@m_nwamkwo,

Let me quickly go through yours:

m_nwankwo:

Why are you still searching for what the Grail Message says about redemption or disputing the interpretation of the Grail Message offered by those that advertize themselves as crossbearers.

I'm not searching for what the Grail Message has to offer as if to say that I'm not satisfied with what the Bible declares. It is the often noticeable subscript of Grail authors to misrepresent the Bible that even sparks my interest to look into what the Grail has to offer in the first place. What has gone so far on this thread is mild in contrast to what I've read outside the Forum - and there are loads of them. In regards to such misrepresentations, one who is satisfied with what the Bible teaches cannot let such authors get away with their literary acrobatics with the message of the Bible.

An example is that which Hnd-holder reposted following my first post on this thread. 1 Cor. 13:9 was poorly rendered by the author that he (Hnd-holder) quoted as if we should let the idea fly. It is the same things as if I were to take the message of the Grail and misrepresent it - what would you say? Come back and soothe my nerves that my misrepresentations are just a good work and I should carry on doing just that?

No, it is our moral responsibility to query such misconception so that people who care would exercise enough discipline to go check things out themselves and not settle their thoughts on what the Grail authors often do.

m_nwankwo:

Your writings seem to suggest that you are certain about redemption as explained in the bible. Keep to it. I do not see any point searching for something you believe you have found already. You search for other views when you have some doubt about your own. In this case you seem to have no doubt. Each individual should freely walk the path he is conviced about. His experiences on that path will teach him at some point whether or not he is on the right track.  

Quite true - I'm satisfied that the Bible accurately represents REDEMPTION. It is the twisting and misrepresenting of the Biblical message that I'm concerned about - otherwise, I would not even bother to knock on the doors of the Grail messengers to query their misrepresentations.

Cheers.

@enitan2002,

enitan2002:

then what else are you looking for? i can see you seem satisfied with what you have, i can tell you that no other crossbearers can say what i've just said concerning laws of creation in conjuction with redemption.

I appreciate your efforts -and you've offered me something to reflect on (which I've addressed). It was just the idea that the things you offered was never revealed before the Grail Message was published. I quote you again:

enitan2002:

my dear pilgrim,
if you don't understand creation in its truest sense you can never understand what redemption simply mean.
Creation in its truest sense has never been revealed to mankind but can only be found in the GRAIL MESSAGE.

That's just what so many Grail seekers say; and I only responded to share that it is quite inaccurate to assume so.

enitan2002:

Do you know m_nwakwo was talking about You & I when he mentioned something about match-making stuff?
Well whatever you believe in, i still find you intresting, just continue with the good ways and good things will surely be yours, nothing more.

Well, I knew he meant the two of us - and I offered him my apologies.

_{Anyways, I saw ur message to meet you online - that would be later, as I often get plenty of time when we're closing for the day (company policies not stretched to allow us chat freely - but we can get online and do other stuff - strange, isn't it?). . . Lol.}

Cheers.

Pilgrim,
I do not believe in fighting for God by questioning what I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation of the bible by followers of the Grail Message. By doing so there is also a very high possibility of mis-representing the Grail Message. My opinion is that God can defend himself it is left for G

Pilgrim,
I do not believe in fighting for God by questioning what I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation of the bible by followers of the Grail Message. By doing so there is also a very high possibility of mis-representing the Grail Message. My opinion is that God can defend himself. it is left to God to decide whether the bible, Grail Message or any of the other sacred writings represent the totality of  Truth. Quotation of different segments of these books by their followers is neither a proof or non-proof of the Truth of such work. Experiences in the course of time will convince each individual the truth or otherwise of his belief.

holy grail = holy sin!!!

LOve net or no love net keep the thread up.

@pilgrim.1 You must be refering to many graet authors


http://www.cinemaseekers.com/Christ/reincarnation.html
STEPHEN LAMPE
The Christian and Reincarnation
(The author has drawn his knowledge from
"In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin


BIBLE ACCOUNTS THAT SUGGEST REINCARNATION

He who makes no effort to grasp the Word of the Lord aright burdens himself with guilt!
("In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message," Composite Edition, p. 201)


No amount of logical arguments can convince some Christians of the fact of reincarnation. Nor would the accounts of the personal experiences of other people persuade such Christians. Even though it is quite obvious that, without reincarnation, one cannot argue convincingly of the perfect Justice of God, many Christians would still want to know what the Scriptures say about reincarnation. They would ask: Does the Bible support it? What did the earliest followers of Christ think of it? We shall show, in this Chapter, that in Biblical times, belief in reincarnation was so widespread, was so much a part of the culture, that it was taken for granted.

Some Truths Are Not in the Scriptures

Before we discuss specific passages in the Bible that indicate acceptance of reincarnation, let us remark that it is wrong to assume that all truths are to be found in the Scriptures. It is simply not so. Truths are revealed to mankind according to men's state of spiritual maturity. Some truths may not have been given to men at some particular point in time because they were not yet ready for such truths. Even the way a particular truth is presented also depends on how mature the audience is perceived to be. We find that this makes sense in our educational system; why should it not make sense in the school of spiritual life?

When a child has finished drinking his bottle of Coke, we may tell him that the bottle is empty. He will agree, and this is true for his age. But we may tell an older child that the bottle is not really empty, that nature does not permit a vacuum. The bottle is full of air. And again, this is true. And yet we can go on to tell a yet more mature person, that the empty bottle contains more than one item; that it contains a mixture of many gases including nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. It is in a similar manner that spiritual truths have been revealed to mankind over millennia.

It was the same with the mission of Christ. He spoke only of those things that people of His time needed to know to enable them to make spiritual progress. He did not teach all there was to know. And so Paul could say:

For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully , ( I Corinthians 13: 9 - 12 ).

It should, therefore, be clear that the fact that an idea is not in the Bible, does not mean that the idea is false. That is, some truths are not in the Scriptures.

In this connection, let it be noted that the Trinity is not a concept that is mentioned frequently in the Bible. Indeed, the only direct mention is one single verse in the First Epistle of John:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one (1 John 5:7). (Authorized King James Version).

But even this verse is known to biblical scholars to be a very late interpolation (addition) and is sometimes omitted from modem translations of the New Testament. In other words, a direct mention of the Trinity is technically non-existent in the Bible. The Revised Standard Version, for example, states: 'There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood". It is almost far-fetched to consider this a reference to the Holy Trinity.

Matthew reported that Jesus commissioned the disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing them "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). But this quotation does not necessarily imply that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. Despite the slimness of the evidence in the Bible, the Trinity has come to be accepted as central to Christian belief about the nature of God. And, of course, the Trinity is a correct teaching, a definite reality. But it must be rightly understood.

