₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
@justcool,

The problem with people lifted direct quotes from the Bible and pretending that it was somewhere else they got it from is what undermines their claims. You cannot find these statements anywhere else:

52. I am the Resurrection and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me!
66. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!

These are direct lines lifted straight out of the Bible - and here are the references:

"I am the Resurrection and the Life" ~~ John 11:25
"No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" ~~ John 14:6
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ~~ Luke 23:34

@ pilgrim 1
Thanks again.
You are making a mistake. Please drive the nail all the way home. The source of all these references that you pasted above is not the Bible. The Bible only recorded the events. The events did not originate in the Bible, if they did then they will lies.

I am the Resurrection and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me!  Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!
If we believe the Bible, then the actual source of these words is Jesus.  The source of the above sayings(which was correctly passed down in the Bible) is Jesus. Or better God or the TRUTH. The saying originated in the TRUTH, and was latter written in the Bible. Not all references to it comes from the Bible. An eyewitness could render the same account without ever reading the Bible.

John 11:25
John 14:6
Luke 23:34

All these are accounts of the saying by different disciples. The sayings did not originate from the disciples neither did the saying originate in the books or written accounts of the disciples. It is not just a fabrication of the disciples rather it the disciples account of an actual event.

I will give another example:
Supposing Obama once said, "America should make me the next President."
This saying will be carried by various news media -- Vanguard newspaper, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian Newspaper and etc.

It will be wrong to assume that whoever uses that quote got it from the news media. The person quoting may have been standing next to Obama when He said it. Although both the quoter and the news media are referencing the same quote, the quoter is only drawing from Obama and not the news media.

The origin of the word remains Obama, not the news media or the person quoting Obama. This holds true if the words are quoted or reported exactly as Obama said it.

Remain Blessed.

@pilgrim 1
I was going to let m_nwankow answer your post which is directed to him but then I saw something that blew my mind. I have to comment on it.

pilgrim.1:
Is this book of life different from the Bible? Is it a hard thing to just say simply: "BIBLE"? You just make the assertion that the prophecies are written in the book of life - and I should assume to follow Abd-Ru-Shin's interpretation of those prophecies without knowing those prophecies for myself? Is that how the prophets interpreted prophecies? Why is it so hard to simply say "BIBLE"?

The answer is capital "NO"

The Book of life is not the Bible neither can any book written by man be the Book of Life. It is funny that all religions claim that their scriptures is the Book of Life.

Before going into what the book of life is, let remind ourselves what the Bible is. I know that you are very educated and obviously well read and intelligent and I assume that you most have read the history of the book that we call the Bible.

First of all the Bible is not a book as such. It is a room where the early fathers collected ancient scriptures and letters written by the apostles to various churches. Only later, did they compile some of the scriptures and letters written by the apostles into what we today call the bible. For example, there were more that just four gospels. The father that included only four in the bible did so, not because of the lack of authenticity of the discarded gospels; he included the four most similar, just because there are four winds -North wind, east wind, west wind, and south wind.
Most of the books in the new testament were not even written to be scriptures but rather they a personal letters that Paul or other apostles wrote to various churches.
It is unfortunate that Christians today have rather descended to the worship of the bible as an infallable word of God, even though History clearly shows how much the book have been interfered with.
Scriptures are never meant to be looked at as the Book of Life. The Scriptures are just revelations or prophecies which should bear witness to the Truth, i.e. point to the people towards the Truth. The scriptures written by man are not the ETERNAL TRUTH which only God can bring. But the scriptural prophecies are meant to prepare the people so that when the TRUTH comes, they might recognise HIM. If humans can pass down the TRUTH as such undistorted, then why did Jesus have to come to bring the TRUTH.

Even in the Bible, so many verses point to the fact that the scriptures or the bible does not grant salvation. There is no salvation in the Bible. Salvation only lies in the TRUTH, in the original words of Jesus.  From the Bible we read:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
(John 5:39)(new American standard Bible version.)

In another translation we read:

"You study the Scriptures in detail because you think you have the source of eternal life in them. These Scriptures testify on my behalf"(John 5:39)(Gods word translation)

From the above verses we see that regarding the scriptures as the book of life or thinking that salvation lies in the scriptures is wrong. Scriptures are meant to bear witness to the Truth, i.e prepare the people for the Truth. Example the prophecy of Isaiah is meant to prepare the people for the coming of Immanuel. If people had understand Isaiah and have developed the right attitude towards his prophecy, then they will surely recognise Immanuel when He arrives. But due to their worship of the scripture, when Immanuel stands before them, they will be too bent on the scriptures to look up and recognise Him.

Even Paul warned against this. In Corinthians we read:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Corinthians 13:10) (King James Version)

Here we see the predominant writer of the New Testament tell us that they know and only prophesy in parts, i.e. their knowledge and prophesy is not complete, thus not perfect. He also reminds us to do away with their imperfect prophey when that which is perfect comes, i.e. when the TRUTH comes.

How can a book whose author honestly told you the he knows only in parts be the book of life or the infallable word of God.  This worship of the Bible, which is predominant among Christian's is a sin against the first commandment of God.

Therefore rightly considered, the bible is neither the book of life nor the infallable word of God.

The book of life which will be opened during Judgement contains the names of all the creatures that came into existence. All the creatures in creation, their names are recorded in the book of life, which only God can allow one to read. Only God knows the names of all the creatures in existence. Spiritual death is synonymous to being erased from the book of life.

Thanks and remain blessed.

@pilgrim 1
I am happy that m_nwankwo has answered your questions. I only have this to add:
I found it strange that you (strong believer of the authenticity of Bible) can pursue that line of argument. The implication of your argument is that all the stories in the Bible is fallacy. Let me explain what I mean:

If I write a fiction, lets say I invent a fictitious character called "Monga," and I claim that Monga lives in the moon. Then if another author tells a story about a Monga who live in the moon; I can argue with certainty that he(the author) stole the idea from me. Because "Monga" is my invention.

But If there is actually a Monga that live in the moon. My accusation of the author stealing the idea from may not be true. The author could have gone to the moon and seen "Monga," or the author could have been vissited by Monga, or the author could have gained the knowledge of the existence of Monga by viewing the moon through telescope or by communicating with Monga electronically.

Lets lets apply this analogy to the Grail Message and the Bible.
If the things written in the Bible were true and actually exist, then it is possible that another person could see them too. I. e. if God actually exist and He gave Moses the ten commandments, this opens up a possibility that God can reveal the same ten commandment that He gave to Moses to another person. If you truly believe that every allusion to the ten commandment could have not come from any where else except the Bible. Then by implication, you are saying that God and the ten commandments are fictitious inventions made by Moses and other Bible writers.

When Jesus talked about the son of man, He(Jesus) did not draw His knowledge from the ancient scriptures; eventhough some of the ancient scripture before Jesus contained information about the son of man. When Jesus' utterances agree with a particular scripture, this goes to show the correctness of that particular scripture. It also shows that Jesus draw His knowledge from the same source as the writer of the scripture. To assert that Jesus draw His knowledge from that scripture is very wrong. If the source of the knowledge actually exists, then another can draw the same knowledge from HIM(the source), and not necessarily from any scripture.

Also, everything that has ever happened has been recorded by time. God can permit a person to access the archives of time, i.e. witness an event that happened thousands of years ago. This can be shown to that person in a dream. I do not want to boost of my experiences, but it might help if I tell you that I personally have once been allowed to see an event that happened thousands of years ago. This not just me, most people experience this at least once in there life times. Perharps you might have had such an experience too. You might write a book on what you were allowed to see, perhaps it is an event that was already recorded in history books. It will be very wrong for one to accuse you of plagiarising the history books which you might not have read. It will be wrong for one to accuse of drawing from the history books, just because your book mentioned the same events that is mentioned  in the History books.


All the things that you listed here,

Volume 1
3. The Anti-Christ
14. The Star of Bethlehem
Volume 2
16. Watch and pray!
20. The Lord's Prayer
45. The crucifixion of the Son of God and the Lord's Supper
46. Come down from the Cross!
47. This is My body! This is My blood!
52. I am the Resurrection and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me!
63. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit
66. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!
Volume 3
36. Ask, and it shall be given unto you!
38. Let there be Light!

These things actually exists, the utterances among the list we actually made, the events actually happened. And time has recorded them all.  God, out of His love, can permit Time to reveal them to him/her who it will help in his/her spiritual accent.

