^^^
I recognise you were stating your views. But that's what I was actually trying to point out - that that is your view, not official Christianity's. I think it's honest to stick with Isaiah, but the fact remains that there is no single official Christian material that teaches 1 in 3 or 1 as 3. If there is any I would like to be corrected on this. As I write this, I can see my primary four teacher, Miss Iguisi, standing in front of the class teaching CRK, topic, "The Holy Trinity." Here she goes: "There are three persons in one God. . ." And so says all the creeds.

See my point?

Assuredly, I see your point. In the spirit of the bereans though, I search for myself and am not a cow in a herd. the choices came down to which to choose - the creeds and traditions of men OR the Word of God? Briefly I found -

[1] Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is One God
[2] In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
[3] Baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (with the idea they form a unity)

One God. thats a definite! The Word was God. Still one! That Word became Flesh. Still one. Baptise in the "combined" name of Father, Son, Spirit. considering you and DS have argued that the Spirit is the "force" of God, I'd assume you believe Him the same as the essence of God.

So what are we talking about? History shows us that men have always devised ways to glorify themselves rather than God and thus it makes sense that they would dilute Gods in an attempt to "raise up" themselves. Even here, we see the infallible NL "gods", don't we? Because such abound, the tendency is to take them as the voice of Christianity but one pointer to the truth is that true Christians are "called out" of their assemblies and usually are not conformists. In the case of Christianity, minority usually means truth. Take a look at the thread "Christians on NL" and you'll get my point. I would really love to see if you agree with my choice of "maturing" Christians on NL based on what you've seen people write here.

Again, "Biblical based" Christianity does not teach 3 in 1. That is just the worldly "christian" position ! We have just the one God!   

3 in 1, 1 as 3, what difference does it really make? Really? It's not even as awkward as putting the cart before the horse. It's just like a reversible reaction. The only way a significant difference can be inferred is if Nuclearboy for instane accepts that a manifestation can not possibly be eternal. 1 as 3 presupposes that there was a time that there was 1 as 1 or 1 as another set of - insert suitable number- totally different from these three. Then one might ask, we know the 3, who's the one? Seems like the father, no? But that would leave a deficit amongst the three. The more I desperately try to understand, the more befuddled I get. Other happy Christians say I'm proud and that gets in the way. I AM proud but I'm not conceited. Christianity is pretty easy too. All I have to do is believe and pretty much remain the same old V with the same old routine.

If only I could be atheist but that one is several times higher on the scale of the ridiculous

@Vesc: Again MY perspective!

We're talking God here not any of us so it conceivable that He does things we cannot do. Remember my God identification mantraa "I AM THAT I AM" - I take this to mean a personage that does as He wishes and because of His position in the scheme of things cannot be queried as a matter of compulsion i.e. He owes us no explanation just as the chicken I ate last couldn't query me!.

3 in 1 would to my understanding mean MyJoe, Vescucci and Myself (all being known to each other) sharing an account here on NL. Of course there would be agreement that whatever I say is your/his position.

But in the Bible, you will find reference to God as being just the one except in transitory verses such as that which say "the Lord said unto my Lord - sit down at my Right Hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool". I call these transitory because they show a starting point (so to say) and reward for something seemingly different - a MAN-GOD. As we like to spout, God is spirit yet here comes this "flesh" who has fulfilled the original Adamic covenant. He gets the reward promised Adam. But the only reason why He could fulfill it is because He does not have the nature of the rest of us - He has the God Nature. Read that as God's mind, Spirit, understanding plus the Bible says He was the Word and was God.

I've said this before - Over a phone, I'm a voice and concerning issues I excel in, I might seem larger than life. I've had that happen a number of times here on NL. See me and it looks like "wow, so this is THAT guy". Why? Were they expecting 2 heads or a tail? It was because the expectation especially concerning such things is usually geared towards our own manner of thinking. I can remember wishing I could be God for 5 minutes; its funny the things I wanted that august position for. Have you too never considered such? The desires we have make us believe no-one could have such capability and not be like us - the idea is a major indictment on us (that we are so below such personage) and no one wishes to pronounce himself guilty and send himself to jail (well, except Pablo Escobar).

Separate the Flesh from the Spirit and what you find then is the essence - Creator, Holy, etc. But it was the Flesh that glorified the "person". what would have been the right to do? Throw it away?

I sincerely believe God has approached "individuals" in other forms. But these 3 we speak about are His trademark (pun intended) for ALL mankind. He could come to you as a voice in your sleep or a stranger that offers advise on the street - that was your own experience. But consider - we understand that satan presents himself even as an angel of light! What then stops him from creating multiple instances of manifestations which would gradually derail his audience? Thus Christianity insists "God is ONE" and Jesus put the seal on how to view Him when He said "Baptise by Father, Son and Holy Spirit" which I believe to indicate Spirit, Body and Soul. No more, AND no less!

Even at that, Bro, life is replete with satan trying to pass himself of as one or all of the three. Truly, it can seem complicated. But repeated true study will take differing portions and provide one whole

We oughtn't question God once we're sure He's the one actually talking to us. For you that have absolute faith in the bible, there may be no problems but the same doesn't go for me unfortunately. It's moot really. Your views are unprovable and they can't be disproved. I just wonder. Jesus was here a mere 30 odd years. Why does that make him a hall of famer manifestation? See what I mean with the more I try, the less I understand? In any case, I do not want to derail this thread.

