Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Document Recently Found Has Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle (Hoax)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://guardianlv.com/2014/10/docum ... t-of-jesus-performing-miracle/
Published: Oct 17, 2014
Author: Kimberly Ruble
Post Date: 2014-10-17 22:53:49 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 43452
Comments: 96
In Rome, a document recently found has an eyewitness account of Jesus performing a miracle. An Italian professional was examining the paper written in the first century by the Roman historian Marcus Paterculus. It has only been recently found inside the annals of the Vatican and on it there was written what appears to be the very first eyewitness account ever documented of one of the miracles performed by Jesus. The author told of a scene that he supposedly observed, in which a prophet who he named Isous de Nazarenus, revived a baby who had been stillborn and gave him back to his mother.
Historian Ignazio Perrucci was employed by authorities of the Vatican in 2012 to go through and analyze over 6,000 antique documents that had been found in massive archive crypts. Perrucci had already been excited when he detected that the writer of the text was the celebrated Roman historian Paterculus, but he was totally shocked after he read the content of the document.
Professor Perrucci discovered the text in the collections of the Vatican, while he was looking through a packet of personal letters and other minor documents that dated back to the Roman period. The writing, when looked at as a complete narrative tells of the writer’s departing journey from Parthia to Rome, which happened in 31 AD. It was recorded on four pieces of parchment. He speaks of various events happening during his journey, like an intense sandstorm in Mesopotamia and when he visits a temple in Melitta which is now called Mdina in modern day Malta.
Yet the piece of text that really got the historian’s attention was when he read about an event occurring in the town of Sebaste. That would be close to the city of Nablus in the modern day, which is in the West Bank. The writer talked about the coming of a great leader into the city with his assembly of disciples. He also had many followers and this meant that a lot of the lower class people from nearby villages were gathering around the group. Paterculus stated that the great man’s name was Isous de Nazarenus, which was a Greco Latin translation of Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua haNotzri.
The document stated that when he entered the town, it was written that Jesus had gone to the home of a woman by the name of Elisheba. She had just had a stillborn baby. Jesus reportedly picked up the dead infant and said a prayer in Aramaic. The writer stated that it was “immensus”, which meant that it was unintelligible. Next, right in front of the crown, to their wonder and astonishment, the baby returned to life crying and fidgeting like a vigorous newborn.
Marcus Paterculus, was a Roman officer of Campanian heritage, and it appears that he saw Jesus as some sort of great man who could perform miracles. He did not appear to associate him with the Christian idea of him being the Messiah.
There have been numerous tests and examinations done in the past few weeks to try and determine the manuscripts authenticity. The make-up of the parchment and the ink used to write on it, the literary panache and even the handwriting have been cautiously inspected and are believed to legitimate. The dating investigation also showed that the parchment on which the text was penned, did date from the 1st century, precisely from between 20-40 AD.
This text written by an author, who has always been known for his dependability, has brought a new viewpoint on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. An official translation of the manuscript is planned to be released and made available online in numerous different languages over the next couple of months. However, the effect of the discovery has already been felt in the scientific community. Numerous researchers believe this to be one of the greatest developments ever found toward the study of the life of Jesus, while many others think it is nothing but a fraud and have uttered doubts about the conclusions of all the tests and want many more done before they declare this to be any sign of that Jesus really lived. They do not trust the document.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 91.
