The Illumination of All Consciences

There is something about the Mary messages that has always bothered me.

I don't remember Mother Mary being resurrected. Do you?
All these beheaded martyrs wailing under the throne
but somehow mom slips in the back door?

What's going on here. I call Bull Dookie.

I think some theologian came up with
something called an 'assumption'
to deal with this. Wonder
how _that_ decision
is working out.


David Grouchy

I forgot to mention that I am fairly impressed with the entire first half of the OP.

Up until the point that the Mary messages takes over the post.
The first half is a very well done bit of theology
and accurate in both context and meaning
to what my own research has found.

Then all of a sudden the corpse
of Mary pops up in the soup
and starts telling me
what to do.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Thank you, David.

I did mention in the beginning of the OP that I thought that the Illumination was coming because of the urgency of the recent Medjugorje messages.

I am sorry that you don't give credence to the Virgin Mary.

If you remove her from the mix, however, the Illumination theory still stands as an event that seems to be coming, based on the Saints testimony and the Bible passages.

However, I am curious as to why you are hostile toward the Blessed Virgin.

After all, assumption into heaven is not a foreign idea.

Ezekiel and Enoch were assumed into heaven, body and soul.

There are approved apparitions of the Blessed Virgin since the first century. Jesus Christ gave her to us from the Cross. She is seen clothed with the sun with a crown of twelve stars, with the moon at her feet, in the book of Revelation, Chapter 12, verse 1. The male child referred to as ruling with the iron rod is Jesus. The "rest of her offspring" who keep God's commandments and give testimony to Jesus are the Christians on Earth. That makes her the Mother of all Christians.

Therefore, she is in Heaven. She was assumed. Body and Soul. Why do people disrespect her so much? Again, Satan put emnity in there.

Really, logically, Jesus spent thirty years with His beloved mother who he loved and cherished. He only spent three in public ministry. Do you really think He doesn't want people to love and venerate (not worship, venerate and respect) His beloved mother?

Do people think it is a "competition"? That Mary "hoards" the prayers she receives?

Of course not. She says, "Look, my Beloved Son, what I gathered for You today! Please listen to my children's pleas, for my sake, as Your mother and theirs..."

The first act of intercession in the Bible was Mary interceding at the Wedding at Cana. Though Jesus was not ready to show his glory at the time, at his beloved mother's request, he granted her wish. Her reply? "Do whatever He tells you." And He acted.

What child does not go to their mother to ask her to plead with their Father on their behalf, to soften His heart?
The power of asking Mary for intercession is shown right there.

We intercede on earth for our children, our friends, our coworkers, our family members all the time... why is Heaven regarded so differently? What do you think they do all day?

Originally posted by scratchmane
[
In answer to the OP, if my conscience is illumined so I can see the effects of my actions, I will get a "God's eye perspective" which is interesting in and of itself. It seems to me that I myself will be the judge of my actions, as seen through a more omniscient(maybe not totally) view. I will get to see that what I do to my neighbours I do in fact do unto myself.

This revelation, that all is 'God', may be why so many will die from the illumination.

John 10:34, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”

Matt 25:40 The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

What I do to another, I do for the Jesus. However, from your point of view, I am also another, so what is done unto me is done unto Jesus. Seemingly saying that the nature of Jesus is the same nature as my self.

Love thy neighbour as I love my Self.

Let's look at the scripture in context.

John 10:33-37:

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. (NIV)

Clearly, Jesus is referring to His own Divinity, in talking to the Pharisees, who are accusing Him of blasphemy.

He is not stating that all men are God. To whom the word of god came are the prophets.

In the verse of Matthew, Jesus is referring to the works of men, warning all the do good works for all men, the least of whom could be God disguised as such (which, actually in the life of the St. Martin of Tours, actually happened- he gave half of his cloak to a beggar, which later was revealed to be Jesus Christ in the form of a beggar)

So, I think you are taking Scripture out of context. Please don't make the mistake of thinking you are Divine, you may be in for a rude awakening... just my humble opinion...

In reference to Mr. Cecil, he does not use any translation of the Bible that he will reveal for all intents and purposes, therefore any theories he postulates here will not be very much use, as when one tries to respond to it, using any reference points, he will attack with scathing insults as to how they are not "enlightened" with his truths and scriptures. Therefore, debate with him is fruitless.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Therefore, she is in Heaven. She was assumed. Body and Soul. Why do people disrespect her so much? Again, Satan put emnity in there.