I'd never really wanted to be God by the way. Superman,Beowulf and the rest, sure. But I guess that's the same thing, right. We all wanna be something more

nuclearboy:

@Vesc: Again MY perspective!

We're talking God here not any of us so it conceivable that He does things we cannot do. Remember my God identification mantraa "I AM THAT I AM" - I take this to mean a personage that does as He wishes and because of His position in the scheme of things cannot be queried as a matter of compulsion i.e. He owes us no explanation just as the chicken I ate last couldn't query me!.

3 in 1 would to my understanding mean MyJoe, Vescucci and Myself (all being known to each other) sharing an account here on NL. Of course there would be agreement that whatever I say is your/his position.

But in the Bible, you will find reference to God as being just the one except in transitory verses such as that which say "the Lord said unto my Lord - sit down at my Right Hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool". I call these transitory because they show a starting point (so to say) and reward for something seemingly different - a MAN-GOD. As we like to spout, God is spirit yet here comes this "flesh" who has fulfilled the original Adamic covenant. He gets the reward promised Adam. But the only reason why He could fulfill it is because He does not have the nature of the rest of us - He has the God Nature. Read that as God's mind, Spirit, understanding plus the Bible says He was the Word and was God.

I've said this before - Over a phone, I'm a voice and concerning issues I excel in, I might seem larger than life. I've had that happen a number of times here on NL. See me and it looks like "wow, so this is THAT guy". Why? Were they expecting 2 heads or a tail? It was because the expectation especially concerning such things is usually geared towards our own manner of thinking. I can remember wishing I could be God for 5 minutes; its funny the things I wanted that august position for. Have you too never considered such? The desires we have make us believe no-one could have such capability and not be like us - the idea is a major indictment on us (that we are so below such personage) and no one wishes to pronounce himself guilty and send himself to jail (well, except Pablo Escobar).

Separate the Flesh from the Spirit and what you find then is the essence - Creator, Holy, etc. But it was the Flesh that glorified the "person". what would have been the right to do? Throw it away?

I sincerely believe God has approached "individuals" in other forms. But these 3 we speak about are His trademark (pun intended) for ALL mankind. He could come to you as a voice in your sleep or a stranger that offers advise on the street - that was your own experience. But consider - we understand that satan presents himself even as an angel of light! What then stops him from creating multiple instances of manifestations which would gradually derail his audience? Thus Christianity insists "God is ONE" and Jesus put the seal on how to view Him when He said "Baptise by Father, Son and Holy Spirit" which I believe to indicate Spirit, Body and Soul. No more, AND no less!

Even at that, Bro, life is replete with satan trying to pass himself of as one or all of the three. Truly, it can seem complicated. But repeated true study will take differing portions and provide one whole

This is the result of forcing a square dogma into the round hole of reason. . . pandemonium in every sentence. . .

"Delusion" - Encarta English Dictionary - Noun - "false idea or belief. Formal: an idea or belief that is not true."

Synonyms - Illusion, Mirage, Hallucination, Fantasy, Apparition . . .

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote from: nuclearboy on August 13, 2010, 07:10 AM

"Personally anyway, I still maintain that my true belief is "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One God". His manifestations however, may be myriad."

My response then and now -

Excellent. Myriad manifestations. Why limit God to three manifestations. Three is a finite number. God is infinite. Infinite manifestations.

Deep Sight. You dey find the man trouble. Quit being a wet sandwich.

His response then and now I believe is that he doesn't limit God's manifestations to three but those three are the ones he's aware of or the ones God, for whatever reasons, chose to deal with us. This can't be too hard an act to follow, my good man?

^^^ IT IS HARD FOR ME TO FOLLOW: AS IT SHOULD BE FOR ANYONE VIEWING THE MATTER OBJECTIVELY.

You cannot state that God may have infinite manifestations and then ALSO state that God deals with us only through THREE or that those THREE are the only manifestations that we may understand: -

The obvious logical gap being that that implies that God is NOT a trinity, but only shows us THREE parts of his INFINITE nature!

The idea of God being a Trinity is thus dead on arrival with such reasoning. Indeed God being infinite and thus having infinite manifestations is indubitable - and for this reason once Mr. Nuclear accedes as he does that he merely is only able to see three of those infinite manifestations: then this means that he accepts that God's manifestations are not three but infinite - merely that he -  Mr. Nuclear, can only apprehend three - which is fine. Thus under his own reasoning there is no such thing as God being a trinity - rather there is God, whose manifestations are infinite - revealing only three of such manifestations to Mr. Nuclear. This renders his trinity fantasy a clumsy theological patchwork.

Thank you, but I am not having wet sandwiches for lunch today.

Actually, DeepSight's not been wet nor is he looking for my trouble.

God can approach any of us in any number of ways. That is an individual thing. But to the entirety of mankind, and to my understanding, there have been 3 manifestations. That is a corporate thing and helps to provide AN IDENTITY which can be recognized. Call it a brand!

Now I, as an individual may claim God appears to me as a coyote every Thursday evening - how do I prove it? You could state he shows to you as an infinite regression of numbers in your sleep or (more likely for DS) as the patch between his latest conquest's legs. Your truth OR your delusion - it is individual and matters only to you.

Now if anyone doesn't understand the above, I suggest a visit to heaven to clarify!

Lol, Nuke. You sound like your wife admonished you to be nice. Maybe Seun knows more about that patch you speak of since he equates a certain thing to a 'heavenly feeling'. The infantile crass humour aside, lemme get serious.

