With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.

The Bible is a compilation of various texts or "books" of different age. While the books of the New Testament may be dated with some confidence, the dates of many of the texts of the Hebrew Bible are difficult to establish. Textual criticism places all of them within the 1st millennium BC, while traditionalist schools assign the Pentateuch a 15th century BC date.
With the exception of a couple of fragments (found among the Dead Sea scrolls, discussed below), no Old Testament manuscript predates the 2nd century BC. The earliest manuscript of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a business card sized fragment of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. The Chester Beatty Papyri, which contains most of the Pauline epistles, the Magdalen papyrus, and the Bodmer Papyri P66 are other noted early manusript, dated c. 200, over a century after the New Testament books were most likely composed. For this reason, dating of the older texts cannot be done directly by dating manuscripts, but relies on textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence, as well as direct references to historical events in the texts.

The Hebrew Bible
The authorship of the Hebrew Bible is an open topic of research, and who and how many people contributed to the text is a vital and lively area of investigation to this date. Therefore, assigning solid dates to any of the texts is difficult. Since the dating of the authorship of these books depends on the particulars of the deconstruction of the texts, the range of dates assigned to the first five books is rather broad, ranging from the 10th to the 6th centuries BC.
As in the case of the Rigveda or the Iliad, it is difficult to date orally transmitted texts, since they are not in a fixed form. Individual portions may well predate the entire text by several centuries. The oldest known materially preserved fragment of a Torah text is a good luck charm, inscribed with Num 6:24–27, and dated to approximately 600 BC (Dever, p. 180). Though whole copies of the Bible were not found at Qumran, the documents of the Dead Sea scrolls contained versions of many books of the Hebrew Bible. The Scrolls have been dated from the 3rd century BC to 68 AD. It is largely undisputed that the text of the Torah had become fixed by 400 BC.
In terms of the dating of complete authoritative texts, there are three main versions of the Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to have been first assembled in the 4th century AD. The oldest known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex; the oldest complete text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the tenth century AD. There is the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the 3rd century BC. The oldest copy of the Septuagint is centuries older than the oldest complete Masoretic text, and fragments of the Septuagint date to the 2nd century BC. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to the 2nd century.
One way to date an ancient text is to examine the text for places or events that were known to the author. If, for example, the text refers to a town or village that did not exist until the 3rd century BC, then that can be used as a reference to pin down the approximate date of authorship. Also used can be the style of writing and common facts known at a particular place and time. Loanwords from other languages can be important, as the period of contact between different cultures creates watermarks in time that allow for dating.
Documents, inscriptions, and objects that have portions of the Torah, or the whole of the text, allow researchers to place an upper bound on the date of a particular portion of text, or perhaps even the whole of it. If the portion of text is small, it can be argued that it simply is part of an oral tradition; for that reason whole books or substantially whole books are proportionately more meaningful in determining when the whole of the Bible was written. Also useful are documents, inscriptions, and objects that speak of the Hebrew Bible, or portions thereof, or of people, places and events that are in common with Biblical narrative.

Torah
Some critical scholars (the 'Biblical Minimalists" insist that the whole of the Torah shows evidence of its construction composed after 538 BC, perhaps with material from an earlier oral tradition, as it were a "prequel" to the prophetic books.
A middle ground is held by people such as Israel Finkelstein, whose archeological studies tend to suggest that a substantial portion of the Pentateuch is a 7th century BC construction, designed to promote the dynastic ambitions of King Josiah of Judah. The 6th century BC Books of Kings tells of the rediscovery of an old book by King Josiah, which would be the oldest part of the Torah, around which Josiah's scribes would have fabricated the remaining text:
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. (2 Kings 22:8 KJV)
Under Josiah's rule there would then for the first time have been a unified and centralized state of Judah around the worship of Yahweh based at the Temple in Jerusalem, portraying King Josiah as the legitimate successor to the legendary David and thus the rightful ruler of Judah. According to this interpretation, neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC, and the archaeological record of pre-Josiac Israel does not support the existence of a unified state in the time of David. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Neil A. Silberman and Israel Finkelstein (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001).
A traditional strain of scholarship (the "Biblical maximalists" would assign portions of the Pentateuch (generally, the J author) to the period of the United Monarchy in the 10th century BC, would date Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic history to the time of King Josiah, and that the final form of the Torah was due to a redactor in exilic or postexilic times (6th century BC). This view is based on the account of the finding of the "book of law" in 2 Kings 22:8, which would correspond to the core of Deuteronomy, and the remaining parts of the Torah would have been composed to supply a background from traditional accounts to the rediscovered text.

