₦airaland Forum

@Mazage

Thanks for the question as well  as the information you cited. One of the best methods to measure brain activity is to measure electrical impulses generated in the brain especially the neocortex. EEG machine is used to measure this electrical activity of the brain. A flat EEG in lay terms means that their is no recordable brain activity. If consciousness is tied to the brain, it means that one who has no brain activity either due to brain death, or medically induced coma will not be counscious and thus will not be able to report what happened during the time of no recordable brain activity, that is flat EEG. If however a person or patient with flat EEG is able to report scientifically verifiable incident during the time he shows no recordable brain activity, then that strongly questions the hypothesis that consciousness lies in the brain. If such event is to happen, then it is more likely that counsciousness is external to the brain and the brain is just a tool for counsciousness to experience through the physical senses. Thus if a patient brain show no activity  and on regaining counsciousness  describes what happened during the time of flat EEG such as a detailed medical procedure that took place, the specific new nurse that removed his dental fillings, an out of body experience etc and these descriptions are independently corroborated by both the medical team and other independent sources, then the only possible explanation is that counsciouness is external to the brain. I have refered winiret to published scientific articles or medical case reports so that he should consider the evidence provided.

If you read the Lancet paper that I provided in my response to winiret, you will observe that the findings of the authors suggest that medical explanations(such as given in the link you provided) are not  sufficient to explain near death experience. While neuronal death and oxygen starvation may explain some minor near death experiences, the fall completely short in explaining out of body experience and a recall of those experience during a flat EEG. I am not aware of any experiment where out of body experience has been demonstrated in the lab. What scientists do is to trick the brain into creating an out of body experience but the conundrum is that the individuals being experimented have normal and recordable brain activity. An illusion of out of body experience is not the same thing as out of body experience during a flat EEG. Indeed such illusions can also be created by drugs as well as optical manipulations but these illusions are not out of body or near death experience in the absence of brain activity. Best wishes.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5010040#msg5010040 date=1259410062]@m_nwankwo.

When you say flat EEG do you mean Flat EEG as in total brain death and the person still regains consciousness later? If yes, how long was the person down-and-out?[/quote]Hi Tudor,

I mean if winiret will change his present views on consciousness if he finds compelling scientific evidence where a person reports an out of body experience when his or her brain shows no brain activity as determined by an EEG machine or other equipments used to monitor brain activity. That means that the out of body experience happened during the time the person or patient shows no demonstable brain activity. This wiki article may be helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

Best wishes

@Wirinet,

You may wish to consider some scientific investigation on near death experience. The wikepedia article below  will be a good guide. Follow up the articles cited as references to this wiki article especially reference 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

Find below a peer reviewed article on Near Death Experience in survivors of cardiac arrest. The article is published in a leading medial journal LANCET. The link  to the pdf of the article is shown below:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/lancetnorway?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-44PT371-F-1&_cdi=4886&_user=6461325&_orig=search&_coverDate=12%2F15%2F2001&_sk=996410701&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWz&md5=40594eab5d8e13a674fc04e84b2ad5f4&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Finally, if you find scientific evidence of out of body experience in patients or individauls with flat EEG, will that change your view that consciousness is tied to the brain/nervous system? Best wishes.

To accuse a person or persons of demon influence, spirit possesion etc, one must really know in detail the origin of demons, its development as well as the cure. That simply means that such a person is specially called by God in these matters. But those who really have this ability will never make wild accusations, not to talk of making a public show of it. To talk flipantly in these matters have enomous consequences both in this life and beyound this life. It is better to remain silent when one does not have personal knowlege of these things than to talk about things one does not understand, such a one bears false witness against the accused and the spiritual consequences of false witness against another person is dire. The first step in spiritual development is to say things which we have personal knowlege of. To hear something, to read something and to know of something is not knowlege. Knowlege comes from personal experience using the faculties of the spirit.

Pastor AIO:
Good question. I don't know. To debate you need 2 contrary opinions and we don't have that here.

I suppose I could ask what people think about the validity of neoplatonism.

I would be interested, for instance, to know what Nwankwo thinks of it, especially from a Grail message perspective. Is it valid? by the way, I was not suggesting that it was the source of Grail message, I said that the scheme it proposes is recognisably like that Nwankwo proposes in his posts.

Hi Pastor. Scholars always like to compare and contrast and I respect that. That is the way the intellectual brain functions. I do not want to give an opinion on the merits or demerits of various religious and spiritual movements or a comparative analysis of these various teachings with the Grail Message. However what I can do is to give expression to the living knowledge that I have drawn from the Grail Message as well as my personal spiritual experiences in various planes of creation. Thus I have nothing to say about the teachings of other people or how similar such teachings are to my own views. Stay blessed.

What is it?  It is a form of spiritual discipline that claims to be based on the philosophy of Plato.  It came to prominence around the 2 or 3rd centure CE.  It was a major influence on Christian theology, influencing the likes of St Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite.

The basic idea of it is strikingly obvious in the posts of M_Nwankwo and other Grail message adherents.  It basically sees the world as a series of emanations away from a source which is known as 'The Good' and when christianised it is known as God.  The purpose of man is to ascend up through the emanations until he gets back to God and when he does he experiences what is called Henosis, that is oneness with God.

Hi Pastor. You have added to the growing lists of ideas from my posts that people think are similar to other spiritual ideas. More specifically, to the claims that what is written in the Grail Message is similar to ideas from old and new religious, spiritual or philosophical movements. Previously on this forum, claims have been made that ideas from the Grail Message are similar to what is found in christianity, buddhism, hinduism, kaballah, etc and now you have added neoplatonism. It may be intellectually stimulating to debate on these similarities but in my view it is worthless spiritually. Thus I leave it to religious scholars and philosophers to engage in this debate. I may give an insight if I find any question as the thread develops that will be spiritually beneficial to the questioner and other readers. Stay blessed.

@KunleOshop,

My view is that you are very honest and passionate about knowing the will of God. But you seem to seek for this knowlege in books and what scholars have to say. What books or scholars have to say will not give you the truth that you are seeking. At best, it will turn you into an erudite scholar that can intellectually analyse the pros and cons of all religions as well as their teachings. Being an erudite scholar does not bring one a step closer to God but may in many instances lead one astray.Yet within you, you have the faculties that will enable you to experience the true teachings of the son of God. Even if it is to go back to the time that Jesus walked the earth and follow spiritually the ministry of the son of God at that time. All you need to do is to open youself to the power of God. The best way to do that is to pray. Just pray and you will find all the answers that you are seeking. You carry a part of the kingdom of God within you and with this kingdom of God with in you, you will gain access to the kingdom of God outside and above you and that kingdom of God outside and above you is where the truth that you are seeking lies. I wish you strength. Stay blessed.

This part is interesting.  Jesus once said to a lame man, prior to telling him to get up and walk, that his sins were forgiven.  That in itself was considered an act of God, but that is not what I want to get at.  By what means was the man's sins forgiven as Jesus had not shed any blood at that point yet, and there was no record of him killing any fatted calves to accomplish it either?  This question is not only to Nwankwo but to every one on the forum too.