They are not only to be found in the Bible. They are all well kept in the achieves of "Time". God, who gave them is still alive and He still gives them to him so blessed.

My dear pilgrim Thanks and remain blessed.

@chus-ben

Thanks for bringing up this issue. I will start by clarifying something. There is nothing like a member of the Grail Message. The Grail Message is not a religion, neither is it a cult nor a sect. The Grail message is a book written by Abd-ru-shin, a book which answers all questions concerning existence, -man, creation, Jesus, God, and etc. People who have read the book and adhere to its principles are called adherents of the Grail message. There are adherents who decide to get sealed, the sealed one is given a cross which he/she wears; such an adherent is called a cross bearer. Being a cross bearer does not make one a member of any religion, movement or cult. The obligation which comes from the sealing is simply between the individual and God. There are also adherents who decide not to get sealed. There are adherents who still remain in their present churches.
Some cross bearers come together to form a movement, whose main purpose is to distribute the work "In The Light of Truth," to make the book available to any body, and also to provide centers where cross bearers can come and worship God on sundays. They also conduct public lectures  explaining the principles of the Grail Message. Such movements, i.e the Grail Movement of America, the Grail Movement of Nigeria, and etc are not religions.

The author of the Grail Message never wished to found a new religion.

Now about the son of Man.
In creation God(WHO is one) expresses HIMSELF in three persons: God the Father, the son of God, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the creative will of God out of whom creation came into existence. He is the arm through which God created. Hence, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2). This Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God is not just a force but a person, just like Jesus. Just as Jesus is the love of God, Imanuel is the Holy Spirit. A part of Him remains at the highest point in creation as the king of Creation; it is only in the radiation of this part of Imanuel could creation come into being. He is both the King of Creation -- ruler of the world-- and also the Judge, since all the laws of creation, including the law of sowing and reaping, issued out of Him. He is the living Justice of God. It is Him(The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Truth) that will judge the earth when the earth reaches the time appointed for it to be judged. Like I already said, A part of this Spirit of God(Imanuel) remains at the summit of Primodial Spiritual Planes. Beneath the Primodial Spiritual Planes lies the spiritual planes, the lowest part of which is the true home of man. He is the part of Imanuel that is anchored in Creation, and being a part of Imanuel, He is identical to Imanuel which means God with us. Imanuel is the hand through which God created man. He is the son of God out of which man was created, the eternal mediator between man and God. Hence, the son of man.


But mankind living on earth disobeyed God and by the incitements of Lucifer, they became sinners. By living sinfully they shut out the light of God and brought destruction to everything on earth. The weight of their sins was so much that it diverted the earth from its normal course. The earth started heading towards destruction, if God had not intervened the earth will get destroyed before the time appointed for its judgement. When the earth was about to fall into ruins due to the sins of man, out of HIS love God intervened by sending a part of HIS love to the earth. This love of God sent to the earth to salvage the earth is Jesus. Jesus' innermost core is Divine, i.e His innermost core is God, unlike we humans whose innermost core is only spiritual. Thus Jesus is the son of God, the first begotten of the dead, i.e the first sent to mankind who were dead spiritually. While the Holy Spirit is the living Justice of God, Jesus is the living Love of God. Through Jesus, God redeemed the earth which would have fallen into destruction like Sodom and Gomorrah had Jesus not come. Through Jesus, Divine light entered the earth once more, strengthening everything. The earth received enough light and strength for it to continue till the appointed judgement time. After His mission, Jesus returned back to the Divine plane, to God the Father or at the side of God the father. Therefore eventhough Jesus is the son of God, Jesus remains in the Divine shere with God. Hence, Jesus is the inborn son of God. While the Holy Spirit is the out born son of God. 

Eventhough Jesus saved the earth from destruction, mankind did not completely understand Jesus when He was on earth, because mankind had separated themselves so much from God due to their sins. Thus when Jesus the son of God who carried Divine Truth and Divine Light came down on earth, mankind who are too enveloped in darkness could not completely understand or comprehend Him. Hence "And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not."(John 1:5)

Besides, mankind at the time of Jesus were too underdeveloped in their understanding, hence Jesus could not tell them everything. Hence "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:, " (John 16: 12-13)

Since mankind did not understand Jesus and therefore Jesus did not tell them everything, Jesus promised the disciples that when the Judge comes to judge the earth, He(the judge) will teach them all things. This judge is the Holy Spirit who is a person like Jesus. It is Him that Jesus also refer to the son of man. Jesus is the son of God, while Immanuel the Holy Spirit is the son of man.

One of the utterances of Jesus that some of the disciples did not understand is the prophecy of the coming of the son of man, the Holy spirit or Immanuel. He is the second envoy of God to the earth. Even in the Old testament, His coming was prophesied. But the disciples, along with the early Christians mixed everything up into one. They mistook the son of man to be the same as son of God Jesus. In the parts of the bible where the sayings of Jesus are accurately passed down, one can see that He was not talking of Himself when He talked about the son of man or the Holy Spirit. In some parts of the bible where the words were not passed down correctly, only there do we see the two distinct persons confused as one.

One of the prophecies was rightly passed down in the gospel of John. From the gospel of John we read:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16, 12-15)

In the above you can see that Jesus was talking about a person, not just a force, neither was He talking about the power that the apostles received on the Pentecost day. A force or a power cannot speak, hear, neither can a force or power take something and shew it unto you. Only a person can do all these things. Therefore in the above verse Jesus was talking about another envoy that God will send to the earth just as God sent Jesus.

In another verse correctly passed down, Jesus called this envoy the comforter: we read:

"But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the father shall send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"(John 14,20).

He is called the comforter because his teaching, which is the same original teaching of Jesus will bring comfort to those who live by it. And since He is the judge, in his Judgement the righteous will find comfort.

In another verse we read:
"Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words , , of him also shall the son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8, 38).

In the above verse you can clearly see that Jesus was not the son of man.

What the disciples received on the Pentecost is only the power of the Holy Spirit and not the Holy Spirit Himself. You can only receive power, but it is impossible for a humanbeing to receive another humanbeing literally. Jesus promised the disciples that they will receive the power of the Holy Spirit and not the Holy Spirit Himself, Whom will come in person on earth as Jesus promised in Mark 8,38.

In Luke we read:

"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24,49)

Here we see that what they received in Jerusalem on Pentecost was the power from on high, not the the Holy Spirit Himself who is a person and not just a power.

Isaiah's prophesy:

"So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us].
(Isaiah 7,14)(Gods word Translation Bible)

The prophesy above refers to the birth of Immanuel not Jesus. Mathew mistakingly attributed it to Jesus. Jesus was never called Immanuel. Immanuel means "God with us", "God with man"; while Jesus means "God saves,"or "God the saviour."
You see these are two different names signifying two different persons with two different roles.

In another part of the gospel of Mathew we read:

" And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins."(Mathew 1, 21)

This is the prohpecy concerning Jesus. Here we see the real name of Jesus and his role or task. Jesus and Immanuel are two different persons.

In conclusion:
Jesus is the son of God. The love or God. The first sent to earth to awaken mankind who was spiritually dead, Hence "the first begotten of the dead".  His name is Jesus which means "God saves"
God is in Him and He is one with God. Jesus Judges no body. He is the Living love of God. He remains in the divine plane as the inborn son of God.

The son of Man is also a son of God like Jesus. His name is Immanuel which means "God with us(man)." He is called the son of man because He is the hand through which God created man, and a part of Him remains in the Grail Castle at the summit of the Primodial Spiritual planes. Thus He is the God that remains with man(us), hence "God with us."  He is the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), Spirit of God or the Spirit of Truth whose power created everything. He is the executive Judge, who will judge all the creations of God at their appointed times. He is the Living Justice of God. It is He who, out of his laws, pays everybody his/her due payment, i.e, comfort to the broken hearted or the righteous. In His laws the evil and sinful ones will also receive their due payment, which is destruction. Hence, whoever sins or blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven or go free. Each sinner must pay the price of his/her sins.
As in Jesus, God is also in Immanuel and He(Immanuel) is also one with God.