Is stephen lampe Right?

Hnd-holder:

Is stephen lampe Right?

Certainly he is wrong.

Hnd-holder:

otuwe is on his own. I am intrested only on pilgrim.1 whose question brought life to the thread. I really appreciate her. I do not like the way she was force to stop asking questions she should ask for us to supply the points for others to read.

Precisely. I've decided to simply pass on and watch the thread.

Regards.

The New Testament

The most accepted historical understanding of how the Gospels developed is known as the two-source hypothesis.

This theory holds that Mark is the oldest gospel.
Matthew and Luke are believed to come later, and draw on Mark and also on a source that is now believed to be lost, called the Q document, or just "Q".The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source" is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke.

John is thought by many to be a later work.
Some, but not most, conservative scholars reject the two-source hypothesis

The Two-Source Hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem among biblical scholars, which posits that there are two sources to Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark and a lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q.

and say it suffers from a number of weaknesses in terms of historicity and textual issues. · Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
· Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
· Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
· Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)
· Acts: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in 60s)
· James: ca.70–200 AD (conservative dating ca.45–62 AD)
· Colossians: +60 AD+
· Corinthians: +57 AD
· Ephesians: +65 AD
· Hebrews: +60–90 AD
· Epistles of John: +95-110 AD
· Jude: +70–100 AD (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier)
· First Peter: ca. 90–96 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
· Second Peter: 100–140 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
· Philemon: +56 AD
· Philippians: +57–62 AD
· Romans: +57–58 AD
· Galatians: +54–55 AD (conservative dating in the late 40s)
· Thessalonians: +50 AD
· Timothy: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
· Titus: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
· Revelation: +81–96 AD (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)


The Gnostic Scriptures
The Nag Hammadi library, a collection of books found in 1945, some refer to as Gnostic Scriptures (which include the Gospel of Thomas), were not accepted as canonical by Jerome in the 4th century AD. They were written in Coptic and are generally dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, though the Gospel of Thomas has ignited some debate, and scholars argue that it dates from 50 AD (Koester, HDS) to the late 2nd century AD (Miers).

Traditional school

In Late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages, neither Jewish nor Christian scholars questioned that the Tanakh, and for Christians the New Testament as well, were accurate historical renditions of the events portrayed, written by the traditionally-attributed authors. The only errors acknowledged were minor ones attributable to copyists. Today, such views are largely confined to Orthodox Jewish scholars and evangelical and/or fundamentalist scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen, Gleason Archer, and Bryant G. Wood.
Many of the scholars who hold conservative views believe that Torah was written from the mid to late 15th century BC, on the basis of 1 Kings 6:1. Similarly, they say, the book of Isaiah in its entirety was written by Isaiah himself (as stated in Isaiah 1:1), and that the book of Daniel was written by the court official who lived and worked from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of Cyrus. Where events and people are mentioned before they happened or were born, they are explained as evidences of God's ability to tell the future in his communication with mankind, which renders the approach essentially irrefutable.
These traditional views went unchallenged down to the emergence of rationalism in the 17th century (see documentary hypothesis).
In respect of the New Testament, scholars of the traditionalist school such as FF Bruce, Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, Bruce Metzger, John Wenham, John Warwick Montgomery, and Edwin M. Yamauchi agree with the historically and traditionally recognized dates for the New Testament, such as
· The first three Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, Hebrews, James, and Peter's Epistles were written in the period between about 50–65 AD.
· The Gospel of John, John's Epistles, Jude, and Revelation were written between about 85–100 AD.
See also
· Documentary hypothesis
· The Bible and history
· Synoptic problem
· Markan priority
· Dead Sea Scrolls
· Nag Hammadi library
· Wiseman hypothesis
· Review of the Leningrad Codex
· Textual Criticism of the Torah
· The Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
· When was the Book of Daniel Written? (C.H. Salvia versus J.P. Holding)
from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible"

pilgrim.1:

Certainly he is wrong.

Regards.

"The Nag Hammadi library, a collection of books found in 1945, some refer to as Gnostic Scriptures (which include the Gospel of Thomas), were not accepted as canonical by Jerome in the 4th century AD. They were written in Coptic and are generally dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, though the Gospel of Thomas has ignited some debate, and scholars argue that it dates from 50 AD (Koester, HDS) to the late 2nd century AD (Miers)."

Stephen Lampe definitely can not be wrong if some Gospels are not published. Why?

pilgrim.1:



Precisely. I've decided to simply pass on and watch the thread.

Regards.

It is a wrong word to use,

"pass on" means dying when cross bearer use the language.

