Oct 13, 2014
About Time
Here are some comments on time from my book The Molecular Relationship:
There was a beginning to time, but no beginning to God for God created time from a point that knows not time. … Because spiritual creation was produced outside of time and space it is eternal and all embryonic lives are eternal. From our point of view all creation has always been and will always be. The word creation is not an accurate word to describe spiritual manifestation because the word implies a beginning and an end. Since the origin of all creation exists outside of time and space there is no beginning and end to these things.
All there is existed and still exists within this Point of Life, for It dwells in Eternity, or the Eternal Now, for all things are present before It. There is no past or future for the Life, but only Now. It sees beginnings and endings as Now, just as we can see the beginning and end to a line we draw. We can see the whole line with its millions of possible sections in one glance.
Light and Love and Purpose exist for eternity beyond time in the Eternal Now.
If we substitute a picture for this Eternal Now we can visualize timeless creation. Assuming the left side of a picture is the beginning and the right side the end, we can see the beginning and end with one glance; so does the Life see all things in creation – past, present, and future – all at one glance and knows the end from the beginning. It, however, sees time and space constantly changing to fit that end, but even the changes between beginning and end are, before It’s eyes, seen as Now.
The Life is like a creative artist with one great paintbrush in Its hand, and with that paintbrush all that is, is made manifest. The hand which holds the paintbrush is that energy we call Purpose. Without Purpose, there would be no creation, for Purpose is behind all there is. It is the motivating Power of God.
Here are some additional thoughts from the archives:
It is an interesting thought, is it not, that we never really register an event the instant it occurs. It takes a sixtieth of a second to perceive it and a heartbeat to register it.
What is consciousness as we understand it in this reality? It is created by focusing our attention on quantums of time and space passing by our perceptions. These quantums are the result of decisions made somewhere.
Seeing the present would be the same thing as making time stand still. All of our perceptions as we understand perception are dependent on time and space. Thus if we were able to see the real present, the universe as we know it would disappear. All form in the universe is created by vibration. If we were to see the real present we would perceive no vibration; therefore, we would perceive no form; thus we would perceive no thing.
If we therefore could exist in the Eternal Now where there is no time, space, consciousness or form, what have we? We have the higher octave of consciousness.
https://freeread.com/archives/276.html
Time is different in the various worlds of vibration, but maintain that it does not exist when Purpose is found, because there is no vibration to cause time or beginning or end. There is only “Eternal Now”.
https://freeread.com/archives/4238.html
Speaking of that, I’ve been contemplating somewhat about time. We hear a lot of teaching about how there is an eternal now and everything is happening at once. I don’t think it’s quite happening that way. Things do happen in sequential periods of time but the eternal now is not where everything is happening at once, so to speak; instead there is a place that is beyond time. When you die and go into the higher worlds, time is not measured the way it is here. But when you’re reborn, time has actually passed so it’s not like everything is happening at once.
When we go to the higher worlds we go to places where time isn’t measured the way it is here. Yet time is still passing here even when we’re in the higher worlds. When we come back down to the lower worlds time has passed. It’s a popular teaching to teach that everything is happening at once. I don’t believe that’s exactly the way it’s transpiring. It’s just the fact that time is not measured in the higher worlds. It’s like you’re in a state of consciousness where there is no time. So you go out of time then back into time rather than into a place where everything is happening at one time. Yet there is also a way to step back and look at the canvas of eternity where we can see the past and the future unfolding yet these are like projections instead of the actual unfoldment. We come down here on the earth and here upon the earth we go through the actual unfoldment of time.
https://freeread.com/archives/1734.html
I could give more but will finish with a quote from my book The Lost Key of the Buddha. This starts out with me guiding Elizabeth in an attempt to find some answers.
She was quiet for about two minutes. I was just about to break the silence when she spoke. “Someone is here with me. A presence is here. It seems familiar, very familiar.”
“What do you sense from it?”
“It wants to help, like it’s a guardian angel or something.”
“Can you communicate with it?”
“I think so, but I can’t put it in words right now.”
“Try to ask it how you are supposed to talk to it?”
She was silent again for a few long seconds, then stated, “You are to call it forth.”
I paused a moment, not being exactly sure what to do, so I gave it my best shot. I tried to concentrate on what I thought was the presence and said, “Who are you?”
Suddenly, Elizabeth’s body went limp. Just as I became a little nervous she sat up straight again and a whisper came out of her mouth. “I am Aluma-EL.”
“What happened to Elizabeth?”
“I am Elizabeth.”
“But you don’t sound like Elizabeth and you say you are Aluma-EL. Who is Aluma-EL?”
“Elizabeth and Aluma-EL are one,” she whispered.
“Then why do you call yourself Aluma-EL?”
“I am Elizabeth many of your years from now.”
“Are you saying you are from the future?”
“Your future, yes.”
“How far in the future are you?”
“Many years, many lifetimes. We are one with the formless worlds and time is not as you know it.”
“But you are still Elizabeth?”
“Yes. But I cannot explain all because I am now a part of a We, a unity, and you are with me, Joseph.
“And you are Elizabeth or some composite in the future? In other words her future self?”
“I am a part of a unity but the part that was Elizabeth still is as Aluma-El.
Wow! I thought to myself. If I have found a time traveler this is about as fantastic as meeting John. I thought that I should test out this entity as much as possible. Who knows, it could be a Dark Brother or something in disguise.
“I’ve been in the presence of channeled entities before. How do I know you aren’t just a tricky spirit from the spirit world, or worse? How do I know you are not a Dark Brother?”
“A disciple such as you can feel the presence of a Dark Brother. Do you feel any dark presence?”
I had to admit to myself that I did not, but maybe I did not know all their tricks yet. “OK. I feel no negative presence, but you could be masking your true self somehow.”
“Then ask Elizabeth how she feels.”
“How do I do that?”
