the devil some time ago. Beware.
Dave,
So now all can see your game. You've made the claim over and over that we shouldn't go by any sort of man-made doctrine, but look afresh at the Scriptures. You've stated that the Trinity doctrine is not in Scripture, yet when asked directly to explain a doctrine which may go towards explaining this very concept, you refuse.
A week or so ago I heard Ravi Zacharias state that a man told him "there is no god", to which Ravi said something to the effect of, "So then you're omniscient, then?" His point was that in order to make such a claim one must have to know everything in order to deduce that God did not exist.
Similarly, for you to claim that the Trinity doctrine does not exist implies that you know Scripture so much that you've found this to be true. Given that surely asking you to explain John 1:1-3 should pose you no problems at all.
Christine,
You are going crazy !!
None of us can explain the Godhead. Craig was asking about John 1:1-3. It is some of the best prose/poetry I have ever heard. Just read it and the spirit speaks to you. It is a restatement of Gen. 1 from a different viewpoint -- a new idea for openminded people -- not for the pharasees unless they were to open their mind. So I will let the spirit speak to those who read the passage. Rely on God to let us know the meaning of John 1, some of the best prose/poetry I have ever read. I will not diminish its power with my opinions of it.
The scripture simply does not use the word Trinity. I may understand it a bit differently than the next guy, than the next guy etc. That's because we all probably do not fully understand it - - that's an understatement -- we hardly scratch the surface of understanding it.
I am not against you, but for you. We just all need to open up our minds just a bit to start with.
Seriously, how many of the key protagonists in the Bible went to bible school ? Most of them went out to the desert. Who was their teacher ? They were taught by the best.
Again, here is an example of ill-logic used in posts above. You are not making an Honest effort.
Dave said...
Christine,
I will mention one of the least likely examples of an illogical statement made in one of your posts.
Here it is in a "9:55 AM post":
"Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
substance and logic? you are way off track. The substantive statements are that he claims to be a prophet, that he claims to have died before and come back and this was 500 years ago, which you will find in the interview archive I linked to.
The logic is, this is in conflict with The Bible therefore he is not a prophet."
First and least important to the point I am making, you start with a false statement as part of the premise:
"he claims to have died before and come back and this was 500 years ago, which you will find in the interview archive I linked to."
I have described in above posts how this statement is false. I hope it was merely a misunderstanding on your part. But such misunderstandings are indications that (1) you are not doing your homework before posting and (2) you probably have a nonobjective viewpoint which causes you to react emotionally and jump to a Wrong conclusion about what he was saying.
Dr Bill claims that this occurred when he was 8 years old, I believe, if you will check his statements, not 500 years ago. He claims to be about 60 years old right now with another birthday coming this week.
The bible makes no mention of Dr. Bill Deagle by name. Yet you state: "The logic is, this is in conflict with The Bible therefore he is not a prophet." There is a huge jump of illogic from a statement which is untrue to a conclusion with no logical path -- no evidence presented that anything that was said is in conflict with the bible. Furthermore, you are not the judging authority; just because you have the opinion something is in conflict with the scripture, does not mean it is. You, I and Dr. Bill are all fallible.
The Key missing element here is that you have not provided a list of criteria for a prophet from God. And you have not shown the Dr. Bill violates any such criteria. Remember, he is claiming to occupy the office of a prophet, not that of a pastor or teacher or any other office of the church mentioned in the scripture.
So if you would strictly stick to the words of the scripture that are explicitly relevant here, you might come up with some logical conclusion that derives from scripture.
Otherwise you are on your own and it will burn.
1:19 PM
Dave said...
Again in a "9:55 AM" post you state the following without any scriptural basis for criteria for a prophet (or false prophet):
"This is all proof he is not a prophet of God. Where do you find more than hints about this scattered through the entire Bible? "
So the points you did make turn to a garbage conclusion -- a baseless conclusion.
1:21 PM
The Scripture speaks of Three Persons Who are together One God. the word Trinity was invented to state this more concisely.
simple.
They didn't just go out to the desert on a vision quest. in fact, they were approached by God Who took the initiative in communication, as distinct from them offering Him worship.