Deep Sight, there's no such thing as proof in religion. There are only explanations, most of which is implausible. First off, I don't even believe in the trinity or God manifesting in any way that contains His substance. But my disagreement with people doesn't mean I can't understand them or I have to show them that what they believe is ridiculous. Except they concede two premises that are incompatible, this is impossible anyway. If God has infinite manifestations, He surely has appeared to man in a finite number of ways even if every single human had an imaginary friend aka God's manifestation. Of all of these, if there is to be an assembly of believers, it won't do to have everybody recounting his or her experiences with his or her imaginary friend. There would have to be some common friend for everybody. A trinity would fit ok.

The above is a shoddy explanation and I don't believe a word of it but I'm capable of concocting it. There's an equal possibility that there are infinite manifestations of God and that there are only three. The real question should be: Are the members of the trinity true manifestations of God; are they manifestations at all?

Let me now go back to your post. Forgive me for I might sound presumptuous for I know not how far back you and Nuke go. But the little I know suggests that there's no conflict in your second paragraph and both views in there need not be mutually exclusive. In short I don't see how it's impossible to hold both views. God is infinite but we only see three of him.

The second paragraph. God MAY not be proven to be EXCLUSIVELY a trinity. Assuming Nuke's position is that of an ardent trinitarian, of which I'm not sure, he might be forgiven for dealing with God as exclusively a trinity for it serves him no purpose otherwise. No catholic on earth, I'd expect, except he's some kinda freak, knows all the saints, patrons etc. Knowing God's other manifestations serves what purpose?

Me and you, Deep Sight, share many similar beliefs or more aptly disbeliefs, but you should understand other people's hogwash. You certainly don't have to believe them.

^^ Actually, no one got me to be nice - DeepSight has enough issues with infinity (an infinite number of them, in fact) so why break the bank and make it [infinity + 1]. Allow him his

QUOTE
This is the result of forcing a square dogma into the round hole of reason. . . pandemonium in every sentence. . .
"Delusion" - Encarta English Dictionary - Noun - "false idea or belief. Formal: an idea or belief that is not true."
Synonyms - Illusion, Mirage, Hallucination, Fantasy, Apparition . .
UNQUOTE

Day!

How many days do you see infinity not handing him a spanking that we'll grudge him this one?

DeepSight Baba! ! ! 3 - 0

Mad_Max:

MyJoe, I began the Original Teachings of Jesus a couple of hours ago and just finished it. It's a short read. It is, of course, the point of the view of the author on the subject; everything is merely his own opinion. But then that's what all books and theses on religion are; opinion. It's all shifting points of view. Chakra is a Japanese word for a sort of energy store in the human body. I know because I watched a lot of Naruto, the number one at surprising people ninja, lol. And read much on the Japanese, whose ancient culture I find fascinating. The concept of 'wa', harmony, survives till this day. I don't know what the author means when he uses 'chakra' here. He quotes from the gnostic gospels as easily as from the conventional ones. Is he Hindu? He incorporates some Hindu tenets; his description of creation in cycles in all Hinduism.

He says Paul hadn't had time to 'develop' and struggled with his old nature a lot, and should be forgiven for his messier teachings, however contrary they may be. I agree there was struggle. Struggle with our baser motives is human and understandable. It will end only when we die. It would've been great if Paul had simply stuck to that and acknowledged himself a mere mortal, instead of the direct 'channel' through whom 'God' spoke and sent forth 'commands'. All his writing is merely his personal opinions on a variety of subjects. But he wanted them to be taken as something more. I enjoyed the brief history of Christianity, and the author's definitions of Christianity, one being the attitudes of a particular epoch. While there's a lot that isn't new, it's an interesting read. Thank you for the material.

He’s a biology PhD who has dedicated much of his life to “researching into non-incarnate forms of life”. He is not Hindu. But he has written into many world views – I have his work on Islam, if you are interested. He doesn’t have a movement of his own and I am not aware he ever renounced the Russian Orthodox Church which he grew up in. I believe he employs words to describe whatever he wants to just like most people do – like karma originated in the East and has come into English for descriptive purposes. Guna that he mentions is originally from the Hindu school of Samkhya. “Chakras” (the power centres of the body) occurs in several schools beside the Japanese. (Coincidentally, I have been asking around lately for these Ninja movies, myself.)  We have it in Yoga, where I first came across the word. In fact, it is an important concept in Yoga.

I believe his use of apocryphal books just comes down to what one considers useful. You know the Catholic Church accepts many of them, especially the Hebrew-Aramaic ones. Certainly, he's no Bible infallibility exponent and quite wisely picks the grain from the rest. One can’t be sure of these said links of Jesus to India, Tibet and Persia, of course, but remarkably the canonical gospels are silent on the life of Jesus between the ages of 13 and 29. And many of those words in The Gospel of Saint Issa do ring similar to his words recorded in the canonical gospels. But again so do words in apparently fraudulent gospels like The Gospel of Barnabas.

I see with him on the fact that it is to Paul’s and John’s epistles that we owe this strange Christian doctrine that someone’s sins are washed away with blood, that is, that God sent Jesus to be immolated as a sacrifice to Himself so he can then forgive our sins! But I noticed he sets great store by the Gospel of John like you do – not a view I share, as I find the synoptics more original and more believable.

Yeah, some of Dr Antonov's stuff is quite new. All that stuff about coming down in the form of the Holy Spirit when you attain Divinity was entirely new to me when I first read this book. I find many of his views disagreeable, while I admire many others for the simple way they express what I believe to be the truth. What do you think of all he had to say about exorcism? Do you believe devils and demons possess people? And what do you think of this doctrine of “immaculate conception”. What about his view that it may have been better if certain things religious were not  introduced to the masses, since they can’t handle it?