God Himself or God the father (Divinity unsubstantiate) He resides far above all the worlds, far above all creations. Paradise or the Spiritual palne is the highest plane in creation. But God the Father is far above Paradise. A part of the son of man who is The Spirit of Truth or Immanuel is in the highest part of Paradise as the judge and the ruler(prince) of the world(creation)
Jesus is in the Divine plane with God, although He is personal. He is as ruler(prince) in the Divine plane. This is His kingdom; hence, "my kingdom is not of the world." The "world" in this context means the whole creation, from Paradise to the earth. When Jesus spoke of the coming of the ruler of the world(creation), He was speaking of the comming of the son of man. In John 14:30, we read:

"I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me."

or in another translation of the verse we read:

"I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing."

This means Jesus did not say every thing because men could not understand Him, but in the end times when ruler(prince) of the world(creation) comes He(the ruler/prince) will say the rest. The ruler(prince) who will come to bring judgement will come in the end times when men whould have developed enough to understand everything. This is why He(the ruler/prince) will be able to say everything, even things that Jesus did not say. The last part of the verse, "He has no power over me," shows that like the ruler(prince) of the world, Jesus is also a King. And therefore there is no power above Him. Both are of equall authority because they are both sons of God.

Also in revelation we read:

"May grace and peace be yours from the one who is, who was, and who is coming, from the seven spirits who are in front of his throne,and from Jesus the Messiah, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead,, "(Rev.1:4-5)

In the above we see three different people.
Person #1 = the one who is, who was, and who is coming.
Person #2 = Jesus the Messiah, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead
Person #3 = The seven spirits at the Throne.(we are not concerened with these)


Person #1 --Ths is the son of man(Immanuel, the Holy Spirit,or the Spirit of Truth). This cannot be God the father because God the father cannot come to the earth. The earth cannot carry Him. If this were God the father, then He would not be discribed as "who is coming"

Person #2 --This is Jesus Himself, since the verse simply says from Jesus the messiah.

Therefore God has two sons:
1.) Immanuel(son of man, the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Spirit) who is, who was, who is comming.
2.) Jesus(son of God) who is the Messiah, the lamb.

Along with God the father, they make up the trinity.

Althrough revelation we keep hearing of the two sons of God, i.e "Him who sits on the Throne", and "the lamb". Niether of them is God the father because God the father can not be seen. Even the writer of revelation can never see God.  Hence: "No one has ever seen God."(1 John 4:12)

This is the trinity of God. However God remains one; the son, the  Holy Spirit, and God the father are all one, yet three different persons. And there is only one God in all of them.






All that I have written above is my perception of the Grail Message concerning the issue of the Son of Man. The references to Biblical verses are solely mine, the Grail Message does not draw from the Bible.
It draws from the purest source, from God HIMSELF.
I advice every reader of my post above to read and examine the Grail message himself.

Thanks.

@Aloy.Emeka

Thank you so much my friend!

@Kashif
I agree with you. Your explanation of the second proverb is also right, but it does not mean that that is the only way to look at the proverb. There are so many ways to interpret that proverb and it can also be applied in many different cases. My explanation is one way to look at it, yours is another way; both are correct.
The proverb still holds water, whether the bone rightly belongs to the dog or the thrower, or whether it belongs to neither.
Thanks

The problem people have with translating Igbo provabs is that in Igbo a word could mean so many things. The igbo word "chi" is always erroneously translated to be "God, or personal god." Although in most cases, "chi" means "God" or "god," but in the sense of the proverb in question, "chi" does not mean "God", neither does it mean "god", nor "personal god."

The proverb says:
"Mana onye kwe, chi ya ekwe"

"Chi" in this proverb refers to "fate." In Igbo one's "chi" can also mean one's fate. Example when the Igbos say that a person has a bad chi. "ajor chi" This could mean that that person has a bad fate or bad luck. In this case they don't mean that the person has a  bad God because God can never be bad. Igbos believe that God is always good--Chi di mma.

Therefore the proverb means:
If a man believes, his fate will believe too. If one agrees, his fate will agree too. As you believe, so will your fate.

I know this is had to understand but the proverb is a philosophy, not just a saying. It carries a deep meaning. The meaning is that one has to believe something in-order for that thing to become a reality in his/life. I,e if you believe that you will never become rich, this belief will make your fate accordingly and you will never become rich. But if you believe that you will oneday become rich, this belief will make your fate accordingly, and you will oneday become rich. 

The second proverb: "a tupugoro m gi bu nkita okpukpu n'ezi ka ogu buru nke gi na ndi mmuo," literalily translates:
I have thrown, you dog, your bone to the outside so that the battle will be between you and the spirits.

This means that I leave the matter in the hands of God or in the hands of fate. This proverb is used when people quarrel over something, then one decides to let the other have have it  in-order to end the quarrel. However the provabs indicates that even though the thing that you quarrel about has been given to you does not mean that you will have it in peace. I can decide to let you have my property for the sake of peace, but the battle continues between you and God. God or fate will never have my property in peace because it is not yours.

Thefore the proverb can be translated to:
I have given you what you claim to be yours, the rest is between you and God.
I have given to you what you want, the issue is now between you and God.

The Igbos are great philosophers!

Any attempt to use scientific means to prove what lies beyond the physical will ultimately fail. Science deals only with the physical and cannot operate in the non-physical realms. You cannot you use a physical microphone to detect a non-physical sound.

People who claim things like these are pseudo scientists, they are not knowledgeable in science, neither are they knowledgeable in spirituality or anything that is non-physical.

Hell is not a physical place. It is not the center of the earth. Scientists are very familiar with the geography and geology of the earth, from the crust to the core. Even in secondary school geography books there are diagrams of the earth. The core of the earth has two layers -- the outer core and the innercore. The outer core is very hot and there no metal can exist in solid form, it is primarily made up of iron, nickel, sulfur and oxygen. However, due to the enormous heat, it remains liquid, even the iron. The innercore is even hotter, but due to the enormous pressure there, the inncore is solid.

There is no part of the earth's core where hell could be.

pilgrim.1:
Darwin's evolution theory is many times mistaken as a synonym for atheism. The point to note is that atheistic arguments have been built around that theory to confuse the whole issue and make it support ideas that were not intended by that theory. This is why even atheists who try to interprete Darwinian evolution theory are not always in concensus (a case in point: late Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins). As the gist of Darwin's ideas are often not quite understood by many, it is often the case that a few people mistake "evolution" for atheism. They are not the same, just as we know that atheism is not science.

Another problem resulting from such arguments is the idea that theism rests on blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

"Science" if properly understood should be appreciated for what it is and not stretched to be a tool for elasticised debates between worldviews such as theism and atheism.

I completely agree with all that you stated in the above post. My personal experience has taught me that most of the enthusiasts who try to use science to disprove the existence of God only have pseudo knowledge. No scientist who is knowledgeable will ever tell you that science has disproved the existence of God; neither will any knowledgeable believer tell you that the bible has disproved scientific theories. It is only enthusiasts and people with pseudo knowledge who go about trying to use science(which they don't understand) to disprove the existence of God. It is like comparing apples and oranges. One(creationsism) deals the purpose, while the other(science) deals with the mechanism. One deals with the spiritual, the other deals with the physical.

First thing one learns in science is that science deals with matter, i.e. physical matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that lies beyond matter, i.e the spiritritual and etc. It is simply beyond the realm of science. If one chooses not to believe in God, he should be honest enough to admit that this is his personal choice, and not a choice backed with a scientific evidence. Atheism is not science, neither is the belief in God(theism). Both are beyond the realm of science.

The theory of evolution does not deal with God or the spiritual. It simply deals with how the species evolved over time. The theory cannot tell you that there is no God, neither can it tell you that there is a God. The question remains:

1) why did we evolve?
2) did we evolve by chance or was our evolution guided?
3) who started the process, i.e who set in place the laws of nature which guided evolution?
4) does evolution contradict the idea of intelligent design?
5) could we have been created through evolution?

However one chooses to answer the above questions is his/her personal answer. Because science cannot provide such answers. The fact remains that, if rightly understood, evolution does not contradict creationism.  Atheists should stop trying to use science to prove their point.

@pilgrim

Thanks for a very cordial and wonderful exchange of views. I think we have both clearly stated our views, so there is no need going round and round.

I wish you strength on your path.

Thanks and remain blessed.

@all posters in this thread.

One of the greatest mysteries in this life is this:

[size=16pt]"Why can't men ever say, "I don't know."[/size]

When you come across a question that you can't answer, why don't you just keep quite or say that you don't know the answer. Rather than being honest, men make up all sorts gibberish and try to force it on others.

