The Problem with Dreams, Visions and Clairvoyance

Mysticism is an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of the ultimate reality attained through personal religious experience. While the mainstream of Christianity, Islam and Judaism teach us to believe by faith, the mystical and esoteric movements tell us that it is possible to experience God directly.

Daoism has mysticism at its core. Eckanker tells you not to content yourself with dreams and visions, but to undertake soul travel and go have a chat with the saints – Moses, Buddha, Paul, just pick one – who will tell you things exactly as they are. Adherents of the Grail Message also talk about intuitive knowledge and direct experience, but quite inexplicably they vehemently repudiate "mysticism".

There are many other movements offering mysticism either as their main staple or as a part of what you get if you join. Buddhism, Hinduism and the other Eastern faiths have schools that do mysticism. In Islam, there is Sufi, and in Judaism, there is Kabala.

Christian mysticism is derived mainly from the writings of Saint Paul and the Gospel of Saint John. It is said that the Gnostics were adept at it before they were persecuted to extinction and replaced by other forms of esoteric Christianity. Anyone interested in Christian mysticism may look at The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas à Kempis, The Original Teachings of Jesus, by Vladimir Antonov, and[i] The Cloud of Unknowing[/i], an exceptional work by an anonymous 14th century English monk.

There are people who are said to be born with clairvoyant abilities. That is, they have more than the five senses. They can tell you something that is about to happen before it happens. They dream and such dreams come to pass. Some, who are not born with these abilities, are said to develop them by going out of their way to develop their “psychic centres” or such. This is said to be true of many Celestial Church prophets and many who join Eckanker, Amorc and the other esoteric movements.

[b]So given the capabilities of dreams, visions, clairvoyance and mysticism, they can be trusted to be able to transmit to us an objective picture of God, the cosmos and the afterlife, right? WRONG! They are not objective at all. That is the pith of the problem.

You see, a Catholic will see visions in which the Virgin Mary will appear to him, telling him things about the impending end of the world. An Eckist will go on astral travel and the Mahanta will link hands with him and tell him that hellfire is a figment of some people’s imagination. I have never heard of a Pentecostal Christian whose near death experience does not include an excursion to hell, the infernal house where, we are told, God has assigned the devil to burn and torment sinners in raw fire for eternity. Rosicrucians carry out their experiments which always confirm what nature of things are taught in their monographs. And it would be unimaginable for an adherent of the Grail Message to dream and see something that runs counter to what is contained in the Message. There are no Celestial prophets who routinely sight the Mahanta. And God forbid a Sufi mystic will see a vision remotely depicting the three-in-one God!


Given the above, I believe dreamers, visioners and clairvoyants will realise why the rest of us, lay people in these matters, are wont to believe that it is all in your head. We may be wrong, of course, but can you not clearly see why we treat all dreams and visions the same way we treat books written by intellectuals, as subjective materials to be read and sifted through to find what is useful and what is not?[/b]

Do you have extra-sensory powers? Perhaps you can explain a few things to us. What do you think?

The above is rather harsh. I personally do not possess any certainty or knowledge that there are no revelations. I want spiritual people to help throw light on these awkward differences in material thought to flow from a single source.

MyJoe:

^^^ The above is rather harsh. I personally do not possess any certainty, much less knowledge, that there are no revelations. I need spiritual people to help throw light on these awkward differences in material thought to flow from a single source.

Are you sure there is a single source?. . . .Buddhist have dreams involving reincarnations, buddist concepts and ideas, Christians have dreams involving stories in the bible, heaven and hell, while muslims have dreams involving the appearance of prophet mohammed(dreams that involve the appearance of prophet mohammed are encouraged in islam). . . . .Traditional african religion adherents have dreams involving their various gods and forefather. . . .What does that tell you?. . . .To me it tells me that the human mind is very complex and can imagine so many things. . . .

Given the above, I believe dreamers, visioners and clairvoyants will realise why the rest of us, lay people in these matters, are wont to believe that it is all in your head.

All in my head? I don't know about that.

I was in Dar es Salam for a Managed Servces negotiation two weeks ago.

One night I woke up from a dream. In the dream a friend of mine who I had not seen or heard from for 16 years was sitting beside me. He simply said, Long, time, how have you been, we should hook up soon.

I last saw or thought of this fellow when we last saw back in secondary school. So I never think of him. He is entirely outside my worldview.

I got up because it was close to morning and I went online on my laptop.

The first message that fell into my mailbox was from that Friend I had just seen in the dream. It simply said, Long time, how hove you been, we should hook up soon.

I got back to Lagos and my brothers told me that he had visited my house that very day.

I know very well that it is not all in my head because since I was a child there is nothing significant that happens around me which I do not see in a dream some days or weeks in advance.

^^^ I cannot dispute the above. I cannot. But as you may have noticed, I am here concerned about the usefulness of it all in our apprehension of the ultimate reality. Your abilities have not led you nearer to finding the definite truth about things, have they? You see, I recently attended a forum where the lecturer told someone: "You believe. We know." What makes him make that statement which I find presumptions? That is what I am going on about in this thread.

Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

Deep Sight:

All in my head? I don't know about that.

I was in Dar es Salam for a Managed Servces negotiation two weeks ago.

One night I woke up from a dream. In the dream a friend of mine who I had not seen or heard from for 16 years was sitting beside me. He simply said, Long, time, how have you been, we should hook up soon.

I last saw or thought of this fellow when we last saw back in secondary school. So I never think of him. He is entirely outside my worldview.