The bit about Olaadegbu, our resident purveyor of Genesis to Revelation literalism, sure cracked me up. I, too, just marvel at the patent sincerity of it all, and sometimes secretly long for the old days when it was all clear and perfect. God loves you. This is what he wants you to do. Do it and be saved from being slaughtered by God as he will soon do to those who have refused to join us. He caused men to write a book so you must believe everything in it. I took it all in. In fact, I carried it on top of my head. I followed things to their last detail and always erred on the side of caution. And then something happens. It just happens and, as if in a kaleidoscopic motion picture, one begins to see. You don’t really want to see – it can’t be true! – but the pictures remain there. I wrote a personal account of this process down in a 36 composition I have no intention of putting on NL. I can email it if you desire to read it.

The Mystic Christianity’s handling of the subject of Jesus' life and ministry is fascinating on several levels. I had already come across the basics of everything touched in the book in my extensive interactions with the Rosicrusians and have always been deeply skeptical about them. Rosicrucians and similar orders that claim to have descended from the Essenes have a motive to push these ideas. But this book brought several details I had not previously come across, having not actually read Louis’ The Mystical Life of Jesus. I paid particular attention to the sections on the Virgin Birth and Jesus’ youth. I suspect that the Virgin Birth thing grew out of a combination of several things, including the automatic association of sexual intercourse with impurity in the minds of many religious people, and the influx of former pagans into Christianity. If Remus and Romulus were suckled by a sow, why not something similarly miraculous but much more fantastic for Jesus the Christ? And there is the germane point that Paul who taught such stuff as salvation by blood which he apparently brought over from Judaism never mentioned the Virgin Birth since the idea was quite foreign to the Jews who were not expecting the Messiah to come through a virgin birth. The idea made perfect sense to me when I knew nothing of the truth about reincarnation. Once I came to believe in the trueness of the doctrine, a Virgin Birth naturally made no sense whatsoever. Every childbirth is a miracle. If a child is born of a man and a woman who were truly in love, how immaculate can a conception be?

It’s perfectly logical to speak of Christ’s death as a sacrifice. It’s like knowing you are to die on a mission and still going for it because of the greater good – it’s sacrifice, it’s shedding your blood for people sakes, and so on. But to then equal the death to some necessary ritual slaughter, with the blood being the saving or cleansing agent, is another matter.

Whether Christ was another prophet of God or actually came from before God in heaven is something I simply don’t know. Whatever he was, there has to have been something special about him. Maybe I will get the opportunity to confirm these legends in Tibet and India and Egypt about a Young Master who denounced priestcraft, formalism and casteism that Ramacharaka speaks of. And who’s to say I won’t get some revelations one of these days!

You mentioned the Grail Message. Personally I am struck by its handling of certain subjects. Its handling of the subject of disability and suffering, for instance, has far more depth than some other schools of thought, take Antonov’s position on the subject. I have had problems with depression and Antonov would have me believe something is wrong with me. But the Grail Message gives you a broad perspective of such matters. Its denunciations against the “over-cultivation of the intellect”, though, is another matter. Some other schools, and Antonov is of that view, insist that a highly cultivated intellect is helpful in apprehending the spiritual.

About Yoga, I am a sadhaka (an aspirant) and hope to make progress in the coming years. It’s something much misunderstood, with people asking if you can walk on live coals or disappear! It’s simply a system of self-discipline, "a poise of the soul which enables one to look at life in all its aspects evenly" (Desai), a system that adherents of different faiths have found beneficial. I like its emphasis on respect for life, purity of thoughts and actions, and self-control. Like Tiger Woods said of Buddhism, I have personal reasons for buying into it. Vegetarianism is not compulsory but all advanced practitioners usually adopt it. By the way, you know Antonov almost convinced me with the way he put that one – “the corpses of killed animals”  . I have almost entirely given up meat anyway, not due to Yoga but because of having been forced by ENT/GIT-related complications to adopt my Ayurvedic (tridosha) diet. But I like my fish. And I will do only that which I believe is good. I do not say the prayers, the ones about bowing before Patanjali or Siva. I don’t subscribe to any other system of belief. If Yoga were some organized movement with priests and candles I would probably have given it a wide belt.

Devils, demons, possessions, and exorcisms all sound to me like the matter of witches and wizards – you hear of them all the time but never get to meet any. The idea that there are non-material entities who stray from The Way is almost certain. But what do they do? That’s something I don’t know. Are extremely wicked people like Nero, Hitler, Bundy, Shipman or IBB possessed by demons? Do policemen who turn the gun they should deploy to serve and protect on innocent people have demons inside of them? Are there really possessed people who scream when they are taken into a church and if so, what are all the possible explanations? I just wonder.

^^^ Sent: j&joe. I have read your fascinating write-up above and should be able to revert Monday. Now is hectic. Seriously speaking, you are a writer who has chosen not to write!

@Mad_Max:

Not querying you or defending anything but does it really matter who actually wrote 1 & @ Peter if they carry the message they are supposed to carry? If the animal who despoiled, tortured and killed a 2 year old was stopped by either of a man or a woman, would the sexuality of the baby's defender really matter to you? Would it not be that she was defended that would be your "peace"?