In the Gospel of Mathew, Jesus was reported to have said:

"No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,
(New American Standard Bible (©1995)(Mathew 24:36)


If Jesus who was the son of God could agree that there is something He does not know, why can't we humans who are mere creatures be honest enough to do the same.

(Assuming that Jesus actually said exactly that.) I can only assume because I was not there when He said it.

@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply.

If you take those verses (the verses that you posted) literally, then what do you make of this verse: John
:56

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
(New American standard Bible)

"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them."
(Gods words Translation Bible)

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
(King James Version)

If you believe that God literalily lives in the believers, then do you also believe that believers literally live in God? You know that they don't. Lets take you for example: You are a believer right? Do you literally live in God? I know that the answer is no because you literally live in London.

If some believers literally live on earth(London, Nigeria, USA, and etc) does it means that the verse above is false? NO! The verse can only be true when you consider the expression "live in me" to be a metaphorical expression.

To Live in Christ, God or the Holy Spirit is to allow the words of Christ to becoming living within you, i.e. to base your whole life in the sense of His words. To stay with the word irrespective of the situation, to express it with every fiber of your being, to express it in your actions, words and dead.

By expressing the word of Christ with all your being, you express Christ too. Because His words and Him are inseparable, i.e His words is the TRUTH so is Him. Christ is the TRUTH and the words that He gave mankind is also the TRUTH. Thus figuratively speaking, He gave mankind Himself or a part of Himself. To allow this word into your heart and practice it is to live in Christ, and also to let live Him in you.

In summery: God, Jesus(Christ), and the Holy Spirit cannot live inside every believer. No human being irrespective of his belief can carry a part of God literally within him. This is like saying that believers are part Gods. NO!
Man can only carry the words of Christ living within him. Christ's words are really living!
By Living in the words of Jesus, you figuratively live in Jesus; and by carring his words living within you(conviction), you figuratively have Jesus living in you.

It is true that God is omnipresent. Omnipresence means that God is accessible or reachable from any where. God is reachable from earth, even from hell. Anybody can reach God through a pure prayer. But this does not mean that God is literally on earth and on hell. Like I said earlier, the whole universe cannot carry God, indeed the earth will simply incinerate in God's presence.

But His power and His will is every where in His creation, in this also lies His omnipresence. Nothing can escape His will, It guides and controls all things.  Even the laws of nature are expressions of His will. Every power belong to Him. Only Him can produce power, and this power reaches everywhere in creation. Every creature is welcome to use this power, but each creature bears the responsibility for what he(the creature) does with the power. On this power do all creatures depend. This power can be found literally everywhere. You use it everyday, and you see it everyday, i.e you see the application of it.

The Bible is a spiritual book filled with figurative, pictorial, and metaphorical language.  He who tries to take it literilly is bound to make mistakes. Only the spirit can sense the Truth that is in some passages of the Bible, an intellectual interpretation of the Bible is totally wrong. The intellect cannot sense what is spiritual.

Thanks and remain blessed!

@ pilgrim.1

pilgrim.1:
I am not sure that is what Scripture persuades me to believe. The idea that either Jesus or the Spirit is "a part" of God implodes into numerous questions that will be hard to defend from God's Word. Jesus is God and so is the Father and the Holy Spirit. I think the mistake many people make when trying to understand God is that when they speak of the Trinity, they are actually thinking of Tritheism.

The difference between the two concepts is that Trinity points to inseparableness of being (more properly "Triune" - we thus can distinguish between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but we cannot separate them. On the other hand, it is tritheism that separates between them, and that is why many people have such a difficulty understanding the mystery of the Godhead.

My dear pilgrim you are right in the above(Although I don't know what you mean by[b]Tritheism[/b]) . The human words can never truly convey the concept of trinity which is divine. Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and God the father are one and inseparable. Jesus is God, or God is in Jesus; The same is applicable with the Holy Spirit. God is one and not three. By using of the word "part of God" to describe Jesus and the Holy Spirit, I do not wish to infer that God is three. I don't believe in three separate Gods. There is only One GOD, which is in Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

Now about God or The Holy Spirit being inside believers.
I have studied the verses that you provided and I believe that when they said that the Holy Spirit will dwell in you, it is a figure of speech that should not be taken literarily(actualy). For example they say that God dwells in the church, this does not mean that God actually lives in that Church.

If God is inside you literally, then what is the difference between you and Jesus?

God cannot be inside or in a human being, only his power and his will and can be inside a person. when they say that God is in you, it is a figurative statement signifying that you have completely merged with the will of God and theirfore God works through you.

Our spirits are like temples of God. This means that we worship God by the activity of our spirit. Only the activity of our spirits can be genuine worship of God. It does not mean that God actually lives inside our spirit.

This idea of God dwelling inside humans sounds like the notion of some eastern mystics who claim that we are all parts of God. They claim that humans carry God within them. This is blasphemy and self worship.

What is inside us is spirit, not Divine or Divinity. Only God is divine. The human spirit can never become divine or carry even the smallest particle of Divinity within it. man is a creature and not part of the creator and can never carry the creator within him. Even the whole universe cannot carry God.

Thanks and remain blessed

@ pilgrim1

To explain myself further or clearer.

In my earlier post I wrote:

"The intellect is the product of the activity of our brain which a part of the physical body and therefore physical."

And you objected by saying:

pilgrim.1:
.
Not so clear here. If that was to say that the intellect is "therefore physical", it would contradict all other things you had stated.

Look at the statement carefully. The last part "and therefore physical," refers to the brain and not the intellect. What I mean is the the intellect results from the activity of the brain and the brain being a part of the physical body is also physical.
That said. The intellect is not spiritual. It is material, eventhough not physical. The intellect or the thoughts which it produces is actually fine gross matter. It is still gross mater, i.e. material or earthly, and not spiritual. The intellect being a product of the physical body, can never be spiritual because "flesh(physical) can only beget flesh(physical)," i.e.  what is physical can never produce the spiritual. Only what is spiritual can produce spiritual.

Our conscience or intuitive perception on the other hand is a product of our spirits and our conscience is therefore spiritual.

pilgrim.1:
This is where my eyes were set on, actually. We cannot live by putting the conscience above all else - I would rather say that the emphasis should be on the 'spirit' instead of the conscience. But before I deal on this, let me quickly remark that God gave us our human intellect and expects us to use it even in spiritual matters. I'll expound more on that sometime later.

You are right in saying that emphasis should be put on the spirit. But I had already explained that by conscience, I mean the voice of our spirits. Therefore putting your conscience above all else is also the same as putting your spirit above all else.

pilgrim.1:
Now to the matter of the conscience. The reason why I'm not so keen to agree that it should be emphasised above all else is because there is a sort of dichotomy between the kinds of consciences that men have. Let's see a few of them:

[list][list][li]There are those who have a seared conscience
1 Timothy 4:2 - "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Some people possess a defiled conscience
Titus 1:15 . . . but even their mind and conscience is defiled."[/li][/list][/list]

Just imagine these sort of people putting their consciences above all else. . . what kind of results would one expect to develop from their lifestyles?

Anyhow, as believers we should recognize that our consciences can do either of two things, according to Romans 2:15 - the conscience produces thoughts in our minds that either:

[list][list][li]accuse us[/li][/list][/list] or else
[list][list][li]excuse us[/li][/list][/list]

It is for this reason that we are often admonished to be careful to live a life void of an evil conscience towards God and men. How, in full and intelligent submission to the Holy Spirit Himself. A life seeking to do God's will without knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing (Rom. 10:2).

The conscience of a believer is described in Scripture as capable of the following:

[list][list][li]Being purged from dead works:
Hebrews 9:14 ". . . purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]That we may no longer have a sinful conscience:
Hebrews 10:2 ". . . having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]That we may always hold a good conscience
1 Timothy 1:19 "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck"[/li][/list][/list]

I trust these points are clear now. Many blessings.

Conscience like all English words can mean many things depending on the context it is used. In the verses that you posted above, conscience in that context refers to the mind. This is not what I mean by conscience or intuitive perception.
I have already explained that by conscience I mean the voice of our spirits. The voice of the "breath of God" dwelling in us. There in this context, all men have the same conscience which being part of the kingdom of God always admonishes us to do what is in accord with the will of God.
Whatever comes from you conscience is always in accord with the ten commandments. All men, irrespective of their gender, age, nationality, or religion have the same conscience. When a man is about to kill, steal, lie, commite adultery, he feels a warning voice inside him telling him not to kill, steal, lie, commite adultery, and etc. All men hear this voice, which is their conscience, irrespective of their gender, age, nationality, or religion. But Like I said earlier not all men listens to their conscience. Sometimes in obeying the laws of false religions and states, men go against their conscience and this is wrong, it is also a sin. We are still punishable for our actions irrespective of our religions and orientations.
Thats why we are punished when we fall in temptation. Because if we only listen to our conscience we will easily discern what is wrong from what is right.