I got up because it was close to morning and I went online on my laptop.

The first message that fell into my mailbox was from that Friend I had just seen in the dream. It simply said, Long time, how hove you been, we should hook up soon.

I got back to Lagos and my brothers told me that he had visited my house that very day.

I know very well that it is not all in my head because since I was a child there is nothing significant that happens around me which I do not see in a dream some days or weeks in advance.

GBAM GBAM GBAM

where is mazaje and his ignorance? I laugh in somali

MyJoe:

^^^ I cannot dispute the above. I cannot. But as you may have noticed, I am here concerned about the usefulness of it all in our apprehension of the ultimate reality. Your abilities have not led you nearer to finding the definite truth about things, have they? You see, I recently attended a forum where the lecturer told someone: "You believe. We know." What makes him make that statement which I find presumptions? That is what I am going on about in this thread.

Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

The last statement has IMO clarified this thread.

1. there are no universal theme for revelations that come from God, simply because many other spirits choose to impersonate God.

2. DS is not a believer, yet he has dreams that do attain reality . . . .this is testimony to any ignorant atheist, that there is a spiritual realm that strongly influences the physical.

noetic16:

1. there are no universal theme for revelations that come from God, simply because many other spirits choose to impersonate God.

If this is true, we are all in trouble - well, most of us. Since revealers hear different things, we may assume that only one set of revelations is right, and the others are all duped! That means a lot of people will come to grief for trusting the spiritual realm. Imagine Eckanker being right, for instance, and 1.8 billion Christians being wrong. I don't know how many will react to this arrangement whereby God allows the evil spirits to pretend to be him and give accurate revelations to trick people.

noetic16:
2. DS is not a believer, yet he has dreams that do attain reality . . . .this is testimony to any ignorant atheist, that there is a spiritual realm that strongly influences the physical.

I wonder what you mean he is not a "believer". Anyway, I am more concerned about point 1 and am waiting to hear from other spiritual people.

MyJoe:


Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

It is beyond cavil that the essential message of virtually all revelation cutting across varied religions and worldviews is actually the same - to wit - :

Love thy Fellow Man.

Deep Sight:

It is beyond cavil that the essential message of virtually all revelation cutting across varied religions and worldviews is actually the same - to wit - :

Love thy Fellow Man.

That happens to be my view. But it is not that of the religious people - not all, one must add. There is an idea out there that one must come to accept a definition of God and take it from there. To prove this, this God has caused some REVELATIONS of HIMSELF. You see why we still here talking?

Interesting. Let me ask your own view on that -

Do you think it is possible for God to REVEAL HIMSELF in the manner claimed by Religion.

MyJoe:

^^^ I cannot dispute the above. I cannot. But as you may have noticed, I am here concerned about the usefulness of it all in our apprehension of the ultimate reality. Your abilities have not led you nearer to finding the definite truth about things, have they? You see, I recently attended a forum where the lecturer told someone: "You believe. We know." What makes him make that statement which I find presumptions? That is what I am going on about in this thread.

Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

Hi My Joe. Thanks for your well reasoned posts. The problem is not with vision, dreams or clirvoyance per se. The problem is with man himself. To draw from the power of God requires an inner purity, that is purity of the spirit and that is absolutely decisive in all manner of inner seeing. Such a purity not only guides the seeing one but prevents any extraneous interference from sources that do not swing in the will of God. Genuine spiritual abilities are independent and above any religious or philosophical adherence. If a Budhist and a christian that have attained a pure level of spiritual maturity is shown the kingdom of God in picture, each will recognise in the description of the other what he or she has seen as the kingdom of God. Thus the main reason why there are differences in what believers report is simply that they are not seeing the real stuff, that is, they are not capable of drawing in purity from the power of God. Rather they are drawing from the world of there own creations, worlds that came into existence as a result of the union of their own spiritual voilitions with the principal neutral power of God that is in creation.

Thus, different faiths have their worlds, angels, gods, cathedrals,  moses, buddha, Jesus etc and yet all these creations are not the real spiritual or divine personalities but the creations of the producer. But those entrapped in these worlds are unaware that they are leaving in the worlds, images and personalities of there own creation. Only inner purity and obedience to the laws of God will give the human spirit the mobility to ascend beyond these worlds of sham and draw from luminous sources. Once people draw from luminous sources, there will be no contadiction in what they have seen. The laws of God are uniform and unchageable, it is the varried voilitions of men that create the confusion  and contradiction that you seem to be worried about. Just like a budhist, a christian or even an atheist that sow yam will reap yam, so is it in the real spiritual worlds and manifestations therein.

But no body can see beyond what is stipulated by his inner spiritual maturity even if he wants himself and others to believe otherwise. Thus inwardly impure or fearful people will keep seeing demons of fear, witches and wizards, mystics and sages of all traditions will keep seeing ascended masters, inwardly lustful people will keep having intimacy in dreams and visions of participating in immoral activities, religious prople will keep seing Vigin Mary, Buddha, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and yet pure childlike human beings will draw from out of the power of God what has happened, is happening and will happen. Most often this last group are not even counscious of this in the physical sense. Even in this last case where genuine seeing is the case, the process of remodelling the purely spiritual pictures to fit into the earthly concept of time and space is a key determinant. The remodelling of the spiritual waves emanating from the spirit by the brain varies with each individual, those who are blessed with this inner sight abilities transform these experiences more accurately than those who acquired these abilities through training and experimentation. No matter how good a swimmer is, he cannot be a fish in water.

