Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,742,339 members, 6,504,906 topics. Date: Friday, 24 September 2021 at 08:07 AM

A Queen In Heaven? - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Queen In Heaven? (2375 Views)

Adeboye: I Am Sure HID Awolowo Is In Heaven / Salve Regina ( Hail Holy Queen ) In Audio And Video / If U Could Take Just One Thing To Heaven, What Would It Be? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

A Queen In Heaven? by jerrymania(m): 10:19am On Nov 10, 2007
i once read from the Light of Truth some years back about a queen in heaven called Elizabeth. Is there any grail member that can expantiate on that? Is there any relationship between this reasoning and the Holy Mary Mother of God in Heaven?
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Dios(f): 7:37pm On Nov 10, 2007
Which heaven are you refering to? African, English, Jewish,Chinese? Which one
Because I don't want no part of a heaven whose queen's name is ELIZABETH OR MARY.

I want the name of the queen to be Funmi, Chinyere,Nefertiti etc, Catch my drift?
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by jerrymania(m): 10:34pm On Nov 10, 2007
@ DIOS

u know the Heaven i'm talking about right? i just wanted to know if this is true as some people believe this
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Dios(f): 1:13am On Nov 11, 2007
jerrymania:

@ DIOS

u know the Heaven i'm talking about right? i just wanted to know if this is true as some people believe this


Actually I don't, but give me some details details and I'll look it up.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Nobody: 4:21pm On Nov 12, 2007
Queen Of Heaven,

there's no similarity between this and Mary earthly mother of jesus.

Queen Elizabeth is a divine being, while mary is a spiritual being.
Queen Elizabeth in its activities takes on a feminine form, and all earthly female virtues like purity, love e.t.c. originates from her.

She existed outside creation and has not been incarnated and never will that occur.
she is also know as the Queen of Motherhood, it's her all females should try to perfect themselves through her activities and living in accordance with the will of the almighty.

That's my own personal understanding of the subject based on my knowledge through this work, In The Light Of Truth: The Grail Message. For better understanding, pick up a copy for yourself.

Thanks.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Backslider(m): 7:40pm On Nov 12, 2007
The queen of heaven is a demon. This is the one that shall prepare the way of the completely fallen Man and Complete devil, The Antichrist.

be not deceived Satan is planning his return also and all they that worship the evil women is doomed.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by jerrymania(m): 9:00pm On Nov 12, 2007
Backslider:

The queen of heaven is a demon. This is the one that shall prepare the way of the completely fallen Man and Complete devil, The Antichrist.

be not deceived Satan is planning his return also and all they that worship the evil women is doomed.

I'm not impressed. where is your proof in the bible?
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by kooldamsel(f): 1:33am On Nov 13, 2007
@poster
Dont be deceived.Enitan is right.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Nobody: 7:31am On Nov 13, 2007
Backslider:

The queen of heaven is a demon. This is the one that shall prepare the way of the completely fallen Man and Complete devil, The Antichrist.

be not deceived Satan is planning his return also and all they that worship the evil women is doomed.

are those the lies you were beig taught in your temple?



jerrymania:

I'm not impressed. where is your proof in the bible?

he that seeketh genuinely will surely find, the creator is omnipresent, that is all present whenevr you seek for him.



kooldamsel:

@poster
Dont be deceived.Enitan is right.

and may i meet you, kooldamsel
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by efuah(f): 12:14pm On Nov 13, 2007
mmm, enitan undecided this ya name means hatred in my language. . . lol, don't mind me wink
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by pilgrim1(f): 12:37pm On Nov 13, 2007
Hi @enitan2002,

How body? cheesy

enitan2002:

there's no similarity between this and Mary earthly mother of jesus.

I don't quite catch your meaning in the "no similarity" assertion; more so because you tried to actually establish a "similarity" between them:

enitan2002:

Queen Elizabeth in its activities takes on a feminine form, and all earthly female virtues like purity, love e.t.c. originates from her.

Actually, that is a "similarity" between them - and it is certainly just about the same thing that Catholicism claims for Mary.

enitan2002:

Queen Elizabeth is a divine being, while mary is a spiritual being.

Em. . . if Queen Elizabeth is a "divine being" - are you not saying she is 'GOD'? Please calm down and don't explode, because that is the inference you seemed to have established in this line:

enitan2002:

She existed outside creation and has not been incarnated and never will that occur.

If you assert (from Abd-ru-Shin's book) that 'Queen Elizabeth is a divine being' who existed "outside" creation, does that not effectively lead one to the inference that the Grail Message sees her as a 'GOD' of sorts? undecided
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Nobody: 3:52am On Nov 14, 2007
Hi baby pilgrim,

first of all, let me give answers to your question accordingly.