We may be getting a bit far afield here, but as a very Catholic Protestant, I can tell you that one of the few reasons that I have not converted to Catholicism is the Mariology aspect of it. I don't think that it's wrong, or that we need to look at Mary differently, but I just don't get it, and the proclamations of Pius IX and Pius XII say that, as I don't get them, I can't be Catholic.

One of the three key tenets of Protestantism (so it's very ingrained, both in me and others) is "Sola scriptura", literally "By scripture alone". If there isn't support for a doctrine in scripture, a person (Pope or otherwise) can't just proclaim it and insist that it is required for salvation. After all, the scripture demonstrates that the early church respected Mary, but it kind of ended there, so if a Catholic in 500AD didn't believe in the Assumption of Mary, would they be considered heretical and barred salvation? No, but a Catholic in 2010 would, and that's where we run into problems.

While many protestants use that as a means to criticize Catholics, I think that Mary is awesome, I don't doubt that she has appeared to the faithful and that she can intercede on our behalf (so I pray the Rosary once in a while) but to me, the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpetual Virginity, etc are all not necessary for my belief in Christ, so it remains a block.

No disrespect, understand, just disconnect.

reply to post by adjensen


I respect your view on Mary, however, I disagree with Sola Scripture, respectfully...

As a Catholic, I agree with the Church established by Jesus in Matthew 16:18, reinforced by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-18; and also referred to as the pillar and foundation of truth in Paul's instructions to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:15.

Therefore her Teachings on faith and morals are guided by the Holy Spirit, in my humble opinion... to include the devotion to Mary.
That each person is their "own" pope is the reason for 30,000 flocks, instead of one flock, as Jesus established. He gave the the Paraclete for guidance on faith and morals. He is one shepherd to one flock.

That said, I respect your opinions, and like reading your posts.
We can agree to disagree.

God Bless~

Jesus pointed out that following God's commands are more important than bloodlines.

Not that his mother was not important but it's like he knew that people would end up giving too much credit to his flesh and blood mother. In the following verse we meet a would be catholic.

Luke 11:27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Yeah he knew that the elite would use his bloodline as an excuse to rule over others. In this next verse, it is revealed that Mary alone is not the mother of God.

Matthew 12:46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

He instructed us to be family in the Spirit and gave no special instruction in revering, respecting Mary as the sole mother of God. God is not a respecter of persons.

John 19:26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

The woman in Revelation with the 12 stars around her head is not Mary, it is Israel who gave birth to Christ and it is not the created nation of Israel we have today. It is Israel the church, Israel the family of God is the mother of God. The true mother of God is the Holy Spirit and his name is not Mary and is in all who accept Jesus as Christ.

Time and time again Israel reverted to worshipping the 'queen of heaven' (Jeremiah 7 and 44). That is the true nature of these apparitions. That which would lead Israel down that path again. Mary has become the queen of heaven. I hope you're not offended, catholics tend to get defensive of Mary but remember we don't wrestle with flesh and blood but with rulers in high places.

Well, we can agree to disagree

We are getting off topic a little here...

Hi

“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 17:20-21).

The Kingdom of God is inside me, does God reside in the Kingdom? If God resides in the Kingdom, and the Kingdom is inside me, then it follows that God is inside me and you.

Matt 25:40 The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Obviously, what I do to you, I do to God in the Kingdom inside you.

Matthew 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

It makes sense seeing that God is inside all of us, also those who are perceivably 'evil'

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Originally posted by scratchmane
“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 17:20-21).

The Kingdom of God is inside me, does God reside in the Kingdom? If God resides in the Kingdom, and the Kingdom is inside me, then it follows that God is inside me and you.

While Jesus' words to the Pharisees in that passage of Luke might be read as a "What are you looking for the Kingdom of God for? Hello! Right here, talking to you!" it's more likely a comment that the kingdom is a spiritual, rather than material thing, at least for the time being. Since he was talking to Pharisees, he probably didn't mean that the kingdom was in THEM, for obvious reasons, so the "you" was most likely the empirical "you".

The Holy Spirit is in the world, and in the person of believers. This perspective (and the supporting scripture) isn't for mind games, or for developing a pantheistic view of things, but rather a recognition that God continues to work in the world in a real way, and that even those who have accepted Christ need God's help to fulfill what we are to do.

reply to post by scratchmane

You're using the AV translation of that verse.
Another possible translation of the words given as "within you" (ENTOS HUMON) is "amongst you, in your midst".
That is the understanding of the RSV or the Jerusalem Bible. The meaning would then be that the Kingdom was present in the form of Jesus himself and those who belonged to him.