Therefore, we are not at all justified to think that all important spiritual concepts must be found in the Bible. Reincarnation, however, is one truth for which there are supporting or suggestive passages in the Bible.

Old Testament Accounts

First, let us consider texts from the Old Testament. In narrating his call to prophethood, Jeremiah stated:

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; and before you were born I consecrated you, and I appointed you a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:45).

This passage clearly suggests that Jeremiah existed in a non-earthly part of Creation before he was conceived. This is to say that pre-existence is acknowledged by the Scriptures and that human beings do not come into existence only at birth. If we existed before birth, does that period of existence include, or can it include, a time on earth? Why not?

The Man Born Blind

Let us now move on to some New Testament passages relevant to reincarnation. We will first discuss the account of the healing of the man who was blind from birth (John, Chapter 9). The blind man, it would appear, often sat by the roadside begging. As Jesus and his disciples passed by him, a question agitated the minds of the disciples. And so they asked:

Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:2).

We should reflect carefully on this question because of its importance in the context of our discussion of reincarnation.

The question indicates that the disciples believed, or knew, that it was possible for a baby to be born blind as a result of the baby's sin. The disciples were, of course, intelligent and wise enough to know that any punishment of being born blind could only have been due to a sin committed before birth. In other words, the disciples would not have asked the question if they did not consider it possible for a person to commit a sin before birth.

If a person must be made to suffer on earth for a wrong done before birth, such wrong could only have been done on earth in a previous earth-life. Thus, the question the disciples asked our Lord Jesus Christ implied that they believed in reincarnation.

It is important for us to emphasize that the answer Jesus gave does not in any way contradict a belief in reincarnation. Jesus is quoted as saying:

It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him (John 9:3).

What this means is that 'in this particular case, the cause of blindness was not due to the sin of the man nor of his parents. Christ's answer should not be interpreted to mean that there are no cases in which adversity or infirmity is due to a man's own sin.

And there are cases-of birth defects that are caused by the bad habits, carelessness or ignorance of the parents. One may recall the case of thalidomide, a sedative and hypnotic drug that caused serious malformations in infants born to mothers who had used the drug during pregnancy. Certainly, no well-meaning Christian would imagine that all those "thalidomide babies" were born so that in them "the works of God should be made manifest."

Let us further note that if the disciples were wrong in believing that one could be born blind because of one's sin, Jesus would have told them so. He was ever so ready to teach them and to help them do away with wrong concepts. The two possible causes suggested by the disciples for the man's blindness were wrong in this particular case. But this fact does not mean that, in other cases, these two possibilities might not be valid. Therefore, they were not wrong in their basic reasoning. And so Jesus did not rebuke them.

What are we to make of the explanation that Jesus gave? Of the fact that the man was born blind so "that the works of God might be made manifest in him"? In Chapter 4, we cited the story of the rich young man as an example of wrong generalizations of Christ's statements. We must again warn against the tendency of some Christians to generalize statements that apply only to specific cases. Unfortunately, many Christians today imagine that the explanation Jesus gave in respect of the man born blind applies to all cases of sick people. This thought is a dishonour to the Teachings of Christ.

To appreciate the explanation Jesus gave for this particular case, we must understand the concept of "Mission Karma". Mission Karma is a fate, a consequence, a sacrifice that a person voluntarily accepts in order to fulfill a particular mission. A man is drowning in a swimming pool. I notice it, and even though I am fully dressed, I jump into the pool to try to save him. By my action, I have accepted voluntarily a number of consequences.

First, my clothes will be wet and I will have to change afterwards. If the clothes are such that they should never go into water, I run the risk of ruining them. Second, I accept the risk of being drowned myself, depending on how I handle the drowning man. These possible consequences of my action are the karma that might be associated with my mission of mercy.

Similarly. suppose a house is burning and I enter it to save a child trapped in it. By undertaking the mission, I accept voluntarily the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of being burnt. Any burns I receive are the associated mission karma.

In Chapter 6, we discussed the Law of Sowing and Reaping, which is also called the Law of Karma. The idea of mission karma helps to deepen further our understanding of the working of this Law. Mission karma explains, for example, how it was possible for Jesus Christ to be murdered even though He obviously and definitely was sinless. That is, the murder was not the fruit of His sowing.

Even before He set out on His mission of salvation, it was appreciated that darkness had descended heavily on earth, that men had become exceedingly evil and confused, that even their religious leaders sought only earthly power and influence and were no longer interested in the truth. It was therefore clear that earth men could reject His teachings and might even kill Him. Because Jesus was, and is the personification of Love, He accepted the risk, in the manner that the man, who out of love, dashed into the burning house to save a trapped child, accepts the risk of being burnt.

It should, of course, be easy to understand that the man who voluntarily, and out of genuine love, accepts a mission that is associated with dangers is at the same time sowing good seeds, seeds of pure love. The seeds will grow, mature, and, in due course, yield a bountiful harvest. Such harvests arising from acts of selfless love are the treasures we store for ourselves in heaven; they form points of anchor for the invisible threads that pull us to Paradise.

We are now in a position to understand the real significance of what Christ meant when he said that the man was born blind "that the works of God might be made manifest in him". The man might have been one of those in the Beyond who requested the Almighty to permit them to be on earth during the time of Jesus Christ and to contribute something, however little, to the success of the Mission of Jesus Christ. The requests of many human spirits, presumably including this man born blind, were granted. Thus, the man voluntarily accepted the burden of being born blind as his way of helping the Mission of Christ. And it came to pass, that at the time of his own fulfillment, the man crossed the path of Jesus and provided an opportunity for a spectacular miracle.

That this healing was a very important event is shown by the fact that all the 41 verses of Chapter 9 of the Gospel according to St. John are devoted to it. The miracle was seen as strong evidence of the Divine Mission of Jesus:

Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man that was born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing (John 9-:32-33).

The Pharisees, who claimed to be disciples of Moses, were determined to see that Jesus Christ was not accepted by the masses. They said: "God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man (Jesus) we do not know where he comes from" (John 9:29). They must have considered the miracle a major setback for them. They went to the parents of the formerly blind man, and also confronted the man directly hoping that the parents and the man would deny the cure.

Such were the courage and conviction of the man that he refused to budge but asserted the fact of his cure, even though he faced the certainty of being excommunicated put out of the synagogue). The Pharisees did, in fact, cast him out. Jesus later met and spoke with him. So clear and strong was the cured man's spiritual insight that he immediately believed and worshipped Jesus. He must indeed, have been a noble spirit, worthy of being permitted to render service to the Lord.