“How do you usually do it?”
I took that to mean that I should just speak to her. I called her name, “Elizabeth. Elizabeth.”
Her body went still for a moment and then she spoke in her regular voice. “Yes. I am here.”
“How do you feel?”
“Fine. Tired, but very peaceful.”
“Do you realize that I have just been speaking to someone who claims to be your future self?”
“I’m not sure, but that would explain why the presence seems so familiar. It’s like it is a part of me.”
“Do you think we can trust it to speak through you?”
“Yes. You need to call it forth again,” she said as she closed her eyes again.
Since I could sense no evidence of negativity or the Dark Brothers, I called her future self by name, “Aluma-EL!”
“I am here,” was whispered.
“Why are you here?”
“This was one of my most important lifetimes,” the voice said. “I am nurturing and guiding this childlike life of mine so she will become as I am now becoming. I am also putting attention on this life. It is sweet unto me.”
“You say you are guiding her. Does your guidance in the past change the future? What if she had given in to Philo? Would you not be as you are now?”
“From where we are, all lives and all things in time are before us in consciousness. This is why I can put attention on any past life I desire. If I had chosen the dark path as Elizabeth, I would still be where I am now. From your point of view it would have taken a much longer time period for me to arrive here, but from our point of view there is a part of Elizabeth that never left. This eternal part will wait for recovery from any setback for the union of souls. In the end, we all have the same destiny, but each has a different journey, and some take longer in time to learn lessons than others.”
“Are you saying that in the end, choosing good or evil makes no difference?”
“Your choices make a good deal of difference in worlds governed by space and time, and even continue to make a difference in the eternal worlds.”
“How could that be true if you say we all wind up in the same place?”
“Because in this world all the past is here before us as NOW. If Elizabeth had chosen the dark path she would have gone into such illusion that I would not want to put attention on such an unreal life. As it is, she is a joy to reflect upon. Her growth and reflection upon the Spirit brings a sense of eternal joy to me. Even though I have become and am still becoming so you hardly recognize me, this little life of becoming as Elizabeth made a great difference in the world of time. Have you heard a good story you like to reflect upon? It is a little like that, but not exactly.”
I was beginning to have a little confidence that this person was really from the future as I said, “If you are who you say you are then I have a million questions for you.”
“There is not time for that now,” said Aluma-EL. “My vibration is too high for Elizabeth to hold for long. You must tell me what you want.”
I noted the use of the word ‘is’ even though Elizabeth was past tense to Aluma-EL from our point of view. “When Elizabeth died she had some fascinating experiences but only has a sketchy memory. Is there anything you can do to bring them back?”
“Joseph…Joseph…Don’t you realize that nothing is ever lost? The entire event is before me even now, just as you are.”
“So if you see everything that will happen in Elizabeth’s life, is the future set then? Could you tell me all the decisions she will make, how long she will live and so on?”
“When I put attention on this point in time and space I am then here in your reality and absorbing it. When I am here I can give you the general direction of your future from the overall picture that I see when in the NOW, but cannot predict it exactly because when I am here I am seeing what is, not what will be.”
I found this quite fascinating and asked, “So can you move ahead to what will be and then come back and tell us?”
“I can move ahead, as you say, but when I come back to you I am then here and not there. In our world we do not have memory as you do because we do not need it, all things are before our eyes in the NOW. If all things are before me, then what do I need to remember?”
“So can’t you just tell us about some coming future events?”
“I am not seeing all things now because I have focussed attention and I am here; the only memory available to me is that which lies with Elizabeth.”
“So right now you cannot tell the future any better than Elizabeth can?”
“I can tell the future better than she only because I am closer to the soul of things, but I cannot be infallible. It is as it should be. No one in the universe is allowed to destroy the power of decision. DECISION will always BE.”
This should make it obvious that my views on time go way beyond the orthodox linear view.
***
Here’s the way I plan on dealing with Allan.
If he answers a post directed to him such as the one from One2 today then I will let it through. I think he should be able to respond to comments directed to him. If you want to read fewer posts from him then the best thing to do is ignore him.
If he makes a post repeating himself just attempting to convert us, illustrate our sinfulness, or something that may be a distraction then I will reject it. I have already rejected a number on these lines.
If he makes a post on topic, or saying something new or different that would seem to be of interest to the group then I will accept them.
If he makes a post that seems to be in a gray area then I will put it on the website I created for him so those who are interested can read it.
I think the cycle of Allan here is drawing to a close and he realizes that he is not preaching to the choir here. I certainly realized that about his group.
Keith points out that they are on the mystic path and we are on the occult one. This is mostly true but it doesn’t explain the total lack of cooperation. Keith and some others here are mystics and loved by us all. There is a mindset over there that certain authors are to be rejected and Allan’s views of the soul have to be totally accepted before anyone can be given credibility or worthy of dialog as fellow seekers.
***
Ra:
“your last sentence is totally untrue.”
JJ
Sounds like you were referring to this sentence.
There is a mindset over there that certain authors are to be rejected and Allan’s views of the soul have to be totally accepted before anyone can be given credibility or worthy of dialog as fellow seekers.
This is totally true, but you seem to think I am talking about myself and was not. Allan and others have, time and time again, condemned eastern writings, particularly Theosophy, H. P. Blavatsky and Alice A. Bailey as being at odds with the truth and not to be accepted. Then it is implied that the Keys members are in the same category. He even went so far as to say his Higher Self commanded him to not read them. I haven’t seen anyone, including yourself disagree with this notion.
I wasn’t even talking about my writings though most of what I have posted has received negative comments there largely because they are misunderstood. Beth and Flo seem to like some of the things I have written and can’t seem to figure out how such a bad character as I could write something that sounds good.