#16. To: pinguinite (#0)
ping
Well, satire or not, the theological model I subscribe to does not mean Jesus never lived and performed miracles. There may well have been a man named Jesus (or whatever the ancient version of his name was as it certainly wouldn't have been spelled in our present day alphabet), walking the earth, performing miracles and spreading a message of good will, and upsetting the establishment in the process. Supernatural events (aka miracles) can and do occur. The issue I have with Christianity is only that A) Reincarnation does occur, in almost certain contradiction of Hebrews 9:27. B) The bible, therefore, cannot be the "Word of God". At least in the sense of perfect divine inspiration. The original message could have been divinely true but then corrupted as passed from that point into written form (i.e. present day bible). C) In my personal view, because we are souls born in the spirit world that can and do exist independently of our human bodies, we are not *primarily* human beings. Our human identity is only a secondary identity. Because of that, the core of Christian theology, which holds that Jesus took human form to indentify with us, and died as one of us, for the salvation of our non-human souls, breaks down. That because some souls never incarnate, and others incarnate from time to time as non-humans, on alien worlds. IOW, our human identity is merely incidental. That being the case, a human sacrifice (Jesus dying on the cross for the salvation of us "humans") no longer makes sense. Again, that's my personal view. I'm sure there are others who do believe in reincarnation but also subscribe to that element of Christian theology. I understand the Gnostic Christians of the first few centuries AD did subscribe to reincarnation until Constantine declared it a heresy (for the purposes of political control of the masses). There is much is the gospels I do agree with. The golden rule for one, and that love is the greatest commandment (though not a commandment, per se). While the theological reasons for the death of Jesus I find erroneous, the message behind the story of his sacrifice is correct -- namely that we are all loved enormously, far more than we can humanly comprehend. Though in my view, the love is greater than that portrayed by Christian theology because I say we are never overtly judged or condemned to hell for all eternity. There will be judgement, but we will judge ourselves, and judge soundly, without the distraction of our human mind, and lovingly encouraged to grow and do better next time. Whether a soul can condemn itself to annihilation, I do not know, but free will is perfect in the spirit world. This theological model is, in my view, superior because we are loved more perfectly. God never gives up on us, as opposed to giving up on an unrepentant sinner when he dies, young or old. All of us are here because we chose to be here, knowing in advance (at the subconsciously/spiritual level) what our lives would be like, so life is in fact, fair. None of us suffers pain without a reason. Life has a real, practical purpose, and that is for us to grow and advance spiritually. In short, there are far more sound answers with this model than with the Christian model. But back on the subject of Jesus performing miracles, it's very possible. Souls do have that capability. The stronger, more advanced the souls, the more powerful, though most of us walking the earth are pretty weak (or we wouldn't be here). Best...
Supernatural events (aka miracles) can and do occur. First, let me say that I appreciate your deep thought, intellectual honesty, and search for the truth. Yes, the historical record of multiple witnesses testify not only to the very existence of Jesus or Yeshua, but of the miracles he'd performed, his verbatim speeches and messages, his philosophy (if we want to call it that), even his genealogy. Not the mention all the scriptural prophecies concerning his eventual emergence, the theme of man's sin and its requisite redemption and payment for the penalty for sin throughout the ages. The issue I have with Christianity is only that A) Reincarnation does occur, in almost certain contradiction of Hebrews 9:27. "Reincarnation" is defined as returning "in the flesh." After this mortal shell expires, those who are accept the gift of redemptive grace do not "return" anywhere -- not the least which is to the current physical realm of "earth." We shall also be reborn in a celestial body (please refer to 1 Corinthians 15.) There will also be a "new Heaven and Earth." (see Revelation 21:1) B) The bible, therefore, cannot be the "Word of God". At least in the sense of perfect divine inspiration. The original message could have been divinely true but then corrupted as passed from that point into written form (i.e. present day bible). Isn't this the presumptive narrative often cited to invalidate the entire Bible, its underpinnings of wisdom for living, and message of love and redemption? IF we can concede that an Almighty God and Creator of the Universe is capable of all things -- including divinely inspiring man to "transcribe" His message, laws, and word -- why must we presume He would allow His word(s) to be corrupted in the written form? (yes, I know -- because man is fundamentally corrupt. I get that part...) God's Word is incorruptible. This is what we must remember and maintain that faith. C) In my personal view, because we are souls born in the spirit world that can and do exist independently of our human bodies, we are not *primarily* human beings. Our human identity is only a secondary identity. Because of that, the core of Christian theology, which holds that Jesus took human form to indentify with us, and died as one of us, for the salvation of our non-human souls, breaks down. That because some souls never incarnate, and others incarnate from time to time as non-humans, on alien worlds. IOW, our human identity is merely incidental. That being the case, a human sacrifice (Jesus dying on the cross for the salvation of us "humans") no longer makes sense. Again, that's my personal view. I'm sure there are others who do believe in reincarnation but also subscribe to that element of Christian theology. I understand the Gnostic Christians of the first few centuries AD did subscribe to reincarnation until Constantine declared it a heresy (for the purposes of political control of the masses). Plenty here to expound upon... It could be said that we are spirits and souls born in the flesh -- human form (in the image of God.) We ARE indeed "human beings" while living on this earth -- again, [possessing spirits and souls that transcend the flesh. Some souls never "reincarnate" or move on to existing in a celestial form because as promised, many will themselves have chosen either one of TWO destinations for their eternal soul; To be reborn in their celestial, incorruptible form eternally in The Kingdom of God forever as promised, OR in the alternative -- Judgment for rejecting the Savior's redemptive gift of grace, and debt unpaid that re-routes the destination the soul (apart from God.) That is considered the Second Death. OR "Hell": “...furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” ~ Matthew 13:50 In any context of the term "Reincarnation," it is totally incompatible with the "Christian" theology which punctuates the destination of the eternal soul once and for all. Either one must embrace Scripture and the Word of God as a matter of faith, OR reject ALL of it. But certainly, all the answers are there. IF we truly seek the truth and open our hearts for the Holy Spirit to imbue that faith.