Abraham was approached by God. Moses was approached by God. The Prophets were approached by God. Jesus IS God part of the Three Who are God YHWH.
these all pointed to the prior basic revelation to Abraham, then to Moses and made predictions regarding the Messiah fulfilled by Jesus.
simple.
Now, that bit in John is not mere prose or poetry, it is FACTS.
of course no one can know God in His essence, but we can know what He has revealed about Himself, and those FACTS are in Scripture. We can know something about Him in His actions or energies such as the creation of the universe. "the heavens declare the glory of God."
if you think you are able to know God in His essence by meditating you are deceived. No finite mind can comprehend God in His entirety.
What you need to do is learn from those protagonists, and not looking for some "inspiring" feeling that is a wrong use of the word "inspire" anyway, it is like what St. Paul called being puffed up and made emptier.
STUDY Scripture all of it use a concordance to help you find everything.
Isaiah 48 shows three parties are involved in talking to the prophet.
"Trinity" doesn't need to be a word in the Bible. That word DESCRIBES what is in The Bible.
One God, yet Three? One God consisting of Three Persons. short name Trinity.
simple.
you are the one who needs to get out of a mental rut.
You guys are silly.
Dave, you wrote, None of us can explain the Godhead. Craig was asking about John 1:1-3. It is some of the best prose/poetry I have ever heard. Just read it and the spirit speaks to you. It is a restatement of Gen. 1 from a different viewpoint -- a new idea for openminded people -- not for the pharasees unless they were to open their mind. So I will let the spirit speak to those who read the passage. Rely on God to let us know the meaning of John 1, some of the best prose/poetry I have ever read. I will not diminish its power with my opinions of it.
Oh but you HAVE just stated your opinion on it by your claim that it’s a restatement of Gen. 1 (which it is). You're so silly.
But, certainly, for someone with such superior skills of logic such as yourself, this should pose absolutely no problem for you to explain.
But, if not, then your superior spirituality should be able to explicate these verses magnificently. Surely, you should impart your spiritual wisdom to the lowly ones who frequent Constance Cumbey’s blog.
But really Dave, how can the Word, who was “with God” also be “the Word” who “was God”? He both “was God” and was “with God” in the beginning. And who was this “Word” who became flesh and dwelt among us in John 1:14? Does this section of Scripture imply anywhere that the Word is the Father?
Here’s the thing Dave, when viewing the totality of Scripture – which you’ve undoubtedly done in order to deem that the Trinity doctrine is not supportable by Scripture - The Father is only the Father in relation to the Son. The Son is only the Son in relation to the Father.
Christine,
This is the Neshamah guy. In Genesis 2:7 God blew the neshamah of life into Adam. Only God and man are described as having neshamah in the Old Testament. Genesis 7:22 could be taken to apply the word to animals, but the reference is ambiguous and the other 23 appearances aren’t, which surely settles the ambiguity. The similar word ruach is applied to animals at Genesis 7:15, where it clearly means ‘breath’ rather than its other meaning: spirit. Animals also have nefesh. The Hebrew words don't translate easily into Greek or English; try it and preconceptions from Greek or old English pagan thought get in the way.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0107.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
you see identical Hebrew letters down to vowel points in the right place, same word breath of life.
Bible scholars have noted that nefesh or nephesh refers both to the immortal less material body spirit interface the soul as we think of it, and to the entire body soul spirit complex, as in "the soul that sins it shall die."
The idea that we are spirit and animals aren't is a pagan philosophy conceit.
The image and likeness of God is not merely in the immaterial realm, that is another pagan philosophical and gnostic conceit, based on the assumption that the physical is evil at worst, icky at best.
More likely, the physical characteristics of humankind have some bearing on our role as superintendant of nature under God.
Also, there are many virtues and features of Godlikeness which are scattered throughout nature, incl. among animals, but only in the human species are they all present in one species.
Somewhere in the Torah it is written that someone who sacrifices an animal to any false god has blood guilt, the same term regarding murdering a human.
That a relationship exists between God and animals is evident in several places in The Bible. There are also animals that have no relevance to human well being. What does that tell you? God has pleasure in many kinds of creatures.
