How is the Bible not considered channeled information?

originally posted by: Mankind
a reply to: Logarock

Moses had to go to the mountain to get his. When he returned with the messages he would have a glow about him, similar to Jesus and the transfiguration(I think that's what it's called).

Solomon was the most interesting though with his magic ring that gave him dominion over 72 chief spirits. For that you need to go to Jewish tradition, as it's extra biblical. It's still a part of Jewish tradition, Apocryphal or not. Enoch is the most fascinating of these hidden texts. A must read for anyone who doesn't believe the bible is the only book God speaks through, as some people like to think.

Yea I might not think that the 66 books are the only books but also understand that the Hebrew traditions about Solomon requires special handling. Besides what did Solomon get for all his foreign gods and alleged demons? Moved away from the God that granted him wisdom to begin with......which ultimately he failed to use and left the kingdom open to the days of Jezebel and her daughter. Thats why even if true these traditions just simply point to a major fail anyway.

a reply to: windword No not really.....Paul didn't say his knowledge and revelations were channeled. Poor scholarship on your part windy.

originally posted by: Mankind

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Maybe the confusion is people who channel spirits are actively contacting a spirit of any kind for words and inspiration
Christians are in a relationship with God, relationship being the difference, maybe chanelling is a understanding to Christians of contacting the dead. Nowadays it's aliens and spirits.

The difference is relationship and who Christians...

I get that this is your beliefs, I am going to add that Christians don't have any more or less of a relationship with God than Hindus as well as every well intentioned seeker of knowledge.

God is diverse, and won't be limited by your personal expectations, beliefs or inability to comprehend the possibility of the fact that one religion being true doesn't necessarily make the rest false.

The difference is not important, it's what we have in common that unites us.

Not really. The diffrences here are everything and to say otherwise suggest something other than basic schoolership.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: windword No not really.....Paul didn't say his knowledge and revelations were channeled. Poor scholarship on your part windy.

He really did make the claim. A Revelation is bynature channelled. Even said he was in a trance. You just hate the thought that Paul never really met Jesus, but his claim to divine knowledge has no hope if he didn't channel it.

a reply to: Mankind

I guess we all know who you are.

Boy you bounce back fast. Gezus/Willingly/barzini/Othelo###.

originally posted by: Mankind

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: windword No not really.....Paul didn't say his knowledge and revelations were channeled. Poor scholarship on your part windy.

He really did make the claim. A Revelation is bynature channelled. Even said he was in a trance. You just hate the thought that Paul never really met Jesus, but his claim to divine knowledge has no hope if he didn't channel it.

Don't jump to conclusions you really don't know enough about what I think to say that.

But no Paul didn't channel to receive information like the Oracle at Delphi and the other pagans like witch doctors channel.

a reply to: Raggedyman

No, that's your opinion. My opinion that God gives everyone a chance at heaven is far more enlightened than your opinion that only Christians get this opportunity.

God isn't the religious equivalent of a racist, that is a human trait.

a reply to: Logarock

Except that factually speaking that's what he claims. Way to deny facts! It's right there, your exempting Paul because you believe him. I don't, and am not.

He sounds just like the rest. You honestly think what he did isn't channeling that's your prerogative. He still claims he channeled his information.

originally posted by: Mankind
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, that's your opinion. My opinion that God gives everyone a chance at heaven is far more enlightened than your opinion that only Christians get this opportunity.

God isn't the religious equivalent of a racist, that is a human trait.

None of which is really parenthetical to God having a chosen oracle people.

a reply to: Logarock

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This is exactly what channeling is. And, by the way, it's a perfect example of Christian Gnosis.

I never thought of this before but in all fairness it seems sooo very similar with channeling.
I can't remember the exact quote but when Jesus instructs his disciples to gather together and pray and then the Holy Spirit will enter them and will speak through them that's exactly what I understand by summoning and channeling. Not to mention the people who even today speak "in tongues", that's downright creepy.

Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit... something entering you if you pray or fast long enough...
Well, holy or not, when a spirit talks through a human that channeling. IMO, of course.

originally posted by: Mankind
a reply to: Logarock

Except that factually speaking that's what he claims. Way to deny facts! It's right there, your exempting Paul because you believe him. I don't, and am not.

He sounds just like the rest. You honestly think what he did isn't channeling that's your prerogative. He still claims he channeled his information.

Trance isn't parenthetic, not of logical conclusion to pagan practices of temporary possession.

a reply to: WhiteHat


Right. The issue is what spirit is affecting here. Its not called the Holy Spirit for no reason. Its called that in part because other spirits can effect people.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This is exactly what channeling is. And, by the way, it's a perfect example of Christian Gnosis.

Channeling is being overcome by a spirit and it talking through a person. Person Isnt in control. Paul doesn't really say here what the avenue of revelation was. A person seeing Jesus manifest and speaking isn't anything like channeling.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: WhiteHat


Right. The issue is what spirit is affecting here. Its not called the Holy Spirit for no reason. Its called that in part because other spirits can effect people.

Yeah, but we call it holy, right? That doesn't really makes it holy. And how would we tell if we don't know other spirits, less holy, to compare?
In other words the more I think about it the more I prefer to stay away from all this.

a reply to: Logarock

Channeling is being overcome by a spirit and it talking through a person.

While I disagree that channeling requires one to be overcome, the Bible describes people being overcome by the spirit many times.

Channeling doesn't require one to be overcome any more than observing and relating a vision, reading a book or watching a movie does.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: WhiteHat


Right. The issue is what spirit is affecting here. Its not called the Holy Spirit for no reason. Its called that in part because other spirits can effect people.

That's not an issue at all. A spirit is communicating information through a living person. That's all channeling means. An apparition summoned by the intent of a person or group of people is also channeling, albeit using a projection device rather than a telephone, if you will. Skype vs landlines, but still requires a "medium" to establish contact.

a reply to: Logarock

How do you come to that conclusion? I went to Sunday school and attended a protestant primary School. Then studied R.E at secondary i think its safe to say i did indeed study the Bible along with other religious material and texts.

Tell you what, you show me one tiny shred of evidence that supports the notion that these books contain the actual word of God and i will be forever in your debt.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well first you got to go back and tell me where the Indian, as it were, scriptures really share the same sort of revelations that the Hebrews received.

a reply to: Logarock

Indian religion is polytheistic as apposed to the Abrahamic religions being monotheistic.

So because the revelations, as you put it, are not synonymous with one another that proves what exactly? Absolutely nothing!

Your turn, where this proof?

Organised religious practices equal nothing more that control constructs for the masses im afraid.