It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 22:14

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture I think about the bible and prophecy quite often, but according to you, because I think, I will never understand it.


Quote me where I have ever said that you will not understand it.

I am very, very careful in the language that I use.

What I said is that the 'thinker' cannot understand Revelation.

But neither can the 'thinker' understand poetry (it is neither logical nor 'provable'), nor appreciate music or art. Neither is it the consciousness of the 'thinker' that an NFL quarterback uses to complete a pass.

Neither, by the way, is it the consciousness of the 'thinker' that 'falls in love'.

'Falling in love' is not at all logical; one cannot prove either that one is in love or that one is loved. You cannot argue with someone to convince that person to love you. Only the consciousness of the "self" can 'fall in love'.

And understanding the Revelations is something like 'falling in love' in that it does not depend upon either logic or thought.

In other words, the 'thinker' is not your only dimension of consciousness.

And, if you understand the Revelations, it is only with a dimension of consciousness other than the 'thinker'.

Thus, the problem is that the 'thinker'-theologians are using a dimension of consciousness specifically not intended for understanding Revealed Truth in the first place.

Any understanding and Knowledge that I have of the Revelations must, necessarily, come from a different dimension of consciousness altogether than the 'thinker'.

So, the first step in understanding the Revelations is not so much to 'think' about them as to, on the contrary, simply ignore and contradict EVERYTHING that the 'thinker'-theologians say.

That will be a good start.

Mi cha el
edit on 2-12-2010 by Michael Cecil because: commentary on the consciousness that 'falls in love'




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by thewholepicture I think about the bible and prophecy quite often, but according to you, because I think, I will never understand it.


Quote me where I have ever said that you will not understand it.

I am very, very careful in the language that I use.

What I said is that the 'thinker' cannot understand Revelation.

But neither can the 'thinker' understand poetry (it is neither logical nor 'provable'), nor appreciate music or art. Neither is it the consciousness of the 'thinker' that an NFL quarterback uses to complete a pass.

In other words, the 'thinker' is not your only dimension of consciousness.

And, if you understand the Revelations, it is only with a dimension of consciousness other than the 'thinker'.

Thus, the problem is that the 'thinker'-theologians are using a dimension of consciousness specifically not intended for understanding Revealed Truth in the first place.

Any understanding and Knowledge that I have of the Revelations must, necessarily, come from a different dimension of consciousness altogether than the 'thinker'.

So, the first step in understanding the Revelations is not so much to 'think' about them as to, on the contrary, simply ignore and contradict EVERYTHING that the 'thinker'-theologians say.

That will be a good start.

Mi cha el


Define Thinker!



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Why am I a lost cause, Sir?


Because you have demonstrated, time and again, that you do not grasp basic concepts of the philosophies and beliefs that you claim to co-opt, but which makes what you propose fundamentally impossible.

You have repeatedly made claims that are conjecture on your part and are contradictory to historical and scriptural evidence, and when questioned on the contradiction, you retreat into your psychobabble shell, whose only defence is "you can't understand, only I can."

You practice, in an extreme manner, eisegesis, when you read anything. You claim that the Bible is corrupt, yet you gladly cite it when you find something that can be twisted to support you. You take Gnostic writings, dismiss what they say, and imagine new interpretations that completely refute what the author meant, but support you.

Christ never taught reincarnation, taught exactly the opposite, in fact, and yet you claim that this is ALL he taught.

Do I believe that you've experienced visions? Yes. Even visions of a past life? Sure. Do I believe that these are, in reality, valid memories? No. Reincarnation is not real, Michael. You were not Abraham, your wife was not Muhammad, someone else you knew in the past was not the Apostle Peter. I am not, I don't know, Pilate, Paul or Esau or some other perennial thorn in your side.

You have convinced yourself that these things are real, just as you have convinced yourself that the local paper will not review your book because it is a specific threat to Notre Dame University, and that Wikileaks was funded by the founder blackmailing the church with a copy of your revelations.