I am not so sure they are not dimly aware of Him in some way. At the instinctive kind of pre intellectual level that a human baby exhibited in being attracted to a picture of Jesus.
oh yeah, don't forget Balaam's donkey, and the angel who said that if she had proceeded he would have killed Balaam and let her live.
and since heaven is also called Paradise which means garden in Persian, consider this. What kind of garden doesn't have flowers? or birds and butterflies? ergo.....animals in heaven.
Christine, when you say "you see identical Hebrew letters down to vowel points in the right place, same word breath of life" please specify what word you mean is the same as what other word. I stand by my statement that there are 24 appearances of NESHAMAH in the Hebrew scriptures and 23 of them apply only to God or to man, not to animals, while the 24th (Gen 7:22) is ambiguous. It looks quite like NEFESH unless you look closely.
Regarding Craig's comment above. I see that dave gave one opinion, not opinions. And that opinion was very general. So dave's statement was consistent with his action.
Why be so strangely critical ?
Man made in the image of God is also a trinity. Body, soul, and spirit. The body is his access to be world conscious through his senses. The soul is his access to his self conscious through his mind and emotions. The spirit is his access to become God conscious.
The natural man is spiritually dead until quicken by the Holy Spirit in spiritual rebirth as the Bible shows us in Ephesians 2: 1-9. (and His workmanship v 10). Jesus the Son of God the son of man told Nicodemus in John 3 "you must be born again". That is when the final part of the trinity of man is complete. We are made in His image and for His pleasure.
anon 6:31 look at the Hebrew English Bible in those links. Look at the Hebrew letter clusters aka words, use the commas in both Hebrew and English to locate a Hebrew word position and remember it goes from right to left.
Gen. 9:19-17 God's covenant was not only with Noah and his family but with every living creature specifies cattle, etc.
Rev. 5:13 shows all kinds of creatures definitely animal and fish praising God.
yes I am acquainted with this body soul spirit trinity theory, and others. The trouble is, the spirit of the human is not dead in pragmatic terms, it is very active and may be the core being itself. It is dead from God's perspective, no relating with Him.
all of these theories are weak, and suspicious to me of pagan philosophy which rejects the value of the material.
neshamah is inherently ambiguous in itself referring mostly to physical breath or breathing or maybe circulation of oxygen in the blood, doesn't sound very much like higher consciousness (whatever that is) to me. Even an amoeba has this process going on.
However it also goes beyond that to imply the immaterial invisible by comparison with air.
There is something about the humanoid physical shape and functionality that says something about God but I am not sure what it is. Could have to do with the ability to make things, restructure things and manage things.
While there is a considerable difference between humans and animals, there is also a lot more consciousness and brains to them than assumed. studies of them verify anecdotal evidence. They also occasionally manage to speak some pidgin a bit "me out" "i wanmor" "myeh" yeah in response to a question do you want more food? studies have been done on this also. When this happens, they do not rig sentences just vowels and verbs. Of course they have to be able to learn the meaning of a word to obey a command.
I remember a cat who was very vocal, and when we started chasing raccoons away, he hollered from the back end of the property "waroon! waroon!| and sure enough, there was a raccoon there.
"born again" was a concept as was baptism in Jewish conversion, a serious change of heart and mind, and the washing off of non Jewishness, the scandal of John the Baptist was that he required baptism of those born already Jews! This is like a new birth. you were dead in sins and unbelief and now alive in Christ. yes an invisible angle is involved. as was conversion from paganism to Yahwehism but more so. That was why Jesus could ask why Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel and didn't know these things.
We have been adopted into God's family so to speak, children of God by grace, as distinct from Jesus being THE Son of God by nature.
Anonymous 8:37, your post deals with New Age and I tried to respond. I think it's been four times I tried to respond, and each was scrubbed from the discussion. So much for New Age. Instead we get an endless conversion attempt between Christine, Dave and Craig. I wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Probably this will be the fifth scrubbed from this blog. Some promoter of New Age has quite a bit of power.
what has happened to me that looked like scrubbing, is that I hit post but went away from the page not noticing that it was rejected because too long, or because the captcha code was not entered correctly. Always check to be sure.
please try to respond again, I for one would like to hear this.
there are some good videos on youtube which debunk zeitgeist and thrive.
anon 3:14 if you think the issues discussed between me and Craig and Dave are not New Age relevant, then you do not understand the New Age. At its core it is an attack on Christianity and on the Jews because Christianity comes from the Jews via Jesus a Jew, and because of the revelation of YHWH which is against the prideful vain notion of our own inherent divinity.
