Bible Prophecy - The Eastern Gate of Old Jerusalem

reply to post by Michael Cecil


The "leaven" of the Pharisees is not doctrinal error, but unwarrented self importance and self righteousness. I don't like it when people use Pharisee as an insult and Jewish people really don't like it, because most Jewish beliefs descend from the Pharisees. Yeshuah was reproachful of the Pharisees because they let doctrine get in the way of helping their fellow man and following the most important commandment: "love thy neighbor". Of course you will claim I am misreading the scriptures and adhearing to mainstream doctrine, but that's what becomes apparent in the synoptic gospels. If you care about my opinion, I believe that Yeshuah was so hard on the Pharisees because they had potential if they practiced what they preached. You will notice that Yeshuah barely spends any time scolding the Sadducees, because he didn't agree with them in the slightest. The only time Yeshuah spoke to them, as I can recall, is when he refuted their belief that there is no resurrection or afterlife.

You seem appalled that people don't put much stock in your own personal revelation. Has it not occured to you that others may have had their own personal revelations that contradict yours? How would you know that yours is more important than theirs, having never experienced their personal revelations? Also, thank you for assuming that I live a sheltered life. How 'thoughtful' of you. I'm so glad you're hear to interpret not only scripture, but my own life. I couldn't possibly do that on my own.

Originally posted by kallisti36The "leaven" of the Pharisees is not doctrinal error, but unwarrented self importance and self righteousness.

And that is precisely what a Pharisee would say: that the Pharisees may very well have been personally flawed; but, that when it comes to doctrinal Truth, they were, like the pope, infallible. And that is why they considered it such a 'good idea' that Jesus be eliminated for contradicting their 'infallibility' about the Doctrine of "resurrection".

If you care about my opinion, I believe that Yeshuah was so hard on the Pharisees because they had potential if they practiced what they preached.

Not precisely. More along the lines of not understanding the Revelational basis of ethics in the first place

The 'good' Pharisees had the ethical dimension of the Torah and the Prophets down pat.

What they did not understand is that that ethical dimension originated in a Doctrinal Truth: the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

This is the 'Law that is written in the heart' of Jeremiah.

And how many acts of genocide, by the way, have been committed by Buddhists?

He who has the ears to hear, let him listen.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil

the inability of the Roman theologians to provide any plausible evidence that the Doctrine of "resurrection" referred to a physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

If Paul lied.. Jesus was telling the truth, yet was crucified as a result of this, and didn't die for our salvation, but rather at the hands of a Doctrine He did not teach what does the resurrection Doctrine refer to? If Christ did not rise from the grave, physically, what happened?

What, more specifically then just the "Doctrine of 'Rebirth'", did Christ teach?

When you speak of the memories of past lives I can only think of the 'loop' in the Matrix trilogy, I'm sure you know to what I refer. If salvation wasn't the reason Christ came, certainly the only reason he did wasn't to expunge a false Doctrine?

Originally posted by JollyLlama
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

the inability of the Roman theologians to provide any plausible evidence that the Doctrine of "resurrection" referred to a physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

If Paul lied.. Jesus was telling the truth, yet was crucified as a result of this, and didn't die for our salvation, but rather at the hands of a Doctrine He did not teach what does the resurrection Doctrine refer to? If Christ did not rise from the grave, physically, what happened?

What, more specifically then just the "Doctrine of 'Rebirth'", did Christ teach?

When you speak of the memories of past lives I can only think of the 'loop' in the Matrix trilogy, I'm sure you know to what I refer. If salvation wasn't the reason Christ came, certainly the only reason he did wasn't to expunge a false Doctrine?

Exactly. If Michael is correct, then Christ failed in his mission, because these "false doctrines" are rampant. I don't believe God or the Messiah are so impotent.

If the Eastern Gate to the 2000 year ago city of Jerusalam was sealed by Suleiman...just why wasn't
that event also prophecied ?

according to the unvarnished revelation/prophecy, the returning Messiah would 'enter' the city through the East Gate.... are we to assume he will be able to materialize through the bricked-up wall at the present Gate?

IOW... the bricked up Eastern Gate has absolutely no bearing on the return of the Christ or Messiah
as this future world King ... if the gate is Shut- up---then so what
if the gate is reopened---then so what... would that actuality constitute the return of the Messiah/Christ



I'm completely lost as to the meaning / intent of this thread...

because Jesus is supposed to return on the actual Mount Moriah and not through the East Gate
whether open or bricked up.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by kallisti36The "leaven" of the Pharisees is not doctrinal error, but unwarrented self importance and self righteousness.

And that is precisely what a Pharisee would say: that the Pharisees may very well have been personally flawed; but, that when it comes to doctrinal Truth, they were, like the pope, infallible. And that is why they considered it such a 'good idea' that Jesus be eliminated for contradicting their 'infallibility' about the Doctrine of "resurrection".

If you care about my opinion, I believe that Yeshuah was so hard on the Pharisees because they had potential if they practiced what they preached.

Not precisely. More along the lines of not understanding the Revelational basis of ethics in the first place

The 'good' Pharisees had the ethical dimension of the Torah and the Prophets down pat.