Thank you very much. I think I can accurately and honestly say that's been one of my elements throughout life. But if we are willing to concede that God is capable of all things as you say, why does that NOT include the ability to save someone who has died with sin? The Christian answer is that God, capable of all things, is nonetheless bound by his own nature of not tolerating sin in his presence. Or perhaps stated more accurately, sin cannot tolerate God in its presence. In essence then it is not God whom is almighty, but God's nature, because God is bound by his nature... i.e. unable to act upon his own love for all of us because he cannot help himself. Is that not a contradiction? In the theological model derived from Newton's observations, this contradiction does not exist. As for the bible, yes one can have faith that God would simply not allow it to become corrupted. But what would this faith be based upon? The bible itself? That's circular logic. My take: We are not humans which possess souls. That is always how it is stated, and it implies that we are primarily human. Does a glove possess a hand, or a shoe possess a foot? No. we always say you need gloves for your hands, and shoes for your feet. I.e. it's the hands and feet which possess things, not our clothing which possesses us. And it is a soul that possesses a human body. We are souls first, with human bodies as "clothing" of sorts for the soul. We do not "have" souls. We ARE souls, and we HAVE bodies. An important distinction, in my book. I can agree we are created in God's image. I've no problem with that description, but our human bodies are NOT that image. We as souls are that image. Does that not make more sense? I agree with you that reincarnation is not compatible with the core of Christian theology. That is why I did not arrive at my present conclusions lightly. Still, I am not rejecting all aspects of the bible, as I hope I made clear in prior posts. The love Christianity teaches IS real. It's just that it's even better than what Christianity teaches because God never gives up on us even when we (our bodies) die. Also, we are indeed called to love and develop spiritually toward perfection, as the bible states. But with reincarnation, that opportunity becomes endless, as a single lifetime is hardly enough time to overcome a single vice, not to mention many. Is this not a more beautiful setup? Endless love with endless patience? If God is capable of all things as we agree, why would he not have thought of this model and used it? Well, I believe he did! The only thing true about your description: "Either one must embrace Scripture and the Word of God as a matter of faith, OR reject ALL of it." is the notion of whether or not it is, in its present form, the infallible "Word of God". But just because it may not be that does not mean it doesn't possess much truth. It certainly does --I recognize that-- or it would not have survived through the ages. But given my present view of things, I cannot consider it a divinely infallible document. Thank you for your response.
But through faith the redemptive Blood of Jesus Christ, hasn't that "ability to save someone who has died with sin" already been realized? The Christian answer is that God, capable of all things, is nonetheless bound by his own nature of not tolerating sin in his presence. Or perhaps stated more accurately, sin cannot tolerate God in its presence. In essence then it is not God whom is almighty, but God's nature, because God is bound by his nature... i.e. unable to act upon his own love for all of us because he cannot help himself. Is that not a contradiction? In the theological model derived from Newton's observations, this contradiction does not exist. You've presented some ethereal concepts... I honestly don't see any contradictions. In fact I see clear-cut rules an open field of vision, and a goal line that is ours for the taking. God IS "bound" to His contract with us.... God loves us so much that He is willing to tolerate the sin (which is man's "nature" here on earth) -- just as long as that sin is repented here while in this mortal world. Those are the terms of his "nature" -- Forgiveness. But it is conditional, isn't it? Moreover, his terms apply ONLY as long as one has been washed in the Blood of Jesus Christ. In that case, the Sin is erased before entering His Kingdom...Now, true, sin is NOT tolerated in His presence, hence Judgment Day, and alternative destinations for those who reject His gift of Grace. Btw, how do we define "sin"? As "evil acts"? "Spiritual filth"? "Violations of the spirit"? Yes, God DOES indeed love us all. Including the "sinner" (a catagory for which we ALL fall inevitably into.) God's love is simply demonstrated in the grace of redemption for all who willfully accept His Free Gift of Grace for sinners in the next Life. As for the bible, yes one can have faith that God would simply not allow it to become corrupted. But what would this faith be based upon? The bible itself? That's circular logic. "Circular logic" -- isn't that exactly what reincarnation is about? An eternal circular return to a different "scene of the crime" -- until we "get it right"? An "incorruptible" Bible would be based on the Power of God to forge His Will upon man...and create a firewall around its truth, integrity, and word. Now I do understand that this is counter-intuitive