Originally posted by kallisti36 The Archangel Michael has never been allegory or symbolism for anything, he is real.
The word "archangel" means
something. It has a meaning. That meaning is derived from the Revelation of the "resurrection". If you do not
know that, I certainly cannot tell you.
You could argue that the Tree of Life is symbolism, especially if you study the Cabbalah, but in the Book of Enoch it is shown directly to
Says you. Reading from the map. But what do the words on the map mean
? And who said that, in the Kabbalah, it is anything other than the
There is a difference between the "Tree of Life" in Genesis
and the "Book of Life" in the Revelation of John
These are different Revelations.
And then there is the "Book of Truth" referred to in the Book of Daniel
I'm tired of you just saying that I'm wrong without presenting evidence to the contrary.
Why would I go to the trouble of saying that you have no Knowledge if you have Knowledge? Do you 'think' that this is a personal issue, that I do
not like you, or that I am trying to embarrass you? None of these things are involved here. I've got much more important things to do than to
criticize what you have written for no good reason at all. You may very well be a nice guy. Maybe we agree on any number of things.
I read what you have written. There are no hints that you have any Knowledge of what you are talking about. That is not intended to offend you. I am
merely making an assessment of the information that you have written.
If I am wrong about the Tree of Life, then explain what the Tree of Life is.
There is a term in theoretical physics which is bandied about probably more often than appropriate: "Not even wrong."
By which is meant that you do not have even enough information about the reality for anything you have said to be considered either right or
wrong. You are simply not informed; that being informed consisting of a Revelation.
What are these past life memories you speak of but never explain?
Can you explain to me what the taste of an orange is like?
Of course not.
Memories of previous lives are memories of previous lives. What's to be 'explained'? They are precisely what they are.
Were you to have received such memories you would understand that nothing can really be said in 'explanation' of those memories except for the
details of what those memories consisted. Those are of no immediate or particular relevance.
You act as though your evidence can only be attained by being better than everyone else and you cannot be bothered to impart it to lesser
For the consciousness of the "self", this always
comes down to a personal
That is the only category of meaning that the "self" has in which to classify such information: that it is being, in one way or another, threatened;
and that such a threat is to be understood as one variety or another of evil
You do not appear to be accepting or understanding of the little information I have already given you; and yet you want more. It doesn't work that