Ra:
On TheWay forum, I don’t think anyone has ever said you were down right wrong…
JJ
This doesn’t have anything to do with my post, but Allan and others have often said I was wrong. Allan just finished saying I was wrong about time, presenting myself as a prophet, giving value to the Bailey writings, wrong on the Higher Self etc. He makes post after post trying to correct me. All true believers over there seem to agree.
Ra:
In fact people gave many compliments to your writing, your book.
JJ
Really? I think Beth and Flo said they liked the parable I posed but I don’t recall much else posted.
Ra:
name one instance where I put down any of your works — suggested that it was all wrong, BS, mumbo jumbo, darkness
JJ
Why are you asking this? I never said you did. You have been civil on this list and this is why you are not moderated.
You are replying from a point of misunderstanding, as I said nothing about my writings in that post, but you have joined in an attempt to discredit Alice A. Bailey as racist. So, what do you think of her writings overall? Should we stay away from them and give them little or no credibility as Allan believes?
My point was that if the inner core have an automatic rejection of teachings we hold in high esteem then there is not much chance of productive sharing, just like it would be difficult for your group to share with Baptists.
Oct 14, 2014
Examining Thomas, Part 20
It is amazing how many distractions we have to take us away from actually learning something. Let us move ahead with discussing the Gospel of Thomas. We invite all to put on their thinking caps and see what you can come up with.
Here are the next two verses:
105 Jesus said, “Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore.”
108 Jesus said, “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.”
Let us start with #105, which is an odd one
The group headed the right direction on this difficult one, but Jenny encapsulated the answer extremely well. There is not much I can do to improve upon it.
When one is rebirthed by Father/Mother and has a new life in them, others (church leaders) who are unfamiliar with this process and these higher experiences will look upon the individual as deceived. They will go so far as to cast then out of their midst and paint a scarlet letter A upon their chest for all to stone and mock at. (Announce their wayward ways to all the congregations they belong to). They believe the rebirthed one has gone outside the “marriage” relationship with them (any outward authority or beast) and formed a new relationship (oneness) with another being (their Christ and Father/Mother). They believe the new life you have must be from the parents of evil because it is so contrary to their beliefs and understandings.
Now let us look at the next verse:
108 Jesus said, “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.”
Here are some comments put forward:
Sharon says:
By following his example and living a spiritual life leading to knowledge/ wisdom and then giving out this knowledge to others what has been learnt more will be revealed to you.
Ruth:
Whoever swallows the Truth will become the Truth, and Jesus is Truth, so the two are swallowed up as one spirit in Truth.
Keith:
All members of the kingdom know all other members intimately. One is not just a part of the whole, but is the whole. Every member is equally the whole.
Good comments. Now let us take a closer look. Notice the odd phrase: “Whoever drinks from my mouth…”
How in the world do you drink from some else’s’ mouth? The only way you can do this is if you are that person. Is this a way of telling us that we will be like Christ or even one with him? Yes, and this is not an isolated scripture.
I John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
I Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
I Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
And finally:
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they (disciples) may be one, as we are.
When we tap into the Oneness Principle we share the mind of Christ and many others so when they drink we drink also. We then become that person through the one spirit and knowledge from many minds can distil upon our souls.
Here is the next mind twister:
111 Jesus said, “The heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence, and whoever is living from the living one will not see death.” Does not Jesus say, “Those who have found themselves, of them the world is not worthy”?
Here is a possible interpretation that corresponds:
The earth represents the physical reality and the heavens represent the higher worlds of form, the emotional and mental. When one ascends to the formless worlds heaven and earth, or the form side, rolls up and the pilgrim enters a place of deathlessness. The world is not worthy and does not relate to one who has discovered this consciousness.
Here’s the next verse for consideration:
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.”
Notice that he doesn’t say the kingdom is within this time but that it “is spread out upon the earth…” What and where is this kingdom that is spread out all over the place and why do we not see it?
Oct 15, 2014
A Controversial Ending
The scripture:
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.”
Notice that he doesn’t say the kingdom is within this time but that it “is spread out upon the earth…” What and where is this kingdom that is spread out all over the place and why do we not see it?
Dan equates the kingdom with liberty which is available for all if we would just seek it. It is certainly true that there could be no kingdom of God without maximum liberty.
Ruth sees it as potentially existing within all humans who are spread out upon the earth.
It is interesting that there are two divisions among humanity as to where the kingdom resides. Many belonging to orthodox religions insist that it is in some physical location – that it is either in some heavenly realm of form or will physically manifest here on earth when the Messiah comes.
Others of New Age and Eastern thought see it is residing within us and many quote the scripture from Luke which reads:
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, 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
So which view is true?
The answer is both of them and to this Thomas agrees. Remember he wrote in verse three:
“the Father’s kingdom is within you and it is outside you.”
The Kingdom of God is not just in a few people but all of us. All we have to do is look within to find it. And these people walking around with the kingdom within are “spread out upon the earth” as Thomas writes.
If the kingdom is then also “outside” us where do we look?
Two places.
(1) When you look at your brother or sister, even though he may be irritating, and see the Christ within him, you have found the kingdom.
(2) Then there is the kingdom that prophets and seers have dreamed of for thousands of years. When a gathering takes place of those who have discovered the kingdom of God within we shall have a manifestation of the kingdom of God without, revealing itself through a group of souls who see each other as true brothers.
Now we come to the final and most controversial verse. Many who like the Gospel of Thomas but do not like this verse claim it was not spoken by Jesus, but added later by some idiot. Other dispassionate scholars say there is no reason to believe it was not a part of the original text. Anyway, here it is:
114 Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
So what do you think? Is there a problem with females entering the kingdom of heaven or was this writer just a crazy guy?
***
Keith writes:
I have a question. Why did you add the name EL at the end of Aluma-EL?
EL is the oldest name for god we have. Depending upon the legend or myth in which EL is depicted, one can come to the conclusion EL is a real pain in mankind’s butt.
JJ
It’s strange I posted an answer earlier and it didn’t show up so here it goes again.