considering we all know man is corrupt and evil abounds. Your answer, OUR answer, is Faith. Faith that the Almighty has no limitations when it comes to HIS Will, HIS Law, HIS Instructions (aka our 'Owner's Manual' to loving if you will :-) I can agree we are created in God's image. I've no problem with that description, but our human bodies are NOT that image. We as souls are that image. Does that not make more sense? I can concur with that assertion to a large degree. Souls and spirits within a celestial body. But consider: a shadow can be an "image"; A caricature; A one-dimensional cut-out. All are "images," but can't fully describe to what extent our "image" resembles God's. I agree with you that reincarnation is not compatible with the core of Christian theology. That is why I did not arrive at my present conclusions lightly. Still, I am not rejecting all aspects of the bible, as I hope I made clear in prior posts. The love Christianity teaches IS real. It's just that it's even better than what Christianity teaches because God never gives up on us even when we (our bodies) die. Also, we are indeed called to love and develop spiritually toward perfection, as the bible states.... You've got a good heart, seeking God is wisdom. I probably speak for most Christians here, who at one time most likely weighed all the "evidence" and logic for the Afterlife as well as the redemptive concept of Jesus Christ, Messiah who took on our sins. Some later rather than soon, but better late than never. That faith is a blessing my friend, but it must be fed and de-weeded. ... But with reincarnation, that opportunity becomes endless, as a single lifetime is hardly enough time to overcome a single vice, not to mention many. Is this not a more beautiful setup? Endless love with endless patience? If God is capable of all things as we agree, why would he not have thought of this model and used it? Well, I believe he did! Of course the Almighty is capable of all things -- including dictating our own Genesis, wisdom for living, and our "Get Out Of Hell" Card. In the reincarnation model, an eternity of lifetimes couldn't fully redeem man's nature -- which is to sin. But even that one single sin after a thousand lives of reincarnation and "Karmic justice" left on that "tab" would not make that person clean enough to step foot in Heaven. And THAT is the point and conditions of dwelling in His Kingdom, and blessed with indescribable rewards and treasure. Forever. Moreover, what happens though the eternal circle of reincarnation when the "tab" of sins keeps on piling up? I can't see the logic to that model. To me it seems like a sentence...hellish in indeed; An eternity of suffering and hopelessness. What kind of God would sentence His Children to that futility? IMHO, that is cruel and usual punishment IF it were God's way. Which bring me to ask again -- to what authority or source of its validity as a redemptive solution can we trace "Reincarnation" and its partner, "Karma"? Have those who believe a memory of past transgressions and "mistakes"? Do YOU remember you past transgressions so that you may correct them? Since there is no "cheat-sheet" to this model, how does one ever hope to correct the sins of the past? "Endless love with endless patience"? Yes, I do see it with God. But I see it in the context that despite our "nature" to be narcissistic, selfish, liars, hurtful, and abusive to ourselves and our fellow man, God has offered a simple Solution, but it DOES take faith. Why not accept instead the solution found in the Bible and God-in-the-Flesh -- a Messiah -- who picks up the entire tab IF we simply believe? It is backed by logic, history, eyewitnesses, testimony, fulfilled prophecies...and conclusive FINAL Destination based on man's Free Will. And yes, God own Word, shielded by an impenetrable firewall. The only thing true about your description: "Either one must embrace Scripture and the Word of God as a matter of faith, OR reject ALL of it." is the notion of whether or not it is, in its present form, the infallible "Word of God". But just because it may not be that does not mean it doesn't possess much truth. It certainly does --I recognize that-- or it would not have survived through the ages. But given my present view of things, I cannot consider it a divinely infallible document. Thank you for your response. I appreciate you remarks and thoughts as well... Look Ping -- as shared earlier, fully I understand the reticence in accepting an "infallible" Word of God, aka the Holy Bible. Man -- even many believers -- intuitively believes at SOME point in time, the Bible and its words and meaning were corrupted, over-exaggerated, or merely allegories. IF we can both admit that God the Almighty who created EVERYTHING from scratch, reason and purpose, how can we then rationalize that He wasn't capable of transcribing EXACTLY his Will and His "Onwer's Manual" into papyrus/paper/memory? To me it's illogical. When I was younger, how many of us actually believed the story of Adam and Eve was actually that -- just a "story," an allegory? Noah and the Ark? Jonah and the Whale? Moses and the Parting of the Red Sea? The miracles and Resurrection of Jesus Christ? I think we can both agree that this world, its laws of physics, the infinitely intricacies of design, and the cycles of life and death are miraculous. But it is all explained in the