I hope the people who made you to take such decisions are ready for the consequences by tempering with your free will. I also hope they are not the one forcing you to read the message in first instance.

You must understand your religion very well to enjoy the message. It is not compulsory to be a cross bearer or worship on grail temple.
You become a cross bearer only IF you wish to tell others about the message. The message is addressed to individuals only, so it does not link me with any body. It is just a help for you. If you like go to mosque to worship provided you worship in truth and in spirits

Enjoy every bit of your life, say what you like to say.
Good luck

Hnd-holder:

Stephen Lampe definitely can not be wrong if some Gospels are not published. Why?

For the simple reason that the rejoinders your posted have not yet addressed the initial question:

Hnd-holder:

NB
"Some Truths Are Not in the Scriptures"
----- Sephen Lampe

And I asked: "Such as. . . ?"

I was more interested in what particular truths Sephen Lampe could suppose are NOT in the Scriptures.

Hnd-holder:

It is a wrong word to use,

"pass on" means dying when cross bearer use the language.

I respect whatever meaning it may convey to crossbearers. But it definitely has more than one possible meanings:

Verb: pass on
[list]
[li]Place into the hands or custody of[/li]
[li]Transmit (knowledge or skills)[/li]
[li]Move forward, also in the metaphorical sense[/li]
[li]Give to or transfer possession of[/li]
[li]Refer to another person for decision or judgment[/li]
[li]Cause be distributed[/li]
[li]Transmit information[/li]
[/list]

So, perhaps it might be clearer now that I actually have decided to "pass on" in the sense of 'transferring possession of this thread' to those to whom it may appertain.

Hnd-holder:

You must understand your religion very well to enjoy the message. It is not compulsory to be a cross bearer or worship on grail temple.
You become a cross bearer only IF you wish to tell others about the message. The message is addressed to individuals only, so it does not link me with any body. It is just a help for you. If you like go to mosque to worship provided you worship in truth and in spirits

I 'preciate.

Hnd-holder:

Enjoy every bit of your life, say what you like to say.
Good luck

In time I might come back to say some more. But for now, I'm just going to 'pass on' and watch the thread.

Cheers and many blessings.

it seems there has been alot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of wat ive said



please please and please, do forgive me if wat i said didnt go down well with u like i said before am not a good writer so i may not have put things down as diplomatic as i should and for that i apologise.

@pilgrim
girlfriend one thing i know is that its better to be friends with u than be enemies so i dont have a problem with the good laff weve all shared together and i dont want that to end aiight

@enitan
i dont know y u get moody easily but i apologise if u didnt take my last post too well.
i couldnt possibly have anything against being on Grailland or being a Crossbearer but i just felt more emphasy should be on LIVING the message and not just being a sunday sunday worshipper.
i was there on saaturday for cleaning and i go there most weekends for that so its not like i dont have opportunity to go there.
i dont always mean to attack u with my post i wish u cud understand that.

I just pray nobody has any more scores to settle with me.

and nobody should stop doing wat they are doing on my account. i only expressed my volition which cud be wrong too.

cheers

one love

otuwe:

@pilgrim
girlfriend one thing i know is that its better to be friends with u than be enemies so i don't have a problem with the good laff weve all shared together and i don't want that to end aiight

I'm in tears. Aight. . love continues. Hugs.

I commend Pilgrim for showing maturity in her recent posts on this thread and indeed in other threads. I hope she continues that way. Points of faith and conviction can be discussed as long as it remains with the issues at stake and do not degenerate into hidden or open antagonism against the persons involved. In addition discussants should be able to sense the nature of the person they are discussing with and decide whether or not it is of any benefit to continue the discussion. Pilgrim in my sensing is not looking for answers from the Grail Message. She is convinced of her belief in the bible. And that should be respected. Thus you can argue with her for light years on this thread, that will not change her belief. I happen to know Stephen Lampe personally and I will ask those who are a citing his work on this thread to make a copy of all the exchanges on this thread and send it to him. Then get back and tell this thread what are his comments.

m_nwankwo:

I commend Pilgrim for showing maturity in her recent posts on this thread and indeed in other threads. I hope she continues that way. Points of faith and conviction can be discussed as long as it remains with the issues at stake and do not degenerate into hidden or open antagonism against the persons involved. In addition discussants should be able to sense the nature of the person they are discussing with and decide whether or not it is of any benefit to continue the discussion. Pilgrim in my sensing is not looking for answers from the Grail Message. She is convinced of her belief in the bible. And that should be respected. Thus you can argue with her for light years on this thread, that will not change her belief. I happen to know Stephen Lampe personally and I will ask those who are a citing his work on this thread to make a copy of all the exchanges on this thread and send it to him. Then get back and tell this thread what are his comments.

wow, i'm really touched with that, longing to hear more of that from you.
And want to say am really sorry if i've stepped on your toes.

otuwe:

it seems there has been alot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what ive said



please please and please, do forgive me if what i said didnt go down well with u like i said before am not a good writer so i may not have put things down as diplomatic as i should and for that i apologise.