Among all peoples and cultures, there are those who God have called to be fish in this regard and thus have both the necessary ability for reception as well as tranformation of the recieved experiences into earthly concept of time and space. Thus , so called spiritual exerises like meditation, chanting, incarntations, taking hallucinogens, fasting, concentration, auto suggestion , self hypnosis etc will at best create an unreliable swimmer but not a fish. In most cases though, these exerises open the spirit to the sham world that I alluded earlier where everything is both possible and impossible. The physical body protects most people from currents emanating from these worlds but if people choose to lift this protecting cover through the various spiritual exerises, then, not only will they  leave in a sham world of there own creations but they can be harmed. Dreams, visions, clairvoyance and similar things are not a requirement for serving God but they can actually lead us astray. Stay blessed.

Hello Sir Nwankwo. Please can you be spacing your writing as it will make your post easier to read. Right now I have to copy it into word and space it before I can read it.

Deep Sight:

Hello Sir Nwankwo. Please can you be spacing your writing as it will make your post easier to read. Right now I have to copy it into word and space it before I can read it.

Thanks Deepsight. I will space them next time. Stay blessed.

As a man thinketh in his heart so he speaks.this bible passage agrees wit the fact dt pple see wats in there head.

But d only way 2 knw a true vision, is d one whose teachings are based on love.as 4 clairvoyance it could be complicated

@m_nwankwo

Thanks for your excellent post. You have made a lot of points I have not previously considered or was unaware of. When I am a bit freer, I will like to ask some questions.

Deep Sight:

Interesting. Let me ask your own view on that -

Do you think it is possible for God to REVEAL HIMSELF in the manner claimed by Religion.

I think the fact there is so much confusion - with religious folk often resembling dogs yapping at the fence, the wrong fence, for that - strongly points to the fact that God is unknowable. I think. But I am not in a position to dismiss the possibility that he has revealed certain things to certain people.

MyJoe:

@m_nwankwo

Thanks for your excellent post. You have made a lot of points I have not previously considered or was unaware of. When I am a bit freer, I will like to ask some questions.
I think the fact there is so much confusion - with religious folk often resembling dogs yapping at the fence, the wrong fence, for that - strongly points to the fact that God is unknowable. I think. But I am not in a position to dismiss the possibility that he has revealed certain things to certain people.

You are welcomed MyJoe. I agree that we cannot know God but we can certainly know the ways of God. Indeed, it is my view that the purpose of our existence is to know the ways of God and live according to it. Indeed we are products of the will of God and do carry the ability to recognise and leave according to the will of God. The language of God is indelibly written in all creations of God and those who genuinely seek for it will find it. That is why we have to wander through the material, and non material creations of God and through experiencing in these worlds, we have the opportunity of absorbing the the various manifestations of the laws of God so that it is hewn into our spirit, and thus becomes an integral part of the spirit.


Then we have attained the maturity and the purity required for admiitance and counscious experiencing in the luminous kingdom of God. Stay blessed.

Good day M_Nwankwo. All you have written has greatly illuminated this matter. Many thanks.

m_nwankwo:

Hi My Joe. Thanks for your well reasoned posts. The problem is not with vision, dreams or clirvoyance per se. The problem is with man himself. To draw from the power of God requires an inner purity, that is purity of the spirit and that is absolutely decisive in all manner of inner seeing. Such a purity not only guides the seeing one but prevents any extraneous interference from sources that do not swing in the will of God. Genuine spiritual abilities are independent and above any religious or philosophical adherence.

Ok.

m_nwankwo:
If a Budhist and a christian that have attained a pure level of spiritual maturity is shown the kingdom of God in picture, each will recognise in the description of the other what he or she has seen as the kingdom of God.

In real life, it would certainly be great to see examples of this.

m_nwankwo:
Thus the main reason why there are differences in what believers report is simply that they are not seeing the real stuff, that is, they are not capable of drawing in purity from the power of God. Rather they are drawing from the world of there own creations, worlds that came into existence as a result of the union of their own spiritual voilitions with the principal neutral power of God that is in creation.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

m_nwankwo:
Thus, different faiths have their worlds, angels, gods, cathedrals,  moses, buddha, Jesus etc and yet all these creations are not the real spiritual or divine personalities but the creations of the producer.

This must be true.

m_nwankwo:
But those entrapped in these worlds are unaware that they are leaving in the worlds, images and personalities of there own creation. Only inner purity and obedience to the laws of God will give the human spirit the mobility to ascend beyond these worlds of sham and draw from luminous sources. Once people draw from luminous sources, there will be no contadiction in what they have seen.

But there appear to be highly pious people in all the movements seeing all sorts of things.

m_nwankwo:
The laws of God are uniform and unchageable,

Only this is capable of being true of the Supreme God. That is what makes all the confusion disturbing.

m_nwankwo:
it is the varried voilitions of men that create the confusion  and contradiction that you seem to be worried about. Just like a budhist, a christian or even an atheist that sow yam will reap yam, so is it in the real spiritual worlds and manifestations therein.