Good Book. And so is the dynamic of One God, evil in the real existence of Satan, deception that derails that one road (and challenge) to our personal Damascus, and the responsibility for the one-time consequences of our actions and faith in this life. Reincarnation and Karma? Concepts -- though rational in some senses -- hasn't enough answers. IF the "eyewitnesses" of hypnotized subjects who've seen Heaven" -- regardless of degree of morality, faith, or religion -- ALL pretty much describe the same exact beautiful experience, IS there a possibility that the entire trip is Satanic Deception? What common element is conveyed upon return? That essentially ALL who will leave this earth will enter Paradise -- regardless of ANY faith whatsoever. "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith..." (1 Peter 5:8-9 NKJV)
That is an excellent question! And I have no answer, because in the model I subscribe to, it does not exist. Why? It's a very problematic attribute. Either a soul has sin on it or it does not, so at what point is a young child capable of committing his first sin and getting tainted for all eternity? 3 years? That is, 3 years from birth? Or maybe 3 years, 9 months from conception is a better clock to go by, since some kids are born early and we don't want to penalized them for starting to breathe a mere 7 months after life truely started instead of the normal 9? Then again, some kids are not as bright as others, so maybe the slower ones should get 6 months or a year extra free time as a toddler before they are eligible to sin, so if they happen to die in that time, they go to heaven. (??) I'm being facetious on purpose, but only to illustrate the problem with the concept of sin. There are varying degrees of lucidity, of awareness of whether our actions are good or bad. Sometimes we are fully alert, and sometimes not, due to weariness, illness, drugs, or physical brain condition, either old with dementia or, in the case above, quite young with a newly developing mind. And while there are varying degrees of lucidity with regard to are actions, good or bad, there are not varying degrees of sin, is there? What we end up with is a litmus test on judgement day. Any sin on you, it's to hell. No sin, to heaven. So how does a litmus test for sin, in the case of a young child barely aware of his surroundings, work in a just and sound way? I'm talking about that moment in time, that instant, when that child goes from being completely innocent to a sinner destined for hell. Is it possible for anyone to identify that instant in time? In my view, it isn't. And in the world presented by Newton, it doesn't exist. At least not in the form of something that condemns us. So if you can define sin in some clear way that addresses the issue of varying degrees of lucidity, I'm all ears. The concept of sin and redemption do not apply to this model, so that's not an issue. That addresses a number of points you raise. There is no correcting of past sins, per se. There is learning of the harm we've done, and experiencing first hand the harm we've done to others. This is often done by choosing future lives that are destined to suffer the same harms we've inflicted. It's important to understand it's not about getting rid of a negative attribute like "sin", but rather growing in a positive ways by becoming wiser and more understanding. In my view, it scores poorly on the logic test. Newton's presentation scores much higher. Eyewitnesses & testimony? They aren't here to question. Fulfilled prophecies, in the form of a one ancient writing corroborating another? Newton's information, by contrast, has present day evidence in support, and no conflict with the current science field (i.e. evolution). With Newton's model, we have answers to tough questions, such as why God allows tragedy to occur, why some are rich and some poor. We have a real pragmatic purpose and mission on earth which we don't have with the biblical model. Thank you. You are assuming we would be totally lost without such a manual. If we don't need such a manual, then God would not need to provide us one. However, I guess I would answer that we do have such a manual. And it's you. And me. Each of us. We are souls, and at that soul level, we have our memories, our strengths and weaknesses. And we know, deep down, why we are here in this and every life, and know what we are supposed to do, even if we lack that conscious understanding. I would say it's not in any book, even the bible. Your mission and your purpose is already written inside of you. If you want a living message, that's where it would be. Not on ink and paper. If I recall correctly, Newton claims to have regressed about 7000 clients into past and/or between life states, and gotten a high degree of consistency. In addition to Orthodoxa's suggestion that he had influenced the clients reports, a satanic deception would be another possibility to consider. I concede that, though there are counters to both of those suggestions. You call it paradise and it is. But another name for it is simply, "home". And there's no reason we should be barred from returning to the home from which we came. Why would/should academic knowledge in one's physical brain, constructed of random (?) DNA determine the destiny of a supernatural soul? That's one of the logic points that weighs in Newton's favor. Thanks for your comments.