@pilgrim
girlfriend one thing i know is that its better to be friends with u than be enemies so i don't have a problem with the good laff weve all shared together and i don't want that to end aiight

@enitan
i don't know y u get moody easily but i apologise if u didnt take my last post too well.
i couldnt possibly have anything against being on Grailland or being a Crossbearer but i just felt more emphasy should be on LIVING the message and not just being a sunday sunday worshipper.
i was there on saaturday for cleaning and i go there most weekends for that so its not like i don't have opportunity to go there.
i don't always mean to attack u with my post i wish u cud understand that.

I just pray nobody has any more scores to settle with me.

and nobody should stop doing what they are doing on my account. i only expressed my volition which cud be wrong too.

cheers

one love

@otuwe,
thats quite touching, well one thing is that my mood is always diferent from what i type most times, am such a loving-person to come across, if i had also wrong you with some of my replies, kindly find in your heart to forgive me cos am still a baby.

@pilgrim,
one thing i do to make this thread lively whenever i see if it's getting hot at a particular point in time, is just to deviate from the topic a little bit.I never meant to be doing what i was doing here, just that i dont like it when people are just arguing on a matter that none of them is able to compromise.
I can see that you are a very intelligent lady based on some of your posts i've come across in other religion threads, the only advice i just have for you is that, no matter what kind of belief, there's still a grain of truth in them, i still read so many other books apart from the GRAIL MESSAGE just to aquaint myself with the other beliefs, i dont read them to find gaps therein, cos i never can tell where i will need them most.

SHALOM BROTHERS

m_nwankwo:

I happen to know Stephen Lampe personally and I will ask those who are a citing his work on this thread to make a copy of all the exchanges on this thread and send it to him. Then get back and tell this thread what are his comments.

Of course I can even phone him but will not be necessary because I know him more than you do. Stephen Lampe was just a Pen name you know that.
Never try to colour the truth leave everybody to carry his or her cross that is my own advise any way.

Hnd-Holder,

It is ok if you know Stephen Lampe better than me. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

For the simple reason that the rejoinders your posted have not yet addressed the initial question:

And I asked: "Such as. . . ?"

I was more interested in what particular truths Sephen Lampe could suppose are NOT in the Scriptures.

The cases of how many times human being need to come to this world before he can make it to the true home. Given clear presentation to the issue of redemption and salvation with biblical refrences.

"Nothing is so important to man as his existence; nothing so much to be feared as eternity. And therefore it is quite unnatural that there should be men indifferent to the loss of their being and to the danger of an eternity of misery. They think quite otherwise of everything else; they fear the smallest things, they anticipate them, they suffer from them; and the same man who passes so many days and nights in rage and despair over the loss of a place or for some imaginary slight on his honor, that same man knows without anxiety or emotion that he will lose everything at his death. It is a monstrous thing to see this strange sensibility about small things, existing side by side in the same heart at the same time."
(Blaise Pascal 1623-1662)

"We should seek the truth without hesitation; and, if we refuse it, we
show that we value the esteem of men more than the search for truth."
-- Blaise Pascal


"The spirit, does not express itself in the intellect, but in the intuitive perceptions, and only manifests in what is generally called "deep inner feeling" That is just what the intellectual man of today, who is so inordinately proud of himself, likes to mock and ridicule. Thus he derides what is most valuable in man, yes, the very thing that really makes man a human being!"
-- Abd-ru-shin

"Thou Shalt not Kill!"

IN THOSE days Jesus could only fulfil His Mission to proclaim the Truth among the Jewish people, because in their midst were human beings who, through their spiritual maturity, offered the support that was needed for an embodiment of the Divine Word. But among this selfsame people the Darkness too found in the ranks of the religious and worldly leaders men whom it needed for its plan of destruction, and who moreover held the power in their hands. It was especially reprehensible that among those were also priests who called themselves servants of God, and then had His Son put to death.