Thanks and remain blessed.

@pilgrim 1

pilgrim.1:
(a) Jude 1:19 (my mistake earlier that it was v.17) was not pointing to a disposition; rather it was a concrete statement about these ungodly men (see verse 4) who do not have the very Person of the Holy Spirit in them. Jude tackled the insidious fact that some men creep in unawares into the Church (v.4), and unmasked them as the "ungodly" - a term contextually used by the apostles to mark out those who do not have the very Person of the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

What you wrote above is a popular Christian belief and interpretation which I disagree with. The Holy Spirit is the third person in the trinity. Just as Jesus was part of God, the Holy Spirit is also a part of God. The Holy Spirit is a person just like Jesus. It is impossible for any creature to have a part of the creator within him. Therefore it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to be inside a human being. Saying that believers have the Holy Spirit inside them is blasphemy, it is like saying that the believers are God! God cannot be inside a human being, that will make that human being God. What makes us humans is the human spirit dwelling within us. This human spirit cannot become the Holy Spirit or carry the Holy Spirit withing it, because the Holy Spirit is God, or a part of God.

What believers(children of God) can have within them or in their Spirit is the Power of the Holy Spirit and not the Holy Spirit itself. This is only logical considering that you cannot have another person dwelling in you. You cannot have my dwelling in you but you can have my power or you can work with my power. If you agree that the Holy Spirit is a person and not just a force like the JW claim then you must agree that you cannot have another person dwelling within you at the same time with your spirit. If in the case of possesion, the possessor first pushes away your spirit before posesing your body. But the Holy Spirit cannot posses people because possesion is evil and God cannot do evil.

It is the power of the Holy Spirit that the apostles received on Pentecost and not the Holy Spirit Itself.

If you read John 16:13 carfully you will see that Jesus was talking about a person to come and not just the power that the apostles received on the Pentecost day.

I repeat: What dwells inside every man on earth is the human Spirit(the Breath of God) which originated from the kingdom of God and which is a part of the Kingdom of God.

Hence Christ said to the pharisees:
" The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17, 20 and 21).

Remember the pharisees are not believers, but yet the kingdom of God is within them. The kingdom of God is within every man, but only few listen to it. i have already explained this in my earlier post.

justcool:
Therefore everybody carries both the kingdom of God(The breath of God or the Spirit) within him as well as everybody carries darkness and the road to hell(physical or carnal desires) within him. But only those that listen and obey the conscience, i.e. only those that listens to the kingdom of God within them are also in the kingdom. They have made the Lord God their King or the king of their lives.

I wish to throw more light in the above, especially the bold parts:
What I mean in the above is that everybody on earth carries within him the spirit which originates from the kingdom of God, and which carries the ability to recognise the will of God hardwired in it.
This spirit speaks to us through our conscience and our intuitive perception. If we listen to the voice of the spirit in us (the conscience) it will lead us back to Paradise whence our spirits originated. The spirit being from Paradise, naturally strives towards Paradise.

On earth, our outermost covering(the physical body) is made up of earthly material substance and can never rise above the earth. Thus the incleanation of our physical body remains earth bound. The physical body speaks to us through our intellect, which is earthbound like the physical body, and which is only inclined to earthly things. The intellect is the product of the activity of our brain which a part of the physical body and therefore physical. The intellect is given to use in order to aid us to work on earth, it is earthly and it's field of activity is the earth or the physical world. When used to judge physical things one achieves success, i.e. the intellect is necessary for scientific works, all of which are earthly(physical).-- cars, computer, telephones and etc. Thus when it comes to earthly(physical) things, the intellect is indispensable.

But when it comes to spiritual things the conscience is indispensable. Obedience to the laws of God is a prerequisite for a spirit to return to paradise. And the recognition of the Laws of God is an ability that lies in our spirit, which speaks to us through our conscience not in our intellect.

Thus the right way to live is to put your conscience above all else, above your intellect. The intellect's priority is earthly benefits, while the spirit is priority our spiritual benefit. The intellect can never do the work of the spirit, the intelect can never lead us back to God.

Therefore one who completely closes himself from the admonition of his conscience and listens only to his intellect cuts himself away from recognising God and His will. Overtime such a person will lose the ability to recognize the voice of his conscience which never stops admonishing him, such person hears and uses only his intellect. Such a person places his intellect above his conscience, and overtime he will not be able to recognize any thing spiritual any more. Such a person serves only darkness. This is the road to darkness, to hell.

On the other hand one who puts his conscience above all will soon recognize the will of God. And by listening to the voice of his spirit, he soon will become spiritual and his spiritual perceptive abilities will become stronger and he will feel the nearness of God. Eventhough he is still on earth. Such a person will never be an atheist, because he perceives the power of God, out of which everything was created.

Therefore we carry both the road to darkness and Light with us on earth. Putting our intellect, which belongs to the physical world above our conscience will lead us to hell. This is the road to darkness. The road to materialism, lack of compassion, inhumanity, lasciviousness and wickedness. Since the intellect cannever lead us above the earth.

But putting our conscience above all, is the road to the light, i.e to Paradise. It is the road to compassion, kindness, Love, humanity, peacefullness and righteousness. All these are qualities of the spirit. Such a person truly worships God, because only in the activity of the spirit is God worshiped.

This how we carry both heaven and hell in us.

pilgrim.1:
Thanks again, justcool.

There are a few things that may be hard to digest by enquirers such as outlined in huxley's queries; but I forebear for now so we could make a few friendly observations.

The above is quite debatable; but let me show you why I'm persuaded it is not what I find in scripture.

Whatever and however anyone defines as "the kingdom of God", it is clearly stated on the other hand that not everyone has "the Spirit". It is emphatically stated that some do not have the Spirit of God in them --

[list][list]"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" -- Jude 1:17[/list][/list]

Again, Acts 5:32 makes clear that God only gives His Spirit to those who obey Him: "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." Again, we remember that Romans 8:9 says that those who do not have the Spirit do not belong to Christ.

A second thing is that "the Spirit" and "darkness" cannot both be in everyone at the same time. They are mutually exclusive - as is made clear in 2 Cor. 6:14 ("what communion hath light with darkness?". . . see also 1 Thes. 5:5.

Perhaps I might've inadvertently missed your point?

Dear pilgrim.1
Thanks for your reply. I think the problem we have is the context under which the word spirit is used. The expression "spirit of God" could mean different things:

1) The Holy Spirit, or the third person in the trinity, or God the Holy Spirit.
2) The power of God.
3) The Godly disposition.

In the verse that you quoted, I believe that the expresion "spirit of God" used there is used in the context 3 ( Godly disposition). This is a figure of speech. If you check the meaning of the word spirit you will see that it can be used in different context. Example: I can say that Mr. X has the spirit of Christmas, i.e Mr. X is in the disposition or the mood of Christmas. You can also say that somebody has a youthfull spirit, i.e he has a youthfull disposition. You can also say somebody is in the spirit of new year, or that somebody is in the spirit of the age. All these are figures of speech signifying the person's disposition. Therefore in this context, "spirit of God" is a figure of speech for Godly disposition. Of course you are right sinners do not have the "spirit of God" i.e. sinners do not have a Godly disposition. Therefore I agree with the verse:

[list][list]"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" -- Jude 1:17[/list][/list]

One being sensual(lustful) does not having a Godly disposition, thus he does not have "the
spirit of God."

In the second verse you quotedActs 5:32), the "Holy Ghost" used in that context refers to context (2), i.e. the power of the Holy Spirit. It is this power that the apostles received during the Pentecost that allowed them to work and which the bear witness to.

In the third verse that you quotedRomans 8:9), "the spirit" used in this context refers the context (3), i.e. the Godly disposition.

Of course you cannot have both this Godly disposition and darkness disposition in you at the same time. Hence, the verses you quoted (2 Cor. 6:14) and (1 Thes. 5:5).