That is an excellent question! And I have no answer, because in the model I subscribe to, it does not exist. Why? It's a very problematic attribute. Either a soul has sin on it or it does not, so at what point is a young child capable of committing his first sin and getting tainted for all eternity? 3 years? That is, 3 years from birth? Or maybe 3 years, 9 months from conception is a better clock to go by, since some kids are born early and we don't want to penalized them for starting to breathe a mere 7 months after life truely started instead of the normal 9? Then again, some kids are not as bright as others, so maybe the slower ones should get 6 months or a year extra free time as a toddler before they are eligible to sin, so if they happen to die in that time, they go to heaven. (??) But even if we remove the act of "sin" as a moral violation of human behavior in your model of Reincarnation, aren't we also removing morality that Reincarnation hopes will be addressed and corrected in future lives? I think we can both agree that there obviously still exist "evil acts" being created and perpetrated upon others (as well upon our own flesh and spirit); Traits we as rational humans are hardwired to recognized (psychopaths/sociopaths excluded.) CRUCIAL QUESTION: Do you believe man is "hardwired" to recognize "right from wrong"? Further on the subject of "right and wrong," there are generally a "Seven Deadly Sins" as cited in the Bible (Proverbs 6:16-19): (Self explanatory) The spirit commands the body to commit these "sins," or evil acts consciously or even unconsciously -- albeit some not as egregious as others, yet can we agree that all are still violations of the human spirit? For argument's sake, let consider children are exempt from committing such sins. But as you suggest, at what age do children "know" they are doing wrong? For that answer, logic dictates some Universal "Judge" (or referee) who'll keep score. In the model of reincarnation, there's a big problem; No so much with say the one-year old who just died, but with the continued cycle of karma and a "account" of the toddler whose past tab and atonement for past "sins" still must be paid. Just how karma works to wipe it all out appears seems impossible, as the sins of past lives accrue for the next life to work off (amidst of creating his/her brand new sins of a lifetime.) In the Christian model, it has been suggested that one of the reasons the subject of infant mortality was not addressed by either the Apostles or Jesus was because it was understood in the culture at the time, that a person was not responsible to God or understanding the covenant until maturity (approximately 12 to 13 years of age.) Moreover, in the Christian model, we can rely on Perfect Judgment of our Soul at Death. We are told that we will be judged according to our deeds committed "in the body." [2 Corinthians 5:10] The judgment of sinners that will take place at the great white throne [Revelation 20:11-12] will be "according to their deeds." Have those who died in infancy committed such deeds? Highly unlikely since they haven't yet developed the capacity to know good from evil. And THAT is key: "Knowing." Might there be some exceptions to the "age-rule"? Presumably. God knows the heart and spirit. I'm being facetious on purpose, but only to illustrate the problem with the concept of sin. There are varying degrees of lucidity, of awareness of whether our actions are good or bad. Sometimes we are fully alert, and sometimes not, due to weariness, illness, drugs, or physical brain condition, either old with dementia or, in the case above, quite young with a newly developing mind. And while there are varying degrees of lucidity with regard to are actions, good or bad, there are not varying degrees of sin, is there? What we end up with is a litmus test on judgement day. Any sin on you, it's to hell. No sin, to heaven. So how does a litmus test for sin, in the case of a young child barely aware of his surroundings, work in a just and sound way? I'm talking about that moment in time, that instant, when that child goes from being completely innocent to a sinner destined for hell. Is it possible for anyone to identify that instant in time? In my view, it isn't. And in the world presented by Newton, it doesn't exist. At least not in the form of something that condemns us. So if you can define sin in some clear way that addresses the issue of varying degrees of lucidity, I'm all ears. Slightly ahead of you and addressing some of your questions regarding sin and its "litmus test" out of sequence -- sorry bout that. In the Christian model, we are ALL "Sinners." Small sins, big sin, HUGE sins. They are all stains of various degrees -- whether pinpoint blood stains OR floods. That presents an obvious problem -- not only for us, but for God. In his Kingdom lies a white, immaculate carpet; sin does not exist there. Not even the tiniest. ALL are guilty. NONE innocent. (until His Perfect Judgment, AND important, Jesus Christ stands in for our sin and "saves" us from separation from God's Kingdom. Through Jesus' blood we become clean and white as the snow. That's called "Grace." In the world presented by Newton, it [sin] doesn't exist. At least not in the form of something that condemns us. The concept of sin and redemption do not apply to this model [of reincarnation], so that's not an issue. The world presented by Newton and model of a sinless existence and unnecessary penance is a mirage. Only Satan would be the author of such simplistic "life rules." There is no correcting of past sins, per se. There is learning of the harm we've done, and experiencing first hand the harm we've done to others. This is often done by choosing future lives that are destined to