On demons, I believe Man (maybe I should say men) to be the greatest demon. Thats why Truman said "the buck stops here". We blame satan, demons, other men, God, even babies for the evil we do. But if there is a God, there is an enemy and we cannot totally absolve him of guilt. But 97.5% probably comes from us

MyJoe:

^^^ Sent: j&joe. I have read your fascinating write-up above and should be able to revert Monday. Now is hectic. Seriously speaking, you are a writer who has chosen not to write!

Thank you for sending it. Hmm. Sex does have 'dirty' and 'impure' associations in some religious circles. I know fundamentalists who consider it a 'spiritual weakness' they occasionally succumb to for the mechanical begetting of children. Some sweaty biological drive like lust may have been considered an impure and 'unholy' method for the Son of God to be conceived. Instead, Mary was 'impregnated by the Holy Spirit'. I did not think of that. It makes a lot of sense. The Jews were expecting a martial messiah, a political ruler who would drive their oppressors away with a great slaughter. They hadn't had it easy since the Assyrians conquered them and many went into slavery and exile. It was the usual Jewish ethnic perspective on things, as if the world and all existence revolved around them and whatever they wanted. It was a childish wanting to get their own back, hit back at those who had hurt them. 'Just you wait till our Messiah comes. He'll deal with y'all.' They were not expecting a spiritual Messiah, whose mission was all about emancipating the spirit beings they were, with zero interest in local human politics.

In fact, that they knew his birth parents counted against him with the Jews. In the gospels the Jews told Him, 'We know your parents. When the Messiah comes he'll come out of nowhere.' They had vague ideas on some supernatural entity that would appear from nowhere and lead them into war against their oppressors, and take the throne of Israel. They were after all, the 'Chosen Race'. Against that ethnocentric fantasy, reality can have no hold and would clash unpleasantly with it. Only Matthew's gospel mentions the Virgin Birth. Luke is a derivative account, which the writer compiled from several sources. The other gospels say nothing about it. Even more odd, Jesus does not mention it once. Curious. Yes. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

nuclearboy:

@Mad_Max:

Not querying you or defending anything but does it really matter who actually wrote 1 & @ Peter if they carry the message they are supposed to carry? If the animal who despoiled, tortured and killed a 2 year old was stopped by either of a man or a woman, would the sexuality of the baby's defender really matter to you? Would it not be that she was defended that would be your "peace"?

On demons, I believe Man (maybe I should say men) to be the greatest demon. Thats why Truman said "the buck stops here". We blame satan, demons, other men, God, even babies for the evil we do. But if there is a God, there is an enemy and we cannot totally absolve him of guilt. But 97.5% probably comes from us

If you don't know the source, how do you know they are carrying the message they're supposed to carry? Isn't there something sneaky about labelling something 1st and 2nd Peter, knowing full well Peter didn't write them? Doesn't that action in and of itself negate the message in it? I know people do a lot of things from sincere fervour and zeal. But lines have to be drawn somewhere. The source matters to me. I read the bible as merely the opinions of people I don't know. Some people witnessed a divine event and told others and wrote about it. I think the essentials of the gospels is true, and I believe it, for reasons of my own. For instance, if Jesus were actually the Son of God, his perspective would not be human, and he would be untouched by the social and cultural biases of his times. For instance, he would not be a sexist or a chauvinist or discriminate against women in any way, because of his own divine perspective, and his knowledge, which other men would not share. I scrutinized the gospels. It was EXACTLY so. In one instance he was talking to a Samaritan woman and his disciples, who'd gone to get food, returned and were astonished to find him talking to a woman. They didn't comment, but they were astonished. Men simply did not do that. Go through the gospels and pay attention how Christ treated women. It's revealing. I understand and agree with your view to a large extent. If a thing is true, the source doesn't matter. But if the source cannot be trusted, how can the truth be accepted then? Truth is crucial. Everything should be transparent and clear. The shenanigans and pious lies concerning biblical content in antiquity is too much, and very off-putting. 

On demons, you're a Christian. You know there is spiritual darkness in 'high places', you know there are adversaries. We don't know much about them. But they're not our problem. We're a 100% responsible for our actions. They are restrained. You really must get some idea of how powerful God is. We don't know what God is; no man has seen Him. It is utterly beyond us. In the flesh, we remember nothing. Against Him, all opposition is a crude joke of sorts. There are far more angels in the world than human beings at any point in time. They freely take human form, if and when they have to. They are so powerful you'd think it was God if you encountered one in its natural glory, and fall to your knees in worship before you can help yourself. In the bible, notice how many times someone would encounter an angel and start to worship, only for the being to tell them to stop that; that it's just a messenger? Some angels are so poweful, a great one can be in charge of an entire universe, just like a less powerful one can oversee a town or a village or an individual. And those are just willing spirits who serve God out of love. God ITself is not a thing a sane creature opposes.God is so powerful the word 'powerful' loses all meaning. We really are safe here. From everything except ourselves. Whatever hold demons, devils or whatever have in our lives is up to us. They can do nothing to us or through us without our consent and cooperation. They cannot override our free will. Whatever we choose, we choose. You're absolutely right. We just want other things to blame.

Whist undeniable that zeal and fervour are often misplaced, it cannot be denied they CAN also be rightly directed, even if inadvertently. Anyways, all in all, I hope you're not as suspicious a character as I am about motives etc. It makes for sadness.