Let us summarize the key lessons of the story of the healing of the man born blind. First, it provided an opportunity for the disciples to indicate their belief in reincarnation. As we shall see, they expressed, on other occasions, this same belief that was prevalent in their time. The belief could not have been wrong; if it was, Jesus would have told them so. The story also provides a probable example of mission karma and permits us to extend our knowledge of the Law of Sowing and Reaping.

John the Baptist

Both Matthew (11:1-15) and Luke (7:19-28) report what Jesus thought of John the Baptist. John the Baptist heard, while in prison, about the activities of Jesus. He sent two of his own disciples to go and find out if Jesus was indeed the one "who is to come, or shall we look for another?" (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:20).

Many Christians would probably have wondered about this errand. Why would John the Baptist send people to find out for him who Jesus was? John had baptized Jesus at the River Jordan before Jesus started on His Mission. Matthew's account of that occasion suggests that John the Baptist recognized Jesus, that he knew who Jesus was, as the following passage indicates:

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness". Then he consented (Matthew 3: 13 - 15).

It should be noted that St. Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus contains nothing to indicate whether or not John the Baptist recognized Jesus (Mark 1:9-12). Was Matthew in error in reporting that John the Baptist knew exactly who Jesus was at the time he baptized Him?

If John the Baptist recognized Jesus at the time of the baptism, what follow-up actions did he take? Had he forgotten about the event by the time he sent his followers, or had his faith wavered in prison? Obviously his faith could not waver; for his courage and the strength of his conviction were exceedingly great. And we have it on Christ's authority that he was much more than a prophet and that "among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." These considerations are somewhat of a digression since they do not touch on the issue of reincarnation - the subject matter of this book.

What is of great relevance to reincarnation is a statement provided by Matthew in the account of this incident:

And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 11:14-15).

And if you are willing to understand what I, mean, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come. And if ever you were willing to listen, listen now! (Matthew 11:14-15, The Living New Testament).

Here in a clear language, the writer of Matthew says that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elijah. As we have already discussed, the Jewish people were expecting Elijah to reincarnate "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." It is clear from his Gospel that Matthew firmly believed that the time of Jesus Christ was the "great and terrible day of the Lord." For this reason he could state, without any hesitation, that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.

Please note that John the Baptist was conceived and born as a baby by Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah. He did not appear on the scene as an adult, as would be expected if a mere return of the physical body of Elijah was what happened.

By this statement, the author of the Gospel according to Matthew makes two points: first, reincarnation is a fact; second, Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist.

The first point confirms the fact that belief in reincarnation was widespread at the time of Jesus and was accepted by His followers. Some Christian sects today believe, on the strength of this passage in Matthew, that John the Baptist was indeed a reincarnation of Elijah. But there is considerable doubt about this. St. Luke's account of the same visit of the disciples of John the Baptist to Jesus is the same as that of Matthew with one important exception: Luke completely omits the statement that John the Baptist was Elijah.

A statement that appears similar to Matthew's assertion is found in St. Luke's account of the foretelling of the birth of John the Baptist. Angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah to tell him that his wife, Elizabeth, would bear a child who would be named John. The Angel described the activity of John the Baptist in the following terms:

And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:17. Italics mine).

One must admit that it is not exactly clear how the phrase "in the spirit and power of Elijah" should be interpreted. The Popular Edition of The Jerusalem Bible translates the same expression as "with the spirit and power of Elijah", which is not any clearer. The phrase could be interpreted to mean that the spirit of Elijah and the spirit of John the Baptist would be one and the same. This would agree with Matthew's view that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah.

But the same phrase could also be interpreted differently to indicate simply that John the Baptist would carry out his mission in a manner closely similar to that of Prophet Elijah. An argument in favour of this latter interpretation is found in John 1:21. On one occasion, priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to ask John the Baptist who he was. He told them that he was not the Christ.

And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not (John 1:21).

He also said he was not the prophet that God promised (in Deuteronomy 18:15) to raise among the Levites. He said he was the one of whom Isaiah said: "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord." It would, therefore, appear that while Matthew was right in his underlying belief in reincarnation, his specific claim that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah was not correct.

This does not in any way weaken the case for reincarnation. One can be correct on a general point and yet be wrong on a specific point. The error on the specific does not imply an error in the general. Let us illustrate. A man on a flight from Canada to the United States of America lands at an international airport in New York. He has always heard about John F. Kennedy Airport and so he writes on a postcard to be mailed to a friend back home stating that his plane was about to land in the New York area at the John F Kennedy Airport. On alighting from the plane, he notices that he is, in fact, at the La Guardia Airport. It just happens that flights from Canada to the New York metropolis have a choice of airports. The gentleman is wrong about the airport but this does not affect the correctness of his statement that he had arrived in the New York area.

Let us again note that the priests and Levites specifically asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah. The question again implies that the priests and Levites believed in reincarnation. Otherwise, they would not think that John the Baptist might be Elijah. And it was not necessary for them to ask if John the Baptist was working in a manner similar to Elijah; they themselves could tell whether or not this was the case. In other words, the priests and Levites interpreted the phrase "in the spirit and power of Elijah" in the sense of reincarnation.

The Transfiguration

The name of Elijah comes up again in the accounts of the Transfiguration given by Matthew (17:1-13) and by Mark (9:1-13). Jesus had gone up to a high mountain in the company of three disciples - Peter, James, and John. While there, the disciples witnessed a deeply moving spiritual spectacle that has come to be known as the Transfiguration. The countenance of Jesus changed. "And His garments became glistening, intensely white , And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking to Jesus" (Mark 9:3- 5).

A cloud overshadowed them and a voice out of the cloud declared: 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him" (Matthew 17:5). For the disciples, the event was further confirmation that their Master was indeed the Son of God. But they also remembered the teaching of the Scribes (presumably based on the prophecy recorded in Malachi 4:5) that Elijah must come before the Messiah. Hence, they, sought clarification from Jesus. They asked "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" In answer, Jesus is reported to have said:

But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased (Matthew 17:12).

But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him (Mark 9:13).

The two statements are substantially the same. And they show Jesus as confirming the truth of the prophecy

that Elijah would reincarnate, and stating that Elijah had, in fact, already reincarnated. But Jesus does not reveal the identity of the reincarnated Elijah.

Matthew goes on to add a statement that is not in Mark: 'Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:13). This is a repetition of the view of the author of this Gospel that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah (Matthew 11: 14 15). Matthew gives the impression here that this view was also held by the three disciples - Peter, James, and John - who were in the company of Jesus on the occasion of the Transfiguration.