What they did not understand is that that ethical dimension originated in a Doctrinal Truth: the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

This is the 'Law that is written in the heart' of Jeremiah.

And how many acts of genocide, by the way, have been committed by Buddhists?

He who has the ears to hear, let him listen.

Mi cha el

Hah! Ever heard of warrior monks?

No one is saying that the Pharisees were infallible. The supposed "infallibility" of the Pope is why I'm not Roman Catholic anymore; too many obviously blasphemous doctrinal errors.

The problem with your argument for the doctrine of "rebirth" is that you are arguing from an Abrahamic stance. You would have had much more credibility from the get-go if you had been arguing that Yeshuah was a Buddha trying to teach reincarnation to the Israelites. However, you seem to be under the impression that the Abrahamic faiths are nearly infallible, though they got the doctrine of "rebirth" wrong, Yeshuah died in vain, and Muhammed failed to spread any form of truth. This would make God impotent and from an Abrahamic stance, that is absolutely ridiculous. The "smoke of Satan" has surely entered the Church which is evident in the fact that the Abrahamic faiths have more factions than all other world religions combined, BUT the over all spirit of their beliefs is constant; in this you shall find God.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


The doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave has no roots in any Revelation.

It was held to by the pagan Egyptians, who certainly did not believe in Revelation.

So if what you said above is true, then accordingly, the disciple John would be a pagan Egyptian?

"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." John 5: 28-29

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Although it was considered to be so by the proto-Nazi, idolator and Pharisee Paul;

Really? Your arguments are so weak that you need to call Paul a Nazi? Paul, who said that he would gratefully give up his own salvation if it would save his people, the Jews?

Paul was a relative of King Herod. He never had any association with Jesus. And as for his "salvation" he continued to sacrifice animals in the temple after Jesus was crucified, even purchasing the animal sacrifices for his out of town guests. Paul certainly must not have viewed "salvation" as having anything to do with Jesus.

Let me respond to a number of the issues raised by the last several replies all at the same time:

I am beginning to lose my patience, finally, with the exclusive focus on the doctrinal issue of the meaning of the "resurrection"; the reason being that the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness is, fundamentally, a conflict at the level of consciousness itself rather than doctrine; and the conflict which occurs at the level of doctrine is merely symptomatic of that much deeper conflict: between the consciousness Created by God and the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

The arguments of those who say that I am lying are all arguments of the 'fallen' consciousness. This is why they are endless. They will continue until there is an actual destruction of the 'fallen' consciousness itself; something which can be accomplished only through the Revelations themselves (something which I experienced almost exactly 36 years ago) which is why I have said that there is not ANY argument which can bring this about.

The fundamental reason for the resistance to the Truth about the Doctrine of the "resurrection" being a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' is that it constitutes a very direct and fundamental threat at the level of the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself. That is, the consciousness of the 'thinker'--and, by implication, the consciousness of the "self"--are fighting for their very SURVIVAL. And they will fight for their survival until they are ANNIHILATED.

And this is not merely an issue with regards to the Revelations of the monotheistic religions.

There is a similar issue in the Buddhist and Eastern esoteric traditions having to do with what is referred to as the non-dualistic "observing consciousness"; a consciousness which is understood as being completely different than the dualistic consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

Now, what is the origin of the Eastern understandings with regards to the "observing consciousness"?

The memories of previous lives.

That is, when a person receives the memories of previous lives, there is an immediate experience of a completely different dimension of consciousness altogether. This is not something that is believed--belief being a behavior of the consciousness of the 'thinker'--this is something that is actually experienced. And, with that one experience, not only are the experiences of the "self" and the 'thinker' instantaneously re-conceptualized as being what is referred to as an "illusion"; but the very consciousness itself which is involved directly in the space-time reality is considered to be nothing more than a "phenomenal" consciousness; something that is specifically addressed in The Treatise On the Resurrecion found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. In other words, the experience of this one revelation turns an individual's understandings of reality completely upside down. It is something similar to a person concluding that "all swans are white" is a Revelation that has come down from Mt. Sinai...

And then observing with his or her own eyes a black swan.

On another thread, I have explained that the Revelation of the "resurrection"--or the Vision of the "Son of man"--is an experience which a person has either had or not had.

And that experience is something like hearing with one's own ears the sound that a rooster makes.

Those who have not experienced those Revelation for themselves, however, are like people who have never heard what a rooster sounds like with their own ears; but who 'think' that a rooster actually speaks the words "cock-a-doodle-doo". They mistake the word representation of that sound for the actual sound itself.

Unbeknownst to the theologians and their gullible followers, however, roosters do not speak the words "cock-a-doodle-do"; although these theologians have written thousands of books to convince themselves otherwise; and they have tens and hundreds of millions of followers who accept the nonsense they write...

But only because those followers have not received those Revelations either.

(And, in fact, I was one of those followers myself until I received the Revelations.)

But, with regards to the Revelation of the "resurrection", this is the only thing that the consciousness of the 'thinker' can possibly conclude; never having experienced that Revelation in the first place.

Mi cha el