But this is not the spirit that I meant in my earlier post.  Reread my earlier post and you will see that I never used the expression: "the spirit of God." The spirit that I meant is neither of the of three contexts that I mentioned above. It is not the "Holy Spirit," neither is it "the power of God" nor "The Godly disposition." The spirit that I meant is the breath of God in every man which makes man "a living soul" or which is the truly living man. This breath of God is a spirit. Every man bears spirit withing him, i.e. the inner man in us is of spiritual nature. Just as our body is made of physical substance, this spirit in man is also made of spiritual substance. It is not mood, feeling,or power. It is a real substance, spiritual substance. It originates from Paradise.

Therefore everybody does not have the "spirit of God" but every body has an innermost core which is spirit, or everybody has spirit within him. It is this spirit that is our real self, the physical body is just a covering which returns to dust(discompostion) after death.

I hope this helps. I am will to explain more if need be.

Thanks for your cordiality.

pilgrim.1:
I've heard this kind of argument several times, and it would help (perhaps) to try and point out what precisely the enquirer seeks to understand. In simple terms, what huxley might've seemed to highlight could be summarized in another question:

[list][list]Is the kingdom within you. . . or. . . are you in the kingdom?[/list][/list]

The Bible gives both sides of the meaning throughout the New Testament. Only when people see this can they understand what Luke 17 was pointing to.

@pilgrim.1
Thanks for your reply. Here are my answers:
In view of what I had already stated in my earlier post, the answer is simple. I  had already stated that in heaven only the kingdom of God reigns supreme. Whatever is from heaven(paradise) is from the kingdom of God, or whatever is from heaven is part of the kingdom of God.

Man caries a part of heaven within him, this is the spirit in everyman. Our physical bodies came from the earth, while our spirits came from above, from heaven or from God. Even in the bible this fact is mentioned, although pictorially. In Genesis we read :

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

The breath of life which God breathed into the nostrils of man is the spirit in man. This breath is from God or from the kingdom of God, thus this breath is a part of the kingdom of God.

Therefore everybody carries within him a part of the kingdom of God; and this part of the kingdom of God in us speaks to us. This is this spirit in us that speaks to us through our conscience. Everybody knows that his conscience is always in accord with the laws of God, i.e. the ten commandments. I will give examples:
If you are about to steal, your conscience will warn you against it.
If you are about to commite adultery, your conscience will warn you against it.
If you are about to lie against your neighbor, your conscience will warn you against it.

Thus one who listens and obeys his conscience will never sin. Such a person not only carries the kingdom within him, but also is in the kingdom. But through the incitements of Lucifer, most people no longer listen to their conscience. Most people today only listen to voice of  their flesh, i.e. the physical body which speaks through the intelect, lust, and earthly desires.

Therefore everybody carries both the kingdom of God(The breath of God or the Spirit) within him as well as everybody carries darkness and the road to hell(physical or canarl desires) within him. But only those that listen and obey the conscience, i.e. only those that listens to the kingdom of God within them are also in the kingdom. They have made the Lord God their King or the king of their lives.

I will give an analogy:
Every Nigerian knows the laws of Nigeria, but only those that obey this law can be called good citizens.

Everybody carries the laws of God within him(or the ability to recognise the WILL OF God), but only those who obey them or make use of them can be called children of God, only those are in the kingdom of God.

I hope this helps. I go into futher details if needed.

@ poster the answer to your question is simple:
Here is the dictionary's definition of Kingdom
 
5. the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.  6. the domain over which the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ extends, whether in heaven or on earth. 
(dictionary.com definition 5 and 6)

Here is dictionary's definition of heaven

1. the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life. 
2. (initial capital letter) Often, Heavens. the celestial powers; God. 
3. a metonym for God (used in expressions of emphasis, surprise, etc.): For heaven's sake! 
(dictionary.com)

donnie is right. Kingdom of God is just the sovereignty, rulership of God. People on earth who obeys the laws of God are in the kingdom of God. In heaven which is the realms above the earth, realms like paradise and the divine realm, there the kingdom of God reigns supreme.

One on earth who lives a life that is God pleasing in already in the kingdom of God, eventhough he is still physically on earth. Just as an American embassy in the Nigerian soil is part of American government and not part of Nigeria. Eventhough this embassy is physically in Nigeria, it is still part of America or an extenstion of the American government.

At the moment there are basically two kingdoms on earth: the kingdom of God (God pleasing people) and the kingdom of darkness(disobedience to God).
In the future, after the purification of the earth, only the kingdom of God will remain. Then the disobedient ones will no longer be on earth, all the state laws and all the government of the earth will be fashioned in accord with God's will. Then the earth will also totally be a kingdom of God like the heavens. then their will be no more diseases, evil, and wickedness on earth. Then the earth will be like the garden of Eden, just as God intended it to be in the first place. Just as the earth was in the beginning, before man made it bad by removing himself from the kingdom of God.

To summarize:
Heaven is a place.
Kingdom is sovereignty, dominance, or rulership of a king.
Kingdom of God is sovereignty, dominance, or rulership of God.
Kingdom of God on earth is the sovereignty, dominance or rulership of God on earth.

mazaje:
For god so loved the world that he sent/gave his son to the middle east?(is the middle east the whole world? ) why didnt he send him to china, indai, the americas or africa?

@mazaje
The answer to your question is very simple.
I will give you an analogy. If America sends a professor to Nigeria to teach Nigerians rocket science. The professor will have to go to a top Nigerian university, where their are people knowledgeable enough to understand him. There he will stay and teach; and prepare the Nigerian students for a carrier in rocket science. These graduates of rocket science will the disperse to other Nigerian universities and spread their knowledge.
America cannot divide their professor into thousands in-order to send them to every school in Nigeria; Neither will America send thousands of their professors to Nigeria. This is definitely not an effective way because it will depreciate Americas number of professors, and besides Nigeria may not be able to provide for all the professors in America. Therefore the only right thing for America to do is to send one. Why send millions when one can do the job?
The primary and secondary school students in Nigeria will have to wait till they are mature enough to enter university and learn this rocket science.
In this case, eventhough America did not send a professor to each school in Nigeria, the fact remains that America sent a professor to Nigeria. All the newspaper headlines will read: "America sends a professor to Nigeria." This is called generalization; it is a figure of speech.

This is a coarse analogy though.

Now apply this analogy to the mission of Jesus.
Jesus alone was sufficient to fulfill His mission. And the only right place for Him to be born is among the Jews who were the most spiritually developed at that time. Hence the Jews stood a better ground to understand Jesus, because the Jews had for a long time prior to the birth of Jesus, sought God. The Jews were the only people mature enough to understand Jesus, because the Jews were already familiar with the WILL OF GOD which Jesus came to explain to the world, i.e, the Jews already had the ten commandments. An understanding of the ten commandments is like a prerequisite for a better understanding of the message of Jesus. Because the ten commandments and the message of Jesus issued from the same source--GOD. One can also say that the message of Jesus is an enlightenment of the ten commandments because Jesus threw more light in the understanding of the ten commandments.

Out of the Jews, Jesus chose a few that He instructed particularly and permitted them to spread the knowledge to the rest of the world. As the rest of the world matured spiritually, God allowed the message to reach them. Just as one has to mature in school(Pass from secondary school) before he/she could be taught calculus.

Also among the Jew at that time were the only people who's priority was to do the will of God. The only one God, WHOM they call JEHOVAH. Majority of the rest of the world still worshiped elemental forces like Jupiter, Venus and etc. It will be impossible for them to understand the message of Jesus which was based on the knowledge of the only one and True God. If Jesus had gone to other parts of the world and spoke of the divinity only one God instead the worship of many gods, the people will kill Him the same day that He opened His mouth just as they did to many prophets.

Among the Jews, He was able teach His Message for three years before they killed Him.


Besides middle east is a part of the world. Therefore somebody who goes from Heaven to the middle east, goes to the world(generally speaking). Sometimes when I am travelling back to Nigeria, I simply tell my friends here that I am travelling back to Africa. This is correct, eventhough I am not travelling to every part of Africa.

Therefore whichever way you look at it, it is right to say that God sent His son to the world, since the middle east is a part of the world.

"for God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son"

The above simply means that out of His love for the world, God gave his begotten son. There is no place in the passage that it says that God killed His son or gave His son to be killed. It simply said that "He gave." To give is to offer. God offered His son to the world. "To give" in this passage also means "to send." One can also say it this way: "for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten to the world."

If I send my son to you, or if I give my son to you; this does not mean that I gave it to you to be killed.