These are delusional beliefs, and they build upon themselves. Any rational person would look at almost anything that you claim and say "that's ridiculous", but your beliefs are like a giant Jenga tower, and if you were to pull any one of them out, the tower would crumble.

As I said, in a conflict between reality and your beliefs, you will side against reality every time, which is what makes convincing you of anything a lost cause. Until you actually sit down and address that basic failure, you will be mentally incapable of understanding why you are wrong.

Again, I do not look down on you for this, I am genuinely sorry for the problems that you've endured as a result, and I will continue to hope and pray that you get things worked out.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture Define Thinker!


The 'thinker' is the consciousness which 'thinks' itself into existence with the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'.

The 'thinker' was not Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27)

For all practical purposes, the 'thinker' is self-created.

Similarly, the "self" is also self-created in that it 'self-reflects' itself into existence.

The consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God', on the other hand occurs prior to the consciousness of both the "self" and the 'thinker'; which, together, comprise the 'fallen' consciousness.

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen Christ never taught reincarnation...Even visions of a past life?


First of all, Sir. You are not God.

I mean this quite literally.

And I 'think' this needs to be said because you are, apparently, quite convinced otherwise.

So, I have simply deleted statements which you would have to be God in order to assert.

(There are already quite enough people on this planet claiming to be God without increasing it further.)

You do not have anywhere near the knowledge that you claim to have.

Quote me where I have ever said on ATS that Jesus taught a doctrine of "reincarnation". This is not even a claim that I am making in the first place, if you had been paying any attention at all. Which you haven't.

Quote me where I have ever said on ATS that I have received "visions of a past life". This does not in any way describe what the receiving of these memories is like. And, if you were merely to read ONE book about such things you would understand at least that.

Such terms are not even in my vocabulary.

But that doesn't make any difference to you; because you really have no intention of understanding what I am saying or providing an argument against what I say. What you are arguing with is nothing more than your imagination of what I am saying.

You understand maybe one tenth of anything that I say, and then you fill in all of the blanks with thoughts of a 'thinker'.

But you have still never addressed the specific reality of the memories of previous lives.

You say that they are impossible.

But you provide no explanation why they are impossible.

And, even 38, or 35, or 23 years later, they are no less real than my memory of what I had for breakfast this morning.

And you have not yet explained to me why these things are not real or how I am to convince myself that they are not real.

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen...I am genuinely sorry for the problems that you've endured as a result, and I will continue to hope and pray that you get things worked out.


I am not at all sure that you understand precisely how precarious your situation really is.

Denying that anyone can receive memories of previous lives requires that you be Omniscient, whether you know it or not. And it seems to have taken upon some cosmic significance with regards to your 'thinker'. That is, you appear to be on some "Crusade" in contradicting what I am saying. So, what you are going to have to do, day in day out, 24/7 is to protect yourself against the understanding that such memories are, in fact, real....

Which is something like using a wall created of tinker-toys to protect yourself from a tsunami.

The reason that you do not have even a minimal understanding of what those memories are like is because you are simply too afraid to read any book which describes such a thing, for fear that it might actually convince you.

And THEN what would you do?

You specifically do NOT want to be convinced of a reality which threatens the thoughts and beliefs of your 'thinker'.

Of course, Jesus told a parable about a house with a 'foundation of sand' and a house with a 'foundation of rock'--the foundation of sand referring to the thoughts of the 'thinker', the foundation of rock referring to the Knowledge Revealed through Revelation--but none of that makes any real difference to you because you are, for all practical purposes, exclusively a 'thinker'.

He also told a parable about the seed that landed on good ground; but that seed was choked out by the "cares of this world".

But, if someone explains that the "cares of this world" are the desire for pleasure and the fear of death--which are at the very foundation of the 'fallen' consciousness--you refer to that as nothing more than "psycho-babble".

Oh, by the way, what do you 'think' would be the effect on your consciousness if you received a very clear memory of a previous life--something which, after all, may occur tomorrow or next week or next year? (This is something which you perennially must live in fear of.)