Since then Ruth has posted some quotes from the archives that elaborates somewhat.
EL is a common Old Testament Hebrew word for God which is also translated as “mighty” or “strong.” It is usually used in a positive light there unless the writer is referring o false gods.
Here are three verses where it is used.
Ex 15:2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, (EL) and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
Num 23:22 God (EL) brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Psa 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; (EL) he judgeth among the gods (ELOHYM).
Which writings were you thinking of that portrayed EL in a negative light?
It is interesting that Superman’s name on his home planet was Kal-El and his father was named Jor-El.
Oct 16, 2014
Wrapping up Thomas
Today we will look at the last and most controversial verse in the Gospel of Thomas:
114 Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
First let me say that the group is indeed on the right track in rejecting the literal rendering of this and seeing that if there is any truth here it is in relation to male and female energies.
That said, the wording of this is horrible no matter what high principles the writer was trying to convey. People back at the time of Jesus did not understand positive and negative energies and just about all would have taken it the way it was written. No wonder this gospel did not get placed in the Canon. It was scriptures and thinking like this that caused the suppression of women over the centuries.
The general idea in most esoteric teachings is that we need to balance the male and female energies within us, not that the female needs to turn into a male. But what many do not understand about balancing the energies is this. Balancing does not mean the negating, or the obliteration of either energy, but putting both energies in their proper place.
It would be like placing weights on the two ends of a scale. When one weight balances the other off it is not negated. It is still there applying its power, but is merely in balance, and, if removed from its opposite balancing weight, would reveal the full effects of the pull of gravity.
So why does he say the female must become male? If the writer knew what he was talking about, and not merely being prejudiced, he would have meant that being in the receiving mode (female) is not enough. One must also send out that which he has received.
What is unsaid here is that the male must also become the female. Many there are who try and send from a vacuum, but need to fill their minds with useful knowledge before they can become a real sender. Such a person must enter the receiving (female) mode and fill up his cup so he will have something useful to share.
That finishes off the Gospel of Thomas which some consider to be more accurate than the Gospels of the Bible.
Questions:
What do you think of the quality of this gospel? Do you think it should have been included in the Canon?
Did you learn anything from the Gospel itself? Did you find hidden knowledge that will lead you to overcoming death? Do you think the writings are allegorical?
Oct 17, 2014
Comments on Thomas
Questions:
What do you think of the quality of this gospel (Of Thomas)? Do you think it should have been included in the Canon?
Did you learn anything from the Gospel itself? Did you find hidden knowledge that will lead you to overcoming death? Do you think the writings are allegorical?
Thanks for your comments on the Gospel of Thomas. Here is my take.
Overall I am not very impressed with it and can see why it was not included in the canon. We have covered all the material that is not in the New Testament and nothing new seems to be revealed. Some of it stimulated some thinking and interpretive ideas, but Thomas itself does not contain anything that the average seeker already does not know.
If anyone has received some significant light revealing hidden knowledge from Thomas I would like to hear the specifics. I think there was some light in the interpretations given that resulted from using Thomas as seed thoughts.
It does make the claim that if we understand it that we would overcome death, and I suppose one could say that one of the keys to overcoming death is balancing the male and female energies which it hints at, but so do many other writings. The Bailey writings gives us many more details and inspiration on final liberation. Here is the most profound teaching I have read on the subject:
“When communion is established, words are forthwith used, and mantric law assumes its rightful place, provided that the One communicates the words and the three remain in silence.
“When response is recognized as emanating from the three, the One, in silence, listens. The roles are changed. A three-fold word issues from out the triple form. A turning round is caused. The eyes no longer look upon the world of form; they turn within, focus the light, and see, revealed, an inner world of being. With this the Manas stills itself, for eyes and mind are one.
“The heart no longer beats in tune with low desire, nor wastes its love upon the things that group and hide the Real. It beats with rhythm new; it pours its love upon the Real, and Maya fades away. Kama and heart are close allied; love and desire form one wholeone seen at night, the other in the light of day….
“When fire and love and mind submit themselves, sounding the three-fold word, there comes response.
“The One enunciates a word which drowns the triple sound. God speaks. A quivering and a shaking in the form responds. The new stands forth, a man remade; the form rebuilt; the house prepared. The fires unite, and great the light that shines: the three merge with the One and through the blaze a four-fold fire is seen.”
Treatise on White Magic, Page 75-76
A writing I find to be helpful is one that presents a concept in such a way that it brings a flashing forth of the intuition. I have had this experience from reading many of the scriptures in the regular Bible. Though I have found some o the non biblical scriptures interesting, I have not seen such power to stimulate the intuition.
I wouldn’t have recommended Thomas for the final canon, but neither would I discourage anyone from reading it. It may speak to some who like to read things in riddles. Different writings speak to different people and I would have been for a free flow of writings, even if many think they are ridiculous.
It is too bad that Allan didn’t weigh on in interpreting the Gospel of Thomas with us. This was one time he could be on topic and on a topic in which he professes interest and knowledge, yet instead he rambles on off topic.
In addition to distracting us here he distracts his own list by making many posts there criticizing you and me. Since I have joined his list there has not been much going on there except talking about us and not in a good way. Now he is criticizing us for not understanding the Gospel of Thomas yet doesn’t have the guts to give us a smidgen of evidence that his interpretation has any value whatsoever. We are just supposed to take it on faith that he knows what Thomas means when he quotes it to prove his point.
He makes the extremely flimsy excuse that giving out his interpretation would be taking away from our own experience of discovering the true answer. What a laugh. He doesn’t want to force his interpretation of Thomas on us but wants to elbow in here and order us to be vegetarians and follow his supposed Higher Self or be damned to extinction.
Oh, well, it takes all kinds.