Ok.

m_nwankwo:
But no body can see beyond what is stipulated by his inner spiritual maturity even if he wants himself and others to believe otherwise. Thus inwardly impure or fearful people will keep seeing demons of fear, witches and wizards, mystics and sages of all traditions will keep seeing ascended masters, inwardly lustful people will keep having intimacy in dreams and visions of participating in immoral activities, religious prople will keep seing Vigin Mary, Buddha, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and yet pure childlike human beings will draw from out of the power of God what has happened, is happening and will happen. Most often this last group are not even counscious of this in the physical sense. Even in this last case where genuine seeing is the case, the process of remodelling the purely spiritual pictures to fit into the earthly concept of time and space is a key determinant. The remodelling of the spiritual waves emanating from the spirit by the brain varies with each individual, those who are blessed with this inner sight abilities transform these experiences more accurately than those who acquired these abilities through training and experimentation. No matter how good a swimmer is, he cannot be a fish in water.

Among all peoples and cultures, there are those who God have called to be fish in this regard and thus have both the necessary ability for reception as well as tranformation of the recieved experiences into earthly concept of time and space.

Won’t the prophets and spiritual leaders of the past such as Moses, Ezekiel, Buddha, Laoze, Paul and Mohammed, fall into this category? Which just takes us right back to the confusion?

m_nwankwo:
Thus , so called spiritual exerises like meditation, chanting, incarntations, taking hallucinogens, fasting, concentration, auto suggestion , self hypnosis etc will at best create an unreliable swimmer but not a fish. In most cases though, these exerises open the spirit to the sham world that I alluded earlier where everything is both possible and impossible. The physical body protects most people from currents emanating from these worlds but if people choose to lift this protecting cover through the various spiritual exerises, then, not only will they  leave in a sham world of there own creations but they can be harmed.

Except, perhaps, where the person taking the exercises is pure hearted and motivated by wholesome motives?

m_nwankwo:
Dreams, visions, clairvoyance and similar things are not a requirement for serving God but they can actually lead us astray. Stay blessed.

This ^^^ is what I feel deeply inside of me.

But still there may be some who for the purpose of spiritual fulfillment devoid of tainted motives wish to experience the divine or the spiritual. Are we to conclude that spiritual knowledge is out of the reach of some? You have already asserted that the exercises common to the mystical schools of thought are not useful and may even lead to harm. Is there a possibility that an Average Joe or Plain Jane can attain spiritual experience and comprehension even though not originally called to be fish?

To rephrase the question: Since you dismiss spiritual exercises as unhelpful what are the steps to growing in spiritual understanding and recognition of the "ways of God"?

@MyJoe

Good day M_Nwankwo. All you have written has greatly illuminated this matter. Many thanks.

Thank you for your kind words.

But there appear to be highly pious people in all the movements seeing all sorts of things.

Spiritual maturity has nothing to do with being pious. In addition spiritual abilities have nothing to do with religious zeal or belief. Thus many a man may outwardly be pious and yet his spirit is sleeping or dying. You can always recognize the seed sown by looking at the fruits it bears. Where there is genuine spirituality, then only love for God and the creations of God is all that you find. There is no room for fanaticism, fundamentalism, anger, hatred and other kindred evils. Besides, even a called human spirit need countless number of experiences to mature to higher recognition. In most cases, the human spirit just has one or few beginner experiences. These beginner experiences are meant to prepare him for further development but as often happens he or she basks in these experiences and soon create a following for himself. In the process he or she stagnates and the adulation of the ignorant followers take on form and create an ethereal environment that suffocates his genuine ability. His horizon dramatically narrows and he can only hear, feal or see things on the same level as himself and yet he will believe himself to have seen things from higher sphere. Help from pure sources can also not reach him since his vanity in his ability have blocked any connection with the power of God. Because he or she did not realize that his horizon has narrowed, he goes on believing himself to still have the abilities but as history clearly shows, these mystics, pastors, occultists, healers etc become the victim of there own deluded sight. Any seer, prophet or clairvoyant whose volition is not pure will end up giving prophecies that are false, promise healing that never happens and through this, normal people will recognize them for what they are.Thus it is not so difficult to recognize these spiritual charlatans.

Only this is capable of being true of the Supreme God. That is what makes all the confusion disturbing.

The laws of God are uniform, adamantine and irrevocable. But of course many can choose to believe otherwise. The laws of God do not differentiate between a christian and a jew, a buddhist and a moslem, a catholic and a pentecostal, a theist  and atheist, rather it recognizes the human spirit and the the intuitions, motives, thoughts, words and actions that comes from each human being. Just look around you and you will see even in this physical world the uniformity of the laws of God. If a christian sows yam, he will reap yam and so will a Buddhist, an atheist that sow yam. The laws of God brought yam into existence and as an intrinsic atrribute of yam, yam can only give rise to yam. Thus the status, religion, nationality etc of one who does the sowing is irrelevant. No amount of prayer will change yam to corn and it is that simple. Maybe some day, I will offer my perception on what actually are the laws of God and why it is impossible to annul them.

Won’t the prophets and spiritual leaders of the past such as Moses, Ezekiel, Buddha, Laoze, Paul and Mohammed, fall into this category? Which just takes us right back to the confusion?

Many of the prophets you mentioned gave grains of Truth adapted to culture and maturity of their people. And these grains of Truth did not contradict each other. But many of the things attributed to some of these prophets did not come form them, rather they were additions and downright distortions by there followers. Many of the of the prophets you mentioned faithfully fufilled there mission but one or two of them (i will not name them) made some mistakes out of good intention and were forced to reincarnate to rectify there error. Do not be surprised that some of the well known spiritual personalities in past era are here again in different guise and it is even more revealing when one knows why they are forced to be back on earth at this time. Thus imagine a present devotee asking for spiritual favor from a well know "holy man" of his church or religion in past centuries and unknown to him, he is praying to himself for he is the same "holy man" reincarnated in a new physical body.