We have already noted that this relationship between Elijah and John the Baptist is of doubtful validity. The doubt is based on the declaration by John the Baptist himself that he was not Elijah (John 1:21). The response of Jesus can, however, be interpreted as a confirmation that Elijah had reincarnated; but we are not told the identity of his reincarnation.

"Who Do Men Say that I am?"

A question that Jesus posed to his disciples led to what has become known as Peter's Great Confession, and is recorded in all the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Jesus and His disciples were in Caesarea Philippi when He asked them: "Who do men say that I am?" (Mark 8:27).

And they told him, John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets (Mark 8:28).

It is not Peter's confession that is of interest to us here but rather the above question and the answer. The way the question was framed and the kind of answer the disciples gave indicate an underlying belief in reincarnation. It is reasonable to assume that, at least, some people knew that Jesus was the son of Mary, the wife of Joseph the carpenter. This fact was not one of the answers given by the disciples. It could not have been that all the people were ignorant of this fact, but rather that such an answer would have been inappropriate.

Christ's question was a spiritual one. He was not asking whom the people thought he was in an earthly sense but in a spiritual sense. The disciples understood this, and it was the understanding that led to Peter's Great Confession.

But, in the same understanding, they provided the view of ordinary people. These people thought Jesus was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; a thought that could come only from their belief in reincarnation and their recollection of old prophecies. Jesus was, and is, a part of God and could, therefore, not be the reincarnation of any prophet. This was the key lesson.

But another important lesson for us is the knowledge of how widespread belief in reincarnation was at the time of Jesus Christ. Christ did not need to tell people to accept the idea of reincarnation, because they already did. And if -the idea was not a valid one Jesus had many opportunities to tell the disciples so.

Herod Links John the Baptist with Elijah

A further indication of just how widespread was the idea of reincarnation and the expectation that Elijah would reincarnate were the speculations of Herod and the people around him when he first heard about the miracles of Jesus. Herod was said to be perplexed, and according to Mark, even thought that John the Baptist had resurrected from the dead:

And he (King Herod) said that John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him. Others said that it is Elijah. And others said that it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John whom I beheaded; he is risen from the dead (Mark 6:14-16). (Authorized King James Version).

Luke (9:7-9) similarly reports that people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected, or a reincarnation of Elijah or one of the old prophets.

A Revelation Passage

Finally, another Bible passage that strongly suggests reincarnation is found in the message to the Church at Philadelphia:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shalll go no more out, (Revelation 3:12). (Authorized King James Version).

The statement, "he shall go no more out," suggests that the norm, that is the usual expectation, is to go out repeatedly. This repeated going out stops only for those who have overcome, have conquered all sins, have passed the Last Judgment, have gained full spiritual maturity.

In other words, a most reasonable interpretation of this Revelation passage is in the sense of the cycle of reincarnations, which ends only with the complete maturity of the spirit. Once a spirit has attained to such maturity, he is allotted a place in Paradise and remains there forever. His reincarnations on earth come to an end. He has become one of those who "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).

HERBERT VOLLMANN in  A Gate Opens The author has drawn his knowledge from
"In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin




"BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH BEARETH
THE SIN OF THE WORLD"
(John 1, 29)
To understand these words aright we must first of all deal with the concept of sin. Its cause lies in the wrongful use of the flesh. As Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, there is a "carnal way of thinking", which sells men under sin (Rom. 7, 14 and 18). But where is the point in the flesh which makes man into the slave of sin? It is the brain, that is the cerebrum, which produces the thoughts and the intellect, and which like all flesh is perishable.

This intellectual brain is absolutely needed as an instrument on earth. Out of vanity and pretended knowledge man has simply made the mistake of over-cultivating it, and of eventually allowing it to rule his spirit, thus yielding to the intellect a place that according to the order of Creation belongs only to the spirit, which manifests in the intuitive perception.

This is the reason for the Fall of man and for hereditary sin. Hereditary sin, however, is not equivalent to an irrevocable compulsion of having to sin! What is hereditary is only the physical tendency that is due to the intellectual brain, which has been over-cultivated through one-sided use. Hence the tendency is not compulsive, but it contains a danger which man can avert by keeping his intuitive perception alert. That which is spiritual cannot be handed down.

Only through the over-cultivated intellect, which on account of its origin can only understand what is perishable, is Lucifer the Antichrist in a position to carry out in the World his activities, which are hostile to the Light. As soon as man does not listen to his spirit, to his inner voice, and gives preference to the intellect, there is already the danger of sinning, which consists of man's wrongful use of the spiritual power streaming through Creation.

Since "in the beginning" God made Creation, this power, like the pulse-beat of the heart, streams through all parts of Creation sustaining and renewing them. This pure creative power is the "river of water of life", proceeding out of the Throne of God (Rev. 22, 1). Yet this power is not God Himself, but His radiation.

At the time when they were gathered together in memory of Jesus, the disciples of Christ were overcome by this power. It was the very time when the power - as happens every year - was poured out anew into Creation.

All human spirits stand in this spiritual stream and live from it. Only rarely do they become conscious of it; usually when for once their souls are shaken by deep suffering or pure joy. From this stream men draw the power to form their good and evil works. For man has the ability by his own free choice to use and to direct this power, just as he is able to use the power of a machine for destructive or constructive purposes.

The works are the good and evil intuitive perceptions, thoughts and deeds. They are referred to in the Revelation when it says, "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14, 13). They follow the soul of man into the beyond at its physical death.

These works naturally represent something. They have invisible forms, with an invisible content of a finer nature than coarse earthly matter. If they were nothing they could have no effect, they could not follow.

In the use of the creative power continually streaming through Creation lies also the solution to the often asked question: "How could God bring forth evil that is so contrary to His Being", or "Has evil also come into Creation through the Act of Creating?" The concept expressed in these questions is wrong. It is not God Who brings forth wickedness or evil, but man, by taking the pure, neutral power of Creation and forming evil with it. To that extent the Biblical words, "I am the Lord, and create darkness", have not been rightly handed down (Isaiah 45, 6 and 7).

It is not hard to understand that these forms are dirty and ugly. For in fact they represent the sin and guilt of men. From them, through the union of homogeneous species, such as envy, hatred, avarice, hypocrisy, a craving for pleasure, etc., there are gradually formed centres which in turn have a harmful influence on people of a similar nature. Hell itself is a product of men's evil works, and has arisen through thousands of years of "activity". In exactly the same way, there are naturally also concentrations of good forms, which spread joy, peace and harmony.

Thus man not only pollutes the earth, water and air with his earthly wastes. Far worse still are the "psychic wastes" in the shape of his impure thoughts, that have turned his ethereal surroundings into a disgusting swamp, out of which he no longer finds the way by his own strength. We find the visible deposits of these psychic wastes everywhere, in the spoken and written word and in pictures.