***
The Seeker and Scriptures
Greg:
When I had an opportunity to sit with you at lunch at the gathering we got onto the discussion about the Book of Mormon, and the lack of DNA evidence. If I understood you correctly, you indicated that portions if not all of the book’s writings may have taken place on a different planet. I at one time loved the scriptures. In my pendulum swing reaction, at this time I do not trust them, I have not studied them much over the last year. I have mostly sought to develop that relationship between me and God. No intermediary. How important are they to my new life. You mostly used the words of John in the immortal. Can you give some direction here?
JJ
The scriptures and the powerful authority behind them benefit the beginning seeker because they plant powerful seed thoughts in the mind. Many of these seed thoughts, through contemplation, lead to greater light and truth. If not for the strong authority beginners would not take the words seriously to allow them percolate in their souls.
Then when the seeker reaches a certain level he begins to look at the scriptures in the same light as all other writings. He finds he must run all things, no matter what the source, by his own soul.
As far as he Book of Mormon goes I have never received a witness that it was historically accurate. I do not recall saying the events happened on another planet but have said that all things in there have happened in some reality or place somewhere. That could be another planet or ancient time.
What I was told about the Book of Moron and all scriptures was to look for the true principles for there are many indicated in both the LDS scriptures and the Bible.
The thing for the seeker to avoid is the black and white attitude. Many who discover the scriptures are not perfect will often discount them from that point on. Instead he should consider the injunction in Revelations to the disciple:
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen…
Rev 2:4-5
Many seekers leave their first love when they discover higher knowledge, but the correct path is to keep the disciplines acquired under strong authority and apply them in your new state of freedom. Take good care of your body and mind and continue to plant powerful spiritual thoughts in your mind for continued contemplation.
When I was younger and thought the scriptures were the highest source of written truth I spent a lot of time studying them. But then when I graduated I spent most of my reading in other materials since I had taken in the basic truths from the Holy Writ.
I find more light in the Bailey writings than I do any scriptures, but studying them is like moving from simple math to trigonometry. Once the adjustment is made the reward is great. You want to read the books dictated by DK though rather than the ones Alice A. Bailey wrote herself. Treatise on White Magic is a good start.
***
The next main topic will be vegetarianism. We have covered quite a bit about diet in the early days but it looks like we need to explore spirituality and vegetarianism to quiet our critics who see us as being on a coarse physical path to sin and death. If eating lots of vegetables will cause me to go where they are in the next world I think I will double my portion of meat eating so I can go somewhere else – maybe where meat eaters, Jesus, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and H. P. Blavasky are.
Jesus you say? Even the Gospel of Thomas verifies that Jesus are meat. It says:
When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”
Jesus is quoted here as commanding the disciples to eat what people serve them and obviously they would have been offered meat and fish, as well as wine on a regular basis.
Questions:
(1) What are the benefits of a vegetarian diet?
(2) Is a vegetarian diet essential to be a spiritual person?
(3) Will the meat eater experience bad karma?
(4) Are you or have you been a vegetarian?
Oct 18, 2014
The Bailey Writings and Vegetarianism
It is fairly amusing that Allan says he was told by his higher self that the Bailey Books are not to be trusted and that he shouldn’t read them, but is now preaching to us out of them. Unfortunately he has only read bits and pieces so he is not seeing them from a viewpoint of wholeness.
Here is the main text that he is using in an attempt to make us stop eating meat.
“Those who seek to read the akashic records, or who endeavour to work upon the astral plane with impunity, and there to study the reflection of events in the astral light correctly, have perforce and without exception to be strict vegetarians”
Esoteric Psychology I, Pg 241
If you superficially read this and other quotes from the Bailey material you may be inclined to think that vegetarianism is a commandment of some kind for all. But when you read all the material you realize that DK speaking through Alice A. Bailey often put emphasis on different approaches at different times for different purposes.
In this case, he was talking about those who wish to master the astral plane as well as read the Akashic records. To master the astral plane one has to master the emotions and if one has not yet accomplished this then a strict vegetarian diet is usually essential for two reasons.
(1) Emotional control takes a lot of self control and adhering to a strict vegetarian diet requires significant self control.
(2) Eating meat stimulates the desire nature and makes control of the emotions very difficult for the disciple at this stage. Eating live foods only will quiet the emotions, make them easier to control and aid with the inner work.
So, how do you know if you are at the stage where a vegetarian diet is necessary?
Answer, you check with your soul. If you are at this stage you will normally receive a strong impression that you are supposed to become a vegetarian.
If you are not sure what your soul is saying then ask yourself these questions?
Am I a seeker who desires to serve the human race?
Do I need greater control over my passions and emotions?
If the answer is yes to both of these questions then a vegetarian diet should be considered.
Now let us get back to the Bailey writings. Here are some quotes that give a more complete picture of the teachings.
No set diet could be entirely correct for a group of people on differing rays, of different temperaments and equipment and at various ages. Individuals are every one of them unlike on some points; they require to find out what it is that they, as individuals, need, in what manner their bodily requirements can best be met, and what type of substances can enable them best to serve. Each person must find this out for himself. There is no group diet. No enforced elimination of meat is required or strict vegetarian diet compulsory. There are phases of life and sometimes entire incarnations wherein an aspirant subjects himself to a discipline of food, just as there may be other phases or an entire life wherein a strict celibacy is temporarily enforced. But there are other life cycles and incarnations wherein the disciple’s interest and his service lie in other directions. There are later incarnations where there is no constant thought about the physical body, and a man works free of the diet complex and lives without concentration upon the form life, eating that food which is available and upon which he can best sustain his life efficiency. In preparation for certain initiations, a vegetable diet has in the past been deemed essential. But this may not always be the case, and many disciples prematurely regard themselves as in preparation for initiation.
Esoteric Healing – Page 334
Here is another:
The moment, however, that an inner orientation towards the world of higher values takes place, then the etheric or vital force is brought into conflict with the lowest aspect of man, the dense physical body, and the battle of the lower pairs of opposites takes place.