The New Age always promotes consubstantiality of the creature with the Creator, and the divinity of the self or soul or some oversoul (just a demon disguised) and except for the extreme similar doctrines of some parts of Kabbalism, which is itself recognizeable as a non Judaic non Mosaic graft on from hellenizing influences, this is against Judaism also.
So this debate has been very very New Age relevant.
additionally, if you look at how Dave handles Scripture, regardless of your opinion of Scripture, there is something significant.
firstly, there is a text with specific words which are not readily interpretable more than one way.
this can be the case with any document.
Dave proceeds to twist it, say it says or allows things it does not, and demand we get beyond mere normal interpretation and limited thinking.
This same game is played with everything by New Agers and other liars, documents religious and secular, the Constitution, whatever.
secondly, he starts from some point he figures we accept, and then try to move us to what is not acceptable by a stage or two, always involving at some point a jump into radical subjectivism.
This style is also a New Age tactic, and used by seducers sexual, political and whatever.
Jesus is the way the truth and the life, none comes to God except through Him. period. If some unbeliever gets to be with God, it is because Jesus Christ intervened during the death process or after.
Jesus is the only human who is also God. This is NOT some man god a man who became god, the lie of the devil, but the God Man, the God Who became Man.
and no, you can't blame persecution and massacre of Jews by Christians on Jesus, because this was not part of what He said to do and St. Paul in Romans warns against the attitudes without which this can't happen.
Some idiot blames the Holocaust on Jesus, despite the fact that that was secular darwinian ethno pagan mysticism driven.
Revelations that Fellow employee gave Snowdrn his password may lead to three factor authentication -something you know, something you have, and something you are - the mark
Christine the expert. Can't even agree without you trumping an answer given but have to take it past the facts into the place where you "know all". Calling theory that which did not dive into theory just a full face understanding and no more, just something stated that is Biblical--Jesus said it--so leave it at that. But no. Cannot let facts speak for themselves but have to have a last word on every-every single subject. You clanging cymbal! You cast shadows where they do not need to be. Why? so you can dismantle a subject and then turn around and redefine it? Ever the "expert". This is why you get such rebuke from people here. Christine you must molest every topic here with your "genius". Yuck.
its called time to give everybody a brush up course. who knows who is misled by Dave? Or fails to note and learn from his style when it appears elsewhere from others?
If you have ADHD don't deny others a shot at information and analysis you dislike because you can't handle it.
Christine, there is an old joke that goes,
Jill: Can we change the topic?
Jack: Yes, I've talked long enough about me, let's talk about you. What do you think about me?
You go on and on about everything that catches your attention, which is about everything. Somebody says let's change the topic to New Age. You chime in saying the previous discussion was about New Age and if the writer doesn't know that they don't know what New Age is.
Now that's more than a little arrogant. I don't care to have a dialogue with arrogant people. I've moved on since yesterday and will be very busy today, so go back to the conversion topic.
its not arrogant it is just plain fact. The NAM began with an attack on Christian doctrine, and then on the foundation source, Judaism and YHWH and effort to revive paganism plus hindu mysticism plus racial and evolutionary mysticism.
Go read Blavatsky for yourself.
The NWO is the political arm, the NAM is the spiritual arm, and both target Christian doctrine and Christians who adhere to orthodox doctrine. Look at the track record.
Also targetted are Jews, in varying degrees. Theosophical notions were back of the Holocaust. The real hostility comes from the devil who was kicked out of heaven for trying to usurp God's place. The attack is always against a personal rather than impersonal deity with Whom we are NOT consubstantial and to Whom we ARE answerable.
That is target number one, and with it is targetted orthodox Christian doctrine. Jews are a miracle in themselves, YHWH made them out of a sterile aged couple. Christianity is about YHWH as Three in One one of Whom became flesh, became the perfect sacrifice and passover for all mankind while the lamb was passover for the Jews, and came back to life, never to die again.