But still there may be some who for the purpose of spiritual fulfillment devoid of tainted motives wish to experience the divine or the spiritual. Are we to conclude that spiritual knowledge is out of the reach of some? You have already asserted that the exercises common to the mystical schools of thought are not useful and may even lead to harm. Is there a possibility that an Average Joe or Plain Jane can attain spiritual experience and comprehension even though not originally called to be fish?

To rephrase the question: Since you dismiss spiritual exercises as unhelpful what are the steps to growing in spiritual understanding and recognition of the "ways of God"?

Many of the so called average Joe have many of these experiences except that they are not conscious of that in the earthly sense. But if the look dispassionately on some judgments, haunches, circumstances, luck, they will suddenly start to sense a guidance from above and sooner or later the so called invisible worlds will come to life in them. Maybe some day I will explain this further. The steps to spiritual development are clear and simple and I will say the same thing in three different ways. 1, Love God with all your being and love thy neighbor as thyself. 2, Keep the hearth of your thought pure. 3, In our wanderings through creation, we should not bring harm to our fellow wanders either in their soul or in there body. Thus he who loves and is pure have found his way to the kingdom of God. He does not need books or spiritual studies, neither does he need spiritual exercises or experimentation for the Love of God whose rays have come to life in him will carry him with effortless ease to the luminous kingdom of God. Stay blessed.

Thanks, M_Nwankwo.

You have illuminated this matter beyond my initial expectation. Something you said in the last paragraph particularly rings a bell. There is certainly more, particularly concerning that last issue, but for now, this is just fine. Gracias mucho!

MyJoe:

Thanks, M_Nwankwo.

You have illuminated this matter beyond my initial expectation. Something you said in the last paragraph particularly rings a bell. There is certainly more, particularly concerning that last issue, but for now, this is just fine. Gracias mucho!

Thank you for your kind words. Stay blessed.

Illuminating.
One thing I don't get though. You say a devotee may pray to a holy man, unaware he is praying to himself. Is it possible for the same spirit entity to inhabit biological time and space in multiple instances, simultaneously? How?

In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah. If he's Elijah that probably meant Elijah did something that compelled his return. Perhaps some work was unfinished. Perhaps a debt was unpaid. But from what I'd read Elijah sounded like someone outstanding. I read through his story again and guess what I found? He threw a challenge to the prophets of Baal. They lost. For reasons best known to himself, maybe as a sort of dramatic flourish to the events of the day, he took the FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY prophets of Baal and EXECUTED them. He killed four hundred and fifty people. If you're executing in those times, you behead. Sometimes these heads are hung at city gates. Did Elijah pay for this thing he had done? No.

But John the Baptist, whom Christ said was Elijah, had something interesting happen to him. Herod's niece danced and pleased him and he decided to grant her a boon. She asked for the head of John the baptist at her mother's behest. And John the Baptist was EXECUTED. He was BEHEADED. The whole thing was so casually done. Someone danced and off goes his head.Maybe his debt is paid. Maybe he has to come back and be executed four hundred and forty-nine more times. But there are inflexible laws in the universe. You reap what you sow.

Hi Madmax. Thanks for your input.

Illuminating.
One thing I don't get though. You say a devotee may pray to a holy man, unaware he is praying to himself. Is it possible for the same spirit entity to inhabit biological time and space in multiple instances, simultaneously? How?

No, it is not possible for a spirit to incarnate in more than one physical body at a time. I will give an example to make the point clearer. Just imagine a high school student in Nigeria in a physics class who have just got introduced to Newtons laws of motion. He is awe struck at the genius of Newton and wished that he will someday make some contributions to physics just like Newton. Sadly, inspite of his enthusiasm and interest in physics, he finds it difficult to grasp mathematics and physics. As time went on, he realized that he will not be successful pursuing a career in physics or other mathematical sciences. He is able to have high scores in arts and humanities without effort. He then decides to pursue a career in law and ended up being a very brilliant and successful lawyer. Yet  he is strangely attracted to physics and Newton in particular. On one of his trips to UK , he learns from a friend who is a physicist that original manuscript of Newton paper on the Laws of motion is archived at the University of London library. His physicist friend then took him to the library and showed him the original paper  in Newtons handwriting. As he torched the manuscript and held it in his hands, he was overwhelmed with awe at the genius of his idol. Unknown to him, he is holding a paper he wrote as Isaac Newton in the 16th century but now in the 21st century, he is a young nigerian lawyer with no earthly memory of his life as Isaac Newton in the 16th century.

Thus if we are to use a religious personality, imagine a catholic christian who in 2010 is asking for intercession from a catholic saint who lived in the 6th century and unknown to him he is that catholic saint in a new physical body in 2010, completely oblivious of who he was in the 6th century. If for some reasons, the bandage placed before his eyes is removed so that he can survey his past lives, he will find it comical and probably laugh at himself.

In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah. If he's Elijah that probably meant Elijah did something that compelled his return. Perhaps some work was unfinished. Perhaps a debt was unpaid. But from what I'd read Elijah sounded like someone outstanding. I read through his story again and guess what I found? He threw a challenge to the prophets of Baal. They lost. For reasons best known to himself, maybe as a sort of dramatic flourish to the events of the day, he took the FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY prophets of Baal and EXECUTED them. He killed four hundred and fifty people. If you're executing in those times, you behead. Sometimes these heads are hung at city gates.  Did Elijah pay for this thing he had done? No.