The divine realm is divided into to parts, namely divine unsubstantiate, and divine substantiate.
In the divine unsubstantiate, there only exists here the Godhead, i.e The almighty creator and his two sons that emanates directly from him, i.e Jesus (love) and Imanuel (justice), these are only the creatures in the divine unsubstantiate.
In the divine substantiate, the first creature that exists there is the Primordial Mother also known as Queen Elizabeth, it's she her spiritual reflection was made possible for one of the prophets to behold in the Old Testament, then after her later come the Arch-Angels and guardian angels.

The human spirit didnt emanates from these two parts, but came from the spiritual part of creation, each creature in its origin can step low to other parts but can never rise above its origin, that is why the human spirit cant see any divine being either Jesus or Lucifer, cos thats not possible in accordance with the creative will of the almighty.


Being a divine being doesnt necessarily mean that being is a God,
Let me tell you this, there's only but ONE GOD, not even Jesus or Imanuel can be called GOD, all because everything here in creation emanates from him. And humans can never become GOD. ok?

And it is only to HIM, honour and reverance belong to
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by pilgrim1(f): 4:57pm On Nov 14, 2007
Hi @enitan2002,

People do have their religious concepts - and I have no problem with that.

What invites my concerns is the practice of some religious iconoclast who assumes a superior 'spirituality' and misrepresents Biblical truths. I've seen this again and again in Abd-ru-Shin's works; and that is why I try to discuss sometimes with members of the Grail Message.

Take the following example:

enitan2002:

In the divine unsubstantiate, there only exists here the Godhead, i.e The almighty creator and his two sons that emanates directly from him, i.e Jesus (love) and Imanuel (justice), these are only the creatures in the divine unsubstantiate.

Now, I know you have tried as best you could to explicate what YOU believe. However, that is far from Biblical truth.

(a) Jesus is NOT a creature - He is the divine WORD who brings creation into existence (John 1:1)

(b) In the Godhead, there are not TWO sons - for Jesus is the ONLY-begotten Son of God (John 3:16)

(c) 'Immanuel' is not another son - for that is simply another appelation for the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:23)

(d) 'Immanuel' does not mean ("justice"wink, but rather simply means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23).

If we carefully examine ou persuasions and not run headlong with the cherished misrepresentations of religious icons, we shall find safety in the arms of Jesus Christ.

Cheers.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by mnwankwo(m): 6:01pm On Nov 14, 2007
The Grail Message didnot say that Jesus and the Holyspirit are creatures. According to the Grail Message, Jesus is the son of God, and Imanuel is the Holy Spirit. According to the Grail Message, Jesus is God the son, and Immanuel is God the Holy Spirit. The Grail Message reveals that both Jesus and the Holy spirit though personal in their working are one with God the Father. According to the Grail Message, their is only God the Father in the beginning. When God the father decided to create, a part of his creative WILL became personal and is refered to as the Holy Spirit. The entire creations was created by the Holy Spirit.The Grail Message further reveals that disobedience of the laws of God by human beings led to a situation in which the earth was enveloped by darkness that even the power and words of his servants (prophets) were not strong enough to dispel the spiritual darkness and save humanity from spiritual death. God the Father intervened by "severing" a part of himself and this became Jesus Christ, the son of God. Being God the son, Jesus revealed the truth and the absolute radiance of his words dispelled the spiritual darkness. Jesus opened the the key to paradise for all human beings who wish to live according to his words. According to the Grail Message the trinity of God consit of God the Father, God the son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit (Immanuel). The Grail Message does not draw from any other sacred texts even when it appears so on the surface.

1 Like

Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 6:22pm On Nov 14, 2007
@m_nwankwo,
The Grail Message does not draw from any other sacred texts even when it appears so on the surface.
This being your conclusion, and thus the motivation for you to clear the things that enitan2002 said up, I have at the outset a basic question: by "any other sacred texts", do you mean: other than the bible and the grail message? In other words, the inferences you make do not or may not contradict what is contained in the sacred text of the scriptures?