Oh yeah...and the other thing you are famous for Christine...presumption. I was referring to the response about the Trinity and John ch 3. You have to take a simple (and profound) thought that Jesus said-that the Bible teaches and try to dissect that to take it to where you deal--in theories. Your favorite. Facts--uh not so much. Your "genius speculations" don't let you rest with or on facts making your contributions odious. You truly do molest the subjects here.
my THEORIES about The Trinity? THESE ARE THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST ON WHICH THE TRINITY DOCTRINE IS BASED.
dissect? that is what you do to understand, not get in some "exalted" state contemplating "profound" statements without understanding them. If you don't understand them how can you say if they are profound or not?
Then why not simply agree or pass up the response without further comment from you? Like a good brother or sister in Christ would do. No way. That's not the m.o. of a giant "intellect" such as your austere and sublime "merely googling" self. Yuck.
good God, that is NOT what a good brother or sister in Christ would do, leave someone trying to deal with something to twist in the wind unaided, and to leave something unaddressed that needs addressing,
or to leave others unwarned about how this kind of game Dave plays works in non religious categories as well.
abominable negligence and failure to defend the faith or try to help a confused person understand.
"its called time to give everybody a brush up course"
Not one of us is spared.
Thanks Christine for saving us from ourselves.
Dave might be another matter but obviously you have alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the answers. You gem. Humanity is saved!
(How about leave us to God and you take your constant and innumerable theories back to your own blog)
you just don't like The Scriptures expounded with anything like accuracy. I suppose you go to one of those emergent churches, eh?
"Leave it to God" is the battlecry of the subjectivists and those who are prideful and won't take any suggestion or direction let alone sound teaching.
NO THEORIES, just detailing Jesus' words and context and OBVIOUS meaning which Dave was twisting.
I forgot to add, I am sure "leave it to God (and leave us alone)" is a way you could paraphrase various Christian responses to Constance when she met opposition from such quarters, not to mention the reaction to those Church Fathers who defended The Trinity sometimes at risk of their lives.
Leave it to God? God has called us to DO things and SAY things, not sit idly by. There are rather explicit statements along that line in Scripture.
Believing God and trusting God is the the leave it to God thing I am talking about (and you don't get). You do not come alongside as a fellow pilgrim-you come here to bludgeon us into "knowledge" with your "brush-up course" of unending discourse! All of your "talk" and "do" instead of the other is precisely why you are in the very way of the process to understand spiritual matters. How very new age of you to have such a "fix" for us all. I'll let God fix me how about you let God fix you too? That is the humble, caring, trusting God thing to do.
which nabeidsYou remind me of the know-it-all friends of Job who blurred truth to the poor man while speaking it (but only partially) to him. God holds All truth and not you but you can't even let God have a last word on any subject. They ended up wrong and rebuked by God for their approach with Job and you are that brand of "help" too. God help us from being "helped" by you!!! God told Job to pray for his miserable friends and that looks to be what you need too, Christine.
Time for a laugh! (which nabeids!!) How did you slip in there?
Dave,
If these comments on Bill Deagle are inaccurate, where and why please?
http://www.christianissues.com/deagle.html
http://williamricharddeagle.blogspot.co.uk/
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/dr_27.html
"God Help Us
...Marianne Williamson’s campaign to save America’s soul, starting with California’s 33rd Congressional District.
...with Waxman bowing out, how will things change? ... at the moment, there is only one candidate running anything approaching a real campaign. Well, maybe “campaign” is the wrong word. It’s more a vision quest. If you live in Waxman’s district, Marianne Williamson doesn’t just want to represent you. She wants to save your soul.
Though perhaps not a household name, Williamson is something of a celebrity: Her self-help books have earned her national recognition, and her weekly lectures on spirituality have made her a fixture in Los Angeles for over 30 years.
More on:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/god-help-us_778813.html
Dave in CA
Maybe Christine works for Marianne Williamson.....she seems to "need to save" something/someone around here very frequently.
Dave in CA:
The Marianne Williamson story is even on Drudge right now. Things could start getting interesting if the media get on board with her message and think it deserves a lot of attention....
nabeids??
.Maybe Christine works for Marianne Williamson.....she seems to "need to save" something/someone around here very frequently."
Anonymous, if you are one person or several, thanks for your comments. They are refreshing and make checking back here worthwhile.