Can we imagine that we bring Christ, Who after all is Divine Purity personified, in contact with our dirty forms of sin by saying: "Cast all guilt upon Him"? For the guilt of sin is indeed a reality, and has forms. It makes no difference that we cannot normally see them.

According to the view generally held Christ is supposed, through His alleged expiatory death, to have vicariously taken upon Himself the burden of sins for men, to bring about a reconciliation thereby between God and men.

It is striking that in the Revelation of John, which after all came into being and was proclaimed only after the death of Christ, and which contains all the important spiritual events, not a word is said about this taking over of sins. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that it is men who have washed their robes clean, and not Christ, which means that men had to wash off their sins themselves with the help of the Word, Whose Truth Christ sealed with His blood (Rev. 7, 14).

Indeed the Lamb of God Which was "slain" is accusingly spoken of several times in the Revelation. And even from the promised judgment of God alone, with the pouring out of the vials of Wrath, anything but a reconciliation between the Godhead and mankind is to be inferred.

But if Christ had taken upon Himself or taken away the evil works of men, what works are then referred to in God's judgment, which Christ Himself proclaimed? "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matthew 16, 27); and in the Revelation of John the Son of Man promised: "I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22, 12).

The words "every man" refer to every human being, whether Christian or nonChristian. Creeds are of no importance in regard to this spiritual happening. Here it is only a question of the human spirit, how it stands at the time of the judgment, that is to say, in the judgment it must reap what it has sown during its repeated earth-lives, good and bad (Gal. 6, 7). The harvesting and sowing naturally applies equally to the seeds of the human works, namely to man's thoughts and actions, as to the seeds of Nature. This is a fact which only very few people make clear to themselves. And these repeated earth-lives, in which many among the best of all peoples have believed and still believe today, give man the opportunity to make

good the mistakes and sins of past lives in the newly given earth-life. Of what use would this making good be in the various earth-lives, if Christ would have taken over the sins of men?

For this reason Christ cannot harvest what men sow. If this were possible God would have to alter His Laws. But His Perfection does not allow this. Not even earthly jurisdiction permits a man to shoulder the guilt of another.

Christ certainly bears the sin of the world (John 1, 29). But He bears it in His wound-marks, on Himself, as a visible sign of the sins committed against Him by men, but not in the sense of taking over their sins.

In many Bibles Martin Luther's correct translation, "Behold the Lamb of God, which beareth the sin of the world" has been changed to "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away or taketh upon itself the sin of the world". This does not correspond, however, to the real happening.

For there is something else besides that makes the taking away of the sin impossible. The works of sin are firmly linked by threads with their author. Only he himself can redeem himself from them by inwardly turning to the good and recognising his faults. Then these threads of fate will gradually dry up and fall away. Man is redeemed from his sin, his sins are forgiven him.

But he does not find this forgiveness and redemption from his misdeeds, faults and weaknesses in the taking-over of sins by Christ, but in the fulfilment of the Laws of God. Christ points out the way to it in His Word. He did not come to let Himself be put to death by men, and thereby, as it were, demand of them to transgress His Father's Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill!"

That this death was not in the Will of His Father plainly follows from the Parable of the wicked husbandmen given by Christ (Matthew 21, 33-39). After the servants (teachers, prophets) whom the householder (God) sent to help the husbandmen (human beings) had been received by them with enmity and had even been killed, God sent His Son to men, assuming that they would reverence Him (Chapter 21, 37). But Him they also killed.

In this parable, which shows in pictures that are to be spiritually understood how hostile is men's attitude towards the Love of God, Jesus forebodingly described His own violent death. But He also expresses in the parable that His death was not intended by His Father, otherwise God would not have said that men would reverence His Son. Surely the meaning here is that they would not dare to harm Him! Nevertheless they did. And the intercession of Jesus on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", showed emphatically enough that men's actions were wrong.

Thus to their already existing sins they added a fresh heavy burden of sin, which must now be redeemed in the Final Judgment proclaimed by Jesus (Matthew 16, 27), so that at last the wounds which the Lamb of God bears as a visible sign of the sin of the entire mankind can close!

The Bible belong to all in respective of your religion we all draw from it.
Cross beares are christians / moslems.

It is not a religion
Regards

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:

@pilgrim.1 You must be refering to many graet authors

How many of them are 'great', let alone authors? BTW, how have the articles you posted addressed the issue of Redemption?

pilgrim.1:

@Hnd-holder,

How many of them are 'great', let alone authors? BTW, how have the articles you posted addressed the issue of Redemption?

Please help to addressed the issue of Redemption clearly, I wish to learn from you.

Hnd-holder:

Please help to addressed the issue of Redemption clearly, I wish to learn from you.

yes o my fellow bro.

pilgrim we all are waiting to hear the issue of redemption in details from your side

Hnd-holder:

Please help to addressed the issue of Redemption clearly, I wish to learn from you.

I will oblige you. I only asked where you supposed the articles you posted actually did so.

Pilgrim is convinced about Redemption as described in the bible. I am at a loss why you guys cannot sense that and still go on to post quotes from the Grail Message or other writings inspired by the Grail Message. You guys already know what Pilgrim views are with regard to redemption and yet you ask her to restate them. I wonder.

Infact, m_nwankwo - you have a rare insight to quickly grasp issues. That is just precisely what I was trying to convey to those gentlemen. People see things differently, and I haven't come across any Grail authors proffering the Biblical understanding of Redemption, even though they quote endlessly from the BIBLE!

That's why I'd appreciate a neat summary (if Hnd-holder could oblige me) about how he thought the articles he posted actually addressed the Biblical understanding of the subject.

Cheers m_nwankwo.

pilgrim.1:

Infact, m_nwankwo - you have a rare insight to quickly grasp issues. That is just precisely what I was trying to convey to those gentlemen. People see things differently, and I haven't come across any Grail authors proffering the Biblical understanding of Redemption, even though they quote endlessly from the BIBLE!

That's why I'd appreciate a neat summary (if Hnd-holder could oblige me) about how he thought the articles he posted actually addressed the Biblical understanding of the subject.

Cheers m_nwankwo.

ce te ris paribus (everything being the same)

@ pilgrim,
meet me at the backyard now!!!

Case closed.

So pilgrim.1 could not see redemption from the point of reaping what she sows. That it is only by doing GOOD.

No miracle can wash away your sin if you are not ready for it.

That CHRIST died for your sin and his blood washes away your sin?  Do not be deceived my sister you have a long.

Keep to your believe if you can not be help.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matthew 16, 27); and in the Revelation of John the Son of Man promised: "I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22, 12).