Well, do you remember the last battle between Neo, representing the "observing consciousness", and Agent Smith, representing one particular aspect of the 'fallen' consciousness, in The Matrix, when Neo jumps into Agent Smith?

Agent Smith explodes...

Well, it would be something like that.

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Quote me where I have ever said on ATS that Jesus taught a doctrine of "reincarnation". This is not even a claim that I am making in the first place, if you had been paying any attention at all. Which you haven't.


Calling your beliefs "rebirth" rather than "reincarnation" is merely a way of deferring to the deep ingrained attachment that you have to western religious beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact that Christ teaches one birth, one death amd one resurrection. There is no "rebirth" or "reincarnation" in the Jewish, Islamic, Gnostic or Christian faiths. That is an Eastern belief, not a Abrahamic or Hellenistic one.


And you have not yet explained to me why these things are not real or how I am to convince myself that they are not real.


They are not real, Michael, they are manifestations of the mind. And, sadly, you are incapable of convincing yourself that they are not real, which is why I make no effort to do so.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by thewholepicture Define Thinker!


The 'thinker' is the consciousness which 'thinks' itself into existence with the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'.

The 'thinker' was not Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27)

For all practical purposes, the 'thinker' is self-created.

Similarly, the "self" is also self-created in that it 'self-reflects' itself into existence.

The consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God', on the other hand occurs prior to the consciousness of both the "self" and the 'thinker'; which, together, comprise the 'fallen' consciousness.

Mi cha el


Please translate these sayings into hebrew so we can figure out what is really trying to be said. like english Hebrew has multiple definitions for words, or there is no actual english equal so translations are sort of guessed upon. likewise is the word thinker found in every english version, or was it dumbed down.

NIV KJ NKJ AS



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
So bible scholars and ministers that study the bible aren't thinkers?

hmmmm, what are they?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen They are not real, Michael, they are manifestations of the mind.


You say that the memories of previous lives are not real.

I say that there is no evidence that the 'mind' even exists; that it is similar to the concept of the "ether" in classical physics; and that it is a violation of Occam's Razor.

So, define what you mean by the word 'mind' and provide any evidence that you can that it actually exists.

And explain how that 'manifestation' occurs.

What, precisely, do these memories consist of?

And what do you mean by "not real"?

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen...I am genuinely sorry for the problems that you've endured as a result, and I will continue to hope and pray that you get things worked out.


I am not at all sure that you understand precisely how precarious your situation really is.

.. snip ..

But, if someone explains that the "cares of this world" are the desire for pleasure and the fear of death--which are at the very foundation of the 'fallen' consciousness--you refer to that as nothing more than "psycho-babble".

Oh, by the way, what do you 'think' would be the effect on your consciousness if you received a very clear memory of a previous life--something which, after all, may occur tomorrow or next week or next year? (This is something which you perennially must live in fear of.)


Michael, this is a very good example of delusional thinking, I hope that you take a few moments to ponder what you have written here. I do not "live in fear" of anything -- death, past memories, spiders, and so on. Your conclusion that I must, because I disagree with you, is delusional. Your belief that, were I smitten with such a memory, I would react like a fictional character in a movie that you've likely seen too often, is similarly delusional.

Now, were I an evangelical, I would be quick to point out that it is you, in fact, who is unaware about the precariousness of your situation. But the things that you say about God are, ultimately, between you and him, not I.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture Please translate these sayings into hebrew so we can figure out what is really trying to be said.


Well, I can't translate them into Hebrew, but I will do the next best thing:

The consciousness of the "self" is symbolized in Genesis as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; and, in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the sea".

The consciousness of the 'thinker' is symbolized in Genesis as the "fig leaves" with which Adam and Eve cover the nakedness of their "selves"; and, in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the earth".

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just as a rule of thumb, I tend not to listen too closely to anyone who uses far to many underlinings and "quotation marks" and boldfacing. If someone has a good argument, they don't need to jazz it up like a Sunday school preacher. It stands on its own.