Anon 3:14 AM
Thank you for your efforts. I should have known better than to attempt to call upon other researchers here. Two days have passed and you're the only one to respond. While Christine pontificates on and on and on it has become clear that there can be no serious exchange of information here. It looks like the researchers have all departed.
Lesson learned.
Marko:
Williamson's NA views are becoming more mainstream. Yes, it will be interesting to see who gets on board with her spirituality and how much traction running for office gives her. And, if she wins, what impact will she have on Congress. Waxmen's District is already on board.
Dave in CA
Anonymous, thank you for the Weekly Standard article. It shows how New Age ideals appeal to the naive public, particularly those with money who think they know it all, but who have no idea about political realities. This show Williamson can play the crowds, how emotion and beliefs can overcome facts when dealing with a crowd. New Age down to the bottom line. Those investigating New Age, fighting it, and those who know what is going on but who aren't fighting it can see New Age as a reality. Now those of us who have around the block a few times should formulate a response to that kind of approach.
No need to deal with Christine who is in another kind of battle.
Anonymous 9:34, thanks for your note. It has been very frustrating. I would have many comments, but this is not the place to state them. If anyone has another trustworthy place to exchange information on New Age, please let us know. I know of a place on Facebook with a trustworthy administrator where it can happen, but then again there are those who do not trust Facebook. Yes, there are sites that discuss New Age, but they usually have an agenda. This is a very difficult thing we face as we move forward.
My guess is that Constance wouldn't mind seeing a new site as there is probably too much pressure on her as an individual by this powerful movement.
It's a problem we face as those who know what is going on against a very powerful political enemy.
"Anonymous, thank you for the Weekly Standard article. It shows how New Age ideals appeal to the naive public, particularly those with money who think they know it all, but who have no idea about political realities. This show Williamson can play the crowds, how emotion and beliefs can overcome facts when dealing with a crowd. New Age down to the bottom line. Those investigating New Age, fighting it, and those who know what is going on but who aren't fighting it can see New Age as a reality. Now those of us who have around the block a few times should formulate a response to that kind of approach. "
This susceptibility of the American public has been around since Colonial times and is a feature of other lands and times, regardless of whether New Age is being sold or something else.
That is why we have the electoral college, to limit the potential of mob rule under demagogues.
(The latter was the ideal of Weishaupt and the Illuminati, eliminate all govt. and church, have every man be the unfettered lord and priest of his household, and these petty lords led by the nose by adept manipulator demagogues who belonged to the Illuminati.)
Williamson is nothing new I am surprised you are making such a big deal about it. What of Anna Eshoo and Clairborne Pell and others?
yes, NAM is mainstream and if you didn't notice that until now you haven't been paying attention.
of course, I live in CA so maybe its been mainstream here longer than elsewhere.
Now to formulate a response, you need to figure out the following:
what are her financial backers incl. the ones hiding behind others. Is there anything about them that is likely to be odious to the voters, NOT because the are New Age or whatever, but because their known behavior and goals conflict with those of the people she is appealing to.
In order to figure this out, you need to know what the likes and dislikes of those people you want to affect are.
Never mind if you share any of these or not.
If the electoral target is not hard core Christian, then there is no use screaming New Ager alert! (But in those segments who DO care about this, make a point of it. targetted anti Williamson mailings and emails would be to the point. This principle of research then shape arguments to fit their biasses applies everywhere.)
One advantage, you already have Mr. Hope and Change failing to come through on his promises, despite how wonderful he makes you feel, you could use this to raise doubts in the minds of Williamson targets as to whether she can be trusted any more than he could.
Hope that helps.
Here's something you can use to target two birds with one stone.
"Williamson bases her teaching and writing on a set of books called A Course in Miracles, a self-study program of spiritual psychotherapy, based on universal spiritual themes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson
Course in Miracles says that there is no sin, no evil etc. and not in the Augustinian sense that evil is an absence of good.
This opens the door to more coddling of evil people and failure to prosecute rather than give "therapy" to the poor muggers, rapists, murderers etc., not to mention pedophiles who have almost 100% recidivism rate.
This kind of love is counterproductive. victims need protecting and avenging, perpetrators and potential perpetrators need to fear.
this is a point you could raise with those who are crime victims and unhappy with how the justice system works now, point out that part of the problem is precisely this kind of therapy rather than punishment and toleration and so forth attitudes.