And the point I was trying to make concerning authorship was actually, outside of the "authorship". Take it as a personal view (as everything with me is) that I believe God chose what He wanted us to find in it and what not to find and shaped/worked events to "that" end/destination. Which is why whether Joagbaje wrote 1 Peter or MyJoe wrote it is secondary to me - what matters is the message (to me). Even the deliberate mistranslations could be understood in the context of "Let him that hath understanding" - some will, some won't! The confusion has reason (there is reason in insanity) just as God has reason for not making us all Mad_Max or boko haram members (pbu-them-all).

Anyways Mummy, MyJoe was right - you ought to write: what comes forth makes compelling reading!

Mid-thirties? A mere gal bullying me Next I'll hear is MyJoe is mid twenties. All these people sef - una suppose dey fear me O.

^^ Which was meant in the spirit of a joke!

I am quite familiar with the background of the Grail Message and its author. I have heard things about its unoriginality and have encountered some stuff at other places. I even saw an old thread in NL that focused on that matter. But I am obviously far less familiar than you with Gnosticism and so much of what you said about that was new to me, particularly the aspect about Mani’s writings. But like you observed originality or the lack of it does not on its own confer integrity on a message or erode it. The tendency of adherents of movements and persuasions to stop “seeking”, having “found”, is fairly common. I guess it has something to do with some inner satiation and feelings of “it’s working for me”, something some of us hyperactive lot seem perpetually excommunicated from. Of course, there is a whole lot else – from coercive-persuasive instructional techniques used at temples to feelings of “I spent 25 years searching before I found it, so it must be right”. But, of course, who’s to say I am not the deluded one?

On the hypostasis of Abd-Ru-Shin, I, too, put that squarely within the subset of rumours, while being mindful of the fact that whenever the subject is raised you often get the same answer, couched in the same words. There are several threads where Deep Sight pursues the matter with methods and vehemence evocative of the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes, wicked people are driven by their own minds and the influence of their environments. The habit of ascribing things to demons is a non-starter. There is a favourite TV preacher of mine, Pastor Kingsley Okonkwo, a reasonable man in other matters, who has no doubt that homosexuals are possessed by demons! There is an elderly friend of mine, a man I don’t associate with lies or frivolities who told me he went into a forest a few decades ago and met a woman living all by herself, some kind of priestess. He learnt from her that prior to her initiation a demon killed her husband and kids.

What you said about Jesus and the Jew’s expectations up there reminds me of The Temptations of Jesus as presented in the Essen texts. I found them rather remarkable in view of the fact the temptations must have been a spiritual event since Satan doesn’t walk up to anyone in the physical and initiate a dialogue.

nuclearboy:

[ Next I'll hear is MyJoe is mid twenties.

You are way off!

MyJoe:


On the hypostasis of Abd-Ru-Shin, I, too, put that squarely within the subset of rumours, while being mindful of the fact that whenever the subject is raised you often get the same answer, couched in the same words. There are several threads where Deep Sight pursues the matter with methods and vehemence evocative of the Spanish Inquisition.

Lol, @ spanish inquisition.

However the claim regarding the divinity of Abd Ru Shin is no rumour. This is a claim that is to be found within the Grail Message, written by the gentleman himself.

I can produce for you the quotes.

In summary it states that God has two sons - Jesus, who is the in-born son of God, and Imanuel, who is the out-born son of God. Imanuel is the core of a being called Parsifal, who is said to be the anchor of the LIGHT outside the divine realm, and that being called Parsifal is said to be radiated to the earth in the form of Abd Ru Shin.

Thus the man Jesus on Earth and the man Abd Ru Shin on Earth are claimed to be the radiated two sons of God that walked the earth: this is no rumour but the claim of the writer of the Grail message.

As you know, I find all such claims of humans who are supposedly "Divine" or "God' or "Son of God" to be perfectly delusional. Including this one.

There are two sides of Yoga – the spiritual or devotional and the physical. The physical aspect can be further divided into two: asanas (body postures) and pranayamas (breathing exercises.)The Masters believe that practicing Yoga without living the devotional aspect of it is mere acrobatics and not Yoga at all. Traditionally, therefore, there is no separation between the physical Yoga and the devotional. Yoga is considered as a whole – a system of living. For me, Yoga includes the physical aspect and many of its recommendations for living, but not the beliefs and prayers, or even all its precepts.

The foremost authority on Yoga is the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. There, in a dialogue with Arjuna, Sri Krishna explains matters. But if anyone can be called the father of Yoga, it is the second century BC scholar Patanjali, “the noblest of sages”. He was the propounder of Yoga philosophy and the author of the Yoga Sutras, the classical work on Yoga which describes Samhadi, the methods by which the state of Yoga or communion is attained. Patanjali is also saluted for his works on grammar and medicine.

Traditionally, the purpose of Yoga is to attain communion with God, usually referred to here as “the universal spirit” or Paramatma. Brahma and Paramatma may be used interchangeably here, but not in all contexts. For atheists, a small minority of aspirants, the purpose is to attain communion with the inner Self. There are eight stages of Yoga. These are: (1) Yama (universal moral commandments), (2) Niyama (self purification by discipline), (3) Asana (posture), (4) Pranayama (breath control), (5) Pratyahara (emancipation of the mind from (i) your senses (ii) your surroundings, (6) dharana (concentration) (7) Dhyana (meditation), (8 ) Samadhi (super consciousness, a state in which the Sadhaka becomes one with object of his meditation – Paramatma. Paramatma is similar to what the Rosicrucians call the “oversoul”, a universal soul of which every soul is a portion or spark.