It is interesting to note that it is during this stage that the emphasis is laid upon physical disciplines, upon such controlling factors as total abstinence, celibacy, and vegetarianism, and upon physical hygiene and physical exercises. Through these, the control of the life of matter, the lowest expression of the third aspect of divinity can be offset, and the man set free for the true battle of the pairs of opposites.
Esoteric Psychology Vol II: Pg 309
Finally, here is a quite in Alice A. Bailey’s own words from her autobiography:
I am convinced that there comes a phase in the life of all disciples when they must be vegetarians. In the same way, there must come a life in which a man or woman should be a celibate. This they must be in order to demonstrate that they have learned control of the physical nature. Once they have learned that control and once they can no longer be swayed by the appetites of the flesh, they can be married or not married, they can eat meat or not eat meat as seems best to them and as their karma may indicate or their circumstances dictate. Once that has been proven, the situation is altered. The physical disciplines are a phase of training and when the lesson is learnt they are no longer needed.
Unfinished Autobiography, Page 153
The bottom line is that each seeker must check with his own soul and if one finds the vegetation diet is good for him then he must resist he urge to preach to others about it because the meat eater may be following a different set of instructions than himself.
Many great souls were vegetarians as well as meat eaters and there are also corrupt ones in both categories. Hitler was a vegetarian, but it did not insure that he was on the right path.
His opposition, Churchill and FDR, both broke all the rules. They ate meat, drank a lot and smoked. Even so, I think most of us would much rather dine with FDR or Churchill than Hitler. It is also a plus that DK identifies FDR and Churchill as agents working for the Christ.
In the esoteric world Alice A. Bailey was a vegetarian her whole life, but Madame Blavatsky was not, yet Blavatsky was the higher evolved of the two.
Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff were two other initiates who were meat eaters.
The point to remember is one size or diet does not fit all. Live and let live. Mind your own business.
Next: The scriptures, Jesus and Meat
***
I approved Allan’s post to me today because I thought he was responding on topic, since my last post was dealing with one of his favorite subjects – vegetarianism. But no. Again, instead of replying on topic he rambles off on his usual mantras that he has repeated here endlessly. Forgive me for not reading his post more carefully.
It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Yet what does he do? He comes here and says the same thing over and over apparently expecting something different each time.
The topic was vegetarianism and with his post to me (not counting his longer post to One2) he covered these subjects below.
(1) The Gospel of Thomas – something we wanted him to discuss when it was on topic, but we have now moved on.
(2) The scriptures are allegory – How many times have we heard that?
(3) Secret knowledge was conveyed in the scriptures
(4) Plato’s Cave – If I hear that one more time I think I’ll scream. He can’t write more than a couple paragraphs without bringing that up. Newsflash: We know what Plato’s Cave is.
(5) The Key of Knowledge
(6) The Law of Octaves
(7) The Tree of Life.
(8) Holographic reality
In addition to this he accuses me of the same things over and over. This was just from his post to me.
(1) I ignore his enlighten statements
(2) I am a fundamentalist with the scriptures. LOL – he’s the only guy that has accused me of this.
(3) He misrepresents how I see the scriptures saying that I see them all as literal history.
(4) He says I do not see the allegory in the scriptures, while he gives little evidence that he sees anything of value there. Just saying the word “allegory” does not demonstrate that he sees allegorical truth. I have asked him for samples of allegorical interpretation several times and he has refused to respond. Still waiting for he allegorical meaning in the quote from the Book of Numbers I have out.
(5) He accuses the group of being “spiritually flat-lined.” Hey, say what you want about me Allan, but don’t insult my friends.
(6) He accuses me again and again of starting with an attack when we only were objectively analyzing a point of doctrine. Nothing personal was involved. He says we were “totally rejecting what I write about the true reality of the scriptures.”
Not true and I have explained the truth to him a number of times but it keeps going over his head.
It looks like if Allan had his way we would be covering the same material over and over endlessly. This is why members here are so exasperated with his posts but this also goes over his head.
If that is what you want to do on your forum that is fine Allan, but after we cover a subject we then move on to a new one. Right now the subject is vegetarianism yet you want to me discuss the Law of Octaves, the Tree of Life and who knows what else?
This shotgun approach only leads to confusion and no good coverage of any subject. We are now on diet so please make any comments in this direction or if you just repeat yourself off topic, your posts may be sent to the outer darkness page.
Oct 19, 2014
Steiner, Gurdjieff and Mouravieff
Dan wants me to give my thoughts on Rudolf Steiner, Gurdjieff and Mouravieff.
First allow me to make a correction on Steiner. I said he was a meat eater, but apparently he was a vegetarian. I was recalling statement he made that “It is better to eat ham than to think ham.” That and the fact that he didn’t force feed diet ideas on his followers may indicate he might have ate some meat on the side. The fact that he was frail in his later years and died at age 64 indicates that he didn’t quite have the principles of good health down to a science.
One of his problems was that he got too close to his thoughtform and this drew from his physical strength.
I have just read bits and pieces if his writings, but do plan on checking them out in greater depth sooner or later. I have read a biography of him by Gary Lachman and came away with the sense that his prime motivation was to be in the service of his fellow men. That is certainly to his credit for this is certainly not always the case as many spiritual teachers are more motivated by ego and self.
I do not sense a lot of new ideas in his writings, but a different slant on numerous ideas that will appeal to a certain class of seekers. He initiated in several areas of life and helped many people.
Whereas Steiner was an initiate who followed the standard path of service, putting the good of humanity first, Gurdjieff took a different route. He was a one of a kind teacher who was strongly motivated by his own self interest, but still with an objective to assist others. He was kind of a cross between H.P. Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley.
I think his accomplishments were more in his methods than in the light of his teachings. His unorthodox approach stirred up a drive in his students that would not have been so affected by other teachers. He shocked them out of orthodoxy and made them think out of the box.