Remind them of the law of unintended consequences.
and remind them that this CiM mentality does not go far towards promoting making potential victims into hard targets who will be assessed as such as left alone. Too much karate and so forth is done for "spiritual" reasons and physical fitness, the will to kill or at least to deliver maximum damage without mercy beyond what the law requires (appropriate counterforce) is no part of the mentality of many such students.
Target Focus Training would be good, but CiM is hardly going to promote that. I can't see Williamson funding a program to teach this for free to women and children and effeminate looking boys in nasty neighborhoods.
http://www.targetfocustraining.com/
I had a very busy week but am well prepared for my radio program later this morning -- up since 5 a.m.
Please join us in the chatroom at
chatroom.themicroeffect.com
or listen live at
www.themicroeffect.com
My car is stuck in our driveway -- when the road commission plowed our subdivision, they pushed the snow and ice banks directly into our already plowed driveways! Bummer! Pray that I get extricated from where it is stuck between a snowbank and the ice bank!
See you at 10 a.m. eastern, 7 a.m. Pacific time.
Constance
To "force1Blessu"
"IT IS APPOINTED ONCE TO MAN TO DIE AND THEN THE JUDGMENT." HEbrews 9:27
That God could send somebody who lived to make a trip from Heaven, i.e. Moses, etc. is a different story.
One must be VERY CAREFUL here as demons are not at all above impersonating dead individuals.
I have shorthanded reincarnation as "Lie of the Serpent #1: Thou shalt not surely die."
That combines with Lie of the Serpent #2, "Thou shalt be as gods."
Understand the severity of those two lies and you have the New Age Movement's package of beliefs largely and neatly encapsulated.
If one has a successful campaign selling rotten apples, why change the marketing strategy?
Constance
To 9:53 am and the rest re MARIANNE WILLIAMSON -- She is seeking "prayerful" --- ooops -- When she ran Renaissance Unity in the Detroit Metropolitan area, she turned what was already obvious and open New Age into an obvious Pagan center as well.
She truly is a New Ager's New Ager!
I would not support her for Congress or anything else.
Constance
To Dave and other Deagle followers:
One should think that the differences between RESURRECTION and "reincarnation" are fairly obvious. One is biblical -- the other is a blatant lie!
Constance
Constance, you have had no effect on Christine's intrusions into your world of information. Do you want us to treat the New Age world in the same way? Ignore. Tolerate. Separate the wheat from the chaff into whatever we encounter, Never take an opposite stand, Be patient...What model would you have us follow in facing the New Age movement as it takes over our culture as Christine has taken over your blog?
and anyone who can't tell the difference between resurrection and reincarnation (and i vaguely recall decades ago an effort to twist the Scriptural doctrine of resurrection into a case for reincarnation), is a very incoherent thinker, and/or is trying to get us to be likewise.
so much for logic Dave's favorite word. you can't think or talk logically about something unless you have definitions correct.
The most that can be said for reincarnation is this.
it doesn't exist.
if you insist on believing it exists, then logically you have to assume it has to do with atoning for your own sins, or something along that line or learning something.
now since you insist on believing this (whoever here does so, or whoever anyone here knows who does so, and anyone here wants to use this argument on)
consider this: Jesus paid for our sins, the round of rebirths stops at the Cross anything you need to learn you will learn from Jesus Christ and The Bible.
So accept Jesus and don't worry about the round of rebirths. (good knews framed for Hindus and Buddhists and New Agers?)
Of course I am NOT saying reincarnation exists. I am suggesting you can side step the issue and throw the focus back on Jesus Christ.
the early church did not believe in reincarnation, there was no suppression of this at Nicea or anywhere else it was never in play in the first place.
it was held by pagan philosophers who sometimes incorporated some Christian elements and the gnostic groups ditto, but that is OUTSIDE of the the teaching tradition of The Church from The Apostles.
Why do I keep following the blog and why do I listen to http://www.themicroeffect.com/ Because I might might miss new information about New Age.
Constance appears as the New Age guru on what is going on. Try to find anyone else who in the last thirty years who has been exposing New Age who you can turn to with new information. There is no one. Take that for what you see is what is going on.