Note that each of the stages described above has is specific components or practices. For example, the five moral commandments of Yama are non-violence, truth, non-stealing, continence and non-coveting.  The above are universal human values and they are so recognised in Yoga. But in Yoga each of them is further explained in such a manner that the Sadhaka is helped to understand the spirit in addition to the letter. The ability to do this is often influenced by tendency. I think one of the reasons we have so much problems in the world today even though people read “holy” books that teach good precepts is because they miss the spirit behind the commandments.

That is why I will now discuss the three gunas of Ayurveda. Gunas describe your natural mental tendencies, possibly reflective of your spiritual state. The three gunas are: tamas, rajas and sattva. From Antonov’s book and possibly other materials you may have read, you already have a good deal of understanding of the guna classification. Note that the manifestations of the three are found in every human being, but there is always one predominateing over the other two. Now, let’s look at the principle of non-coveting above and see how the gunas will receive it. The commandment says: “You must not covet your neighbour’s wife.” A tamas will read that and say, “well, it says no one should look at my wife’s backside.” Should anyone do he will draw blood. But he will go after other people’s wives. Such a person is already in hell if you consider the distance between him and God. A rajas will read and go, “it says I should not go after another man’s wife lest another man goes after mine.” This is the practical approach of the average human being and your average religionist. What we have here is a focus on the letter of the verse. A sattva will read the same and see both the letter and spirit of it. And so he will not covet another man’s wife and will do that which is in his power to prevent harm from coming to his neighbour’s wife, regardless of what other men in the community do.

Thus, a tamas is unforgiving. A rajas forgives with some difficulty if asked. A sattva is not only forgiving, he is not grieved by an offence to himself, except to others.  A tamas takes anything when no one is looking. A rajas covets the fruits if his labour. A sattva foregoes the fruits of his labour, working for the sake of work and the good of all. By a disciplined study of herself and the objects of focus of her senses, a Sadhaka learns which of her thoughts, words and actions are prompted by tamas and rajas and works hard to weed them out till there remains only a sattvic frame of mind. The gunas are like gravity – you must conquer it to enter space and experience weightlessness. Yoga provides the means to do this.

The mind is difficult to control but Yoga teaches that you can do this by using two techniques: abhyasa (constant practice) and vairagya (freedom from desire). This is key to attaining communion with the Universal Spirit, Brahman. Yoga teaches moderation. Yoga does not discourage gluttony or starving yourself; wakefulness or somnolence; it says Yoga is not for you if you do any of those! A Yogi does not starve himself, yet he eats not a morsel more than is required to nourish his body and render it a fit vehicle for the soul. He derives enjoyment from his food. Thus he eats only that which is tasteful, succulent and sweet-smelling, while shunning that which is bitter, sour or pungent. Yoga does not enjoin celibacy, yet a Yogi should not be a slave to sensual pleasures. Yoga teaches self-reliance and freedom from craving. Thus a Yogi does not accept gifts from anyone, since that is a spirit of poverty. A Sadhaka is taught that as long as feelings of “I” stand in his way, his efforts are futile.

It is said that Yoga destroys all pain and sorrow. I personally believe this is possible to a logical extent since much of what is taught in Yoga revolves around freeing the mind from attachments and much of the pains we go through come from craving. To overcome obstacles and win happiness, Yoga makes four recommendations (1) Maitri (friendliness), (2) Karuna (compassion), (3) Mudita (delight), (4) Upeksa (disregard). Moreover, the health of benefits of Yoga, the most rigorous system of discipline known to mankind, are immeasurable. Modern Ayuverdic medicine, following the Vedic scriptures, groups people, according to their physical make-up, into three: vata, pitta and kapha. These are the three doshas of Ayuverda. Ever wondered why you eat a certain stuff and wound up belching uncontrollably or adding weight or come down with some other side effect, but someone you know eats it and is just fine? When you find out your dosha you may group all the food in the world into three (i) those you should eat – because they are balancing (ii) those you may eat – because they are okay (3) those you should not eat – because they are aggravating. Personally, this is not something I would go about recommending for anyone who does not have concerns bothering on health or allergies.

The study and practice of Yoga is not like university coursework. Patanjali does not specify the time or level of difficulty it should take a Sadhaka to attain Yoga and enter into oneness with the Divine, even though some other ancient materials do give some ideas as to time frame. There are generally recognised to be four classes of Sadhakas: (1) mrdu (feeble), (2) madhyama (average), (3) adhimatra (superior), (4) adhimatratama (the supreme one). Mrdu are those aspirants who lack enthusiasm, eat too much, talk too much, lack moral fibre, criticize their teacher, are unstable, fickle, dirty, fearful, sickly, gossipy, acquisitive, vain, harsh, pugnacious, addicted to sensual pleasures, easily manipulated by women, and inclined to cheat or deceive. The Guru (teacher) will guide such an aspirant in the path of Mantra Yoga only. With that, the seeker may reach enlightenment in 12 years.

The average seeker is one who is wishing to perfect his quest, is of stable mind, neat, even-tempered, gentle and moderate in habits. On recognizing this person, the guru teaches him Loya Yoga. The superior seeker is one who is enthusiastic, self-reliant, forgiving, noble, truthful, courageous, respectful, worshipful of his teacher, and keen on Yoga. The guru will instruct him in Hatha Yoga. The supreme seeker is that Sadhaka who is learned in the scriptures and interested in spiritual matters, ebullient, intelligent, good-looking, studious, sound in mind, resolute, selfless, skillful, generous, keeping young, gentle, worshipful of his guru, and fearless. The master will instruct him in all the forms of Yoga and he can reach enlightenment in three years. But that is according to some ancient texts. The reality is that rarely does anyone reach enlightenment in one lifetime. It takes several incarnations.