Hi again Pastor. Jesus can forgive the sins of the lame man because Jesus being a son of God, a "part" of God, has the intrinsic attribute of divine wisdom and omniscience. These attributes which are living in Jesus makes it possible for Jesus to see the spirit of each human being and know with certainty the spiritual evolution of such a person. Thus Jesus could easily see that the spirit of this lame man has resolved to follow him, that is to follow the words of Jesus. The spiritual decision of the lame man to follow the laws of God as taught by Jesus has sown the seed which on maturity will break the reciprocal actions arising from his sinful past. In this case, the divine power from Jesus accelerated the maturation of the seed of good volition which resulted in the instantaneous breakage of the seeds of evil volition that came into existence as a consequence of the sins of the lame man. Hence the forgiveness of the sin of this man by Jesus. It is not without reason that whenever Jesus forgives the sins of people, he admonishes the forgiven  one to go forth and sin no more. Even Jesus as the son of God cannot forgive the sins of those who have not resolved spiritually to repent and embark on the road to reformation.  Jesus recognizes those who are spiritually prepared to follow him and to such Jesus mediates the power that breaks the cycle of sin as well as the power to become a child of God. In all cases the individual have already sown the seed of genuine repentance even when his earthly brain is not fully aware of it. The divine power of Jesus Christ is however not in his blood, flesh and various non earthly cloaks that Jesus encased himself but in God that is Jesus Christ. The formless God essence that is Jesus Christ cannot be found in anything created  or outside of God and that includes the physical as well as the entire creation and all that is contained in it, even beyond the entire creation and all that are contained in it. Thus to ascribe the powers that belong to Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit like the remission of sins to a physical object such as the blood of the physical body of Jesus is in my perception idolatry. It is tantamount to saying that the winter coat that I wear in order to protect myself from the freezing temperatures here in Scandinavia is m_nwankwo and that such a winter coat can do what m_nwankwo does. Stay blessed.

Nezan:
Too bad you didnt read my earlier post. From your question emboldened above, I think you should have started by asking God whether the blood of animals sacrificed in the Old Testament was divine, because it was used for the atonement of sins.

Hi again Nezan. I read your post. I repeated the question that I asked in my first contribution to this thread. It seems you do not want to answer that. It is ok as it is your right to answer a question or not.

modupe01:
This verse answers your question.

"Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood." -- Acts 20:28

The highlighted phrase in the verse above is another proof that Jesus Christ is a member of the Divine Trinity. His precious blood is being described here as the blood of God! That is why it is sufficient to pay for the penalty of mankind.

Hi Modupe 01. The question is not on the deity of Jesus Christ. I know that Jesus, the son of God is a part the God head. The question is whether the blood of Jesus is God or even divine. To make it clearer, is the physical body of Jesus, of which his blood is a part of divine or God?

Nezan:
@ m_nwanko;
Do you believe in the existence of God? If not, no need reading further. I think this question should be directed at God, who long before the death of Jesus, instituted the shedding of innocent blood of animals as a way of atoning for sins.

The very thought that the LORD God and sinful man are brought together in an intimate love relationship is expressed in the word "at–one–ment." Behind this word is the presupposition that alienation and hostility have been overcome. Reconciliation and forgiveness are also associated with atonement (Romans 5:11).

Atonement is needed because of the depravity of man (Romans 1-3). The LORD God is a holy God and He can not look upon sin. The word "atone" has the idea of "to wipe out," "to erase," "to cover." It is often translated "to make atonement," "forgive," "pardon," "purge," and "reconcile."

In the Scriptures, the means of atonement was the offering of a bloody sacrifice. God is seen providing the sacrifice and man performing the rite. Man is not seen initiating the relationship, but God. God made the provision for sin in an act of grace. The shedding of blood is the central action in making atonement for sin. This theme is developed through out the Scriptures.

Leviticus is a bloody book. You read only a few verses and you are into blood, sacrifices and offerings. There is the shedding of blood and sprinkling of blood on altars and veils. You can't escape it. It is not beautiful, but it was never meant to be beautiful. It fully meant to paint a picture of the awfulness of sin. Sin is not so beautiful as portrayed every night on our TV. It is ugly and it is deadly. "The wages of sin is death." "The soul that sins will surely die."

Sin is always sinful. God has never treated it lightly. It outrages the holiness of God. The "wrath of God" is God's opposition to all sin (Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 28; Ephesians 2:3).


In the Old Testament, the shedding of blood in sacrifices has a special significance. The sprinkled blood is a "covering" for sin. The life of the animal was poured out in death as a substitute for the people. The animal's life was given up on behalf of the life of the people. Judgment was carried out by transferring the sin of the people to the animal sacrifice. The Passover lamb and the scapegoat are substitutes for the offerer. The animal sacrifice was a sign that death had already taken place. Therefore, the death angel passed over that individual. It is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones. Death had violently taken place as a substitute in the Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12:13).

The shedding of blood signifies a violent death, killing or murder. Life is associated with blood that flows through our veins. Life was given up in the pouring out of its precious blood. Death occurred. The dominant thought of the Old Testament is the infliction of death rather than the release of life. The natural interpretation when we think of blood and shedding of blood is death. The "blood of Christ" is a clear expression for the death of Christ. Blood is the symbol of sacrificial death; a life poured out in death. It is not the releasing of life, but the end of the life, death. Redemption is only possible by blood life poured out. Hebrews 9:22 summarizes the whole Old Testament teaching on sacrifice. " And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

By offering the sacrificial blood, the worshiper was acknowledging his own guilt and the just penalty of death. By the atonement, God was "passing over," "overlooking" and "covering" sins until Christ came. When Christ came and died He did not pass over or cover it, but took it away (John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:24). God's infinite holiness was satisfied in the death of Christ (John 19:30). The sacrifices in the Old Testament anticipated the efficacious blood of the perfect Lamb of God. The atoning blood of the animal sacrifices, by symbolizing the shed blood of Christ, served to cover (atone) sin until the day when Christ would actually deal with the sin. The death of Christ proved that God was righteous in passing over the sins for which the animal sacrifices had been shed before His coming. God had forgiven sin based on the promise of a sufficient Lamb. The death of Christ proved God to be righteous in all that He promised to the Old Testament saints.

Hi Nezan. I do believe in God. But I do not believe that blood of an animal, human or even that of Jesus, the son of God is required for the remission of sins. I have in several threads given my reasons why I believe that the blood of Jesus did not atone for any of mankind sins but rather burden mankind with a sacrilege. I will not repeat them here. My question is simple "Is the blood of Jesus Christ divine or rather is the blood of Jesus Christ God" Stay blessed.

Come to think of it, I personally have forgiven many a crime against my majesty perpetuated  by various people in my life and I didn't require any blood to do so so I get the point.  But the Paul clearly says that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, so how do you explain that?

Pastor, how body? My view is that Paul actually said "that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", but it is also my view that Paul was wrong in this instance. The core question is what is it in the blood or the act of shedding the blood that allows it to forgive or remit sins? Is the blood or the shedding of blood divine? If sins are forgiven because of the shedding of blood, then how come humanity are still wallowing in sin. Even those who accept redemption by the blood of the son of God are still sinning. If a man has propensities for anger, hatred, sordid sensuality, avarice, etc, how does the blood or shedding of blood wash away these evil propensities. If the kingdom of God is a place where wisdom, purity, knowdlege, awareness, love etc hold sway, is it possible that one can enter the kingdom of God when he has no wisdom, wheh he is not pure, when he is filled with hate or even unaware of his spirtual nature? Is there any evidence that the belief in the redemption by blood transforms the beliver so that in place of anger, you have peace, istead of worry you have impertubtabilty, inplace of ignorance, you have knowlege and wisdom, in place of crass materialism, you have spiritual awareness, in place of perception via the faculties of the brain, you have percerption via the faculties of the spirit. Is it really love to take away the sins of another? Is it love when I give A grades to my students just because I love them even though they actually scored an F.  Is it love if I appove a PhD dissertation of a student whose thesis cannot even pass for a bachelors degree thesis just because I love him?