But all this conduct on the part of the chief offenders would immediately appear in a different light if the death of Jesus, according to the opinion of many, had been provided for in God's plan of salvation or redemption. For the guilty ones themselves this of course results in a very paradoxical situation. On the one hand they are made responsible for the murder of Jesus; on the other hand, by the assumption of a death provided for in the plan of redemption, they are forced into the role of executive instruments who have to co-operate as traitors, judges, and executioners of the death sentence.

With regard to such a plan of redemption, how is it possible for God to demand that men should murder His own Son, whereby He would transgress His own Commandment? And where in this connection is the free will of man, that was laid with him in the cradle of his spirit?

All this would be possible only if the plan of redemption were based on Divine arbitrary actions, which however God's Perfection would never allow. Hence this plan, with its complete lack of logic, can have been conceived only by men. God did not send His Son to earth in order to let Him die for the sins of others.

When from the very beginning God has interwoven with His Creation the Law of Sowing and Reaping, then it is for all eternity an immutable Law which nothing can overthrow, not even a Son of God. In the very fact that the Laws of this Creation also apply to Parts of God Who descend to Creation lies the Greatness and Perfection of God. Jesus Himself confirmed this with the words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5, 17).

Hence Jesus, being innocent, cannot take upon Himself the guilt of others, because He has not sown the seed for it. When the death of Jesus was foreseen by the Prophets, and later His own death was also foreseen by Jesus Himself, it was for an entirely different reason from that of the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son allegedly laid down in God's plan of redemption.

The true reason for these predictions lies in the depravity of men, the majority of whom had sunk so deeply at the time of the prophets' predictions that, unless they were to change, the end of their wrongly adopted course could be accurately foreseen. Added to this was the knowledge that every Truth-Bringer who faced men on this course of hostility to the Light would be removed by them unless they were prepared to accept his message.

Therefore the entire greatness and grace of the sacrifice made by the Son of God, Who in spite of the greatest dangers already discernible in the beginning took His Mission upon Himself, can hardly ever be divined. For without this Mission even the few still carrying within them a spark of longing for the Light would have been lost.

For Jesus Himself death on the cross had only the one meaning: confirmation of the Truth of the Word brought by Him, Its continuation and the spreading of It. Had He yielded in the face of His enemies, and renounced His Origin and Teaching, His entire Mission would have failed.

Physical Resurrection

Yet another interpretation of the death of Jesus should be mentioned here. It states that Jesus did not die on the cross; that He was still alive when He was taken from the cross. The Turin Shroud, which is considered to be Jesus' winding-sheet, is said to furnish proof of this. Jesus is then supposed to have regained His strength in the tomb, and to have arisen in the physical body which He had hitherto worn. For this reason the Jewish people were not guilty of the murder of Jesus. Also, in order to cross the earthly boundary when ascending to Heaven He had not changed His physical body into His ascension body before He arose from the tomb, but just shortly before He ascended.

With the help of the Shroud, other scientific sources have established that Jesus died on the cross from suffocation as a result of the crucifixion.

To this it must be said: What was decisive for the guilt was the resolve of the priesthood to kill Jesus, which was certainly not made with the intention that He should not die on the cross.

Even if Jesus had still been alive after being taken from the cross, it could only have been for a short time; but this cannot be assumed because, through maltreatment and suffering on the cross, His physical body was no longer capable of living.

The resurrection of Jesus after His physical death is a matter of the beyond and not of this world. Jesus could not ascend to Heaven in His physical body, because this is impossible according to the Laws of Nature, which express nothing other than the Will of God.

There is only one solution to the empty tomb, namely that the physical cloak of Jesus was secretly buried in an unknown place by His disciples or friends in order to protect it from being arbitrarily seized.

When after His physical death Jesus was seen by His disciples and other people, it was not His transfigured physical body but His ethereal or non-physical body, which like every human being He bore already on earth, and which enveloped His Divine Core. Nevertheless it can be said that Jesus arose in full bodily form, but with His ethereal body, which also has a human form. Hence Jesus could say to His frightened disciples: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself" (Luke 24, 39). This non-physical body also bore the wound-marks.

But this seeing was possible only with men's ethereal eyes, after their eyes had been opened for it, as is explicitly stated (Luke 24, 31); that is to say they had first to be made clairvoyant. Likewise Jesus was able to pass through closed doors with His ethereal body (John 20, 19 and 26), because the finer species can always penetrate the coarser, just as for example radio waves pass through walls.

Collective Guilt

In all these considerations as to the chief offenders we must not forget one thing. Jesus came because of the sins of mankind. They were sins against the Holy Spirit, thus against the Will of God Which is expressed in the Laws of Creation. Yet not only the Jews were involved in the sins of mankind, but also all other men, through continually trespassing against the Divine Laws, Commandments and Teachings during many earth-lives.