If the answer to that is NO, then we might change the direction of the argument. If it is YES, can you please examine these assertions as contained in your most recent post:

- that Immanuel is the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from Jesus Christ, then Immanuel is distinct from Jesus

- that there was only God the Father in the beginning

- that the Holy Spirit came into to existence "when God decided to create"

- that the entire creation was "created by" the Holy Spirit, I assume precluding an involvement of the Word of God herein the second Person of the trinity. This latter point made more obvious by this next assertion:

- that Jesus Christ, and thus the Word (being my primary concern here the pre-incarnate Christ) only came into existence AFTER man's sin, WHEN God decided to intervene in the mess created by man

- that his existence is as a result of a "severing" OUT FROM or OUT OF God the Father

Are those valid inferences from your posts or have i misread you?
Do you think those assertions could be made using the text of Scripture?
Thanks as you clarify those points so we can know exactly what you are saying and not misinterpret you. Cheers smiley
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by mnwankwo(m): 6:39pm On Nov 14, 2007
I will try to answer your questions as much as I can. In the end it will be better for you toexamine the Grail Message and draw your own conclusions.
1. The Grail Message is not based on any sacred texts used by any religion.
2. According to the Grail Message, Jesus and Immanuel are distinct personalities, the are part of the trinity.
3. Yes, it is only God the Father that is in existence before creation.
4. No, the Holyspirit didnot came into existence with the beginning of creation. He is a part of God the father and has no beginning.
5. Jesus did not came into existence after mans sin. He was only incarnated on earth after mans sin. Jesus has no beginning because he is a part of God, the Father. Thanks.

1 Like

Re: A Queen In Heaven? by pilgrim1(f): 6:57pm On Nov 14, 2007
@m_nwankwo,

m_nwankwo:

1. The Grail Message is not based on any sacred texts used by any religion.

It still does not mean that the Grail Message doesn't borrow heavily from other sacred texts; or they would not be trying to interpret the Bible and basing their ideas on selected Biblical verses.

m_nwankwo:

2. According to the Grail Message, Jesus and Immanuel are distinct personalities, the are part of the trinity.

That said, it seems you rather confused issues yet again by trying to make "Immanuel" interpret as the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, it is Jesus Himself who is called "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:27).

m_nwankwo:

3. Yes, it is only God the Father that is in existence before creation.

Which would mean that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit were in existence before creation - seeing that you relegate that as the prerogative of God the father.

On the other hand, such an assumption clearly contradicts your inference for the Holy Spirit and the Son.

m_nwankwo:

4. No, the Holyspirit didnot came into existence with the beginning of creation. He is a part of God the father and has no beginning.
5. Jesus did not came into existence after mans sin. He was only incarnated on earth after mans sin. Jesus has no beginning because he is a part of God, the Father. Thanks.

Since either of them did not have a beginning, that would simply mean that they have always existence as is said of God the Father.

Cheers.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by mnwankwo(m): 7:20pm On Nov 14, 2007
@Pilgrim 1

1.Thanks for your reply. The Grail Message does not borrow from the bible, Koran or sacred texts of other religion. The Grail Message states that it is a procalamation of truth. That is why it is entiltled "In The Light of Truth" Therefore whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the Grail Message.

2. The Grail Message says that Imanuel is the Holyspirit. It is left for each person to intuitively percieve what is the truth in this connection.

3. It is God the Father that is in Jesus and also in the Holyspirit. They are parts of God the father that have become personal in their working. That is why like the father, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal without a beginning and an end. Thus both Jesus, the son of God, and Imanueul, the HolySpirit were in existence before creation and will remian so even if entire creations ceases to exist. Thanks.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by justcool(m): 10:46pm On Nov 14, 2007
m_nwankwo:

@Pilgrim 1

1.Thanks for your reply. The Grail Message does not borrow from the bible, Koran or  sacred texts of other religion. The Grail Message states that it is a procalamation of truth. That is why it is entiltled "In The Light of Truth"  Therefore whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the Grail Message.

2. The Grail Message says that Imanuel is the Holyspirit. It is left for each person to intuitively percieve what is the truth in this connection.

3. It is God the Father that is in Jesus and also in the Holyspirit. They are parts of God the father that have become personal in their working. That is why like the father, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal without a beginning and an end. Thus both Jesus, the son of God, and Imanueul, the HolySpirit were in existence before creation and will remian so even if entire creations ceases to exist. Thanks.

Very clear and accurate I completely agree with you.

1 Like

Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Nobody: 9:45am On Nov 15, 2007
@ pilgrim,

jesus didnt call himself imanuel, it was matthew trying to make a fulfillment of the prophecy of isaih and the birth of jesus.

Isaih prophesy Imanuel and not jesus.
When the angel visited Mary heasked she should named the baby, Jesus and not Imanuel.

Jesus and Imanuel are not the same thing.


The only you can understand the Grail Message is not to compare it with any other religious scrolls, it stands completely on its own.