Elijah is not John the Baptist. Jesus never said that Elijah is John the Baptist. It is true that Elijah was around when the son of God was on earth but he is not John the Baptist as most people seem to suggest. Elijah in his new physical body (will not mention his name at that time) was a close follower of Jesus. In addition the story of killing the baal prophets is a legend woven around his name. Elijah did not kill anybody although he did confront the prophets worshiping false gods. Elijah faithfully fulfilled his mission and on his earthly death, his soul returned to the kingdom of God where he was prepared for his future mission as a close associate of Jesus, the son of God when he walked the earth 2000 years ago. John the Baptist is a forerunner to the Truth and whenever their will be a physical incarnation of Truth (God), John the Baptist will be sent to clear the way for a son of God. Thus the beheading of John the Baptist has no relation to Elijah. John the Baptist was beheaded because of the evil volition of humans, a consequence of hatred by the darkness to everything that is of the Light.

But John the Baptist, whom Christ said was Elijah, had something interesting happen to him. Herod's niece danced and pleased him and he decided to grant her a boon. She asked for the head of John the baptist at her mother's behest.  And John the Baptist was EXECUTED. He was BEHEADED. The whole thing was so casually done. Someone danced and off goes his head.Maybe his debt is paid. Maybe he has to come back and be executed four hundred and forty-nine more times. But there are inflexible laws in the universe. You reap what you sow.

 

See my explanation above. The laws of God are indeed inflexible but they manifest in infinite number  of ways. Sowing is done in several ways and it will be a wrong concept to imagine that every person killed by an armed rubber was once an armed rubber  that killed somebody in a former earth life. Yes, some are but many are not. Indeed some killed by armed rubbers are killed because of the free will of there fellow human beings. On earth and due to our physical body, the good and the bad, the pure and impure coexist. Thus, it does happen that somebody who have not sown murder can be murdered. How is that possible you may ask if we reap what we sow?. It is possible that the innocent victim sowed by not been alert to the promptings of his spirit and thus ignored its warning. Thus, all spiritual warnings given to him to prevent him being murdered was not hided or ignored. It may also happen that one accepts before coming to this earth certain experiences as a consequence of a particular mission. That is referred a mission karma. Just like a loving father will jump into a burning house to rescue his wife and kids, even at the risk of being burnt or death, so do spiritual helpers, human spirit accept before hand, a congenital disease, a handicap, etc in order to enable them gain necessary experience for a mission. Thus not a single hair of yours can fall except it is what you have put into creations either as a consequence of your free will or a consequence of you accepting pre-physical incarnation the consequence of the free will of your fellow human beings. In addition sowing and reaping is dynamic and happens every second and thus the tapestry of ones fate consists of billions of threads of fate and what we see in this earth life is just a tiny but significant snapshot. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Elijah is not John the Baptist. Jesus never said that Elijah is John the Baptist. It is true that Elijah was around when the son of God was on earth but he is not John the Baptist as most people seem to suggest. Elijah in his new physical body (will not mention his name at that time) was a close follower of Jesus. In addition the story of killing the baal prophets is a legend woven around his name. Elijah did not kill anybody although he did confront the prophets worshiping false gods. Elijah faithfully fulfilled his mission and on his earthly death, his soul returned to the kingdom of God where he was prepared for his future mission as a close associate of Jesus, the son of God when he walked the earth 2000 years ago. John the Baptist is a forerunner to the Truth and whenever their will be a physical incarnation of Truth (God), John the Baptist will be sent to clear the way for a son of God. Thus the beheading of John the Baptist has no relation to Elijah. John the Baptist was beheaded because of the evil volition of humans, a consequence of hatred by the darkness to everything that is of the Light.
 

I had like u to shed more light . . , and whats the source of the assertions above? Cos Jesus states clearly in the 4 gospel books that Elijah was John the baptist, and Madmax's analyses tends to make loads of sense.

Mad_Max:


In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah.

noetic16:

Cos Jesus states clearly in the 4 gospel books that Elijah was John the baptist, and Madmax's analyses tends to make loads of sense.

I agree with m_nwankwo on the issue of John the baptist being Elijah. John the baptist is not Elijah; however people always point to the fact that the bible reported Jesus as saying that John the baptise was Elijah.

I believe that the solution to this bible verse lies in the correct understanding of the language, and the context in which the expression was made. (If Jesus actually said that).

One should consider that sometimes in every language a person's name is used to represent something, especially something that person was known for. For example I could say that my brother is a Maradona. Even a child can deduce that what I meant was that my brother is a good footballer or dribbler, not that he is actually maradona. Thus the name Maradona, in this context, represent a very good footballer.

It is my perception that the name Elijah in that biblical context represents a forerunner. Elijah was a forerunner; his life impacted the Jews so much that his name became synonymous with a forerunner, a person sent from God to warn or to awaken the people, a powerful and fiery prophet. 

Thus when Malachi wrote: "See, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the day of the Lord comes, that great day, greatly to be feared."(Malachi 5:4)

This could mean: "I will send you an Elijah the prophet," Thus one who will come to warn and to prepere you for the day of the lord, just like Elijah did warn and prepare the people.