Hnd-holder:

So pilgrim.1 could not see redemption from the point of reaping what she sows. That it is only by doing GOOD.

I've read many Grail authors again and again on that same slaked line; and I had to patiently go through the ones you posted (even though I'd seen them before you reposted them here). All I want to offer is that you go through the subject of redemption in the Bible and see how it is treated there! You have failed to proffer anything fresh; and it would only have been wise if you'd heeded m_nwankwo's succinct poser.

The Grail authors quote endlessly from the Bible; and yet NONE of the many I've perused to date have enunciated the BIBLICAL meaning of redemption. You only managed to concretely establish my point - that Grail authors have no clue about the Biblical understanding of Redemption - even though they quote endlessly from that Book for their misconceptions.

Hnd-holder:

No miracle can wash away your sin if you are not ready for it.

The one thing you're clutching onto is the misplaced unintellectual articles of the Grail authors. You guys simply haven't grasped the fact that you don't assume to place yourself over others with presuppositions like the above.

Hnd-holder:

That CHRIST died for you sin?  Do not be deceived you have a long way for you to go.

I'm sorry for you. That is why I don't waste scholarship on apprentices. I'd really be thrilled to meet a real Grail author online or anywhere who could role up his sleeves and take me on the debate ANYDAY about the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection! You haven't offered the one thing I asked about, and then you pressume that your vacuity of thought could atone for the deception that is so glaring in the articles you reposted?

Hnd-holder, you haven't met the real pilgrim.1. I play with people when I can afford to; but that should not be mistaken for vacancy of intellect.

If anything at all, it would simply have been sufficient that you either proffered HOW Grail authors actually treated the subject of Redemption from a Biblical perspective (since they quote endlessly from the Bible); or simply acknowledge that they clearly do not! Offering me slaked turn-offs as substitutes for their minus efforts does not address the core issue of my concerns. If there's a left-over from their pretended scholarship that still needs to be emptied in the bin, please oblige me. If not, let's just hope they stow the rest neatly away.

This work is beyond your intellectual capacity I can not fire any of my cylinders only on argument that belong to you, seek for the truth, if you already find why disturbing your self. The Grail message was directed to individual not to groups, leave it if is not useful for you, Why the noise?

Call it noise, you do the sane thing and address issues rather than seek to play apprentice for those who cannot understand themselves in the first place.

You talk about intellect, and yet you still could not reconcile yourself to the simple issue of my enquiry. If someone says he has a Biblical understanding of Redemption, all we want is that such an author shows the same. The Grail authors have failed to do so, and then you rather come back alleging that their deception is more than our intellectual capacity? Don't make me laugh louder. I may be willing to accept that lullaby on the one premise that the Grail authors whose articles you offer as 'beyond your intellectual capacity' have themselves lost the plot.

Pilgrim and Hnd-Holder,

I guess both of you should calm down. Reading the posts on this particular thread I know that at some point there will be hot exchanges between pilgrim  and those who believe in the Grail Message. My view is that such hot exchanges should be avoided. It is not easy but we should strive to address the statement and points raised by others and avoid attacking their person. My advice to Pilgrim is that if you have read the three volumes of the Grail Message chronologically one chapter after the other and find nothing in it, then drop it. Move on with what you are convinced about. No body can convince you of the truth or otherwise of the Grail Message except yourself. Also those that believe in the Grail Message should learn to respect the beliefs of others. Looking down on others who do not share the same view is probably not the correct way to give expression to your faith or conviction. Cheers

@ PILGRIM.

i gave u a simple advice which wud end all this arguements but it's obvious u just want to argue.

why do u keep on judging the Message by the people who have read it.

you are an intelligent girl and i presume u can read and understand well enough.

pick up a copy of the Grail Message.

Read it.

Try to Understand it OBJECTIVELY.

After doing all these, if u STILL feel there are contradictions then DROP IT.

its as simple as ABC

People have done dat and gone their way.

others have read it and it meant everything to them so they are sticking with it.

so Y do u want to sit on the fence.

uve said before that uve read it three times or more.

if it doesnt make any sense then i advice u to drop it and FORGET ABOUT IT instead of starting to oppose it any opportunity u get with wat people who read it are saying.

@enitan
pls lets try and exhibit some maturity here. you dont have to attack m_nwankwo. he just made his observation so learn to respect people's perception  even wen it differs from urs ok.

Regards

@m_nwankwo,

In some way I agree with your rejoinder just above - that there's no need for the heated exchanges.

However, there's a thick line between asking questions from those who offer a particular persuasion, and those same people assuming that the enquirers are intellectually incapable to understand what they offer! That is simply a rascality that I don't put up with ANYWHERE at all.

On the other hand, I don't by into the idea that the Grail message should be dropped by someone who reads it and finds very quizzed assumptions in all 3 volumes. My interest in picking up the Grail Message by Abd-ru-Shin was informed mainly by one thing: Grail authors quote from the Bible endlessly and make people believe that they are presenting Biblical truths! Nevermind that some authors have a penchant to insult the sensibilities of their readers before even presenting their message; I still seek simply to understand what they're about.

There are many questions one MUST ask after perusing books authored by Grail adherents; and I offered ONLY one thus far: the question of REDEMPTION. I don't think this thread would have come this far if we simply have had to acknowledge that even though the authors quote endlessly from the Bible, they're NOT representing a BIBLICAL message!

I have no problem with anyone wanting to engineer their own religion from any fancy sources and tag it with "God". But as a Christian, I have a moral responsibility to share my faith and reject what pretends to be representing that faith. If the Grail Message believes it is making a Biblical offer, why is it too much to ask that Grail followers offer sane answers to simple questions - and instead, more often than not, write off enquirers as simply not intellectually capable to engage dialogue with them? What rascality!

What would you do if I am NOT a Grail follower and I begin to quote from the Grail Message to prove issues that Abd-ru-Shin never meant to convey? Some Grail followers have done precisely that - and other Grail followers on the Forum have quickly weighed in on her post to seriously "correct" her! I didn't read anyone pretending to hold the same persuasion you have offered here - that if they did not understand her point of view, then they simply should not have bothered to correct her!

Why then should it be the default response from Grail followers to ask others to "then drop it" if they have questions from having read all 3 Volumes? Why should I have to be amused and entertained once and again by the same default responses for my simply asking questions - especially simple enough questions that are yet UNanswered by those who feel it is their birthright to write off others as intellectually capable to grasp the under-achievements of the Grail authors?