Originally posted by adjensen
While Jesus' words to the Pharisees in that passage of Luke might be read as a "What are you looking for the Kingdom of God for? Hello! Right here, talking to you!" it's more likely a comment that the kingdom is a spiritual, rather than material thing, at least for the time being. Since he was talking to Pharisees, he probably didn't mean that the kingdom was in THEM, for obvious reasons, so the "you" was most likely the empirical "you".

...it's more than likely... ...he probably didn't mean... ...most likely... Sounds like your interpretation. And what interpretation is the correct one? All interpretations are human, and equal.

Now why wouldn't he say that the kingdom was in them? What obvious reasons?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by scratchmane

 

You're using the AV translation of that verse.
Another possible translation of the words given as "within you" (ENTOS HUMON) is "amongst you, in your midst".
That is the understanding of the RSV or the Jerusalem Bible. The meaning would then be that the Kingdom was present in the form of Jesus himself and those who belonged to him.

GoT 113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Originally posted by scratchmane
GoT 113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

That line is quite compatible with the "kingdom is amongst you" translation in the sense that I suggested.
If people don't recognise the kingdom in Jesus and his followers, they don't "see the kingdom". So that interpretation still works.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by scratchmane
GoT 113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

That line is quite compatible with the "kingdom is amongst you" translation in the sense that I suggested.
If people don't recognise the kingdom in Jesus and his followers, they don't "see the kingdom". So that interpretation still works.

It is compatible, however if this saying is to be timeless, which I think it is, then it can't be referring to Jesus and his followers. It goes together with:

GoT 77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Originally posted by scratchmane GoT 77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

This, of course, is one of the more 'difficult' Sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, the reason being that the consciousness of the 'thinker' will most likely conclude that this Saying should be interpreted as incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was claiming to be 'God' 'Himself'; which is emphatically NOT the case.

Jesus is talking about himself as the representation of an entirely different dimension of consciousness altogether than the 'fallen' consciousness of either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

That consciousness is emphatically not God. Rather, that consciousness has been Created 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27). In this particular instance, he is referring to the non-spatial dimension of this consciousness. In my terminology, he is referring to the manner in which the 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality and everything within it emerges from the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by babybunnies
Wow - you really believe in that selection of bedtime stories known as The Bible, don't you?

Wow and you're really smart for adding something sour to an otherwise logical comment.

Not that I'd hear much new things anyway. The disbelief in the Bible wouldn't be so annoying if you actually had a theory or two of your own, but no, the only things that come out of the mouth of someone like you is only furious questions and rude rebuttal. Do you ever think of the things you don't know? or are you too sucked into what you know to care? Either way your spirit is in tears.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by scratchmane GoT 77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

This, of course, is one of the more 'difficult' Sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, the reason being that the consciousness of the 'thinker' will most likely conclude that this Saying should be interpreted as incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was claiming to be 'God' 'Himself'; which is emphatically NOT the case.

How can it 'emphatically' not be the case that Jesus is God. It is not excluding that everything else is God does it? The presence of God is everywhere. The saying is Jesus recognizing that God/consciousness is everywhere. He is not speaking on behalf of his particular human body, but on behalf of everything.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Jesus is talking about himself as the representation of an entirely different dimension of consciousness altogether than the 'fallen' consciousness of either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

That consciousness is emphatically not God. Rather, that consciousness has been Created 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27). In this particular instance, he is referring to the non-spatial dimension of this consciousness. In my terminology, he is referring to the manner in which the 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality and everything within it emerges from the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness.

Mi cha el

(as a sidenote: I read a thread where you talk about that 3D point of view. Very interesting read )

It is interesting to note, for me at least, that you work from a dualistic point of view. Is this correct? You divide consciousness/God.

You sign your posts with: Mi cha el
Can you elaborate on it's meaning?

Originally posted by scratchmane

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by scratchmane GoT 77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

This, of course, is one of the more 'difficult' Sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, the reason being that the consciousness of the 'thinker' will most likely conclude that this Saying should be interpreted as incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was claiming to be 'God' 'Himself'; which is emphatically NOT the case.

How can it 'emphatically' not be the case that Jesus is God.

The term for the Revelation is the Revelation of the Memory of Creation.

It is an actual Memory, which cannot be either effectively or appropriately described in writing; a Memory which conveys Knowledge of both the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27) and the 'fallen' consciousness.

It is not thought; rather, it occurs prior to thought.