There's no compromise. It's either you accept everything or you reject everything, there's no sitting on the fence.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Purist(m): 12:13pm On Nov 16, 2007
enitan2002:

Jesus and Imanuel are not the same thing.

I am inclined to agree with enitan2002 based on these:

* http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/isaiah7.htm
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

. . . save for the part where he refers to them as "thing". grin (j/k)

Rebuttals, anyone?
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 3:16pm On Nov 16, 2007
@m_nwankwo,
m_nwankwo:

@Pilgrim 1

1.Thanks for your reply. The Grail Message does not borrow from the bible, Koran or sacred texts of other religion. The Grail Message states that it is a procalamation of truth. That is why it is entiltled "In The Light of Truth" Therefore whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the Grail Message.

I'd mostly confine myself to discussing the Grail message's relatedness to the bible in addressing your statements. Obviously, the marked similarity can be explained in two ways: borrowing or by the way you have alerted - independent revelation. I can't think of other explanations right now.
However, some issues naturally arise:
The similarities are an issue, however, the differences and even CONTRADICTIONS between some sacred texts and the said "proclamation of truth" constitute a source of major concern. In case you weren't aware, the bible, which claims to be the Word of God, also claims to be THE proclamation of Truth. Beyond that, the striking thing is that it claims to be the exclusive proclamation of truth, wherein there cannot be spiritual truth within any other book that makes such a claim. It is a cannon – and in its totality it reveals THE TRUTH, which/who is embodied in Jesus Christ. Not only that, it claims to be inerrant because, so-called truth mixed with error, is just as dangerous as pure untruth and error. Thus it claims to be wholly true.

That said, if we consider the similarities
It's obvious that, although the Grail Message seeks to be independent or to "stand on its own", you cannot do away with specific instances of marked similarity to other religions. My question now is: is it really true that "whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the grail message"? Let me explain. If there is "truth" existing in other religions, e.g. the bible, how did THEY arrive at that truth? I'm particularly referring to Truth (eg relating to the nature of the God-head) that people don't stumble upon. How did the heralds of such religious beliefs come about them? If we consider that those "truths" could not have been attained by mere human logic nor reasoning, can we not thereby say that those truths were revealed by God ? Now, did God reveal himself to peoples of clearly opposing religions and belief systems? In one peculiar instance, that of Hinduism (I believe there are elements of Hinduism in the grail message) which does NOT even believe in nor acknowledge a personal God, how then did they arrive at those truths? Furthermore, what is the purpose of God revealing himself to people that do not even acknowledge his existence?

now to the differences
It is possible you try to resolve that disparity by saying that it was revealed to them - something which obviously cannot be true for certain elements. However, that brings much more issues. If they are revealed truths, how come they contain "revealed" instances of truth that clearly contradicts the teachings of the grail message which also claims to be "truth"? Does God contradict himself? Or did he reveal part-truths that were later corrupted or filled in by their followers? Beyond that, Truth is a canon - there is a concept of ALL TRUTH or the WHOLE TRUTH, thus alluding to the existence of part-truths does not hold water. The bible obviously claims in its totality to be truth - and truth revealed by God. Furthermore, it makes an exclusive claim. The differences between the bible and the GM CANNOT be mere differences in interpretation - if you think it is such, we can consider that in more detail. Likewise, we affirm that the bible is inerrant and was not "corrupted" in any way - although human error in copying manuscripts and translating can make insignificant mistakes, which can easily be resolved by looking at the thousands of available manuscripts.

The issue is: there is a real dilemma here; and like I said before, truth mixed with error is just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than pure error because by the "truths" it contains, it brings down one's guards and makes it easier for one to swallow the untruths. The poison in an ice-cream analogy will work here. So I affirm that there is NO WAY that the GM can be true if the bible that came before it contains independently attained "truths".

There are other issues I will hopefully address later today. Cheers smiley.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 3:27pm On Nov 16, 2007
@purist,
Purist:

I am inclined to agree with enitan2002 based on these:

* http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/isaiah7.htm
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

. . . save for the part where he refers to them as "thing". grin (j/k)

Rebuttals, anyone?
the links you provided do not provide a basis for agreeing with enitan2002 for the simple reason that they are not referring to the same thing. The "problem" in those links is that they claim that Matthew's reference to Isaiah is not justified as a fulfilment of prophecy while enitan's claim is that Immanuel is the Holy Spirit - IN NO PLACE does the bible refer to Immanuel as the Holy Spirit. So the latter is a non-issue.

As regards the point in those links, its very simple: if the correct rendition of the text in Isaiah were "woman" then the verse has no meaning and is self-defeating, for there is no "sign" (or miracle) involved in a woman giving birth to a child and calling him certain names; anybody can wake up and do that. It only becomes extraordinary and thus warrant the designation "a sign" if a VIRGIN gives birth to a Son.