But there is even a greater problem. Is it possible for the blood of Jesus to transform a person who never trained as a surgeon to become one? Can the blood of Jesus transform a market trader in Onitsha into a Professor of Molecular Biology even though the trader education stopped at primary school. These are of course earthly analogies but they do reflect the consequencies of redemptive sacrifice. I am sure that no person will allow himself to be operated by a surgeon that never trained as one but became one because he was transformed by the blood of Jesus. No person will also enter an airplane driven by a pilot that never underwent training but become one because he was transformed by the blood of Jesus. The greater danger in these is that a man already believes that he is a surgeon, a professor, a pilot even when he has not obtained the requisite skills and training. Because he already believed that he is a surgeon, a professor or a pilot, the path to acquire the necessary skills and training is closed for ever. Such a man becomes a danger to himself, his patients, passengers or students.

If in earthly things we have to undergo specific trainings to acquire specific skills, it is also not different in spiritual things. Thus the only road to forgiveness of sins is repentance and reformation. Jesus the son of God can mediate the power enabling those who desire to change themselves to do so but Jesus cannot in my perception take upon himself the sins of others. It will be equivalent to sitting for an exam for your son. You can provide your son with the best books, tutorials, teachers etc but he must sit and pass the exam himself. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all travel back in time to witness the events of the first century ourselves and resolve all arguments!

Wwe could view the tower of babel, noah's flood (), the parting of the red sea, etc. . .

Wwow, time travel could cement faith!

It is possible and indeed very easy for those blessed by God with the ability to travel back in time and witness in real time what transpired even before the physical universes came into existence. But this ability is a grace of God and cannot be obtained by employing the faculties of the brain or mind. My simple advice to those who are seriously trying to find the Truth is that instead of engaging in intellectual reasoning, philosophical or theological analysis of religions and their sacred books, they can be thought how to unfold the faculties of the spirit and once the faculties of the spirit are open, they can find irrefutable answers about God and his creation. Besides, there is no point in trying to prove the existence of God to any human being. No human being can prove the existence of God to another. It is not that it is impossible to bring the irrefutable evidence but individuals who can actually bring such evidence are directed from Above to remain silent. Those who do not want to believe for whatever reason should be left alone to follow their own path. Each believer has so much to learn and deepen his recognitions about God and his creation that he or she has no time for intellectual disputations and arguments. Cheers.

@ Noetic 15

@ m_nwankwo
Let me start by commending your inherent ability to intelligibly present your thoughts and analyses. Though I disagree with ALL your assertions, I must however commend your tenacity, conviction and intellectual strength to present and defend your beliefs. I commend u because, u are the ONLY one who I have debated on this forum (in the past two years) who was bold enough to produce an explicit analyses of his thoughts, beliefs and convictions regardless of how disagreeable they sound. Let me add that while I disagree, I also find your points unconvincing though salient.

Thank you for your kind words. I do respect your views although I do not agree with them. Let me address some of the issues that you have raised.

1. What is the essential message of God that the prophets sould not deliver, that the Son had to come and deliver Himself? If the message of Christ was just the "TRUTH" like u love to illustrate then one would wonder why John the baptist could not deliver that message or why there was no prophet recorded in the scriptures between malachi and mathew, which was a period of 400 years. One had to wonder what was so unique about the message and physical manifestation of God that the prophets could not deliver.
before the advent of Jesus, there were many prophets with innumerable works and miracles. Some included Elisha, Elijah and moses. This simply implies that the miracles of Jesus could not have been the unique issue about Jesus.
You would agree with me that the unique point of Jesus visitation was His message. but the content of that message is what we both differ on. It is in light of this that I state that your analogy above about the death of Jesus does not hold water. I would like to reiterate here that the core message of Jesus was His death and resurrection as defined by the love He commanded. On these basis I make the following assertions.

Jesus is not a prophet but the son of God, a part of God the Father. Prophets are either human spirits or in some cases spirits that are higher than human spirits. Because prophets are creatures, they are incapable of revealing the entire Truth. Thus, their message are simply recognitions that is revealed to them from Above. Thus their message or gospel consist of recognitions of aspects of the will of God. Even these aspects of the will of God are colored by the spiritual maturity of each prophet as well as the prevailing culture around the prophet. Prophets are also limited in Power since they are creatures and not part of God. Thus the prophets you mentioned and several others you did not mention brought limited recognitions of the will of God to various peoples. The darkness that enveloped humankind and their earthly environment was so much that the limited recognitions of the various prophets as well as their limited spiritual power cannot penetrate the darkness. The power of darkness has become so strong that any good volition is snuffed out even before it has a chance to become a deed. Thus the suffocating darkness separated humankind from God. Humanity was in danger of spiritual death. Here and there few spirit sparks are praying fervently to God to deliver them from the clutches of darkness. The power of the prophets is no longer a march to Lucifer and his henchmen. Humanity was in danger of eternal damnation. Their is only one choice left to save humanity, a direct intervention from God himself. God the Father out of love for the very few who are holding on to his will in-spite of the suffocating darkness severed a part of himself and incarnated it in a male sex-Jesus of Nazareth. Thus Jesus is a part of the God the Father and thus a son of God. Being an incarnation of God, Jesus brought light into the darkness. Because Jesus, is the son of God he has the power to transmit the Truth as well as the divine omnipotence that resulted in instantaneous miracles. No creature, prophet or angel no matter how blessed will be able to transmit the complete truth as Jesus did nor can they bring about instantaneous miracles as Jesus did. The instantaneous raising of Lazurus from the dead is just one example of what divine power can do. Indeed only the Truth can transmit truth. Prophets can only transmit limited reflection or images of some aspects of the Truth. Since Jesus is the LIFE, THE TRUTH AND THE WAY, he can transmit truth and life to humankind. The truth and the life lies in his message, in his words. You should remember that Jesus is the word of God made flesh. Thus Jesus is his words and his words is Jesus. Only when a man understands that Jesus and his words are the same thing will it be possible to recognize the mission of Jesus. None of the prophets you mentioned ever said that they are one with God the Father. Non of them ever claimed that they are the son of God. Indeed John the Baptist as well as John the apostle were prepared for thousands of years in non visible realms so that they can serve the son of God when he walks on earth. But the purpose of this reply is not to go into unveiling some of these mysteries.

a. The death of Jesus was the will of God.
# The prayer of Jesus in the garden was very simple. that the will of God be done. To suggest that Jesus died outside of God's will is to suggest that His prayer in the garden was not answered. .  .what then is the basis of the xtian/beliver's prayer.
# His coming, death and ressurection was long prophesied long before the principal actor in His murder/crucifixion was born. His death was prophesied hundreds of years before Judas was born, before the priests were born and before the castigators were born. fro where did these prophecies come from? they came from God and God's will alone was done.
# Jesus gave several hints that He was to be killed. And He also illustrated on several occasions that His victory over death would be the basis of the new covenant. He said that "break this temple, and I will raise it in 3 days" . . . . .he was refering to himself. He mentioned severally in Luke 22:22 Luke22:53 and mathew 26:53 that He was to be betrayed and would die. I believe that Jesus was aware of His death and this death was the will of God.
# Apostle Paul would later state that If Christ did not die or ressurect, that there would be no basis for Christianity. This message implies that the crux of the xtian faith and hope lies solely in the divinity of Jesus as expressed on the cross and His ressurection.