And consequently, when mathew reported Jesus as having said, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."[New international Version 1984](Mathew 11:14)

I believe that here(If Jesus actually said that), He was comfirming that John the baptist was the forerunner which was promised to you, thus the forerunner which Malachi wrote about. Thus John the baptist was an Elijah; or the Elijah which Malachi wrote about. In other words, John the baptise came on a similar mission as Elijah did; to warn and prepare the people.

Elijah came to warn and prepare the people; he was a forerunner for the Truth. John the baptist also came to prepare the people for the message of Christ; thus he was a forerunner too.

In another translation of the bible we read, "If you are willing to accept their message, John is the Elijah who was to come." [Gods word Transaltion 1995](Mathew 11:14).
By putting "the" before the name Elijah, this translation confirms that the name Elijah was used as a figure of speech and not necessarily that John the baptist was Elijah.

I will give an example. If we receive a prophesy that a Maradona will be sent to Nigeria before the end of this century. This does not necessarily mean that that particular Argentine footballer called Maradona will be sent to Nigeria. In this context the name 'Maradona' is used as a figure of speech. Thus the prophesy simply means that a great footballer will be sent to Nigeria.

Consequently when a great footballer rises in Nigeria, a knowing one could say that this is the Maradona promised to us. This does not mean the knowing one meant that the great footballer is a reincarnate of the Argentine Maradona.

Another example: If one receives a prophesy that an Abacha will win the next presidential election in Nigeria. This prophesy does not mean that the next president will be the reincarnate of Abacha; rather it means that the next president will do the same thing that Abacha did.

This is my perception of the issue. I am sure that John the baptist was not Elijah reincarnated.

Thanks.

@justcool
Noted

@
m_nwankwo
That makes sense. Reading about yourself somewhere, and not knowing it was you. Honestly, if one's mind isn't ready for something true, it rejects it. I'd always classed reincarnation as 'unbliblical' eastern mysticism.It was shocking to discover the thing happens, and much more besides. Because of the verse in the bible that goes, It is appointed for a man to die once and after that the judgement. I'm almost embarrassed to say there was actually a time I believed every word in the bible to be true, Jewish myths and all. The verse is true in a sense, but untrue in another sense. I don't know who taught it in the bible.  Maybe it was the misogynist Paul. His teachings, many of which directly contradicted what Christ taught by his words and actions, are the foundation of Christianity. And yet Christians insist it was Christ that founded Christianity, as if he came to the world to found a religion. We've turned him into some exclusive cult, our personal property, our mascot. I tend to agree with those who say Paul is the founder of the Christian religion. He's just a man asserting his opinions, insisting he's channeling God, and his words are what millions have lived and killed by.  Never mind that he never personally met Christ, refused to subject himself to the teachings of the apostles who had, because of pride; he was learned and they weren't. He openly mocked them, calling them 'so-called super-apostles' and insisting he was just as good as they. Apparently he was constantly at war with them. The early church seemed split in two, Paul's disciples headquartered in Rome and gained converts among the Roman elite because of his manipulative doctrine that Jews are to subject themselves to their conquerors (Roman rulers)because 'God put them there'. 'If you do good they will not be harsh to you' or some such thing. It's somewhere in one of his letters. Maybe to his disciples in Rome. The apostles were based in Jerusalem and taught what Christ taught them. You know what became of both factions, and what the Roman church transmuted into.

Paul's disciples put the bible together, and they made sure his teachings constituted most of the NT. Even the Gospels weren't spared. Mark and Luke never met Christ. They were companions of Paul's. The Acts of the Apostles chiefly concerned itself with Paul. Scholars tell you Peter never wrote 1st and 2nd Peter but Paul's people did. There are many stylistic giveaways. They didn't want to include the Gospel of John, but finally did so after much editing of the text. Most of the original apostles wrote gospels and eye-witness accounts, as did many others who personally knew Christ, like Joseph of Arimathea, Madgalene, Nicodemus.etc. They don't get featured in the bible Pauliners composed and shoved down the throat of the rest of humanity. Of course they'd insist it was holy and infallible. and must never be questioned  Afterall their authority rested on it. If people started asking questions they were done for. Like, Who is Paul that his teachings should usurp Christ's? Where did he get his doctrines since he refused to learn from the apostles? Why be so insecure as to insist his personal opinions is God talking, falsely borrowing authority, a tactic of many religious charlatans? He's zealous, but zealous for which Christ exactly; one he invented or the genuine Christ? If it's the real Christ why do their teachings differ in many respects? That 'holy' and 'infallible' doctrine survived, mostly by indoctrinating people early, as children. It's the most powerful and never departs from you.  Of course the same people who say the bible is infallible soon started insisting a man, the 'Pope', is holy and infallible too. Give it as much time as the bible has had, hundreds of years, and no one will question that either. 

Let me not derail the thread. The Jews wanted to know if John the Baptist was Moses or Elijah or the Prophet prophesied in the OT. Christ did tell them the Baptist was Elijah. Since we don't have the originals of those documents and what we have has been tampered with innumerable times, it's hard to assert He said this or did not say that. I'm taking the story at face value.

Anyways, do continue your earlier line of thought. You were teaching  MyJoe things, and it's fascinating.

justcool:

I agree with m_nwankwo on the issue of John the baptist being Elijah. John the baptist is not Elijah; however people always point to the fact that the bible reported Jesus as saying that John the baptise was Elijah.

I believe that the solution to this bible verse lies in the correct understanding of the language, and the context in which the expression was made. (If Jesus actually said that).