Ouspensky supported him for many years, but finally withdrew and became his own man. He owed Gurdjieff a lot because of the stimulation he provided.
As far as Mouravieff goes, I never heard of him until you mentioned him. It appears that he has attempted to synthesize the best of Gurdjieff and Christianity. I do not get a “must read” vibe on him but intend to check him out more thoroughly in the future.
It is important for seekers to leave no stone unturned in the search for truth, but in that process to be very selective where he spends his time. He cannot read every writer or learn from every teacher. Once one finds a source that can move him forward or add new knowledge he should give attention to such a source until he has absorbed all that is possible. Many seekers make the mistake a scattering their energies rather than focusing them. It is better to know a lot about a small amount of teachings that contain great light than a little about a lot of a wide variety of mediocre materials.
Oct 20, 2014
Too Close to the Thoughtform
A reader asked me what I meant by saying that Steiner suffered ill health because he was too close to his thoughtform.
The work of an initiate is a thoughtform created by him that is in the process of materializing on the physical plane. As it works itself into manifestation several dangers become apparent. The first danger is that not enough energy, focus and sustaining power will be available to vitalize it. If this does not happen then the thoughtform will be aborted.
If this step is successful and some type of permanent results begin to appear two more dangers manifest. The first is on the emotional level and the warming is given in rule eight of White Magic:
“Let the magician guard himself from drowning at the point where land and water meet.”
Water is a symbol of he emotions and as the work assumes a concrete manifestation the initiate is in danger of being destroyed by too strong of emotional involvement. This happened to Joseph Smith when he was told to go west or he would be killed, but was over come with emotion and ignored the directive and returned and was killed.
The next danger to the initiate is mentioned in Rule Fourteen which says:
“Danger from fire and flame menaces now, and dimly yet the rising smoke is seen. Let him again, after the cycle of peace, call on the solar Angel.”
The danger here is that as his creation develops the fire of life that he can get burned by it if he gets to close.
In the first stage he can be destroyed by being too close to his thoughtform by being downed in emotion and in he second he can get burned by being too close to his fellow workers.
Steiner came too close to his thoughtform by becoming too involved in the lives of his students. He escaped being drowned by emotion which have led to death or imprisonment by Hitler, but faced the fire from his group. This drained him of his energy and caused an early death. If he had lived longer he could have produced a much more complete creation that would have greater influence today.
Both HPB and Alice A. Bailey suffered somewhat by the fire of too much involvement and suffered ill health that took them earlier than could have been.
Just like the parent must not be a kid and try to be the child’s best friend, but keep some distance to keep the aura of the wise parent, even so the initiate must keep a certain amount of distance from his fellow workers. If he becomes their best friend he will often lose their respect and they will drain him of energy and his physical body will become devitalized.
***
The Scriptures, Jesus and Meat
So, what do Jesus and the scriptures say about eating meat? Do they approve or not?
Those who promote Jesus as a vegetarian say that He was a Nazarite or Essene who believed in a strict vegetarian diet. The trouble is that there is no hard evidence that Jesus subscribed to any of these orders. He was called Jesus of Nazareth, not because he was a Nazarene, but because he was from the town of Nazareth.
And even if he was familiar with one or more of the vegetarian sects this does not mean that he subscribed to all their doctrine. After all, we know for sure he was a Jew and familiar with all Jewish scriptures, but he was far from an orthodox believer.
The main book quoted that supports Jesus being a vegetarian is the Gospel of the Nazirenes. This was claimed to be translated by some mysterious means from a manuscript in Tibet. Unfortunately, this manuscript has never surfaced to be analyzed so it cannot be authenticated. It appears to be a compilation of early writings mixed with creative inserts from whoever created the first copy.
Indeed, parts of it can be traced to the earliest gospels writings, but other parts are questionable, especially some of the parts that insist that Jesus was a strict vegetarian.
Why?
Two reasons. (1) Some of the verses just sound off and (2) they contradict so many other writings.
While the Gospel of the Nazirenes, for which we have no manuscript, claims that Jesus was a strict vegetarian, the Gospel of Thomas, which many Jesus/vegetarians believe to a first century document, and for which there are manuscripts, tells us that Jesus was not a strict vegetarian. In verse 14 Thomas quotes Jesus as saying:
“…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”
Jesus was often invited to dinner and since most people eat meat, this is obviously what he was often served. When he was served meat, did he eat it? If he was not a hypocrite then, yes he did.
Why?
The verse explains that:
“what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”
So the Jesus in Thomas tells us that he is not that concerned about what you eat, as far as defilement goes, but is very concerned about the words you speak, or what goes out of your mouth.
Strict vegetarians will have a difficult time dismissing or ignoring this scripture because it is backed up a number different places in the New Testament, which uses a similar wording. Here are the words of Jesus.
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies… Matt 15:17-20
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: Mark 7:15
Some foods may be better than others, but Jesus makes it clear that there is “nothing from without,” including meat that will defile us.
Paul must have been familiar with the saying of Jesus quoted in Thomas as he virtually said the same thing indicating that this was pretty standard doctrine among early Christians:
If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. …
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. I Cor 10:27-31
Eating and drinking with friendly people is actually good for us as pointed out by Solomon:
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones. Proverbs17:22
Paul also says:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
Romans 14:1-3 NIV
Several times Paul correctly put a lot of emphasis on not judging others because of what they eat:
Col 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.
Then he spoke in very strong language against the vegetarian fundamentalists who sought to forbid meat eating:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared
with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. I Tim 4:1-5
Both vegetarian and reasonable meat diets have their advantages and both Paul and Jesus tell us that we shouldn’t be overly concerned about either one. Of much more concern is what comes out of our mouths.