In the Septuagint, the greek word for "virgin" is used in that text in Isaiah, and there is no basis for dismissing it. We don't have the hebrew autograph - the masoretic text is also a copy, even though its in Hebrew. Cheers smiley
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by mnwankwo(m): 4:33pm On Nov 16, 2007
@Ricadelide,

Thanks for your reply. I will try as much as I can to address the issues you raised in the sense of the Grail Message. However in the end any person who wants to know about the Grail Message should pick it , intuitively examine it and arrive at their own conclusions.

1. The Grail Message stands entirely alone, it is not derived or compiled from the sacred texts of various religions. The Grail Message is the proclamation of eternal truth. If any other book or belief makes such a claim, it is left for each individual to examine the various claims and arrive at their own conclusion.

2. The Grail Message explains that Truth is eternal unchangeable and God is the Truth. Wherever you see a true revealation of God, such revealation must carry within it the twin concepts of love and justice. Therefore every true revelation of God cannot contradict the concept of justice and love.

3. Truth does not contradict itself. Whatever is true does not change for it arose out of the perfection of God who is the Truth. Thus if you sow corn, you will reap corn and not mango. If you sow good thoughts, good actions, you will reap good things in multiple. This is a fundamental law of God. If a teaching has arisen that says you can be evil and yet go to paradise, that teaching is not according to Gods laws. Gods law states unequivocally that whatever you sow, you shall reap.

4. Revelations of God are adapted to the spiritual maturity of the people recieveing the revelations.  You do not teach calculus to a kid in primary school. You teach him the simple arithematic. If he learns the simple maths, he will one day be an expert in calculus. The various contradictions you see in world religions is that the part truths brought by the various prophets of God were distorted and are no longer pure, hence the contradictions. Had they remained pure they would have formed a single flight of steps on which the WHOLE TRUTH will stand. The Grail Message and the Message of the son of God Jesus is exactly the same and is the WHOLE TRUTH. That is the revelation from the Grail Message. It is left for each individual to decide where his or her path leads him or her.

5. God is love and and also Justice and any human being who uses these  as a guide will recognise the WILL of God, and will be able to separate the truth from distortions. He or she will one day be permitted the highest grace of God, being permitted to exist forever as a servant of the ALMIGHTY GOD. In any activity where Love and Justice are lacking, that activity has nothing to do with God for everything that is of God vibrates in Justice and Love. In justice and love lies harmony. All creations of God are based on these apparently simple words.  

6. As personal rule I do not engage in quoting and comparing the various religious texts. God put in all human beings a spiritual faculty that allows all those who seek to recognise him. And  any person who still preserves that faculty can recognise the Laws of God. If he then prays for the strength to live accordingly, God will mediate the power. Then his life will be transformed, he becomes a knowing one, a born again. Thank you.

1 Like

Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 10:08pm On Nov 18, 2007
@m_nwankwo,
Sorry I'm just replying. And thanks for responding. While you addressed some of the issues I raised, there were yet others that I assume you missed.
For now, i'd only focus in detail on point number four in your post, while i'd just quote a scripture in regards to 5. Hopefully, if i find the time, i can address the other points in more detail. Pardon the length of my post, I have a lot to say on the issue and I have a hard time knowing what not to say in order to prevent being misunderstood whilst still preserving clarity.
Furthermore, permit me not to accept your claims at face value, just like you do not accept mine.

m_nwankwo:

4. Revelations of God are adapted to the spiritual maturity of the people recieveing the revelations.  You do not teach calculus to a kid in primary school. You teach him the simple arithematic. If he learns the simple maths, he will one day be an expert in calculus.

Your analogy might suffice for certain things – however it doesn’t work when we are talking about the Word of God. The word of God is not algebra, neither is it calculus. The word of God is spirit and life. I do not agree with the statement “revelations of God are ADAPTED TO the spiritual maturity of the people receiving the revelations” in the context of discussing Scripture and I’d explain why.

I guess by the “people receiving the revelations” you mean the prophets (who wrote down the scriptures) although I assume you could also mean the audience of such a revelation of God or who receive a revelation (of God) when studying the scriptures. I’d address both and likewise try to define what revelation means.