A Sadhaka is encouraged to be studious. He is taught that all the scriptures of the world are addressed to all men and women, and not just the adherents of the faiths. Yoga discourages laziness and pride. Pride stands in the way of learning. In a story from Hindu mythology often used to illustrate this point, we are told that Virochana (a demon price) and one of the gods (can’t recall which now, but I think it’s Indra) went to their preceptor, Brahma, for power. But Virochana thought he knew it all, and the result? He left with nothing, while his co-disciple learnt and acquired power.

Chai, MyJoe and Mad Max sef. See epistle.

Now let us come to the physical aspect of Yoga philosophy, asanas and pranayamas. Asana (posture) brings steadiness, health and lightness. Asanas are not exercises, they are postures. Unlike many systems of sports and physical training, asanas do not require equipment or a large field. All you need is a clear, clean, airy place and a blanket. The postures have evolved over the centuries and are believed to exercise every nerve, gland and muscle in the body. They can be practiced alone, although it is better to be under a guru. They ensure a good physique, with the body tissue distributed evenly around the body, instead of around the muscles. They reduce fatigue and keep the body free from disease. But most importantly, they train and discipline the mind, the intellect and the Self. There lies the difference between a Yogi and an athlete. The athlete or dancer often puts the body first, and you have a disproportionate number of the mentally unbalanced among them. But the Yogi practices his postures to perfect his mind as much as his body. The Yogi believes that health is an asset to be gained by sheer hard work.

Different asanas are named after plants, insects, animals, human embryonic states, legendary heroes, sages and Hindu gods. While assuming the postures, your body assumes the shapes of countless different animals, birds, embryos and others. You learn therefrom not to despise any living thing. Dualities such as gain and loss, victory and defeat, are supposed to disappear from the consciousness of the Sadhaka with the asanas. He then moves on to Pranayama.

Pranayama (breath control) involves breathing, therefore, it involves life in a very direct way. Pranayamas are not to be attempted except under the supervision of a guru. You need someone who is familiar with your physical limitations. They involve the nostrils, membranes, nasal passages, lungs and the diaphragm. This science of breath is not to be done in a hurry and mproper practice can lead to diseases of the respiratory system and the nervous system. Pranayama has to do with the extension and control of the breath. The control is over the familiar functions of breathing (1) inhalation, (2) exhalation, and (3) retension or holding.

Traditionally, the purpose of pranayama is to harmonise the individual’s breath with the cosmic breath. Breath regulation fosters a calm spirit, a soft temper, and a peaceful heart. It helps to control the senses, keep desire in check, and still the mind and check its constant wondering. That is why during pranayama, the eyes are kept shut. Prayanama helps master the breath, which helps to still the mind.  This helps to control the senses, which prepares the Sadhaka for the next stages of Yoga: emancipation of the mind, concentration, meditation, and, finally, communion.

Yoga is for everyone, irrespective of physical condition – men, women, the young, the old, and the disabled. Yoga is beneficial to pregnant women but strict specifications are to be followed. Aspects of Yoga can be done without a guru. But it is better to study under a guru. The signs of progress in this path are good health, a feeling of lightness, good countenance, a beautiful voice, steadiness, good smell and freedom from wants. When you reach the last stage of Yoga you become a Jivana Mukta (liberated soul). Your state of consciousness transcends what is known. You become the very symbol of humility. There is now no duality between the knower (the Sadhaka) and the known (God) because the two are merged into one.

What about someone who strives but fails in his quest for Yoga? That is, a Sadhaka who has faith but whose mind fails to take him to the end? Lord Krishna says his reward is great, still. No evil can befall a righteous man, so his place is assured in the heaven of the just where he will dwell long years. And when he is reborn it is into the family of the pure hearted and the great. He may even get the most elusive of incarnations for mankind: to be born into the family of enlightened Yogis. Because his soul is not burdened by sin he will regain the study attained in his former life as he strives ever towards perfection and reaches the goal.

Please note that all I discuss above is basic Yoga. There has been a shift over recent decades from doctrine to practice. Thus there are now countless “Yoga classes” in many countries where the ascetic and venerable gurus have been replaced by cheeky and enterprising young turks who retail asanas and pranayamas to the spiritually inclined alongside committed materialists. It is those who follow the traditional Yoga that are reported to perform the supernatural feats sometimes associated with Yogis.

^^ Hi, babe!

Seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY though, 40+ years and I've been reading over 3 decades of those. And I thought I read to industrial levels plus its not like I spent that much time reading porn on the web I always loved books so much my dad gave me my first hadley chase at 9 and I've not looked back since. Most people I meet wonder how I managed to read so much about so many things.

YET the two of you make me feel like an illiterate which would explain why I thought you both must be like 95 years old (at least )!

Do you eat? Do you work? Do you even breathe or you found a way to breathe in stuff? I tire O. Its gotten so I wonder if you guys are not each an entire readers club sharing one ID and trying to make me run mad with doubts about my education being something that really happened.

Could that be it? Are you "clubs"?

Dreams,vision were all done away with. God no longer use that method to speak to people. Those were the elementary things that were used to help learn and spread the "truth". But once people to mature in the knowledge of God and message of God began to spread earth wide.; there was no longer a need for dreams, visions, speaking in tongues, etc, It makes you wonder if those things were done away with and God no longer use this method, then where are people getting there dreams and vision from? Hmmm??