I have in my penultimate post stated that the death of Jesus is not the will of God. Jesus carries the will of God in himself and it is absurd that he will be praying for the will of God when he knows that will. How can a part of God the Father not know the will of God the Father? Is the betrayal by Judas, the mockery by the crowd, the trial, as well as the accusations by the high priests also the will of God? Before Jesus was incarnated on earth it was known that their is a possibility that he will be murdered. Jesus himself knew this. Prophets who were permitted access to the laws of God prophesied about it. Humanity were like wolfs and Jesus is a lamb being sent to a pack of wolves. The prophecies were actually to induce reflection and tame the wolfs so that they will take the message of the lamb and change themselves. We are free to make choices but once the choice is made, the road it will travel as it germinates precisely follows the map which God has placed in creation. That is the reason why God or those he blessed with the power can foresee events thousands and millions of years before they happen physically. If the spiritual condition at the time of prophecy remain the same as the earthly time for the materialization of the prophecy, then a prophecy will change from a possibility to a probability and then a certainty. Thousands of years before Jesus incarnated on earth, it was seen from Above that humanity is following darkness and thus if they continue on that path, they will attack and kill the son of God. As Jesus entered his mission, he knew that the darkness has more followers then than thousands of years earlier. It became clear to him that this prophecy about his death will become a certainty. Not because it is the will of his father but because humanity are disobeying the will of God and will not waste time in executing the son of God. The death of Jesus is simply a consequence of the evil volition of men under the prompting of Lucifer, the Antichrist.

The blood of Jesus wipes away sin.
I understand that your position might be influenced from the bastardization of the blood of Jesus by the present day church, but your position is very far from the truth.
The blood of Jesus is an integral and essential part of the gospel, and as a matter of fact, this is the ONLY thing Christ wants the church to do in remembrance of Him by drinking the wine as done in the last supper and repeated as a holy communion in churches all over the world.
To understand the import of this blood, one needs to understand the primordial process through which sins were forgiven as ordained in the laws of the prophets. as a matter of fact, there was NO remission of sins as written in the laws of moses. offenders were usually stoned to death or excommunicated. This was the state of things before the coming of Jesus.
how then does one explain the confidence of jews like peter and paul who were conversant with the laws of moses, that their sins were forgiven? these were people who had believed all their lives that the wages of sin is PHYSICAL death. . .only now to turn around and not only to proclaim forgiveness but the right to live till eternity.
The blood of Jesus is the MOST crucial part of the message of Jesus. In that blood is the right to overcome sin and attain pardon.
Except for the death and resurrection of Jesus including His immaculate birth the gospel of Jesus holds no uniqueness in the context of previous prophets.

You have not yet explained why a physical blood will wash away sins or bring spiritual redemption. Is the blood of Jesus not physical? To expect forgiveness from physical objects or anything that has form is idolatory and their can be no exception. What is it in the blood of Jesus that gives it this divine ability to wash away and forgive sins? Jesus is the word of God in flesh and blood. When Jesus talks about his blood and flesh, they are a symbolic representation of the living word of God that is Jesus. To interpret reference to flesh and blood literally will be equivalent to saying that Jesus is offering his physical flesh and blood. That will tantamount to cannibalism and even you will be aghast to canibalism even if it is the flesh and blood of Jesus that is offered. The sharing of bread and wine is a strong reminder to us of the seriousness of the truth that Jesus brought, a truth so serious that Jesus was willing to bring this Truth to us at the risk of his death. It tells us that Jesus was absolutely certain that he is the son of God and is absolutely convinced of his mission. That is why he did not shun physical death. Just an analogy, you are ordered at gun point to kill your friend or else you will be killed yourself. If you are certain that the murder of your friend is evil, you will refuse to kill your friend and dam the consequence of physical death. You faced death because of your conviction that killing your friend is evil. In similar vein Jesus faced death as a stamp of his convictions. Remember that the major charge against him is that he claims to be a son of God. The sharing of bread and wine is a luminous ceremony that happens in all genuine temples of God in heavenly spheres. Jesus brought such a ceremony to his disciples and all men. But again it is not the purpose of this reply to explain  these mysteries.

As far as your above analogy is concerned, the man who went into the fire took a rist out of love. but your analogy is porous for several reasons.
# Jesus knows the beginning from the end. As such could not have gone into the fire without knowing the outcome. So if Jesus went into the fire and died in the fire, then He knew of it and as such approved of it.
# The crucifixion of Jesus was ordained from the foundation of the world.

I have already given explanation on prophecies. That Jesus knew that he will die is not an evidence that he approved of it or that it is the will of God. There are many things that God knew but such are not his will. God knew of the activities of Lucifer and his followers. Are the evil activities of Lucifer and his followers the will of God?

1. while I agree that Jesus brought light into our darkness, your understanding and definition of that light does NOT capture the light Jesus represented.
The light He brought was within the acknowledgement and worship of God, to renew hope and let us know that we have a sonship right to live at eternity if only we believe.
believing has to do with believing Jesus as the son of God, His divinity and death. why should anyone believe his words and not believe his death or resurrection?
Jesus came to save the world. .  .from what? from sin. How can one live in denial of this principal purpose and then claim to love Jesus or have the love of Christ in him

I have already explained why I do not agree with your interpretation of the the mission, death and resurrection of Jesus. Stay blessed.

@Noetic 15

Thank you for your response. Below is my response to some of the issues you raised in your post:

The truth Jesus brought to the world is not subject to the unbiblical analyses u have stated. And I find it disturbing that I have to respond to such. Honestly your claims are very ambiguous

I have never said that I draw from the bible or that I am making a biblical analysis. I have said repeatedly that I do not quote or interprete the bible. Those who do not want to examine what I post because I do not quote the bible should ignore my posts. Alternatively if a thread is said to welcome only contributions with biblical analysis, you will not find me there.

The truth of Christ is the establishment of the kingdom of God. The link to that kingdom is Jesus Christ, His salvation and divinity. I do not know of any biblical injunction that allows that the death of Jesus be seperated from his message. Recognising Jesus as the Son of God is a personal choice and just like the acknowledgement of His death and salvation. The death of Jesus is a spiritual event that took place from the foundation of the world as the remedy for the sins and disconnect of man. To disregard or dismiss the death on the cross is an attempt to look at the death from a mere physical angle. The death on the cross dennoted several spiritual dimensions and events namely:
# the tearing of the holiest of the holiest of the temple. . . . thus allowing that abode of God became in humans and not in temple.
# the ressurection of the dead to eternity.
# the manifestation of the holy spirit to man. prior to that it has been the exclusive preserve of a select few.
# the radical redirection of the religious practices of that age.

No, I did not disregard the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. I only stated that salvation and remission of sins do not lie in his death but in the word of God that he brought to humanity. I also stated that the death of of the physical body of Jesus was murder and an outrage against the will of God. If it is the will of God that Jesus will die, why then did Jesus pray to his Father for the cup to pass away. How can Jesus who is a son of God, a part of God the Father pray that the cup should pass away if the cup (his death) is the will of God. Even on earth, Jesus is one with God the Father and knows with clinical precision what is the will of his Father. That he prayed in Gethsemani is  a clear evidence that his death is not the will of God. Jesus knew that his subsequent death is as a result of the free will of men under the influence of Lucifer, the antichrist. Jesus prayed in Gethsemani to recieve the strength from God the Father so as to pass through the gruesome physical torture and subsequent murder with equananimity and imperturbtabilty. If it is the will of God for Jesus to die, Why then did Jesus ask his Father to forgive those who orchestrated and executed his death? Do you ask for forgiveness when you do the will of God? or you ask for forgiveness when you disobey the will of God? Yes his death has spiritual implication but not they way you see it. Indeed the whole creation was outranged, that even the elements shouted in protest. When the sun darkens and the holiest of holies is torn, it is actually signs of estrangement from divinity rather than reconciliation. By your train of thought, Judas, the high priests, Caiphas and others were doing the will of God as they plotted and finally executed the physical body of the son of God. Again another crude analogy may suffice. Ones wife and kids are trapped in a burning house. The intesity of the inferno was so much that fire fighters, neigbours lacked the courage to go in for they fear that they may die in the process. As the husband looked at the inferno and the incapability of the fire fighters and neighbours, the deep love for his wife and kids silenced all fear and out of this love, the husband stepped forward to save his wife and kids even though he is aware that he may die in the process. Couragiously he moved into the burning house and succeded in saving his wife and kids from the ranging inferno. Sadly he suffered fatal burns and died shortly afterwords. It is correct to report that he entered the burning inferno out of love for his family. It is correct to report that he entered the burning house to save his family. It is correct to report that he died in the process of saving his family. It is absolutely wrong to say that he entered the burning house to die and his death is what saved his family. I hope you may be able to relate this analogy to the mission, death and resurrection of the son of God.