Again, you fail to understand the concept and the context of the written Word of God. The Scriptures are inspired as they were written. They can contain the spoken words of God, events, history, and so on – all those things together are still scripture. The person who reads scripture, if his inner eyes are open, receives a revelation of the written word of God, and this revelation of God is profitable unto that individual for growth and transformation. The ‘revelation of God’, in the first place, cannot be adapted to the level of spiritual maturity of the recipient simply because it assumes that one can be spiritually mature independent of God’s Word. That is clearly not the case. Spiritual maturity is not a product of doing right and wrong or even of a superior form of morality – it is a product of the word of God being fed to our spirits (2Cor. 3:18). How then can the same spiritual maturity be a condition or a limiting factor for receiving what is meant to produce it?

My argument is not that those who wrote the scriptures were not spiritually mature, definitely they were, it is that their spiritual maturity is not the criterion for writing down what God inspired them to write.

Apart from plain logic, one can consider the case from the scriptures themselves.
In the first scenario, as for you referring to the level of spiritual maturity of those prophets who wrote it, the scriptures are clear against that being the case. The written word of God was not determined by the level of maturity of those who wrote it. We can assume that the level of a man’s maturity will be reflected in his level of understanding of God and His Ways. Here is a scripture:
2Pet. 1:21
“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

I don’t want to quote the whole context, however it is clear that the inspiration for the writing of scripture was not dependent on the level of maturity of the prophets or even the extent of their understanding. Earlier in 1Pet. 1:10-12, Peter had shown that the prophets did not even understand fully the time and circumstances of what the Holy Spirit said through them, yet they wrote it down nonetheless. Thus, it is not the level of the person that determines what is written, it is whether they are inspired or not.

And if you mean it to refer to the objects of the Word, in the New Testament for example, Jesus said many things to the disciples. Many of those things they did not understand until after his death and resurrection – if the Word was dependent upon and thus adapted to their level, then He would not have said those things that they could not understand at the moment. Yet he said them nonetheless, because he knew that the time would come when they would be able to understand it.
Furthermore, populations of people are not usually at the same level spiritually, how then can the Scripture be ‘adapted to’ the level of the receivers of the said? The audience of scripture is universal – not confined to a certain time frame. Furthermore, they are not all at the same level; the same word that is sown on fertile soil is the same that fell on the roadside and the same that got choked by thorns.
Claiming that God’s word is adapted to our level is clearly not consistent with God’s working.

Coming to the issue of revelation, to the individual (I mean that is a member of the population to which the written word is sent) the degree of revelation that that individual does possess will correlate with the person’s level of maturity. However, even in that, it is still not exactly as you put it up there (note that I didn’t say “adapted to”). You cannot attain any form of spiritual maturity without the Word; it is the Word that makes one spiritually mature. The Word of God always draws us up: that’s why John was told to “Come up hither” (Rev. 4:1). It is by abiding in His Word that we grow. Those who walk in what they have seen would be “blessed in what (they) do” (James 1:25). Thus, even for the newly born in Christ, the milk of God’s Word is not adapted to their level – it is given for their growth.

The level of the Word that has been revealed to you with determine your level of maturity – and this in turn determines how much more of God’s written Word you can “see”. Obviously the baby cannot chew solid meat, however, it is not that God then brings about a new book of Truth, rather He gives us greater insight into that which He has already written. God’s revelations are ‘seen’ and the seeing is commensurate with the degree of light that one has. God does reveal His Word. When we feed from God’s word, we can only assimilate as much as the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see; and we would continue to seek and see, that is why the study of the Word for a child of God is a lifelong process. Thus, it is true that “we speak a message of wisdom among them that are mature”. That is to be distinguished from scripture. The Word of God (scripture) is unchanging and complete and there is no need for any new book of truth.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 10:10pm On Nov 18, 2007
The various contradictions you see in world religions is that the part truths brought by the various prophets of God were distorted and are no longer pure, hence the contradictions. Had they remained pure they would have formed a single flight of steps on which the WHOLE TRUTH will stand.
Unfortunately I can’t bother my self so much with world religions but will confine myself to discussing the Bible. The world religions are contradictory and inconsistent for the simple reason that they are not based on a revelation of God’s truth. God is NOT an author of confusion – he does not send prophets to start religions that contradict one another. Those who have a revelation of God do not contradict other people who are from God, and God is able to preserve the Words He delivers through the mouths of His prophets that their words “do not fall to the ground”. There is a clear exclusivity with God, all roads (even at their pristine condition) do not, or have not always led to God.

Coming to the bible, which is called the Word of God, the allegation that the Word of God is or has been corrupted is not new. It is a cheap allegation that really can’t be sustained on proper scrutiny. It has continued to be proffered since the creation of time. Back in the garden; it was: “Did God really say . . . ?” And even now, it’s still the same principle. However, since we never really consider the seriousness of that allegation, we let it slip by many times.