suffer the same harms we've inflicted. It's important to understand it's not about getting rid of a negative attribute like "sin", but rather growing in a positive ways by becoming wiser and more understanding. Wait -- it DOES appear the concepts of "sin" and "redemption" ARE indeed "issues." Otherwise, why the never-ending "teachable moment" returns to this life of suffering and disappointment, spinning forever upon a never-ending “wheel of reincarnation”? When does the wheel stop? We're still left with further mysteries and gaps -- WHO does the "choosing" of lives (in the future), by which all such believers retain an acute sense of past transgressions so that lessons could be learned? Again -- by what universal law of "justice" does suffering the same pain in previous lives atone as penance for the past? And again -- to whom and what force decides at what point such penance (or tab) is finally paid for our soul? If our lives are devoid of "sin" within Newton's model, Pragmatically speaking, how is man better of in Newton's model of reincarnation and karma rather than replace the biblical declaration that it is “appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27)? And along with it, the Grace of believing in the Blood of Jesus as redemption of our life of sin and violations of the spirit (committed by the body?) Yes, tragedy and pain DOES exist, and has since the fall of Adam and Eve. The author and facilitator of that pain is...Satan. Fortunately, we have but one life to live on this planet, “appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27.) This world is a realm given full reign by Satan as man's free will is both a curse and blessing... hence the proliferation of sin and misery. But also in this world, we are also given gifts and blessing in between the pitfalls of sin -- love, happiness, brotherhood, hope, faith,and the Free Will to repel and reject deceptions of alternative destinations for our eternal soul...which as per Free Will is our respective personal responsibility. Newton's information, by contrast, has present day evidence in support, and no conflict with the current science field (i.e. evolution). With Newton's model, we have answers to tough questions, such as why God allows tragedy to occur, why some are rich and some poor. We have a real pragmatic purpose and mission on earth which we don't have with the biblical model. I'm still not understanding the foundation or genesis of Newton's field of "evidence" in support of reincarnation and Karma. Neither any definitive "answers" (other than the "evidence" provided by what appears to be the same deception depicting a vivid "Heaven" that also replicates a peace and love.) Odd that this "Heaven" requires NOTHING other than....passing on from this life onto the next (that one.) Since Satan is the Father of Lies, the Great Deceiver, and sly, obvious stealer of souls, why take Newton's research at face-value in the first place? Q: Is it in Satan's power to hijack his hypnotized subjects AND then implant these same glorious mirages of "Heaven"? Satan presented a similar vision of glory more or less in change for his soul. Satan's greatest lie is in convince some that he does exits. Which is exactly why my premise could be dismissed. Moreover, the "science" of evolution -- if anything -- is totally un-proven from A-Z (but that's obviously another story.) With all dues respect, Scripture DOES indeed explain out purpose and mission here on earth (see Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, the Gospel, Paul's letter to Romans, Corinthians, Revelation, etc.) I guess I would answer that we do have such a manual. And it's you. And me. Each of us. We are souls, and at that soul level, we have our memories, our strengths and weaknesses. And we know, deep down, why we are here in this and every life, and know what we are supposed to do, even if we lack that conscious understanding. I would say it's not in any book, even the bible. Your mission and your purpose is already written inside of you. If you want a living message, that's where it would be. Not on ink and paper. I disagree respectfully on several of your assertions -- but agree a bit, surprisingly. We are hardwired to know right from wrong. We are hardwired to know good from evil; love from hate; honor from dishonor. But our spirits are susceptible to deceptions which warp that Creator-implanted "hardwire" of morality and perception. That's when down becomes "up; evil becomes "good," and "morality" becomes relative. That hardwire of pre-loaded morality is prone to override, hijacked, misfiring. That said, as you asserted, we DO indeed have a mission and purpose that's been hardwired. To reach out to oyr Creator and Lord and listen to Him speak to us. But we need to keep open the channels of communication. The Bible IS our "Owner's Manual" that merely reinforces and further instruct and encourages. It can also be referred to as a "Soul Doctor's Manual" :-) If I recall correctly, Newton claims to have regressed about 7000 clients into past and/or between life states, and gotten a high degree of consistency. In addition to Orthodoxa's suggestion that he had influenced the clients reports, a satanic deception would be another possibility to consider. I concede that, though there are counters to both of those suggestions. I don't question the consistency of visions or "past life" memories as related by the subjects. Not for a moment. But given the channels of the unconscious state were open for Newton and other hypnotists, in theory, demons could have taken advantage of the breached "firewall" and implanted false memories (yes, using real people) while of course implanting a "Heavenly" scene in all its vivid, detailed minutiae -- including a