If Grail followers and authors think it is their corporate business to tell Christians that they 'have a long way to go' for simply believing in the Biblical message, I'd have to keep my fingers crossed for such Grail-ers! The backyard deception in that kind of apologetic is simply an unwritten script for another Disney blockbuster.

i heard somewhere that ignorance is not an excuse right i don't know exactly.


please dear pilgrim. . .kindly refrain from the phrases Grail authors, grail messengers and all the others. they are very wrong choice of words ok.

stick with cross bearers instead even though u still havent got the significance of that term.

cheers

@otuwe,

I don't engage in arguements for anything sake. The reasons why I asked questions and will not put up with the ribald rascal behaviour of Grail apprentices are outlined just above in my rejoinder to m_nwankwo's. I picked up all 3 Volumes of the Grail Message (part of which is even offered online), and READ them several times - OBJECTIVELY. Thereupon I had questions.

Is it illegal to ASK questions? Should I simply read and swallow it and NEVER ask any questions? Is it taboo for Grail authors to offer answers as simply and intelligently as can be helped without their assuming to play the godfather figure of insulting the sensibilities of enquirers? Did I cross any taboo lines for ASKING questions - especially because Grail authors cannot deny that they quote endlessly from the Bible? What is wrong with someone asking questions about works which cite Biblical verses and yet find that the Biblical message has been largely misrepresented?

Let it not surprise anyone here that I'm fully aware that Abd-ru-shin (real name Oskar Ernst Bernhardt) is also author of several books - most of which I have read at least TWICE over! Others as The Ten Commandments of God and The Lord's Prayer; Prayers Given To Mankind; and several others. Would anyone please tell me WHERE indeed Oskar Ernst Bernhardt (pseudonym Abd-ru-Shin) addressed the question of Biblical REDEMPTION?!?

If he did so, I simply want to see it. If he did not, what was the use of Grail authors trying to quote from the Bible and then misrepresent its message?

We expect people with overgrown intellect not to seeing things from spiritual point of view. Little do they know about the Bible. The work of the author of the Grail message was filing the gap that exists by saying the truth cutting across all religion. On a balance note No room for indolence

he said

INDOLENCE OF THE SPIRIT

THE COSMIC Clock can be heard on earth as it now booms out the hour of twelve through the Universe! Frightened, Creation holds its breath, and every creature bows down in fear; for the Voice of God rings down and demands! Demands that you render account, you who have been permitted to live in this Creation!

You have mismanaged the bounty which God in His Love made over to you. All those servants who have thought only of themselves and never of their Master will now be expelled! And all those who sought to make themselves the master. -

You men shy away from my words, for you do not consider severity Divine! But that is only your fault, because until now you have imagined everything Divine, everything that comes down from God, to be tenderly loving and all-forgiving, since that is what the churches have taught you!

But these false teachings were only intellectual schemes aimed at the masscapture of human souls on earth. In order to catch something, a bait is needed that is attractive to everything at which it is aimed. The right choice of bait is the main thing for each catch.

Now as this was intended for human souls, a plan based on their weaknesses was skilfully devised. The lure had to correspond to the main weakness! And this main weakness of the souls was love of ease, the indolence of their spirit!

The church knew very well that it was bound to achieve great success as soon as it showed much leniency towards this weakness, and did not require it to be overcome!

Recognising this aright, it built for earthen a broad and easy road that was ostensibly to lead to the Light, and displayed it enticingly to these earthmen who would prefer to give one-tenth of the fruits of their labour, go on their knees and murmur prayers by the hundred, rather than exert themselves spiritually for even one moment!

Therefore the church took the spiritual effort away from men, also pardoning all their sins if they were obedient outwardly and in the earthly sense, and carried out what the church required of them in mundane ways!

Whether in the way of church attendance, confessions, in the number of prayers, in tributes or in donations and bequests, no matter what, the church was satisfied. They left the believers under a delusion that everything they did for the church would also secure them a place in Heaven.

As if the church could allot these places!

However, the achievements and the allegiance of all believers links them only with their church, not with their God! Neither the church nor its servants can take away from or even forgive a human soul one particle of its guilt! Just as little are they permitted to canonise a soul, and thereby interfere in God's perfect eternal Primordial Laws of Creation, which are immutable!

How can men presume to vote and also to decide on matters that rest in the Omnipotence, the Justice and the Omniscience of God! How dare earthmen try to make their fellow-men believe such things! And it is no less sacrilegious for earthmen credulously to accept such claims, which so plainly carry within them only a dishonouring of the Sublimity of God!

Anything so incredible can only be possible with thoughtless people of herd mentality, who by such action brand themselves with the mark of the greatest spiritual indolence; for the most simple reflection must enable anyone instantly and easily to realise that such persumptions cannot even be explained by human conceit or arrogance, but contain grave blasphemies!

The reciprocal effect must be terrible!

The time of God's forbearance is now indeed over. Holy Wrath strikes the ranks of those offenders who thereby seek to dupe humanity on earth in order to increase and preserve their authority, whereas within themselves they clearly sense that here it is a question of matters far beyond the level to which they can ever be entitled to rise!

How dare they dispose of the Kingdom of God in Eternity? Overnight the Ray of Divine Wrath will awaken them from their unbelievable spiritual slumber and , judge them! - - -

What does a man give to his God by obedience to the church! He does not have with it a single, natural intuitive urge, which alone can help him to ascend.

I say to you that men can in truth only serve God with just that which did not come to life through the churches: With their own thinking and independent investigation! Everyone must journey alone through the mills, through the mechanism of the Divine Laws in Creation. And therefore it is necessary for every man himself to become acquainted at the right time with the nature and function of the mills.

But this is just what many a church has persistently withheld, so that the believers could not develop the necessary personal reflection and intuitive perception. Thereby they robbed man of that staff which alone can guide him safely and direct him towards the Light, and tried instead to force upon every man an interpretation, the acceptance of which was bound to bring benefit only to the church. Benefit, influence and power!

Human souls can serve their Creator only by the activity of their own spirit! Thereby, however, in the first place they are also simultaneously serving themselves. Only that human spirit which stands bright and alert in this Creation, aware of its Laws and adapting itself to them in thought and deed, is pleasing to God, because it is then fulfilling the purpose of existence, which every human spirit has in this Creation!

But this never lies in the observances that the churches demand of their believers! For these lack naturalness and free conviction, knowledge, as the main requisite of true service to God! There is a lack of vigour and joy in helping all creatures to advance, in letting their souls exult in the happiness of knowing that they can contribute to the beauty of this Creation as a part of it, and thereby thank and honour the Creator!

Instead of joyful, free worshippers of God, the church has cultivated church-slaves for itself! It has thrust itself before men's free upward gaze! Thereby obscuring true Light. It has only bound and gagged the human spirits, instead of awakening and liberating them. Wantonly it has kept the spirits in slumber, oppressed them, restrained their desire for knowledge, and forbidden the knowledge itself through regulations that are contrary and opposed to the Will of God! All this in order to uphold its own power.