Constance answered beautifully to nutshell everything in her 9:52 a.m. post.
But Infowolf (how appropriate) Christine has to bludgeon us again. Her "loudness" is to cover something....her much unnecessary "help" and uninvited intrusions to educate (not conversate/discuss) are proof she is severely jealous of Constance because she refuses even her a last word on her own blog and why she has undone the directive to limit herself in commenting.
Medical journals document many cases such as the behavior of Christine. Hasn't this blog suffered enough? This "wolf" has had free range way too long. Wolves kill for sport and devour when not even hungry.
Christine loves the "game".
I hope you didn't miss Christine on Constance's radio show. It was worthwhile to see the confrontation on who knew more. Who was goine to outtalk the topic. Christine tried to interrupt and you could hear her voice trying to get on the air in the background, trying to interrupt. Guess what. It was Constance's show not the blog where Christine rules. We who are on the blog don't have the same control.
I was trying to finish a sentence, Constance got to miss the info about Kurzweil she didn't mention so doesn't know, but it may be part of this picture.
Kurzweil has joined the cataclysm crew.
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main
lifeboat foundation
offers underground safety places for people worried that nanotechnology will make the grey goo meltdown, in case the various shield programs fail.
http://lifeboat.com/ex/life.shield.bunkers
Kurzweil is part of this
http://lifeboat.com/ex/boards#k on the advisory board or something like that
And if Kurzweil is worried about this, either this is some BS thing to promote some other agenda involving shelters, or it is a legitimate thing to worry about.
"Wolves kill for sport and devour when not even hungry."
you got them confused with wolverines, it is the domestic dog that kills for sport. dear gentle bowser runs loose with friends and turns nasty, attacks hikers and farm animals, reason to hike armed.
killing in winter to stash food may appear to be sport.
Meanwhile, the stuff I was trying to get you to pay attention to, has now been pointed to by Constance Agenda 21 (which she did cover a few years back) and preparedness for God knows what, so now it is respectable here, I HOPE IT IS RESPECTABLE HERE.
asteroid strike, EMP or Carrington Event or whatever, you need to be semi survivalists. And don't depend on "natural law" or "common sense" check the actual state and county laws regarding any weapons and what is legal self defense and what is not legal self defense.
(varies wildly from state to state.)
a year or two ago I was talking about cataclysm and preparedness and some one whined that I post such scary things.
If nothing terrible happens at least you will be okay during a temporary lesser problem, like job loss, increase in bills, or disruption of goods and services for a few weeks.
New Madrid and/or Yellowstone and/or Cumbre Vieja and El Hierro are always on the table. Overdue and rumbling.
" uninvited intrusions to educate (not conversate/discuss) are proof she is severely jealous of Constance because she refuses even her a last word on her own blog"
conversate is to swap info and ideas. educate each other. Jealous? not at all grateful for her rather.
Limit myself? I tried to limit to one day a month, and someone begged me here to come back.
Constance also told you people to limit yourselves to one Christine bashing post a day, which you did not do.
Now, I am silent for the rest of this month. Someone wants me back they can email me and talk with me.
"Limit myself? I tried to limit to one day a month, and someone begged me here to come back."
Apparently, Christine, you do not recognize sarcasm when you see it. That "invite" was pure sarcasm. You knew it, too, but used it as an excuse to come back and ignore Constance's wishes.
You've said some good things, excellent even. But please, don't try to excuse your putting your own wants above Constance's.
no I thought it was sincere. There was a person who used to post here, who on the phone told me he thought you people were nasty and I was so over your heads you can't handle it.
you haven't addressed the point that you never followed Constance's wishes to limit to one Christine bashing post a day yourselves.
NOW having set the record straight I am going silent for the rest of the month.
Christine,
Please try to condense your many posts. Thanks!
Constance
Just getting ready to go on air -- topic -- Michigan's new revolting federal opinion striking down our constitutional ban on Same Sex Marriage." After that, it is hard for me to get excited about the polygamists. Both are biblically frowned on -- but at least there was some biblical precedent for the second.
May the Lord help us all.
Join us at
chatroom.themicroeffect.com
or listen live
www.themicroeffect.com
or
www.theradio.com
call in
888-747-1968.
Constance
Post a Comment