Then what is the purpose of God giving or sending His son to the world? There answere is found also in the same verse. The full verse reads:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The bold parts clearly shows why God sent His begotten son. God sent His son so that we may listen to Him(His son) and believe Him(His son), i.e. believe His words. To believe entails living accordinly. One who truly believes His words will also live by them(His words).

Only by living living in accord with the words of Jesus can one gain redemption. Redemption lies in His words and not in His death on the cross. His death on the cross remains a murder committed by mankind against the innocent, loving and holy Son of God.

Also, according to the Gospel, during the Transfiguration a voice said:

"This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"(Mathew 17:5)

Here we are once again told to listen to HIM, i.e believe Him. The voice did not say: "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; kill or sacrifice Him for your sins".

Therefore the purpose of God sending Jesus is for Him to give us His words, which we must Listen to, believe, and live by in-order to be saved.

God does not commit murder. Any body who claims that God sent His son to be killed commits blasphemy

xheggs:
F/C ↓ Title  ↓                                                                              Year  ↓ Actor
1   Dr. No                                                               1962       Sean Connery
2   From Russia with Love                                          1963       Sean Connery
3   Goldfinger                                                          1964       Sean Connery
4   Thunderball                                                        1965       Sean Connery
5   You Only Live Twice                                            1967       Sean Connery
6   On Her Majesty's Secret Service                      1969       Sean Connery
7   Diamonds Are Forever                                          1971       Sean Connery
8   Live and Let Die                                                  1973       Roger Moore
9   The Man with the Golden Gun                                1974       Roger Moore
10 The Spy Who Loved Me                                       1977       Roger Moore
11 Moonraker                                                         1979       Roger Moore
12 For Your Eyes Only                                              1981       Roger Moore
13 Octopussy                                                         1983       Roger Moore
14 A View to a Kill                                                   1985       Roger Moore
15 The Living Daylights                                            1987       Timothy Dalton
16 Licence to Kill                                                    1989       Timothy Dalton
17 GoldenEye                                                         1995       Pierce Brosnan
18 Tomorrow Never Dies                                          1997       Pierce Brosnan
19 The World Is Not Enough                                     1999       Pierce Brosnan
20 Die Another Day                                                2002        Pierce Brosnan
21 Casino Royale                                                   2006        Daniel Craig
22 Quantum of Solace                                            2008        Daniel Craig

@xheggs
Point of correction. In "From Russia with Love,"  Bond was played by George Lazenby, not Sean Connery.

My best James bond actor is:

Sean Connery ---    The best

Pierce Brosnan---  Second to the best

Timothy Dalton  ---   Third

Roger More ---        Fourth

Daniel Craig --      Bond as an armature.

I guess Daniel Craig is okay but I still don't get Him. He is definitely very different from the rest. I guess with him,  the directors try to show a new kind of Bond. I guess they use him to show the way Bond was before he became subtle and sophisticated. In " Casino Royale" bond became and agent for the first time and he was sent on a mission for the first time. He was still more like a hitman. He was still learning to be subtle. At this point he is not yet very charming, sophisticated, witty and extremely intelligent. At this point he uses masculine strength rather than his brains. Also at this point he is still very arrogant.

I doubt if Daniel Craig can potray an evolved and sophisticated James Bond as good as Sean Connery. In all Sean Connery movies, Bond was already an evolved, and sophisticated agent, who relies on his instincts and brains than his muscles.

When it come to Bond Movies, my best is as follows:

Goldfinger   ---- the best
Golden Eye
Live and let Die
The Living daylights
The spy who loved me
Dr No
Octopossy
Die another day
You only live twice
MoonRaker
The World is not Enough

The rest, in my opinion are just okay.

zawad:
1.The word of God says that once a person dies his/her body returns to the soil. What about his/her spirit/soul? (Does it sleep? or go to a special place? or remain in the grave or at home or wonder in the universe?) A. Before you answer bear in mind that no one has ever ascended to heaven except Jesus.
B. God's word also says 'no blood or flesh can or will inherit his kingdom'.
When the day come the dead will be raised and come out their graves e.t.c C. What happened to Elisha and Moses ?

A.) If you think that nobody has ever ascended to heaven, then what about the thief who was crucified at the side of Jesus. According to the gospel Jesus said to the alleged thief:

"Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."(Luke 23:43)

Is Paradise not in heaven?
I think that the scripture you refereed to, which says: "No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:13) has a different meaning than people think. That Scripture has a different meaning and it does not apply to your question. To understand that scripture you have to ask yourself which heaven the Scripture was referring to.
I will not go into explaining the meaning of that scripture. Let me answer your question:

What we call death is only the death of the physical body. The physical body is only a cloak or and instrument of the soul/spirit. The physical body came from the earth, while the spirit came from above, hence:
"then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"(Gensis 2:7)
The physical body is that which God formed from the dust of the ground or earth, while the spirit is that breath of life which came from God.
So when the physical body dies it is buried and returns to dust of the earth. After the disintegration of the physical body it returns to dust. But the soul/spirit which separates from the physical body during death, still lives.
Therefore after what we call death the soul/spirit still lives.

If the spirit is without sin, it will return to heaven from whence it was given. It will return to the proximity of God which is heaven or paradise. The physical body cannever be raised to enter paradise or heaven because paradise is a spiritual place and only spirits can enter it.

If the soul/spirit has sinned, then it will go to a place/plane of like nature, where it will receive all the works it has done. All the sins it had committed will await him/her in a plane of like nature. i.e, a plane corresponding to the nature of evil the soul had done. Murderers will find themselves in a plane of murderers, thieves will find themselves in a plane of thieves or a plane filled with thieves. There they will suffer a thousandfold for all their sins. Perhaps this is what people call hell. The soul will remain in this state until it is purified enough to leave this environment to a better one. i.e until it has paid for all it's sins and repents. As the soul changes, it's environment changes. If it remains evil, it will be caught up in an evil environment and will remain there until it changes inwardly. Only then can it leave that environment/plane to a better one. It might have be reincarnated on earth again in-order to have another chance to do good or redeem it's guilt.

It is not only heaven or hell like people think. In-between heaven(Paradise) and hell, there are many other planes/heavens where people sojourn after death. Only the purified spirits(One without sin) enter Paradise which is the highest heaven for human spirits. The fact that there are many heavens is comfirmed by the writer of Corinthians when he wrote:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12: 2)

Also consider these verses:

"Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it."(Deutronomy 10:14)

"He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things." (Ephisians 4:10)

"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" (Psalm 148:4)

All these goes to show you that there are many heavens. Only God resides above all the heavens.

frag:
A whole load of rubbish!

@frag
What are you referring to?

@mazaje, Chrisbenogor, and Mad_Max
I completely agree with m_nwankwo. The answers to your questions are very easy, and I know that m_nwankwo can easily answer those questions. Since your last questions are addressed to him, I will leave him to clarify them to you. I suggest that you re-read his last post on this thread. Some of your questions that arouse from his last post were already answered in his post. I believe you did not fully understand what he was saying, hence your questions.

At this point I have nothing to add, only that: m_nwankwo's answers are in accordance with the TRUTH.

A_K_O:
A Pastor I know defined forgiveness as "enlightened self-interest".

Meaning that in forgiving someone that offends you, you're actually doing yourself a greater favor. Or at least thats how God sees it.

I completely agree with you here. The bold parts are very correct.

About your pastors definition, he is correct but one must keep in mind that genuine forgiveness should be given out of love, and not out of self-interest. One should forgive his offenders because of the love in his/her heart for the offenders.

If you forgive your offender merely in-order to be forgiven by God, then this is wrong. It is like doing business with God. God is not a business man. You need to forgive, without thinking of your own gain, then you will definitely gain from your forgiveness.

Geniune forgiveness can only be born out of love.

A_K_O:
Ure welcome!
Yes, the father is like God, in the sense that God is always ready to welcome us back

1John 1:8-9
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

@A_K_O
You are right by saying that God is willing to forgive us. However, just confessing our sins is not enough for us to earn God's forgiveness. We must be willing to serve God and sin no more. After realizing or confessing our sins, we must be willing become God's servants and determine with all our strength obey Gods laws and never to sin again.

Remember the parable says that after realizing his foolishness, he also realized that he is not worthy to be called his fathers's son(this is humility); then prodigal son was willing even to become a servant of his father.