It is pertinent to understand that the death and ressurection of Jesus lend credence to several events as we see of it today. Its spiritual significance is better illustrated in the sonship one enjoys with God today. If one does not have to believe in the death and ressurection of Jesus. . how then does one become a Child of God? how then does one get the holy spirit? how does one get to fellowship with God, since He no longer resides in man made temples?

The message of Jesus did NOT connect your to God. . . . . twas His death and ressurection that did. By believing He died and was raised, we receive the power to become God's sons, by using this power (holy spirit) we become God's sons and inherit eternity. how then can u become a child of God without believing the death and resurrection of Christ.

Jesus brought Light into the darkness of this world. He is the Light himself. Because he is a part of God the Father, he has the power to transmit both absolute Truth and and divine miracles. The word he brought is the seed that on germination purified the darkness encasing the souls and liberating them from the shacles of sin. It is the word of Jesus that does the miracle of  opening the path to God. In the word of Jesus also lies the power to thread the path leading to heaven, the kingdom of God. Flesh and blood including that of Jesus remain physical substance and cannot even rise to worlds closer to earth, much less the spiritual kingdom of God. God is not in his creations. God can only enter creation by incarnation as happened 2000 years ago in Jesus of Nazereth. After his death and subsequent resurrection, the divinity that is Jesus returned back to his Father. Thus there is no God in creation and any worship of anything in creation is idolatory. When Jesus forgived sins, he did it becuase he is God. It is God that is Jesus that forgave sins, not the pysical body of Jesus. The physical body of Jesus, that his flesh and blood are physical and it is idolatory to inwardly or outwardly expect the physical blood to wash away sins.

contrary to your assertion. . .Jesus came to the earth to die for our sins and He made that very very clear. He foretold His death and also affirmed that whatsoever is asked in his name (after He has resurrected), according to the will of God will be granted. how then can anyone dismiss this singular event of His death and ressurection?
The xtian hope is largely centred around the victory over death. . . . .the core message of the gospel has been about his resurrection.
This singular event gave the likes of peter and other disciples the faith and courage to preach the gospel at the expense of their lives. . .how then can u seprate this from Christ's message? . . . . .Salvation lies in the death of Jesus.

I will not at this moment explain the meachanism underlying prophecies. What I will say at the moment is that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to show them that LIFE survives physical death, that physical death is but a transition or birth into another world. Christ however did not ressurect in a physicl body as is wildly believed but in a transformed body.

our understanding of "LOVE" has no place with the bible, Jesus or God.

That is your opinion. I respect it but do not agree with it. Stay blessed.

noetic15:
1. The above might sound reasonable but it CANNOT be reconciled with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The sonship of Jesus (if believed by anyone) should be held side by side with His salvation on the cross. They CANNOT be separated.

2. I understand from your post on other threads that u have continued to mistake the xtian love for the common love as seen in other religion and the world outside Christ. The love that Christ preached is centred around God. The God subject in this case is pertinent to the divinity of Jesus. The core message of Jesus is the death on the cross, salvation, sonship, resurrection and promise of eternity.
The deduction is this. . . . .
a. Jesus stated clearly that the love of God and one's neighbour are the greatest commandment. The love of God is simply having no other god/deity before/beside God.
b. Jesus also asserted that He is God. He came to offer His salvation from eternal damnation on the cross of calvary.
c. Jesus also stated that those who believe in him/his message are saved from eternal damnation.
d. Those who accept the Lordship and salvation of Jesus are led by the spirit to live the God-like life of LOVE.

Now let us put the above in the same light as your analyses:
# The genuine love like u stated is completely different from the love Jesus taught. The love of Christ is centred around Christ. It involves accepting the salvation of Jesus Christ, being led by his spirit and living his life of love.
# To claim to love God. . .without recognising Jesus as that God. . .is as good as loving a false god like allah.
# Ghandi or anyone CANNOT claim to love God without knowing God.

# many (pastor AIO, kunleOshob and Deepsight) have assumed that Christ's gospel was simply a gospel of love outside of the WORSHIP of God. This is FALSE.
I will assert this using the "Good samaritan parable" of Jesus found in Luke 10: 30-37

In that parable 3 men saw a wounded man on the road. one was a priest, the other a levite and the third a samaritan.  
why did the priest and levite not stop? did they move on out of hate or lack of compassion? was their "inaction" a sin to God?

FYI: The priest and levite did NOT stop simply because by offering help to the wounded man. . they would have touched blood. by touching blood, the priest and levite would become unclean. by becoming unclean they would both be excommunicated and unable to perform their functions in the synagouge. If the priest ever enters the holiest of the holiest after helping the wounded man. . .he would have died and be brought out dead.
So why did they both not stop?. . . . . they both did not stop simply because they wanted to be holy, they wanted to please God.

If u read verse 27: Jesus was clear. . . that the very first thing is to LOVE God before loving your neighbour. u CANNOT love buddha or allah and then love your neighbour. that love is UNACCEPTABLE to God (Jesus).
Submissively . . . . .the route to the acceptance of anyone's sacrifice of LOVE is the acknowledgement of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Hi Noetic 15. Thanks for your response to my post. Below is a brief response to some of the issues you raised:

1. What I said may not be reconciled with your own view of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is. I have not stated that my posts are in sync with your view of the gospel of Jesus Christ. On the contrary my posts show that the gospel of Jesus Christ as I know it is different from yours. The mission of Jesus, the son of God lies in bringing the Truth, the will of God the Father to humankind. Humankind rejected Jesus and the word of God that he brought and sealed their enmity by murdering his physical body. I do not believe that the Almighty God require the blood of his son to save his creatures. Jesus was killed because humanity opposed the will of God and became willing tools in the hand of the darkness. Jesus did not come to die but to bring the eternal Truth to humankind. His death is a dastardly murder, a sacrilege committed against God. Salvation does not lie in the death of Jesus but on the word of Truth that Jesus brought. How can blood shed by murder bring humankind closer to God? Jesus is divine but his physical body is just like the body of any other man. How then can a physical blood bring spiritual redemption and salvation? Is there physical flesh and blood in heaven? I am certain that the blood of Jesus did not atone for any of our guilt but rather burdened us with a sacrilege which many can only recognize when they drop this physical body. Jesus was murdered because the Truth of God which he brought became a danger to priests and their religion. They thus conspired to eliminate the him. After committing this heinous crime, they declared that it is better that one man should die for the sins of others, and that became the foundation for the believe in sacrificial death of Jesus, the son of God. Jesus did not sin and it is not possible for him to directly take on the sins of others. He can only give them the word of God as well as mediate the power to those who are willing to live according to the word of God. I have in several threads given detailed explanations on what I am convinced is the mission and work of the redeemer, Jesus-the son of God. I will not repeat them here.