The sins, or rather the products of the sins, which have forms and bear within them a certain life, were even at that time so great that a huge city could form from them in the non-physical (ethereal) planes: Babylon, the wicked city, under the dominion of Lucifer (Rev. 17, 5; 18, 2). From it comes the Darkness that holds the earth in its grip. From the outset this hate-filled Darkness sought to render the Mission of Jesus impossible. For this every means, however reprehensible, was suitable. But as it could find no fault with Jesus Himself, it sought and found willing helpers and underlings among men.

That ugly thing came to pass on a big scale, which takes place every day on a small scale.

Let us assume that for some reason men harbour envy. This envy shapes itself into invisible, very active forms, which in accordance with the Law of Attraction of Homogeneous Species merge into a centre, with which all the envious ones are again connected by threads.

If at some time and at some place a member of this "envy-community" commits a crime on earth, all the others are involved in it and partly responsible through their envy-filled volition, even if their day-consciousness experiences nothing of it. A common guilt, the collective guilt, then links them all.

Thus the roots of a collective guilt lie in the similar thoughts and intuitive perceptions of men. Generally on earth only the person who committed the deed will be caught. All other "accomplices" will remain concealed, because no one can follow the threads in the beyond, unless there be a special clairvoyant gift for it, which however is rarely to be found. Yet the accomplices must also in some way atone for their guilt in accordance with the Divine Laws, from which nothing escapes.

It is in this light that the problem of the guilt of Golgotha is also to be regarded. The earthly barriers must be crossed, in order to gain the necessary comprehensive view. For sin does not stop at national borders. Therefore the idea of a collective guilt on the part of the Jews alone cannot be upheld, precisely because the whole of mankind is involved in the murder of Golgotha, through their combined sinful conduct.

Repeated Earth-Lives
Many will now ask: Can a man who is living today be personally implicated in the crucifixion of Jesus that took place two thousand years ago? If his sin only arises now, it cannot have contributed to the burden of sin at the time of Jesus.

This question leads us to take a wider view of the activity in Creation, and to seek the solution in repeated earth-lives. The knowledge of this gives us above all an insight into the connections of the great weaving in Creation, and helps to close many a gap in our questions and problems, which without this knowledge would always have to remain open.

Almost all the great ones among many peoples have believed in the reincarnation of the soul, and still do. It is not the case that again and again a soul is newly formed at procreation or birth. The soul exists even before birth, and half way through pregnancy is incarnated into the physical body, which it leaves again at death.

The Law of Attraction of Homogeneous Species, as expressed in the popular saying, "Birds of a feather flock together", and in some cases also the Law of Reciprocal Action (the Law of Sowing and Reaping), are decisive for an incarnation. Thus each soul comes to the place where it belongs, and no one need fear that he might be mistaken in the choice of his parents. Often man only thinks so when, for instance, the similar species that contributed towards the attraction is also founded in evil qualities. Then faults, weaknesses and propensities form a mutual source of irritation, often to the point of becoming unbearable; but at the same time this provides the opportunity to experience and lay aside one's wrong conduct.

This is especially important for the present time. For we are in the final happening, equivalent to a final judgment, in which all the threads of fate from former earth-lives must be experienced and redeemed through an inner change towards the good and beautiful, so that men become free from every burden for the new upbuilding on earth, in peace and harmony, as promised by God.

Hence the reactions and releases of individual and mass destinies increase in an uncanny way, because over thousands of years almost nothing has been sown but evil volition, which must now bear fruit.

The return of mankind's heavy karma of Golgotha also falls due at this final time. This means that those who were present then are again on earth, whether as Jews or as embodiments in other peoples. For reincarnations do not stop at nations and peoples either. Here only the state of spiritual maturity and the qualities acquired count.

For this reason stigmata need not appear among Jews. Stigmata, that is the wound-marks of Christ, are borne by people as the consequence of a grave personal offense against Jesus during His sojourn on earth. Let us recall, for instance, the thief on the cross who mocked Jesus. They must naturally be stigmata that appear spontaneously, and are not caused through religious ecstasy.

The spirit of man is therefore much older than is supposed, much older than past physical bodies and the present one. Although in most cases he knows nothing of this, he has nevertheless absorbed the lessons and experiences of many earth-lives, and makes use of them unconsciously.

But the knowledge of repeated earth-lives should make one thing absolutely clear to him with regard to the problem of the guilt of Golgotha: How petty and base are the hatred and persecution of Jews, or even reprisals against them! Who among those who do such things knows whether he himself has not burdened himself with some guilt as a Jew at that time, be it only through indifference towards the Message of Jesus.