"I am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of thy hired servants." Luke 15:19 (American standard version)

We need to realize that we are sinners, then become very humble to God, and vow with all our strength to become his servant--Do only HIS will. Part of HIS will is to forgive all those that have trespassed against us in the past. This is the true repentance that will lead us to God's forgiveness.

If we only confess our sins and not ready to mend our ways, we will not receive forgiveness.

olabowale:
@Justcool:
Definitely, you will not make the mistake that I am not a Yoruba Nigerian, from my name? Or will you? I like people to be straight out like that. Do nor forget that I have an first name also.

Since you believe that somebody is reincarnated, from an arabic heritage to a germanic one, i wonder if he considered that as a punishment or a blessing? Well, he is dead now, i am assuming this. I would have asked to find this out from him. Okay, when he is coming back again, for more incarnations, what heritage will it come in? I am making fun of the whole terrible silly concept of reincarnation.
Just imagine this silly concept for a moment. Since man consists of body and spirit/soul, where do all the spirits/sould of these more than 6 B humans come from? From the single Adam soul/spirit? The single spirit/soul is every splitting into many and many more? lol.

@ Olabowale
With all friendliness.
You clearly stated that you are making fun of the concept of reincarnation which you also call a silly concept. Hence you are not here to seriously examine issues. You have made up your mind that the idea of reincarnation is silly; therefore there is no need for me to try to explain reincarnation to you.

Truth should only be given to him who seriously seeks; Not to him who thinks that he has already found it, and definitely not to him who finds it funny and calls it silly. Otherwise will be a defilement or dishonoring of the Truth.

However I wish to answer your question about whether Abd-ru-shin' s incarnation was a blessing or a curse. Here is my answer:
It is neither a blessing nor a curse for Him. It is a blessing to we human spirits, who He brought the TRUTH for. His incarnations was not compelled by any karma. In His case, as in the case of many prophets, He was sent by God for the benefit of the erring mankind. He incarnates among the people who are spiritually developed enough to receive him. And in an environment that will allow Him to fulfill His task.

The Arabs at the time of His first incarnation, were able to receive Him due to their spiritual development; and they provided the most suitable environment for Him to fulfill the task of His first incarnation. However, In the time of His second incarnation they are no longer at that level spiritually. Only the Germans meet the conditions necessary for such incarnation; hence He incarnated among them.

I could have gladly explain reincarnation and the laws guiding it to you, in far greater detail; however you have shown that you are only here to make fun of it. Hence I cannot go into details.

Also m_nwankwo and I are only in this thread to clarify any misconceptions that people have about the Grail Message. The purpose of this thread is to clarify people's misconceptions or answers people's questions about the Grail Message. You keep asking questions about the writer of the message. This is the wrong way to proceed; if you are a true seeker you should start by examining the message not the bringer. I have said enough about Abd-ru-shin.

My advice to you is this: If you are here to make fun of issues, and not here to weigh or examine the Grail Message, then gently dismiss yourself from this thread.

Thanks.

olabowale:
@Justcool:« #102 on: Yesterday at 10:12:17 PM »
A non-muslim is already astray. Let me ask you, from my name, Olabowale, would you take it that my bloodline is not Yoruba or at least I like yoruba culture? Would you believe that I am a white German with that type of name, Olabowale, except that until you see me that am actually white with a German accent in speech with all acutremen of being a German?

This is the same idea that I developed with the name Abd-ru-shin! tell me what part of this name is Germanic?The natural inclination is for anyone, who has not read his work, seen his picture and don't care for both is to assume, only from the name that Abd (Servant/slave in Arabic) ru (Spirit/soul) shin, is an Arab! Get it together, man. Or Justcool is a natural name for any tribe in Africa, if you are an African? Olabowale is at least identifiable with those who speak Yoruba, in Africa, and not Germans. The same goes for this dishonest fake Abd ru shin man who could not use his real name. The Germanic name.

If he had penned a masterpiece as you people claimed, why not using his real name? Muhammad (as), did not have the ability to pen Qur'an, but we know his full name and he told us who the real Author, that gave it to him, through revelations!

olabowale:
And the man whose D is M_Nwankwo, I can safely assume that he is an Igboman or trying to pass up as one. But definitely, I will not say he is hausa or bambara of mali or Phular of Senegal or Julla of Guinea Conackry. This is the reason that I said Abd ru shin was an Arab, and not German. Get it?

@ Olabowale
Either way you look at it the fact remains that you made a hasty presumption. Such hasty and wrong presumptions could lead people astray. I still maintain that one should familiarize oneself with a concept before he/she tries to criticise or judge it. 
You assumed He was arabic just because the name sounds arabic, and therefore you labelled him "some arab guy who must have lacked some direction to his Arabic Identity." Now consider this: My name is Fidelis, which is a latin name. (Fidelis is the latin word for faithfulness). Now is it right to label me Latino because of my name. Millions of Afrricans have  European first names. Does this allow people hastily label them Europeans who must have lacked direction to their European identity?

The fact that Abd-ru-shin wrote His book with that name does not mean that He was being dishonest. Neither was He hiding His civil identity, like you falsley infered in your post. His civil identity and biography is there for any body to read, He never tried to hide them. Infact His biography is always written in most of His works.

There are several reasons why people use pen names:
(1) Modesty -- Some writers out of modesty chose to use pen names.
(2) Acceptability -- Some writers use pen names that are more acceptable than their civil names. I.e, Authors with western names reach a wider audience. 
(3) To Avoid Prejudice -- Some names carry prejudice.
(4) ETC

But let us return to Abd-ru-shin.
In the case of Abd-ru-shin, He did not chose the Abd-ru-shin because of any of the three reasons above. Thus in the case of Abd-ru-shin, none of the three reason above suffices. Abd-ru-shin was actually His name. If you know the significance of names and the spiritual laws guiding names, then I will explain more to you. But for now all I will tell you is that:

(1) Abd-ru-shin was actually His name. A name that He had in His previous incarnation.
(2) Abd-ru-shin is the name that actually represents His task and His identity. Abd-ru-shin roughly translates to "Servant of the Light, or Workman for the Light." The light refered to here is God. While writing the "Grail Message," He was a servant of God because He draws His knowledge from God. Hence He is the "servant of the Light," in other words "Abd-ru-shin." Another way to look at it is this way: In His work, He brought the Light(Which is the eternal Truth) into the world. Thus by serving or giving the world the Light, He becomes the servant of the Light or God Whose will He fulfills

Thefore Abd-ru-shin is not just a pen name. It is actually what the writer of the Grail Message is. It is His work, His nature, and His identity.

If I am hired to perform  engineering services to a facility, it often happens that while performing my services, people will call me "engineer" and not Fidelis. This is not falsehood, but rather pure honesty, because they reffer to me by what I do. This is a course analogy though.

Our names are not just forms of identification but who we are. In our names lies our nature, and activity. Thus in the case of Abd-ru-shin, in His first incarnation on earth,when He was trained for His future mission, He bore the name "Abd-ru-shin," a name that suits His activity and nature. On His second incarnation, He bore the civil name Oskar Ernst Bernhardt, until He became conscious of His mission, which is to serve God by bringing the TRUTH to the world. Once He started His Mission, He became the workman or servant for the Light, thus Abd-ru-shin. At this point calling Him by any other name would be inappropriate for He was fulfilling the task which Abd-ru-shin was trained for thousands of years ago. He was completing the Mission that He started as Abd-ru-shin.

Therefore He presents His work as Abd-ru-shin, becuase this work(The Grail Message) is not civil service but rather service for God. It will be inappropriate to use a civil name in a work He does for God. Where you perform civil service, you use your civil name, and where you perform service for God you use the name that God gave you to aid you in your service for Him.

You see now why Mary was instructed to give the Son of God the name "Jesus." Jesus in the jewish version translates, "the lord saves or lord the saviour" In this name lies the nature, identity and also bears witness to the mission of Jesus.

All that I have written above is my perception of Abd-ru-shin and His work. Strive through you own perception to recognize Him. Examin His work(The Grail Message) which bears witness to His origin.

Thanks

The words in red are Olabowale's not mine.

@HR.hotness
Welcome to this thread!

HR.hotness:
wasnt Abd-ru-shin just a pen name?

Abd-ru-shin's civil name was Oskar Ernst Bernhardt.

You can read His biography in this link:
http://www.cinemaseekers.com/Christ/Abdrushin.html

Thanks and remain blessed.