2. Genuine love is the same love that Jesus preached and lived. I clearly stated in my first post that this genuine love emanates from Jesus. I equally stated that the recognition of Jesus as the son of God is among the highest recognition permitted a creature and this recognition will come to anyone who lives according to genuine love. Spiritual evolution is in steps just like our earthly schools. A crude analogy may suffice. Imagine a person who has a deep longing to become a Professor of Molecular Biology. As a primary school kid he does not know what molecular biology or professor is all about but is very much fascinated by animals, insects and numbers. While other kids are playing pranks, he is busy trying to find out why a planted seed grows, why  their are patterns on  butterfly wings etc. This fascination with nature and how it works in reciprocity programs his brain to understand biological structures. In his first biology class in high school, he was so fascinated as he piped through a section of a living cell in a light microscope. He was so overwhelmed by this experience  that he does not want to let go off the microscope until the instructor forcibly removed him from pipping into the magic class. It was not surprising that in high school, he graduated with top grades in mathematics, biology, chemistry and physics. At this point he is beginning to have a faint idea of what molecular biology is but lacks understanding of what it means to be  a Professor. But unknown to him, his fascination with nature and biology have sown the seed that will germinate and in 25 years time will ripen as a professor of Molecular Biology. A superficial observer will not be able to see the professor in the kid when he was in high school, undergrad or even in his graduate school. But a deeper look will show that the seed was sown as the child gallivanted about trying to fathom how a maggot turns to a housefly. Meanwhile another kid have no interest in biology or nature but is the son of a professor of molecular biology. Because he regularly hears about DNA, sequencing, cloning, PCR etc from his dad, he soon imagines that he is a molecular biologist. But you do not become a molecular biologist by being the son of one but you become one by acquiring the requisite skills and training. What takes a decade or more post first degree with respect to this crude analogy may take few earthly years to millions of earthly years for the spiritual recognition of Jesus as the redeemer and son of God. If you sow yam, you reap yam and it does not matter if you call yourself a Christian, a Buddhist, an Agnostic, a deist etc. The obedience to the will of God lies in the sowing of the yam and not on the toga of religion. Love is love whether from a christian or a buddhist. Lies are lies whether it is from an agnostic or deist. The eternal law of God has intrinsically made yam to be yam. Thus if you want to rip corn, then sow corn but you will be wasting your time if you want corn and sow yam. You can gather all the prayer warriors on earth to change the yam to corn and it will not change. It is a mockery of divine justice to say that genuine love sown by those whose religious persuasions are different from us is not the true love that Jesus brought.

3. Genuine love is the spiritual lever, the guide that leads to God and Jesus and as long as one opens his heart to this genuine love, he or she will sooner or later come to the recognition of God and his son Jesus Christ either in this world or beyond this world. Stay blessed.

My view is that the  personal recognition of Jesus Christ as the son of God is the highest recognition that can be granted to a human spirit. Such a recognition does not come about by hearing or reading about Jesus although hearing or reading about it can serve as spiritual trigger enabling such a blessed one on a journey that will culminate in the recognition of Jesus as the son of God. Genuine love does not just came from anywhere rather genuine love is one of the emanations or rather radiations coming form Jesus, who in my own recognition is the living personification of Divine Love. This love which comes from Jesus is available to all human beings and all creatures who have the yearning for the Truth. Thus the spiritual desire to recognise the Truth and serve God automatically opens ones spirit to the vibrations of love coming from Jesus. As a human being keep absorbing and using this love, he is getting closer and closer to the source of this Love (Jesus) until finally either here on earth or hereafter after in worlds beyound, the personal recognition of HIM (Jesus Christ) in whose love he or she has been experiencing will come to such a one. For one who has absorbed the emanations of genuine Love from Jesus, love for God, his fellow mwn and all creatures is then his nature. Thus such a one practices genuine love withouth effort for the incomprehesible power of love that emanates from Jesus carries him onward just like a swimmer that swims in sync with the ocean current. If you tune into the frequency of genuine love, you are tuned in to Jesus even if at the initial and intermediate stages of spiritual development, such a one may only be aware of the love that he is experiencing but not the source of the love. If he stay tuned without switching off, he or she will one day come to the recognition of Jesus Christ as the son of God. No man will ever enter heaven without this recognition. Imagine that the recognition of Jesus Christ is at the summit of a mountain. Individuals who have more or less absorbed the love of God but have not come to the personal recognition of this source of genuine love have left the bottom of the mountain and are on their way to the top of the mountain and will finally reach the summit if they keep absorbing and using the power of God. At the summit, they will find the crown of their longing, the recognition of Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Meanwhile, there is a tree at the foot of the mountain and many instead of climbing the mountain decided to climp the tree and from the top of the tree, they smile at those who slowly but surely are climbing the mountain. They claim that from the top of the tree that they have a glimpse of the summit of the mountain. But unkonwn to them, the crown at the top of the mountain can only be bestowed on those who climbed the mountain and not to millions who want a short cut by climbing the tree. The gulf betwwen the tree and the mountain cannot be crossed and those who made attempt fall to the ground breaking their legs and even there neck. As he groans in agony from the fall, some people who he  laughed at when he was on top of the tree have already reached the mountain and have been bestowed with the crown.

If Mahatma Ghandi or Dala Lama or any person form any culture, religion or tradition are practicing genuine love, they are like those who are climbing the mountain and their  souls will one day recognise Jesus Christ as the son of God. Millions who have heard or read about Jesus but are not living according to the love that emanates from Jesus Christ are the people on top of the tree at the foot of the mountain. There is still time for them to come down from their precarious perch to the foot of the mountain and begin to climb the mountain. Very soon the tree at the foot of the mountain will collapse and they will break their legs and necks making a subsequent climbing of the mountain impossible. Thus the crown which they erroneously imagined that it is their birth right will be denied them.


Thus there can be no genuine love without Jesus Christ and no Jesus Christ without genuine love. The spiritual journey of all human beings does not just consit of one earthlife. This  present earthlife is just a very small snapshort of ones spiritual history. I hope that someday, some of the discussants may be blessed with the opportunity to see the soul  of Mahatma Ghandi and they should ask him who Jesus is. The answer will come as a rude shock.

Deep Sight:
I thought these below form a pretty good summary?

And please note that by Diest, i do not necessarily mean the strict interpretation of one who accepts a Supreme Deity exists, but is apathetic to worship and matters of the Spirit. . . I mean one who accepts that existence without the baggage of religion or dogma, and possibly with certain recognitions of universal truths as well. . .

Deism is quite flexible in concept. . .

My view is that it is only number 5 that is closer to his convictions and number 2 to a limited extent. cheers

Deepsight. I do not think that you have actually found out what are Pastor AIO convictions. He is certainly not a deist. Look very closely to his reply on your argument of a primer mover and you may probably come close to what are his convictions. Cheers.

Deep Sight:
This certainly cannot explain his reference to the fact that God makes people in a certain way. . .

Only in another breath on this same thread demand a Definition of God, and state that he is wary of discussing God. . .

Certainly, any person who states that "God made [someone] that way" must have a preconception of what the word "God" means, to be able to make that statement. It is odd that the person shortly thereafter demands for definitions of God, and also categorically states that [God] is not a bearded old man sitting in the sky". . . further evidence that he in fact has a fair idea of what the word "God" refers to.

Hi DeepSight. I see your point but if you look at all Pastor AIO posts, not only the one you referenced, you will hopefully find what he believes God to be. Pastor AIO believes in God and I am confident that he will answer your question on that issue. Maybe, you may consider the way you frame your questions to him. They do appear to look like a demand rather than a request. It is like you are putting his convictions on trial. I do not want to hold brief for him but their is a very interesting debate I had with him more than a year ago on identity and counsciousness. In that debate, he clearly demonstrated what his convictions are and I do not think that he has changed since then. Maybe you just find time to read all his posts and hopefully you will see what his convictions are. In addition Pastor AIO usually bring jokes into what is a very serious discussion. I guess it a way of him saying that we should not taken things too serious or else we become fixated to forms and become imperceptible to the pulsating power of God which shapes the forms. As always stay blessed.