Oct 21, 2014:
Some on this forum seem to be of the opinion that Jesus should not be called Jesus (or Yeshua) of Nazareth, as Allan calls him many times.
It is interesting that Allan gives great credibility to the Gospel of the Nazirenes. He says this on his web page:
Gospel of the Nazirenes — Gospel Of Light: What did the Gospels look like before being edited and re-written by the Church of Rome? What were the original beliefs of the first followers of Yeshua? You will be astonished when you read a surviving text of The Gospel of the Nazirenes which was hidden away from the corrupters of the Roman Church. Are you ready for a truly enlightening experience?
According to this gospel (which some believe to be the original) Nazareth (or Nazireth) did exist in the days of Jesus and it was the hometown of him and his brother James. Here are some quotes:
Chapter 2, Verse 1 And in the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel appeared at a place near Galilee, referred to as Nazireth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
4:2 And Joseph with Mary also went up from Galilee, out of the place of Nazireth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem (because they were of the house and lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, who was great with child.
5:21 And the Lord said,”Out of Egypt have I called my son, who shall be called the Nazirene.” And he arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel. And they came and dwelt in the place called Nazireth, where dwelt Nazirites and Essenes; and he was called the Nazirene.
6:6 And he went down with them, and came to Nazireth, and was subject to their guidance. And he made wheels, and yokes, and tables also, with great skill. And Jesus increased in stature, and in favour with the Lord and man.
6:17 Then, being fulfilled, they (Jesus and James) returned to Nazireth to visit their parents. And for a time they taught in Jerusalem.
10:28 And Nathanael said to him, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazireth?” Philip said to him,”Come and see.”
13:1 And Jesus came to Nazireth where he had been brought up; and as was his custom, he went into the Temple on the sabbath day and stood up to read. And there was delivered to him the scroll of the Prophet Isaiah.
I don’t really have any dog in this fight. If I learned tomorrow that Jesus was not really from Nazareth it would be no big deal and fairly inconsequential.
Since Allan claims to remember his life as James perhaps he can tell us what the hometown of Jesus and James really was. After all, there had to be a literal, physical hometown in this reality. Obviously Jesus was not raised in he city of Allegory.
***
I don’t see any contradictions between what you have written, Ra, and my teachings on the Observer. You have just gone somewhat in a different direction.
The Principle of the Observer is a different animal than self observation as taught in the Yoga disciplines. Placing yourself in the state of the observer has nothing to do with developing the ability to focus on certain parts of your body or bodily functions. It also will not work in negating physical pain. Physical pain can be negated with detachment through a trance state. In the trance state you are the opposite of being he observer. You are observing to a bare minimum.
Instead of reducing consciousness, as in a trance, the observer increases consciousness. This state can help to handle physical pain but it can greatly reduce emotional pain because it puts it in its right place.
The observer sees his three bodies of form, the physical, emotional and mental, as vehicles that he uses, not as something he identifies with as being the real part of himself.
This helps one to handle physical pain, but not negate it.
For example for most of my life I have not used any anesthetic for dental work including root canals, crowns and fillings.. This often bothers the dentist more than myself. Taking the viewpoint of the observer doesn’t reduce the pain, but puts it in its right perspective and I am able to pass through the experience with minimal discomfort.
On the other hand, being the observer helps tremendously as far as emotional pain is concerned. All emotional pain is merely created by a state of mind and by taking the vantage point of the observer you see that state affecting your emotional vehicle because you allow it to. Now physical pain happens whether you allow it or not, but emotional pain and feelings must be sanctioned by you on some level. Therefore, when you detach yourself and observe how your emotions are reacting, negative energy in the emotional body ceases getting fed and the emotional body quiets down and the pain or feeling subsides.
What I generally do is become the observer when my emotional body wants to experience something negative but cease being the observer when it is happy and enjoying itself. This gives my life a surplus of positive emotions over the negative.
Now there are exceptions to all things. There are times when it seems appropriate to identify with a negative emotion because it seems to serve a purpose. In this case I will make a mental decision to go with it until the purpose is served.
Oct 22, 2014
Using Scripture
Dave writes
I’m a little perplexed after reading your response, given that you recently posted the following to Allan:
Allan:
Paul’s Epistles are not scripture…
Quoting me:
Yeah, I know. The only thing that is scripture is what you say is scripture. How convenient. I could prove the moon is made of green cheese if I used that liberal approach.
Dave:
If you define scripture as being limited to words that ‘speak to your soul’ regardless of their source, might you be projecting your own views onto Allan when you say that ‘the only thing that is scripture is what Allan says is scripture?’
JJ
You then repeat the mantra that seems to be mysteriously programmed in everyone’s mind here:
“you can’t grasp the reality of scriptures.”
Your problem with understanding me is that the accusations are coming back to haunt you. You and many here are way too much into literalism with a black and white attitude. It seems that in Allan’s mind a writing is either scripture or not. If it is scripture it is to be totally accepted as true allegory. If not it is to be rejected and not to be trusted.
What is scripture is what he declared to be scripture. Even though society as a whole defines Paul’s writings as scripture he does not and changes the definition.
I do not do this with my teachings. For outward purposes I accept the definitions of the world. If you don’t your communications will not be understood by the masses. This marks a huge difference between us.
For the non religious person a scripture is merely that which is designated by society as such. For the very religious person a scripture is infallible truth. Approaching scripture from this or definition I see no writing on earth of any length as being scripture. The only thing that would fit that definition would be writings that are verified by my soul.
BUT…
Even though a writing may be verified by my soul I do not declare such as scripture to the world, but merely accept it for myself as verified truth.
If I quote something true from Paul and Allan does not like it, then he doesn’t change the truth by randomly declaring it is not scripture. The virtues of any statement has to be examined with reason rather than just declaring a thing wrong with black and white judgmental thinking.
In answer to your later question the Genesis account is largely symbolic with elements of truth.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
Easy Access to all the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE