The Prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 22:14

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This Prophecy of Jesus is an echo of the Book of Daniel 12:10 “…the wicked will never understand, the wise will understand” and the Treatise On the Resurrection: “But, if there is one who does not believe, he does not have (the capacity to be) persuaded”; and is precisely the same “few” as are “…judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead” (the Gospel of Luke 20:35).

In other words, only the “wise” will understand the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”; the “wicked”--that is, the 'thinker' and the "self"--will never understand the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”; and those who have been “judged worthy” of receiving, themselves, the Revelation of the “resurrection” have been “judged worthy” of receiving that Revelation on the basis of their commitment to the Truth not only in this life, but in previous lives.

In other words, the reason why the “wicked” [his term, not mine] have not been “found worthy” [his term, not mine] to receive the Revelation of the “resurrection” is because they do not have a sufficient commitment to the Truth—either in this life or in previous lives.

And it is these “wicked” [his term, not mine] who will “never understand” [his term, not mine] the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”, since they do not “have (the capacity to be) persuaded” [his phrase, not mine] among the “dragon”-media, the “beast”-politicians and diplomats, and the “false prophet” religious ‘authorities’ (see the Revelation of John 16:13) who are pushing this civilization into the “time of trouble” Prophesied in the Book of Daniel 12:1.

Briefly, then, all of this has already been Prophesied…

Utterly irrespective of the ‘incapacity’ of the “wicked” to “understand” the Truth of the matter.

Mi cha el

The beauty of the bible is that the way it is written, it is so incredibly vague and wide open for interpretation.

I do believe the bible holds historical truths, dependent upon perception of the writing... however... I remain skeptical and firmly doubtful that it holds any prophecy that isn't attached to some sort of logic.

For example, should the world ever end... the bible will have always predicted it regardless of when it as the date is not ever specified.

The 'return of the mesiah' or something along those lines... I have researched the Elohim, nephilhim, sumerians and so forth which lead me to believe the bible and all other biblical books are interpretations of aliens (gods). Thus it is not illogical for the "gods" or ALIENS to once again return.

Almost all of the information and evidence points to this. In fact replacing "angels" with "aliens" and "magic" with "technology" you have an actual historical document.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil:
In other words, only the “wise” will understand the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”; the “wicked”--that is, the 'thinker' and the "self"--will never understand the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”; and those who have been “judged worthy” of receiving, themselves, the Revelation of the “resurrection” have been “judged worthy” of receiving that Revelation on the basis of their commitment to the Truth not only in this life, but in previous lives.

In other words? Wait... who's words? Yours?
Are you one of the "wicked" or one of the "wise"? And how do you "know"?
Did you "think" about it your"self"??
Should I "believe" that you "know" the "truth"?
How do I "know" that you're not one of the “false prophets”?
So which one is it?
The "first"one or the "last"one?!
(Matthew 20:16) In this way the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.”
(Mark 10:31) However, many that are first will be last, and the last first.”
(Luke 13:30) And, look! there are those last who will be first, and there are those first who will be last.”

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This Prophecy of Jesus is an echo of ... the Treatise On the Resurrection: “But, if there is one who does not believe, he does not have (the capacity to be) persuaded”;

How is Jesus' quote in Matthew an "echo" of something written long after his death and resurrection? Time travel?

In other words, only the “wise” will understand the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”;

Since no one but you believes that Christ taught any such thing, and you've never provided any evidence to bolster your position, it seems that the "wise" thing to do would be to follow Christ and the foolish thing to do would be to follow you.

Utterly irrespective of the ‘incapacity’ of the “wicked” to “understand” the Truth of the matter.

Actually, one thing that I don't "understand" is "why" you keep posting this "drivel" in the "Prophecies" forum, when the "passage" you cite in the subject is not a "prophecy".

First .. the quote of the referenced bible verse is taken from a Mormon bible. (luke 20:35)

For all that do not know, the Mormon's version of the bible when compared to the traditional King James version will contain "changes" that support the Mormon faith. As we see here in this post.

The Mormon faith seperates itself from traditional Christianity with the belief in reincarination as described in this post. Also holds to a "secret" revelation only given to the "worthy".

Learn more of the beliefs of the Mormon faith, some of the teachings are quite interesting.

Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, does not matter what faith - All Twist the Faith the meet their own ends. It is a form of control over their followers.

Oh, goody. I was hoping that you had not lost interest...

And that you are still a masochist.

Originally posted by adjensen Actually, one thing that I don't "understand" is "why" you keep posting this "drivel" in the "Prophecies" forum, when the "passage" you cite in the subject is not a "prophecy".

Have you ever heard of the Revelation of John?

It is the last book in the Christian Bible.

It was written by someone who received both the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

And, according to Chapter 19:10 of that book: "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy."

The statement that I quoted above was the "testimony" of Jesus; unless you have some evidence to the contrary that Jesus did not say this.

Of course, the statement itself consists of Knowledge. But that is what this kind of Knowledge--Revealed through the "Vision of Knowledge", after all--is all about: it is also a Prophecy with regards to the future...

Unless, that is, you want to contradict Chapter 19:10 of the Revelation of John.

In'shallah, I will address the other issues raised by your replies at another time.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by brokedown
First .. the quote of the referenced bible verse is taken from a Mormon bible. (luke 20:35)

Actually, no. Michael tends to use the New Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic, not Mormon, translation, and the bit that he's quoted is word for word from that text.

What he fails to point out, however, is that in the passage in question, which he likes because it's a dig on the Sadducees, Christ never says "few" will partake of the resurrection, he just says those that are worthy, which is not a quantitative amount. Could be few, could be zero, could be a billion, no way to tell until the Last Judgement.

Originally posted by WfknSmth Should I "believe" that you "know" the "truth"?

I really don't care what you believe about me.

That is not in any way relevant to anything.

The issue is whether what I am saying is the Truth or not.

Focus exclusively on that one issue.

Do not be distracted by any side issues.

How do I "know" that you're not one of the “false prophets”?

Well, that would come down to whether I am telling the Truth.

Would it not?

So you are back to precisely the same question.

Forget about me.

Focus on the issue of Truth itself.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by brokedown The Mormon faith seperates itself from traditional Christianity with the belief in reincarination as described in this post.

Quote me where I have ever used the term "reincarnation" as an explanation of the Teaching of Jesus on the "resurrection", other than in something I wrote in September, 1979; that is, more than 31 years ago.

Also holds to a "secret" revelation only given to the "worthy".

The word "secret" is to be found in the Book of Daniel Chapter 12:4 & 9; the word "worthy" is to be found in the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees. It has nothing to do with any Mormons.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen Actually, one thing that I don't "understand" is "why" you keep posting this "drivel" in the "Prophecies" forum, when the "passage" you cite in the subject is not a "prophecy".

Have you ever heard of the Revelation of John?

It is the last book in the Christian Bible.

It was written by someone who received both the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

Where in the scripture does it say that John received your revelation of reincarnation? John never seems too far out of step with Paul, whom you've claimed is a Nazi that perverted Christ's teachings (without, of course, citing a single instance where this actually happened,) so why do you trust the writing in Revelation and not in, say, his Epistles or his Gospel?

And, according to Chapter 19:10 of that book: "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy."

It's a bit of a leap to say that this means everything that came out of Christ's mouth is to be considered a prophecy, but that's not the point, anyway. You bring up the same nonsense, over and over, find some irrelevant passage to hang it on, and proclaim it an interpretation of prophecy.

If your arguments lack the strength to convince anyone in a couple of posts, why do you think stretching them out, spreading your ineptitude, poor scholarship and biased misunderstandings of scripture would possibly gain you any followers?

I will point out, for any "new readers" of Michael, that he has failed to answer my pertinent questions in my post, will fail to answer those in this, will fail to answer any other questions brought up in the thread, has failed to answer almost every question raised in prior threads, and, after this thread dies in a couple of days, will be back with yet another and the cycle repeats itself.

But don't worry, he, and he alone, knows full well what he's on about.

reply to post by adjensen

First of all, a question: If you came across someone on ATS who had no knowledge whatsoever of even advanced algebra, and he were to start a thread entitled: “The Mathematical Derivation of E=mc^2”, would you even so much as go the trouble of reading what he had written?

Of course not.

It would be ludicrous and a complete waste of your time to do so.

(And would it not, in fact, also be the height of arrogance for a person with no knowledge of advanced algebra to claim to be able to derive E=mc^2 in the first place?)

So, similarly, if you are unable to understand that Genesis 2:7 (this is the very first book of the Bible, you should remember) describes the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (which is one element of the Revelation of the “resurrection”); and, if you are unable to understand that the “Tree of Life” of Genesis 3:24 is a symbol for the Vision of the “Son of man” (and the “Night Journey” of Mohammed); whereas the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is a symbol for the dualistic (or ‘fallen’) consciousness of the “self”; then there is, similarly, no more of a chance that you can understand the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Daniel, the Gospels, or the Revelation of John, than that there is a chance that a typical eighth-grader can mathematically derive the Special Theory of Relativity.

In any case, the structure of the relationship of the ‘fallen’ consciousness (of the “self” and the ‘thinker’) to the Knowledge Revealed through the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) is quite simple:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No…

Ten thousand times “no” (‘Its name is legion.’)

And this structural opposition of the ‘fallen’ consciousness to the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ is expressed in the thoughts of the “self” (mostly thoughts of simple and non-rational disregard, denial, and/or the projection of evil and/or stupidity—as represented by Peter; who, interestingly enough, denied Jesus three times) and the thoughts of the ‘thinker’ (mostly thoughts of a much more complex, ‘Pharisaical’ and/or philosophical nature which contradict or distract from Revealed Truth—as represented by Judas).

And the responses of the ‘fallen’ consciousness to the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of the “resurrection” typically oscillate chaotically between the thoughts of the “self” and the thoughts of the ‘thinker’ (as have all of your replies to date), in a form corresponding to the Lorenz “butterfly” strange attractor:

www.exploratorium.edu...

(The "initial conditions", of course, refers, in this instance, to the different frames of reference in terms of consciousness which are reading the words of the Revelations in the first place.)

And this chaotic oscillation between the thoughts of both the “self” and the ‘thinker’ mimics, but is much less violent than the chaotic oscillation of emotions which occurs in manic-depressive psychosis. (For what that is worth.)

And, by the way, a similar oscillation of thoughts and emotions also occurs in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH) of the Dead Sea Scrolls; which describes, instead, not manic-depressive psychosis; but, rather, a chaotic oscillation between the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ and the ‘fallen’ consciousness itself; a conflict which occurs immediately after the receiving of the Revelation of the “resurrection” Revealing the Vision of the “Son of man” (as is clearly but metaphorically referred to in the Thanksgiving Hymns), but is eventually resolved with a clearer differentiation between these dimensions of consciousness over a period of some time.

Now, with regards to the answering of questions which have been concocted by either the “self” or the ‘thinker’:

The vast majority of such questions are simply insincere; their only goal being not to discover the Truth of the matter at all—a Truth which, necessarily, threatens the entire ‘consciousness and thought’ paradigm of the ‘fallen’ consciousness itself; but, rather, nothing more than to continue the pleasure of preserving both the “self” and the thoughts of the ‘thinker’.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Once again, Michael, I ask you simple questions and, rather than answering, you respond with the usual frothing of psychobabble. It is a bit amusing that you keep claiming "enlightenment" and "knowledge", when you are unable to answer simple questions that a ten year old could likely muster a defence for.

How did you get it in your head that Gnostics wouldn't be anything other than repulsed with the notion of being reincarnated and thrust back into the bodies that they so clearly wanted to escape? Your "treatise on resurrection" is no metaphor -- it's exactly what it appears to be, a defense of Gnostic beliefs in the face of Christ apparently being "thrust back" into the evil world of matter after his resurrection.

If delusional thinking, arrogance and intentional ignorance are what is required to accept your beliefs, you will find few takers. Exactly as you have, in fact.

Originally posted by adjensen...you respond with the usual frothing of psychobabble.

One problem here, Sir, is that it is simply impossible for the consciousness of the 'thinker' ever to 'finesse' the reality of previous lives.

Ever.

The reason for this is that it is simply not possible for the consciousness of the 'thinker' ever to experience those memories; those memories emerging from a completely different dimension of consciousness altogether; a dimension of consciousness which the consciousness of the 'thinker' must, of course, deny in the first place.

But it gets worse.

The consciousness of the 'thinker' simply cannot cope with the claim by someone else to have received such memories.

It is an affront to its pride; it is the assertion that another person has had a deeper experience of reality.

Thus, the consciousness of the 'thinker' really has no choice in the matter other than to characterize and 'explain' memories of previous lives in a term designating evil: as "psychobabble", for example; or "paranoid schizophrenia", as suggested by Western psychiatry; or "demonic possession" as suggested by the Vatican. (Interesting, is it not, that both Western psychiatry and Western theology come to a similar--and intensely negative--conclusion about something that is regarded among the Eastern traditions as a fairly common experience.)

But a second problem is that, while I have walked in your shoes, you have never walked in mine.

For many years I believed that the doctrines of the Christian theologians were probably or plausibly the Truth; that Jesus and Paul were on the same side in the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; that the Doctrine of "resurrection" referred to a physical raising of a dead body from the grave; and that there is a metaphysical existence of rewards and punishments after death.

I believed all of that for many years...

Until I received the first actual memory from a previous life.

And that is something that I simply cannot accomplish for you by any argument...

Which is why I have to wonder why you keep responding to my threads.

I have already told you that no argument I raise can convince you that I am telling the Truth; and I would probably have to be suffering from a delusion of grandeur if I 'thought' otherwise.

So, apparently, you must actually 'think' that you can advance an argument that would convince me that I have not received the memories I have received.

Let me suggest that such an assumption might also be reasonably characterized as a delusion of grandeur


Mi cha el

I was pondering the initial fall last night. And contemplating what the Bible is trying to express as original sin. And it occurred to me that I was committing what is taught by Abrahamic religions to be the original sin. Thinking. Attempting to understand existence through thought itself.
I know there to be "levels" of existence if you will, but only through experiences of the spirit. My brain has tried to comprehend "all that is", and I have found it exhausting to say the least. This does not however mean I agree with the idea, that we are somehow tainted by having thought. I believe we are misguided only when we reside there completely, and refuse to be still and quiet, absent of thought, and just listen.
Bear in mind I haven't had a full cup of coffee yet, and I have 4 extra children in my house today when you read this jumble. lol

Originally posted by recycled
I was pondering the initial fall last night. And contemplating what the Bible is trying to express as original sin.

Try not to 'think' about it so much in terms of being a sin; but, rather, the loss of a certain kind of consciousness and the Knowledge that is accessible to that kind of consciousness.

And it occurred to me that I was committing what is taught by Abrahamic religions to be the original sin. Thinking.

Almost. But not exactly.

The first loss of the consciousness with which man was Created by and in the image of God had to do with the 'movement' of self-reflection which created the "self"--that is, the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

It is only after the creation of the "self" that there occurred the origin of the thoughts of the 'thinker'; symbolized by the "fig leaves" worn by Adam and Eve to cover the nakedness of the "self".

Attempting to understand existence through thought itself.

But it is also important to understand that the thoughts of the 'thinker' also do not apply to poetry.

Poetry does not consist of logical argumentation; poetry does not prove things, it merely makes naked assertions.

(Neither does the Quran consist of a series of logical arguments about the Truth. Rather, it was written in Arabic poetry as a series of naked assertions.)

It is a dimension of information completely outside of the 'thinker'.

I know there to be "levels" of existence if you will, but only through experiences of the spirit. My brain has tried to comprehend "all that is", and I have found it exhausting to say the least. This does not however mean I agree with the idea, that we are somehow tainted by having thought.

Thought is, of course, necessary for living in a modern society.

And, when it is restricted to its own frame of reference, thought is a positive thing.

It is when it attempts to speak 'above its pay grade'--by talking about such things as Revealed Truth and an accurate description of human consciousness itself--that the problems arise.

I believe we are misguided only when we reside there completely, and refuse to be still and quiet, absent of thought, and just listen.

Don't know that there is any 'residing'. (What is it that 'resides'.....without violating Occam's Razor?)

I would refer to it as having access to information and knowledge from a dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker'.

In any case, even with the absence of thought, the experience of that silence is the experience of a "self".

Mi cha el

What is your take on the God, as he is presented in the Bible, do you believe him to be "the" creator of all, or just this realm?

Originally posted by recycled What is your take on the God, as he is presented in the Bible, do you believe him to be "the" creator of all, or just this realm?

The god of this world is the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' which creates a god in its own image; that is, as being exactly like itself. (One of its fundamental assumptions, for example, is that man was Created with a consciousness of a "self" and a consciousness of a 'thinker'; when, in fact, these dimensions of consciousness are both a consequence of 'the Fall'.)

First of all, the "self" is self-created insofar as it 'self-reflects' itself into existence.

Then, the 'thinker' is also self-created inasmuch as it 'thinks' the thought of the 'thinker' into existence.

That is, both of these dimensions of consciousness claim to be, in one way or another, the creator of the entire physical/conscious existence. And, in a very restricted sense, this is the truth.

Now, the Creator Who is God, on the other hand, exists 'prior to' in terms of time and 'outside of' in terms of space, the 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality.

And the consciousness of man Created 'in the image of that Creator' is not a 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time consciousness of the 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality; but, instead, a 2-dimensional 'flat' space, non-dualistic, "observing consciousness".

What can actually be said about the Creator is much less than what is normally assumed; especially by people who have no Knowledge at all.

Quite a lot can be said, however, by those who have received the "Vision of Knowledge" and the Revelation of the "resurrection"...

Despite the fact, however, that there are very few who even have the ears for such Knowledge in the first place.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So, apparently, you must actually 'think' that you can advance an argument that would convince me that I have not received the memories I have received.

Of course not. As I've said before, I consider you something of a lost cause, because your way of thinking and belief builds on itself to the point where, after 30+ years of it, you are likely completely mentally incapable of seeing how badly your claims are flawed. No contradictions that anyone questions you about are ever addressed, mostly because you've come to the conclusion that reality itself must be wrong, if it is in conflict with your claims.

Doesn't mean I don't care about you, Michael, and pray for you once in a while. But it does mean that, as I have stated before, my role in your ATS existence is that of one who points out your errors for others' benefits, not yours. I'm not an evangelist, I'm an apologist, and if you went off on your rants without misrepresenting Christianity, Christ and the Bible, I'd pay you no mind.

But, just as there are people who get sucked into all sorts of errant beliefs, there may be someone who doesn't really understand that Christ couldn't possibly have been the Divine Messenger of Gnosis, that he specifically taught exactly the opposite of what you claim, and that your philosophy is based on nothing but your own imaginative interpretations of scripture and other texts.

So long as you misrepresent Christianity in a public forum, it is my duty (and others' -- I may be your most annoying detractor, but I'm not alone in it) to point out your false teachings.

Originally posted by adjensen I consider you something of a lost cause...

Why am I a lost cause, Sir?

Is it simply because I disagree with you, and that everyone who disagrees with you must, necessarily, be a "lost cause"?

Or, is it because I have received memories of previous lives, and everyone who receives memories of previous lives is a "lost cause"? (And what do you say about the memories that people have received of previous lives which are described in such books as Soul Survivor and Old Souls? Are those people, too, "lost causes" because they have received those memories?)

But, I guess what really interests me here is what precisely do you suggest that I do in order not to be a "lost cause"?

How, specifically--I want DETAILS here--do I convince myself that the memories I have received of previous lives are not really memories at all? (And this is something that goes back 38 years.)

What precisely is the psychological mechanism of denial by which I can convince myself that something that I experienced I did not really experience at all?

Is there some mantra I can repeat to myself?

Is there some book that I can read?

And, furthermore, how exactly did it come about that you are absolutely certain that I have NOT experienced something that I have experienced? (And, while you are at it, why not tell me whether I really prefer a riesling to a merlot?)

Would you not have to be Omniscient in order to accomplish that? (Answer: yes)

What it seems to me is that you are categorically denying what I have to say about the Revelations all based upon the assumption that memories of previous lives cannot possibly be real.

But, what is the source of that assumption other than what you have been told by someone else?

And how can you ever be certain about something that someone else tells you?

And, if those memories are not real, what exactly are they?

And, moreover, what would you do to convince yourself that you have not received a memory of a previous life...

After you have received it?

Mi cha el

that is, the 'thinker' and the "self"

So in your interpretation, believers aren't supposed to be thinkers?

Wait one minute!

I am a thinker and a believer, I understand and interpret the bible the way it was supposed to be interpreted. Most Churches interpret the bible to meet there beliefs, instead of the bible used to create the beliefs.

I find the bible very awakening and quite accurate, if it is not construed to meet some agenda.

For instance no where in the bible does it say not to gamble, or not to drink alcohol (all it says is not to drink so much as to be always drunk, and to manage for finances wisely.)

I think about the bible and prophecy quite often, but according to you, because I think, I will never understand it. Instead I should have some minister, or priest tell me what they were told in school to tell us.

I'm sorry but NO! I am going to read and study and "think" about what the bible says, and not just let some one tell me what they think the bible is saying.