The first thing is that it is a strong allegation – because, inherently, considering that the reason God reveals his Words is for a certain purpose and to a certain people, any allegation that all of the Scripture (God’s Word) is corrupted is a statement that God is not able to preserve His Word.
The thought that usually comes to my mind when people make such claims is that: “when WAS the Word of God corrupted?” Is it when it was spoken, before being written down? In other words, are the autographs themselves corrupted? Considering that the very ones who wrote them down were said to be inspired as they wrote how is that possible?
Or is it rather AFTER it was written? If so, is it ALL the copies of the original that got (intentionally) corrupted? Then who was the Word sent to in those regards – did God SEND His Word to people that will intentionally corrupt it? Or was God handicapped in preventing His Word from such forms of corruption?

The other issue is “what exactly is corrupted in God’s Word?” How do we determine that His Word is corrupted? You mentioned Love and Justice as a yardstick – obviously that is very vague; you can have a lot of accounts indicating a high degree of love and justice and yet they are false.

Does God send new Scripture to replace the old? No. Even when Jesus came, although he had the “good news” to proclaim, he did not undermine the Law and the Prophets. “Have you not read” was a common phrase he used. His sermon on the mount is very clear in this regard. It was not meant to nullify the old but to fulfill it. He came to raise the bar, not to do away with that which went before. Jesus Christ made it clear that “the Word of God cannot be broken.” (John 10:35). John 5:39 makes it clear that the scriptures (referring to the Old Testament) testify of the Son of God. Thus, all in all, there is no basis for advocating any assertion that God proclaims part-truths that later got corrupted, or that God might, at a later date, feel the need to re-proclaim Truth so as to act as a ‘remedy’ for lost or corrupted Truth. That is not consistent with God’s working in any way.

A deeper study of Scripture (for example the events surrounding Eve’s temptation) can lead one to truly understand why one would even MAKE such an allegation in the first place OR, beyond that, why one can FALL FOR that cheap slur against God’s Word in order to undermine it. I wouldn’t go into that for space however.

Obviously, people can, in their folly, misunderstand God’s word or choose not to obey God’s word. They can even misrepresent Him in some way or elevate their traditions to the status of the word of God (like the Pharisees did) – however, they cannot erode God’s Word. God’s word, like God’s people, cannot be wiped out and it is established forever. Obviously, there can be copy errors in translation or other such minor mistakes – however, they’d remain minor mistakes that can easily be identified on examination of the numerous manuscripts that abound and they do not affect the core doctrines of the faith in any way.
God’s truth is a canon and the canon of Scripture is complete, it leaves no room for any new claims of divine inspiration, not to mention claims of inspiration that try to lay claim to the Son of God and certain teachings in the Scriptures while undermining the whole of the Scriptures themselves and contradicting the doctrines of Christ.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by ricadelide(m): 10:14pm On Nov 18, 2007
The Grail Message and the Message of the son of God Jesus is exactly the same and is the WHOLE TRUTH. That is the revelation from the Grail Message. It is left for each individual to decide where his or her path leads him or her.
The Grail message cannot be the message of the Son of God Jesus, except you’re talking about another Jesus. It is clearly at odds with the teachings of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ, neither does it even understand nor appreciate the purpose of the Son nor the Work of the Son.
Considering the issue is very simple: the author of the grail message was not an eyewitness, he stands entirely alone and apart from eyewitness accounts of the Word. Beyond that however, he contradicts the teachings of the Word; how then can the message of the GM be the same as the message of the Son?

There are reasons why the gospels do not only contain the teachings of Jesus, they also contain the historical context in which the Son lived, the things he did, how he lived and so on. These facts can all be attested to and the historical context provides a bedrock for corroborating the life of Jesus and a framework for understanding his Truth. The Son is the Word made flesh, thus not only can we learn from what he said, we can learn from what he did. His actions do speak. Only eyewitnesses and people who had first-hand access to eyewitnesses can give a careful report on the details of his life.

In the case of Paul, who we might assume was not a direct eyewitness of Jesus while on earth, he still got in contact with those who he met the Lord, even though his teaching was gotten independent of those apostles. Beyond that, the beautiful thing though is that even though he had been teaching / preaching about the Lord Jesus before he met with the other apostles, he did not contradict what they said. Thus they were able to extend to him the right hand of fellowship, even in the face of the atrocities he had earlier committed against them.