Pastor AIO may not explain his beliefs to suit what discussants suspect of his religious inclination. But my view is that Pastor AIO have not changed even by a hairs breath from his original religious convictions. I also do not think that any argument or debate from any body will change his convictions. I am not holding brief for him but I think that his position is being misunderstood by many. Many of the questioners seem to have a perception of what they think are Pastor AIO convictions and counsciously or uncounsciously expect him to confirm their suspicision. But Pastor AIO gives an answer which accurately describes his spiritual convictions but the answers cannot be put into defined religious boxes. Pastor AIO answers inspite of the clarity and depth cannot be understood as long as discussants want to fit his answers into  defined religious concepts. This in my view is the main reason why he is being accused of not being clear or evasive. I do not agree with some of his convictions for we have had very serious debates where we agreed to disagree. But he is very honest about what his convictions are.

I am not sure that Deepsight and other discussants understand what Pastor AIO is saying. The human words and concepts are so limited that when Pastor AIO clothes experential spirituality with words, discusants seem to understand the forms (concepts, words etc) but not the eternal reality that to me is very self evident in Pastor AIO replies. Just an example. Pastor AIO was asked by someone whether is is posssible to be saved without knowing Jesus Christ even though the person have been practing true love. Pastor AIO answered with a question "how come that such a person practice true love?" (put in my own words). On the surface it may appear that Pastor AIO did not answer the question but in my view he answered it in very few short words. Pastor AIO can correct me if that is not what he meant but what I understand him to say it that he who practices genuine love already have Christ for there can be no genuine love without Christ and no Christ without genuine love. Thus if Mahatma Gandi practiced true love, then he knows Christ even if he was not a "christian" in an earthly sense. I will allow PastorAIO to answer Chris question on what he meant by "right thing" and if two or more peaple that have access to the "right thing" will agree if each person is to give form to the "right thing". Cheers.

gingeranny:
Hello-I have just found this website/forum on trying to find out information on the grail movement.
Basically what it is i recently met someone-a man, who has read the 3 grail books, and follows its teachings.
i want to understand where hes coming from but some of the things he has mentioned about-for example-Giving blood,organs,living a healthy lifestyle,how he feels about death,how babies are not innocent-i find quite hard to understand-and i do want to.
I am CHurch of England myself.
Would like some advice really to try and understand him.I did read some of the book -i found it extremely intense.PLease help.

Hi. My advice is that you should only examine the Grail Message if deep within your soul, you feel an intense yearning for the Truth. Any other reason apart from the desire to know God  and serve God will not lead you far for the Grail Message only speaks to the Spirit. Thus, if you have the strong desire to know the Truth, then examine the Grail Message and experience it yourself. Only what you have experienced spiritually is your own. Thus what others tell you has no benefit to you. Why listen to any person when you have the Grail Message. Examine it and make your own decision. Therefore if you are serious, ignore what your man or any other person tells you. Pick up the volumes of the Grail Message and examine it lecture after lecture as the author admonished. I wish you strength. Stay blessed.

My view is that fundamentalism is becoming the hallmark of many posts on this religious forum. It cuts across all groups including theists, atheists as well as agnostics. Although better moderation can improve things, the improvement will only be artificial. Our posts reflect our weaknesses as well as our strengths and moderation cannot with a magic wand change our nature. A man cannot claim that he cannot lust, lie, murder, undermine another persons reputation, cheat, use ignoble language or be angered until he or she is presented with a very enticing opportunity to indulge in these ignoble passions such that he or she can yield to his weakness without anybody knowing about it.  The heated debates provide opportunity for all of us to recognise our weaknesses and work to eliminate them. We cannot stop others from insulting us or even blaspheming against the very things we hold sacred and true. But we can refuse inwardly as well as outwardly to insult them or blaspheme against their sacred beliefs. We can refuse to be angered, frustrated or indulge in any negative emotions inwardly as well as outwardly. Some posters on this forum are just passing a phase, many of them will not believe what they wrote on this forum 20 to 30 years from now and will wonder how it is possible that they are capable of saying such terrible things about their fellow discusants and their beliefs. Thus even the militants on this forum will change or get destroyed by the very dark emotions the emit. Thus there is no reason in my view to be concerned. Let both the grass and the weed grow until the harvest time. Cheers

Krayola:
Well, creation, as described by Abd-ru-shin, had been described like that for over centuries. Abd-ru-shin kinda consolidated ideas from various mystical schools of thought, but used a lot of terminology from Christian mysticism. People that trip over the Grail message usually have no idea that his "insight" are mostly old stuff written in modern language and presented as rational/logical arguments. Even though his method of persuasion is to mostly paint skeptics (of his ideas) as irrational and pretty much stupid. i.e. if u think otherwise, u are stupid, need to go back to school, are being irrational etc etc. . It claims not to be dogma or religion, but uses identical methods of persuasion. Brilliant mind, brilliant book. . . original, no. Absolute Truth, HELL NO!!




Any claim to absoluteness of an idea, world-view, or whatever, should get alarm bells ringing. . . My 2 cents.

Wish u all the best.

Hi Krayola. Thanks for your contribution. I do not agree with the views you expressed on the Grail Message. But then it is the way you see it and it is your right to see it that way. I will not provide even one single argument to persuade you otherwise. Let each person decide for himself what to make of the Grail Message. I am absolutely certain that the Grail Message is a proclamation of eternal Truth. But then others like you may see it differently. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:
M_Nwankwo, this is a very loaded statement. Please let's discuss further off the Forum, if you have the time. Hit me at xxxxxxxxxxx.

I will soon delete the email address, so pls save it now and confirm. Thanks!

Hi DeepSight. I have saved your email and will write you. Stay blessed.

Krayola:
@m_nwankwo. Hello 

Is Parsifal = Kether?

Your first post on this thread seems to pretty much describe some Kabbalistic ideas, though it just seems to use different terminology.

e.g Kether is the first emanation of the Godhead through which creation occurs.

Do u know about Lurianic Kabbalah, or Isaac Luria?

Hi Krayola. Thanks for your contribution. I draw what I wrote from the Grail Message by Abd-ru-Shin as well as my personal experience of worlds which are beyond the grasp of material senses or instruments devised to improve our physical senses. I have not studied Lurianic Kabbalah, or any other school of Kabbalah. But I do know that Kether is not Parsifal. However I do not wish to explain how I know that Parsifal is not Kether without studying/practicing Kaballah. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:
Just a personal question - were you born a Crossbearer or became one individually?

Have you been sealed.

Have you visited the Temple in Austria? I hear its really beautiful.

I became one individually more than two decades ago. Yes I am sealed. I have not been to the Temple in Austria. Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Thanks as always M_Nwankwo. I really struggled with these questions because i find it very difficult to accept any human being as being God (including Jesus).

Honestly the question of identity was what steered me away from the message. As you said, i will pray.

In my mind, i have a look at Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu, they claimed to be God!

That's the same way i tend to see all other claims to Divinity (including the Christ Claim)?

I will pray, though.

I wish you strength. Stay blessed!

@Deepsight

Deep Sight:
M_Nwankwo, please help with these questions.   

   1. The place of the authour of the Grail Message within the Trinity if any (is he the Holy Spirit?)

   2. Who is Parsifal? Is Parsifal God? Is he perhaps the highest image of God? Is he part of the Trinity or is the Trinity Embodied in him?

   3. What's the relationship between Jesus and the Authour of the Grail Message?

   4. Do Parfisal & Jesus worship the father? If they do, can they be called God?

Hi Deep Sight. Thanks for the serious questions that you raised. I will offer my perception on some of them. The questions on the identity of Abd-ru-Shin will not be answered for it is my view that each individual should find the answer to that question by himself. And I am sure that anyone who needs to know who Abd-ru-Shin is for genuine spiritual reasons will get the answer without the help of anyone. Luminous servants of God are always ready to lead any serious seeker to that recognition either in this life or beyond this life. Now to the questions.

1. I urge you to find the answer to question 1 and my perception is that your spirit is quite capable of that. All you need is to seek and pray. I wish you strength in that regard.