Even as in olden times the churches have not shrunk from various forms of torture, torment and murder, so today they do not hesitate to slander their fellow-men, speak ill of them, undermine their reputation, agitate against them, and put every available obstacle in their way if they are not willing to join the host of church-slaves! They work with the most sordid means only for their influence, their earthly power.

But through the reciprocal action this now will also be the very first to waver and collapse; for it is the opposite of what God wills! It shows how far removed they are from humbly serving God! -

Enticed by the sanctioned indolence of the spirit, endless multitudes have allowed themselves to be drawn into the fold of the church, which lulls them to sleep! They believed the wicked delusion of a cheap atonement for their sins, and as the spiritually indolent masses grew so did the earthly influence, with the final goal of earthly power! The people did not see that the false view and teaching obscured and defiled the Sacred Justice of Almighty God; they saw only the thus simulated broad and easy road to the Light, which in reality does not exist at all! Through its arbitrary, illusory forgiveness it leads to Darkness and destruction!

The self-glorification of all the churches, which is hostile to God, separates their believers from God instead of leading them to Him. The doctrines were false! But the people should easily have found this out themselves, for they clearly contradict the simplest sense of justice! And therefore the church believers are just as guilty as the churches themselves!

The churches proclaim in the words of Christ from the Gospel of John:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness! And will bring the judgment. I, however, go to the Father and you will henceforth not see me. I came forth from the Father and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father!"

These words are read in the churches without understanding; for it is quite clearly stated by the Son of God that another than He will come to proclaim the Truth and to bring the judgment. The Spirit of Truth Who is the Living Cross! And yet in this matter, too, the church teaches wrongly and against these clear words.

Even though Paul also once wrote to the Corinthians: "For we know in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away!"

Here the Apostle shows that the coming of Him Who will proclaim the Perfect Truth is yet to be expected, and that the prophecy of the Son of God concerning it should not be taken to refer to the well-known outpouring of the Power of the Holy Spirit, which at that time had already taken place when Paul wrote these words.

He testifies thereby that the Apostles did not regard this outpouring of Power as the fulfilment of the mission of the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, as strange to say many churches and believers now try to interpret it at Whitsuntide, because these things would not otherwise fit into the structure of their faith, but would form a gap which must cause serious shocks to this false edifice.

Yet it avails them nothing; for the time has come for the recognition of all these things, and everything that is false collapses!

Until now there could not yet be a true Pentecost for mankind; the recognition through spiritual awakening could not come to them, since they acquiesced in so many false interpretations, in which the churches especially have a great share!

Nothing of their great guilt will be remitted to them! -

Now you men stand amazed before the new Word, and many of you are no longer even capable of perceiving that It comes from the Luminous Heights, because It is so different from what you had imagined! For in you, too, there certainly still lives some of the tenacious indolence in which the churches and the schools have enveloped you, so that you would remain faithful followers, and have no longing for the awakening of your own spirit!

Until now men on earth have been indifferent to what God demands! Once more, however, I say to you: "The broad and easy road which the churches have hitherto tried to simulate for their own advantage is wrong!' With its promise of an arbitrary, illusory forgiveness, it does not lead to the Light!"

otuwe:

i heard somewhere that ignorance is not an excuse right i don't know exactly.


please dear pilgrim. . .kindly refrain from the phrases Grail authors, grail messengers and all the others. they are very wrong choice of words ok.

stick with cross bearers instead even though u still havent got the significance of that term.

cheers

AM OUT OF HERE,

Guess Pilgrim is ON at the moment,
will be back shortly

otuwe:

i heard somewhere that ignorance is not an excuse right i don't know exactly.


please dear pilgrim. . .kindly refrain from the phrases Grail authors, grail messengers and all the others. they are very wrong choice of words ok.

stick with cross bearers instead even though u still havent got the significance of that term.

cheers

You guys should not amuse me further. How many times have I asked that people who follow the Grail Message stand up and be identified as such? Even among yourselves, whenever the question cam eup as to who a crossbearer was, you all shied away from revealing yourselves.

Do lose sleep over that. Grail Messengers, Grail followers, Grail authors are choice words that cannot be confused where I use them - and I still do.

pilgrim.1:

You guys should not amuse me further. How many times have I asked that people who follow the Grail Message stand up and be identified as such? Even among yourselves, whenever the question cam eup as to who a crossbearer was, you all shied away from revealing yourselves.

Do lose sleep over that. Grail Messengers, Grail followers, Grail authors are choice words that cannot be confused where I use them - and I still do.

otuwe,m_nwankwo,

can you guys see exactly what you've caused.You are simply not proud of who you are.

Otuwe, i know how long it took you to tell me that you are a Cross-bearer, while m_nwankwo didnt even reply, why are you not proud of what you believe in.

@ HND-HOLDER,
i really appreciate your effort so far, and i can really say i feel you so much based on your confidence you have displayed so far,

@ ONYEX,
though still a seeker, i appreciate her genuine effort in spreading the light on this page.

Hnd-holder:

We expect people with overgrown intellect not to seeing things from spiritual point of view. Little do they know about the Bible. The work of the author of the Grail message was filing the gap that exists by saying the truth cutting across all religion. On a balance note No room for indolence

he said

INDOLENCE OF THE SPIRIT

Ahh, yes. . . this is how Abd-ru-Shin addresses REDEMPTION, not so - with another excuse to scoot away from the real issue and slake it with "INDOLENCE OF THE SPIRIT"?!?

Now, Hnd-holder. . . don't let that chap deceive you further. 'Overgrown intellect' could just simply be self-accusative actually - and incase you haven't realised it as yet, is that terse exculpation not the very reason why Grail followers (oops, otuwe, apologies) uhm. . . Grail "crossbearers" - is that not the reason why crossbearers have offered that the shape of the forehead has grown to the present size because the brain has actually over-developed? Did anyone cared to ask what was the shape of Oskar Ernst Bernhardt's head? Did he have "overgrown intellect" as well? If you care, please go stand in front of a mirror and come tell us if your brain also was under-developed.

For all I care, "Indolence of the spirit" is a one way traffic to nowhere for those who have decided to check their brains at the feet of O. E. Bernhardt so that they only come back typically displaying vacuity of thought.

Yes I am a proud CROSSBEARER , I saw pilgrim.1 as a seeker who try to mix her believe with things around her. I read the message 7 times before I could understand a point.
Someone must be forcing her into the message either her fiance or her parent. what a bad seed they reap. Producing somebody that is superficially looking at the message.

She need a lot of help.