All that said, there was / is no sole source of revelation about the life of Jesus. Although Paul wrote a lot of epistles in the New Testament, many others wrote as well, and the Scriptures that came through them are just as important as those ones alluded to Paul.
Any careful observation of the issue makes it abundantly clear that in no way can the GM be the same as the message of the Son of God. You cannot try to undermine the Message and the account of the Son (Scripture) and then try to hijack the same Son of God and present him in a new light different from that which the Son has revealed Himself to be. Neither can you offer a said "proclamation of Truth" as a sole, standalone authority on the life of the Son. We can choose to believe whatever we want, however, it is wise to be wary of stand-alone claims that disregard and try to discountenance all that God has done before it.

m_nwankwo:

5. God is love and and also Justice and any human being who uses these as a guide will recognise the WILL of God, and will be able to separate the truth from distortions. He or she will one day be permitted the highest grace of God, being permitted to exist forever as a servant of the ALMIGHTY GOD. In any activity where Love and Justice are lacking, that activity has nothing to do with God for everything that is of God vibrates in Justice and Love. In justice and love lies harmony. All creations of God are based on these apparently simple words.
Considering this point and the words in bold, for now I'd only quote a scripture, and hope that the message is clear. If i have can spare more time, i'd be more detailed.
1John 5:10-12
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
(emphasis mine)
Cheers smiley.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by mnwankwo(m): 11:01pm On Nov 18, 2007
@Ricadelide,

Thanks for your reply. I have read your very lengthy post. I could easily address all the concerns you raised. However I will not do so because while asking questions you have already arrived at your conclusions on the Grail Message. There is no point in offering answers to people who believe that they already have the right belief. It is irrelevant to me what others believe or do not believe, whether the accept or reject the Grail Message. The experiences of each individaul will convince him or her either here on earth or when he has departed this life whether or not his path is leading him to God or damnation. Best wishes.

1 Like

Re: A Queen In Heaven? by pilgrim1(f): 11:36pm On Nov 18, 2007
@m_nwakwo,

m_nwankwo:

There is no point in offering answers to people who believe that they already have the right belief.

Lol. . . is that not what you have precisely done? You arrived at your preconceived ideas, pandered obvious denials of Biblical truths in order to propagate the Grail Message; and when answers were offered to show you just where you missed it, then you come back complaining as above!

In fair exchange, what if someone asks you to drop your own Grail Message ideas and face up to the truths in the Bible that Abd-ru-Shin has calculatedly misrepresented? I'm sure you'd be singing another tune. If mr Shin actually predicated his religion independently of the Bible, would you even be speaking of Immanuel and Jesus while trying to separate the one from ther other?

Truth is easy to whosoever will find it. The problem with so many people is to propose the idea that others have missed it if they do not pander to your own interpretation of the Bible to suit the mold of the Grail Message! That attitude is recipe for sure disaster in the end.

Cheers.
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Yisraylite(m): 6:59am On Nov 19, 2007
@ Jerrymania

According to the Hebrew scriptures:

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and [they] pour out drink offerings to hinder gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.

See all of Yeremyah( Jeremiah) Chapt 7 for the full context

The first emperor of the then known world after the floods Nimrod a.k.a Marduk  and his wife Semiramis were deifed as a God  and Goddess and later worshipped by the ancient babylonians. Later Known as Baal and Ashtoreth in Canaan and Phoenicia, Osiris and Isis in Egypt, etc

Ashtoreth,Asherah,Ishtar were all variations of the queen of heaven  whom our ancestors went whoring after despite YHWH'S warning

Jdg 2:13  And they forsook YHWH, and served Baal(Lord) and Ashtaroth ( Queen of Heaven)

Deu 31:16 And YHWH said to Mosheh, Behold, you will sleep with your fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, where they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Lev 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

Salaam (Peace)
smiley
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by Nobody: 7:15am On Nov 19, 2007
Fables and endless genealogies which simply engender more questions.
The devil is working overtime for he knows the end is very near. No wonder there is a sharp increase in the number of people who hold false doctrines and struggle to force them into the bible.

Where in the bible do we see any reference to a queen of heaven except as Yisrayel quoted correctly "that they may provoke God to anger"?
Re: A Queen In Heaven? by jerrymania(m): 7:43am On Nov 19, 2007
Yisraylite:

@ Jerrymania

According to the Hebrew scriptures:

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and [they] pour out drink offerings to hinder gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.


Is this not what the Catholics are doing with "Virgin Mary"? Mind you they call her the Queen of Heaven.

(1) (2) (Reply)

Epicworship: FREE Church Presentation Software / This New Version Of The Bible Replaces Every Mention Of God With Kanye West / EXPOSITION Of The 1000 Years Millenial Reign Of Christ On Earth

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2021 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 391
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.