2. Parsifal is not God. Prior to the coming into existence of creation, there is only God the Father and his divine radiations. The immediate radiations of God constitute what is revealed to us  as the Divine Sphere. The last deposits from out of the divine radiations of God could not come to consciousness due to the intense degree of heat brought about by the proximity of God. These unformed radiations of God have the unconscious longing to become conscious and acquire a form and a personality. In the divine sphere, these deposits of the direct radiations of God, cannot become conscious. God the Father in answer to these unconscious longings from these unformed radiations decided to bring creation into existence for only in creation can these unformed radiations  be cooled down permitting different beings, entities and indeed worlds to arise. Thus out of love for his unformed radiations, the Primordial Light-God the Father through an act of his will brought the first creation into existence. The creative will of God the Father is the Holy Spirit. It is revealed that a part of the Holy Spirit was severed from him and became personal in the creative process. That means that a part of the primordial light have to step out from the unsubstantiate Light and be anchored at the boundary of the divine sphere. Thus it is a part of the Holy Spirit that brought creation into existence. To bring primordial creation into existence, the Holy Spirit has the purest of the primordial spiritual as a cloak or anchorage. Creation can only come into existence by a transmutation of the radiations of the Holy Spirit by this Primordial Spiritual vessel or anchorage. If the Holy Spirit was not cloaked by this primordial spiritual vessel, then the creative Holy Spirit will be drawn back to the Primordial Light, thus interrupting the process of creation and decay of all that has been created. This primordial spiritual cloak of the Holy Spirit is Parsifal. Parsifal is thus the first in the primordial spiritual creation. It is primordial spiritual beings that came into existence by the Holy Spirit radiating through Parsifal that are the image of God. After the image of God which are the primordial beings, came the created beings which are themselves the image of primordial spiritual beings. The human spirit if he develops according to the will of God is only an image of the copy of the image of God. Thus the human spirit is not even a created being but a developed being. Thus only the primordial spiritual creation was directly created by God. Every thing else is a coarser copy of this first creation, and the copies get coarser as the distances from primordial creation increases. Although Parsifal is inseparable from the Holy Spirit in their working, he is not a part of the Trinity because He is only the Primordial Spiritual Vessel of the Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus is the son of God, a part of the Godhead. Again I do not want to comment on the identity of Abd-ru-shin. I know who he is but others should find that out for themselves.

4. If you have read carefully my perception on Trinity on the Trinity thread, then you will see that there is already an answer to the question. You still seem to consider Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate from God the Father. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are parts of God the Father. They only appear to creatures as three because of their separate working. Before creation, it was only God the Father. During creation, a part of God the Father became personal in the creative process, thus God the Father appear to be two in its working at this point. When humankind failed a part of God the Father became personal in the work of redemption. Thus with the emission and subsequent incarnation of Jesus Christ, God became a Trinity. It is the same God the Father working in threefold. Jesus and the Holy Spirit will be nothing without God the Father for they are parts of the father that became personal in the work of redemption (love) and in the creative process. Thus your question is like asking whether God worships himself. Worship are for all beings that came out of the radiations of God. Everything except God came out of the radiation of God. In gratitude to God for permitting these embodied radiations conscious existence, a joyous gratitude flows back to God from the radiations of God that has taken on form. This jubilant gratitude to God for his inconceivable love is what worship is. Jesus and the HolySpirit are one with God the Father and inseparable. Any attempt to separate them will lead to errors and further from the Truth. Thus, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the only sons of God. With regard to Parsifal, you will hopefully find the answer from my answer in question 2. Stay blessed.

@Deepsight. It will be difficult to answer your question without explaining what you mean by time. During a dream lasting few seconds, a man can see his birth, youth, adulthood, oldage and even death. Yet what he took few seconds for  experience in a dream may take 70 or more years to experience in full day counsciousness. Is the time in his dream the same with the time in brain day counsciouness. I guess you believe that future events can be predicted. What time is the prophet or seer using to make the predictions? If it is possible to predict the future, why do you think that it is not possible to recall the past? I may make a contribution on time travel but for the moment I will watch the thread develop. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:
I posted these earlier, but no Trinitarian had the balls to give me a point by point response to the verses cited here.

These verses show that Jesus HIMSELF never thought that he was God.

Only his apostles and other followers (typical humans inclined to deification of leaders and hro worship) began to call him God.



Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Please review these:

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God. Notwithstanding anything the hero-worshipping Apostles will tell you. But even they said a lot to show that they didn’t think so –

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.


1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

Hi Deepsight. It seems to me that you are seeking for clarification on who Jesus is. I will attempt albeit in brief to offer my perception on the issue. My perception is not drawn from the bible, thus I will not quote or interpret the biblical verses. I draw from the Grail Message (which you have said that you have read) as well as my experiencing of the creations of God, those that are physically visible as well as invincible. I guess your questions can be broken into three points: Is Jesus Christ God? Is Jesus Christ one with God the Father? Is Jesus Christ equal to God the Father? Are there three persons in one God or one God in three persons?

There is only one God and he is called God the Father. Both Jesus and the HolySpirit are "parts" of God the Father. That means that God the Father "severed a small part of himself" a personification of his eternal love and that incarnate unsubstantiate love of God the Father is Jesus Christ. In the same vain, God the Father also severed a "small part of himself" a personification of his enternal will and that unsustantiate will of God became personal in the Holy Spirit. Thus it is a small part of God the Father that is Jesus and another small part of God the Father that is the Holy Spirit. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are parts of God the Father that became personal in their working. That is why it is correct to say that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Thus Trinity does not in my perception refer to three personalities in the Godhead rather it is God the Father that is God the Father, it is God the Father that is Jesus, it is also God the Father that is the HolySpirit. The small parts that God the Father severed from himself are naturally not "equal" to God the Father but are one with God the Father. A crude analogy may help you to form a crude picture. You can liken the primordial source of all life, that is God the Father as a man while the right arm of the man can be likened to Jesus Christ and the left arm of the man can be likened to the HolySpirt. What this analogy fell short is that even when the man severed his  right and the left arm to work independent of himself, the man still have left and right arm,  a paradox? , this is a process of radiation which will remain a mystery inspite of all attempts to explain it. God the Father severed a part of himslef out of Love for his unformed radiations that are longing to experience counsciousness. In the proximity of God, the divine sphere, these radiations of God cannot come to counsciousness. To grant counsciousness to these uncounscious radiations, God brought primordial spiritual creation into existence by an act of his his will. That act of will is embodied in "Let there be Light" and this will of God the Father that brought the primordial spiritual creation into existence is the Holy Spirit. The coming into existence of primordial creation also made it possible for the coming into existence of spiritual creation and subsequent creation as well. Even in the spiritual creation, the human spirit seeds were still uncounscious radiation of God, and yet they too have the longing to develop counsciousness. Subsequent creation of which the material universes (physically visible as well as invinsible) are the last outpust was the field of activity where the uncounscious human spirit germs can devlop to human spirits. Unfortuntunately, man lost his way and became a problem for himself and other creatures. Man became a disturbing element. God sent prophets in different cultures to help man change course but the power of the prophets were not enough as they are  simply creatures. The darkness snuffed the power of these prophets and humanity was on the road to eternal death. To prevent humanity from spiritual death, God intervened by severing a part of himself and incarnated it in fresh and blood in a male sex- Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus is the son of God, the incarnate word of God, this again is a process of radiation which will remain a mystery but a spiritual picture of it can be percieved if one is open to it. I hope that if you examine what I said you will hopefully find the answer why Jesus is the son of God and why Jesus is one with God the Father and yet God the Father is greater than his inborn son Jesus Christ as well his outborn son, the Holy Spirit. Stay blessed.