"To me Belongeth Vengeance"

Even in the Old Testament men were urgently warned of such wrong-doing with the Words of God: "To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense" (Deut. 32, 35). These words, together with the saying "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Deut. 19, 21), give testimony to the immutable Justice of God that manifests in the Law of Sowing and Reaping, of Effect and Reaction, or we can also say: in the Law of Reciprocal Action, which permeates the entire Creation. The spiritual seed of men is just as much subject to this Law as the seed which we entrust to the soil.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. These expressions in the language of the Old Testament illustrate to us how the Law of Reciprocal Action, which is closely connected with the Law of Attraction of Homogeneous Species, works. Always wheat can arise only from the wheat-grain which we put into the earth; from the good we bring into the world only good can come, and the evil we produce returns to us again as evil, each many times over, just as the seed bears manifold fruit. Hence that is what is meant by the words "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth": Like brings forth like, joy causes joy and affliction causes affliction.

It was never meant to demand that we should knock another person's eye out if he has done that to us. It is to prevent this that the words, "To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense", are given; namely, man must leave vengeance,

recompense or harvest to the Laws of God, thus to His Will, Which down to the most minute detail will ensure such a just harvest, exactly corresponding to the seed, as man could never succeed in doing.

It is also in this way that the words of Paul to the Romans are to be understood: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath (the reciprocal action); for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Rom. 12, 19).

These Biblical words, which were given to the people of Israel thousands of years ago, and which until now have hardly been understood in their deeper significance, are to warn us all against acts of retaliation out of personal vengefulness, even in connection with those human beings whose fate is closely linked with the dark deed of Golgotha.

@Pilgrim 1

The Messiah Question"
Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6, 4). This has been the wording of the Jewish creed for thousands of years. And in the Jewish Prayer Book it says: "I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be his name, is a Unity, and that there is no unity in any manner like unto his, and that he alone is our God, who was, is, and will be."

To the Jews this "unity" means "sole", "unique", and to them it admits of no Son of God or Divine Mediator. For this reason, too, Jesus is rejected as the Son of God. Hence the Messiah still awaited by many Jews even today can be no Son of God, but at the most one chosen at birth, a high spirit especially empowered by God, who has no part in Divinity.

But it should be borne in mind that the Unity of God was especially emphasised in view of the polytheism prevalent in those days. And then it must not be forgotten that the earthly relationship of father and son, that is of two completely different persons, cannot be applied here. A Son of God can only be a Part of God, Which God severs from Himself and sends into His Creation, but Which always is and remains one with Him, and only outwardly appears as two in Its working, by which the Unity of God is not annulled. It is as Jesus said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10, 30).

Therefore the references by the Prophets Daniel and Isaiah to the second Son of God, the Son of Man, should be considered and examined, because here lies the solution to the question of the Messiah Who has for long been ardently awaited.

Isaiah proclaims of God: "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43, 10 and 11). But God has also let the same prophet proclaim Imanuel, Who in Daniel (7, 13 and 14) is still called by the name Son of Man: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Imanuel" (Isaiah 7, 14). Also the time is given when Imanuel will appear, a time when it becomes physically manifest that nothing that is not resolved and carried out according to the Will of God can last; all else must perish, "it will come to nought". It is the great time of perplexity, in which one conference follows another, when distrust is everywhere, unrest and great uneasiness, when hopeless confusion spreads ever more. Already thousands of years ago this time was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah with the words: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us" (Isaiah 8, 10).

The Biblical passages were mistakenly related to Jesus. So, for instance, the Evangelist Matthew confused Imanuel with Jesus (Matthew 1, 22 and 23), Whom Micah prophesied (Micah 5, 2). Jesus never called Himself Imanuel, nor was He ever called so by others.

The expectation of a Messiah, the establishing of a Messianic World Kingdom, thus of an earthly Kingdom of Peace, as foretold by the Prophets, concerns all men, because it is only the spirit of man that counts before God, and not races, nations and religions.

Finally, leaving aside all dogmas, every human being must in his own interest recognise a Son of God as such. For this, however, he needs an alert spiritual intuitive perception, which alone can help him to recognition. He must be like the wise virgins in the parable which Jesus ends with the words: "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." (Matthew 25, 13).

The Cross of Truth

The basis of Christianity is Judaism, which takes a firm place in the spiritual history of the development of mankind. Just let us think of the Ten Commandments, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's Prayer, all of them Divine Words that have been given to the people of Israel, to the Jews.