And, if you read the Gospels--or, if you read a fair number of the kind of replies I have received on this forum to my writings--you will see that the consciousness of the 'thinker' typically responds with ridicule, disgust, cynical laughter, irritation, outrage, and/or accusations of arrogance or lying or insanity when informed that this is not merely a thought which has been conveyed through writing or by hearsay; but that it is an actual Revelation, an actual experience which cannot be accessed by thought at all, which gave rise to the writing of Genesis in the first place. And that Revelation and experience is something that is NOT experienced by the many. (All of this is the most serious attack possible on the pride of the 'thinker'--a consciousness which secretly, or not so secretly, has, at least, a sneaking suspicion that it is 'God'.)

Genesis 2:7 is a description of the Memory by which the Knowledge was conveyed to Jesus that he was not God. Interestingly enough, a person who received that Revelation--and who knew more than anyone else on the face of the earth just how impossible it is for any man to be 'God'--is precisely the person who is now worshipped as 'God' by millions upon millions of the followers of Paul; a person who had never received that Revelation at all.But, having received precisely the same Revelation and Knowledge, the prophet Mohammed referred to the idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' as a "monstrous blasphemy".

The saying is Jesus recognizing that God/consciousness is everywhere.

It is possible to experience the consciousness with which man was Created 'by and in the image of God'.

That consciousness is qualititatively different than the consciousness of either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

That is an extremely rare Revelation; but it is within the realm of possibility, if not probabiliy.

The 'Consciousness' of the Creator--that Consciousness which, purportedly, is something that existed prior to the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' is something utterly beyond any possible human experience at all; just as the consciousness of the 'thinker' cannot possibly have any Knowledge or experience whatsoever of the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'. It is an experience which occurs prior to the existence of the 'thinker' at all.

It is interesting to note, for me at least, that you work from a dualistic point of view. Is this correct?

If you read the thought experiment (this thought experiment is described in detail in one of my replies to the "Philosophy and Metaphysics" forum on a thread entitled "Reality originates in thought and consciousness, not matter"; or something to that effect. I would provide a link to that thread; but, as I understand it, I have been forbidden by a moderator from doing that), I am standing in the train station observing the moving train of "self" and 'thinker'. That "self" and 'thinker' have one observation of reality. I have another.

If you want to attribute duality to that perspective, be my guest. But the duality occurs on the moving train. What you are trying to do with that word is claim that you can actually observe, while on the moving train, what is observed by the person standing in the train station. You can't. You can 'imagine' such an observation or 'think' or 'speculate' about such an observation; but you cannot actually experience or observe that observation until you are no longer on the moving train.

You divide consciousness/God.

This is not something that I have done. The consciousness Created by God I am able to experience. Any words used in an effort to 'explain' God as a particular consciousness are utterly beyond my immediate experience. They can consist of only thought or speculation.

You sign your posts with: Mi cha el
Can you elaborate on it's meaning?

It is a Hebrew phrase; a question.

Mi cha el

It bears to keep in mind that Michael has proclaimed himself to be in other threads:
A muslim...
Anti-Muslim
Anti-Christian
Anti-Jew

Also, he touts a Gnostic, transcendental kind of thought process that seems only available to himself...
he ridicules anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his line of thought as "unenlightened, spiritually unaware".
He hates the Apostle Paul, by the way.

By all means, click his profile, read his threads and responses. Research and perhaps you will like what you read. Perhpas you won't...
At any rate...
Please let's not suffer them here... it doesn't go with the topic at hand.

He also seems to suffer an almost pathological envy/hatred of DISRAELI and his threads popularities, civilities, and the way they seem to flow with little discord...

Perhaps Mr. Cecil could take some lessons in humility from him and others like him.

God Bless~

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Genesis 2:7 is a description of the Memory by which the Knowledge was conveyed to Jesus that he was not God. Interestingly enough, a person who received that Revelation--and who knew more than anyone else on the face of the earth just how impossible it is for any man to be 'God'--is precisely the person who is now worshipped as 'God' by millions upon millions of the followers of Paul; a person who had never received that Revelation at all.But, having received precisely the same Revelation and Knowledge, the prophet Mohammed referred to the idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' as a "monstrous blasphemy".

Yes I would agree that to worship Jesus as an exclusive part of God is blashepmy.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

It is interesting to note, for me at least, that you work from a dualistic point of view. Is this correct?

You divide consciousness/God.

This is not something that I have done. The consciousness Created by God I am able to experience. Any words used in an effort to 'explain' God as a particular consciousness are utterly beyond my immediate experience. They can consist of only thought or speculation.

I can't help to think of Ain Sof, it's a cabbalistic term if I'm not mistaken. Is this what you are talking about?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

You sign your posts with: Mi cha el
Can you elaborate on it's meaning?

It is a Hebrew phrase; a question.

I tried to put it in google translate, but it coudn't translate it. Does it mean "A question" or is it a question, and if so what?