The problem with the argument is that in many places, Jesus also says that people shouldn't worry so much about being knowledgeable, as in book-learned smart, but be more like children, who approach existence with simplicity and intuition. So there is an apparent contradiction here, as the wisest of us will be for the most part, those who are able to let go of their learned preconceptions and allow themselves to experience the true reality of existence.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
And what do you mean by "not real"?


They are not real. They have no physical component and are not material. They exist only in your mind. They may be a result of a dream, your imagination, a truthful remembrance, a vision from God, or some other creation, but they have no form, so they are demonstrable and true only to you. Anyone who believes you believes in a nothing.

You asked the wrong question, Michael. You asked why I know they are not real. You should have asked why I know they are not true. But I'm pretty sure you know, and do not like, the answer to that question.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by thewholepicture Please translate these sayings into hebrew so we can figure out what is really trying to be said.


Well, I can't translate them into Hebrew, but I will do the next best thing:

The consciousness of the "self" is symbolized in Genesis as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; and, in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the sea".

The consciousness of the 'thinker' is symbolized in Genesis as the "fig leaves" with which Adam and Eve cover the nakedness of their "selves"; and, in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the earth".

Mi cha el


It sure took some thinking to come up with that didn't it, maybe not by you but by someone.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen I do not "live in fear" of anything -- death, past memories, spiders, and so on.


If you had any understanding of human consciousness at all, which you don't, then you would understand that the very structure of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is based upon the fear of death and the desire for pleasure.

That is not any condemnation; that is merely a description of the reality.

In other words, every 'thinker' has a fear of death and every "self" has a fear of annihilation.

(And, if you have ever 'fallen in love' deeply and suffered the destruction of that relationship, this is something that you would understand.)

There is, of course, a dimension of consciousness beyond fear and desire...

But, for someone to go so far as to specifically deny that he has any 'fear of death' is, more than anything, a clear demonstration of the lack of any real knowledge about human consciousness.

So, you might as well simply forget all of the Revelations from Genesis to the Revelation of John.

You can't even understand the characteristics of your own consciousness.

How can you ever be expected to understand something as complicated as the Teaching of Jesus?

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture It sure took some thinking to come up with that didn't it, maybe not by you but by someone.


On the contrary, this is not the result of any 'thinking' at all.

This is Knowledge which originates prior to the thought of the 'thinker'.

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by thewholepicture It sure took some thinking to come up with that didn't it, maybe not by you but by someone.


On the contrary, this is not the result of any 'thinking' at all.

This is Knowledge which originates prior to the thought of the 'thinker'.

Mi cha el


I agree that without some faith the bible is difficult to understand, but to say that thinkers do not have faith is not right. As i mentioned the bible you read may say "thinker" but I highly doubt the word thinking was meant as a person who studies and actually thinks about these things.

Also I could have sworn a guy name john (not the apostle) wrote Revelations not Mathew.

Please I am curious as to your insights into Revelations, as I have been studying and "thinking" about it for years.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen They are not real. They have no physical component and are not material.


In fact, they do have a physical component, having to do with movement in a 3-dimensional 'curved' space-time reality.

So you have no grounds on which to say this.


They exist only in your mind.


But you have not yet provided any evidence that the 'mind' even exists, while saying that they are "in" something which there is no evidence that it even exists.


They may be a result of a dream, your imagination, a truthful remembrance, a vision from God, or some other creation,


But you are merely speculating--that is the meaning of the word "may", by the way--which means that you have no knowledge of such things, never having experienced them.

So what good is speculation?

Is speculation as valuable as knowledge?

One is a foundation of sand; the other is a foundation of rock.


but they have no form,


Sure they do.


so they are demonstrable and true only to you.


Well, yes and no.

But you are 'Omniscient'. So you ought to be able to figure out what that means on your own.

Mi cha el



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture... but to say that thinkers do not have faith is not right.


What is most amazing to me here is the way people put words into my mouth that I have never said.

Quote me where I have EVER said that "'thinker's do not have faith".

That is all that the consciousness of the 'thinker' can ever have: faith.

Understanding and Knowledge come from another dimension of consciousness than the 'thinker'.

Mi cha el



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join