One should consider that sometimes in every language a person's name is used to represent something, especially something that person was known for. For example I could say that my brother is a Maradona. Even a child can deduce that what I meant was that my brother is a good footballer or dribbler, not that he is actually maradona. Thus the name Maradona, in this context, represent a very good footballer.

It is my perception that the name Elijah in that biblical context represents a forerunner. Elijah was a forerunner; his life impacted the Jews so much that his name became synonymous with a forerunner, a person sent from God to warn or to awaken the people, a powerful and fiery prophet. 

Thus when Malachi wrote: "See, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the day of the Lord comes, that great day, greatly to be feared."(Malachi 5:4)

This could mean: "I will send you an Elijah the prophet," Thus one who will come to warn and to prepere you for the day of the lord, just like Elijah did warn and prepare the people.

And consequently, when mathew reported Jesus as having said, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."[New international Version 1984](Mathew 11:14)

I believe that here(If Jesus actually said that), He was comfirming that John the baptist was the forerunner which was promised to you, thus the forerunner which Malachi wrote about. Thus John the baptist was an Elijah; or the Elijah which Malachi wrote about. In other words, John the baptise came on a similar mission as Elijah did; to warn and prepare the people.

Elijah came to warn and prepare the people; he was a forerunner for the Truth. John the baptist also came to prepare the people for the message of Christ; thus he was a forerunner too.

In another translation of the bible we read, "If you are willing to accept their message, John is the Elijah who was to come." [Gods word Transaltion 1995](Mathew 11:14).
By putting "the" before the name Elijah, this translation confirms that the name Elijah was used as a figure of speech and not necessarily that John the baptist was Elijah.

I will give an example. If we receive a prophesy that a Maradona will be sent to Nigeria before the end of this century. This does not necessarily mean that that particular Argentine footballer called Maradona will be sent to Nigeria. In this context the name 'Maradona' is used as a figure of speech. Thus the prophesy simply means that a great footballer will be sent to Nigeria.

Consequently when a great footballer rises in Nigeria, a knowing one could say that this is the Maradona promised to us. This does not mean the knowing one meant that the great footballer is a reincarnate of the Argentine Maradona.

Another example: If one receives a prophesy that an Abacha will win the next presidential election in Nigeria. This prophesy does not mean that the next president will be the reincarnate of Abacha; rather it means that the next president will do the same thing that Abacha did.

This is my perception of the issue. I am sure that John the baptist was not Elijah reincarnated.

Thanks.

Nope. On the contrary, Christ never meant [i]"THE" [/i]Elijah. . . , he simply meant Elijah as a person. Christ conversation on this subject is written in at least 4 places of the NT bible . . . .just read again.

Paul's disciples put the bible together, and they made sure his teachings constituted most of the NT. Even the Gospels weren't spared. Mark and Luke never met Christ. They were companions of Paul's. The Acts of the Apostles chiefly concerned itself with Paul. Scholars tell you Peter never wrote 1st and 2nd Peter but Paul's people did. There are many stylistic giveaways. They didn't want to include the Gospel of John, but finally did so after much editing of the text. Most of the original apostles wrote gospels and eye-witness accounts, as did many others who personally knew Christ, like Joseph of Arimathea, Madgalene, Nicodemus.etc. They don't get featured in the bible Pauliners composed and shoved down the throat of the rest of humanity. Of course they'd insist it was holy and infallible. and must never be questioned Afterall their authority rested on it. If people started asking questions they were done for. Like, Who is Paul that his teachings should usurp Christ's? Where did he get his doctrines since he refused to learn from the apostles? Why be so insecure as to insist his personal opinions is God talking, falsely borrowing authority, a tactic of many religious charlatans? He's zealous, but zealous for which Christ exactly; one he invented or the genuine Christ? [/b[b]]If it's the real Christ why do their teachings differ in many respects? That 'holy' and 'infallible' doctrine survived, mostly by indoctrinating people early, as children. It's the most powerful and never departs from you. Of course the same people who say the bible is infallible soon started insisting a man, the 'Pope', is holy and infallible too. Give it as much time as the bible has had, hundreds of years, and no one will question that either.

how does Paul's teachings differ from that of Christ?

noetic16:

I had like u to shed more light . . , and whats the source of the assertions above? Cos Jesus states clearly in the 4 gospel books that Elijah was John the baptist, and Madmax's analyses tends to make loads of sense.

Hi Noetic. The information I stated in my post is not from the bible. What I said is what I am permitted to spirtually draw from the laws of God. The laws of God record every happening in creation and sometimes I am permitted to look into these records. Now I intentionally did not say the name because it is a name most christians are familiar with and it will raise more questions and will lead into step by step revelation of identity of Elijah in his various incarnations on earth. I do not consider the revelation of his identity to be of spirtual benefit. Besides, I am also not permitted to reveal the identity of this specially called servant of God. But that does not mean that others cannot not come to such knowledge. It lies in the omniscience of God to reveal such to any seeker who need it for his own clarification. Stay blessed.

@
m_nwankwo
That makes sense. Reading about yourself somewhere, and not knowing it was you. Honestly, if one's mind isn't ready for something true, it rejects it. I'd always classed reincarnation as 'unbliblical' eastern mysticism.It was shocking to discover the thing happens, and much more besides.

Anyways, do continue your earlier line of thought. You were teaching  MyJoe things, and it's fascinating.

Hi Madmax. I rejoice with you on your recognition that reincarnation do happen. I wish you strength.  I was offering my perception to MyJoe and I am not qualified  to teach him. Stay blessed.