They too have the selfsame spiritual origin and the selfsame common road through material Creation as have all men.

For at one time all men came as "spirit-seed-grains" from their spiritual home, from Paradise, into the material, transient world of Creation, in order to return thence to their spiritual home as fully conscious personalities after the completion of their development.

But most of them strayed from the road and no longer found the goal. For that reason the immeasurable Love of God inclined to the earth, in order to speak directly to the almost lost human beings, and to tell them that the Truth can come only from God.

Therefore let us take to heart the words which Jesus spoke to men: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Luke 9, 23), or ". . . take up the cross, and follow me" (Mark 10, 21).

By the Cross Jesus meant the sign of Divine Truth, the equal-armed Cross. From discoveries and excavations it transpires that this Cross is an ancient symbol which was known on earth before Christ, and which can also be seen in many churches, sometimes encircled with a ring, sometimes without the ring. It must not be confused with the form of the Golgotha cross of suffering.

He who takes up this Cross takes up the Truth, but not a burden, as it is wrongly interpreted.

Jesus has never intended with His words to call upon men to take up a daily burden. On the contrary, He wanted to make their life easier by exhorting them to live up to the Truth every day, to look for and recognise It in the Laws of Creation, and to adjust their daily life to these Laws.

He who does so frees himself from all burden and guilt, likewise from the guilt of Golgotha, which according to the Eternal Laws now returns at this time in order to be redeemed. For him the Golgotha cross of suffering will be changed into the redeeming Cross of Truth, which victoriously conquers all Darkness!

Copyright 1985 by Herbert Vollmann, Vomperberg, Tyrol. All rights reserved.

@enitan2002,

@pilgrim,
one thing i do to make this thread lively whenever i see if it's getting hot at a particular point in time, is just to deviate from the topic a little bit.I never meant to be doing what i was doing here, just that i don't like it when people are just arguing on a matter that none of them is able to compromise.

You're absolutely right. I catch your frequency to offer lighter moods in heated threads - and that is something I deeply appreciate about you every single time.

I can see that you are a very intelligent lady based on some of your posts i've come across in other religion threads, the only advice i just have for you is that, no matter what kind of belief, there's still a grain of truth in them, i still read so many other books apart from the GRAIL MESSAGE just to aquaint myself with the other beliefs, i don't read them to find gaps therein, because i never can tell where i will need them most.

Aye. I grab. Thanks and many blessings.

@Hnd-holder,

The cases of how many times human being need to come to this world before he can make it to the true home. Given clear presentation to the issue of redemption and salvation with biblical refrences.

Since I've offered to not serve you arguments of any kind, I'd simply say that Sephen Lampe is still far wrong on those subjects - as far as the Bible is concerned. Same with the several other articles you posted subsequently.


@All,
Thanks again for having me in your warm thoughts. Good exchanges continue to draw my in here. Bless y'all.

I still dont get it. Its really complex. The grail seems to be shrouded in so much mystery. Those that have the 'message' tend to talk in exhalted language. Cant it be explained in simple and straightfoward language?

@ FlyLyde
Good let me explain that to you. The book known as In The Light Of Truth is the GRAIL Message. Is in three volumes. The highest of everything and anything over and above the universe is called the Grail.
These books must be read orderly without jumping any page. The reason is that once you jump a page a line or chapter the meaning will change. The next page was built on the foundation of the current page. so the use of a word will explain what was read before. Some of the words use was just approximate in English because the message was written in German Language.
We shall make effort to use simply words without changing the meaning. Thank you.

THE LORD'S PRAYER
as explained to mankind by
Abd-ru-shin


There are only few human beings who seek to become aware of what they actually want when they say the "Lord's Prayer". Still fewer who really know what is the meaning of the sentences which they rattle off. Rattle off is probably the only accurate designation for the process which in this instance man calls praying.
He who examines himself unsparingly in this respect must admit this, otherwise he proves that he spends his whole life in the same way , superficially, and that he is not, nor ever has been, capable of any deep thought. There are enough of them on this earth who certainly take themselves seriously, but with the best will in the world cannot be taken seriously by others.
Especially the beginning of this Prayer has always been taken in the wrong sense, even though in different ways. Those who try to undertake this Prayer earnestly, thus who set about it with a certain good volition, experience a certain feeling of safety, of psychic calm arising within them after or during these first words! And this feeling prevails with them for several seconds after praying.
This explains two things: First, that the one who prays can maintain his earnestness only for the first words, whereby they release this feeling in him; and second, that just the release of this feeling proves how far removed he is from grasping what he is saying with them!