peace of mind, no mention of God, and sense of non-fundamentalism. ALL key component noted by the subjects. MESSAGES TO ALL: "God is irrelevant. Judgement irrelevant. Morality irrelevant. EVERYONE arrives at the same place -- regardless of degree of moral observance, deed, faith during our mortal lives." The obvious question: Who or what force would present such a portrayal of the Afterlife? And is THIS depiction universally "hardwired" OR the result of a temporary "channel-switch"? You call it paradise and it is. But another name for it is simply, "home". And there's no reason we should be barred from returning to the home from which we came. Why would/should academic knowledge in one's physical brain, constructed of random (?) DNA determine the destiny of a supernatural soul? That's one of the logic points that weighs in Newton's favor. Yes, there IS a reason to be "barred" from God's house: The filth of unwashed "SIN" (explained early in the post.) Where is it written that DNA somehow controls the destiny of our eternal soul? Your premise presumes quite a bit without authority. If you are making a case for those who have not heard the Gospel for whatever reason, were young when they died, or have undergone extenuating circumstances in this life, as discussed earlier, God in His infinite justice shall judge accordingly and fairly. Well, what is "seen" and sensed by hypnosis subjects is admittedly more or less a perception or simulation of "Paradise," isn't it? Keep in mind that we possess finite imagination and senses in our current mortal state. Not so sure if this simulation IS our "Home." What is "Home" or Heaven" like according to the Bible? (Revelation 21:4): "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (1 Cor 2:9): The "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" . Doesn't this verse contradict whatever vision of "Heaven" is depicted under hypnosis? Our potential future eternal House as per God: A place prepared for us that is NOT seen, NOT heard, NOR "entered into the heart of man." For further verses of Heaven: http://www.openbible.info/topics/description_of_heaven I'd like to have asked the following poll question after the respective research of the subjects: Are you now MORE likely to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or LESS?"
No, we are not. This is a point I tried to make earlier, I guess unsuccessfully. We as souls have strengths and weaknesses. Our goal is to make those weaknesses strong, and our strong points stronger. Your perception, the Christian perception of sin is of a negative force, something that stains us, like dirt, which must be washed away, removed from us. But there is no dirt. There is only weakness, and weakness is not a negative force to wash away. Weakness, in whatever form, is instead the absence of strength, and it's treated by adding something that is good, not by taking something bad away like "sin". Much of your response alludes to the necessity of washing something bad off of us. But that's not applicable in this model. "Man" is not so hardwired, but souls are wired to recognize right from wrong, perhaps at the start only to varying degrees. But every soul is completely unique, and young souls have an enormous amount to learn, and one is an acute perception of how the things we do, good or bad, affect others. Yes, "knowing" is key. And yet the point I made in my prior post is that there are varying degrees of awareness, of lucidity. If you crash into someone in the kitchen causing them harm because you just crawled out of bed in a stupor, are you just as accountable as doing so when wide awake? A problem with the concept of sin is that it is a binary thing. At judgement day, you have it or you don't. And yet the knowledge, or lucidity, required to commit sin comes in varying degrees. The two simply do not mix so well. As we progress in our spiritual development, the benefits of earthly life diminish, and at some point, we stop incarnating on earth, so the wheel is not never-ending. At that point, we are still far from our ultimate goal. Souls become guides for other, lessor developed souls, and continue the path of spiritual development at that level. (We all have guides, perhaps otherwise referred to as guardian angels). How far the path of development goes, Newton says he does not know, as his only source of info are, of course, the clients who are still incarnating. Newton reports that our guides select candidate lives for us to live, perhaps 2 or 3. One is usually recommended, but the final decision is ours. Perfect free will is in play for all of us. No one is ever forced to live a life they do not want to live, or even forced to choose. A soul can decline to incarnate if it wishes, for as long as it wishes. But incarnation is the most rapid way to progress spiritually, so not coming to the gym called earth means you stay weak. Progression without incarnation is very, very, very slow. But this free will element is why it can be said that life is completely fair (another beautiful element of this model), because no one is dealt a hand of cards they did not freely choose. A candidate might have a choice of a beautiful body in a wealthly life, a less attractive body, or say, one that has a handicap or maybe an opportunity to excel in the music field, which a soul may be skilled with. Choosing the handicapped body might be the preferred/recommended option, as it can better impart patience to the soul, for example, whereas a beautiful body living a wealthy life would be a waste of time for the soul. In this way, we can see a practical benefit to being physically impaired, which the Christian model basically does not recognize. This question, as with much of your response, is not applicable to this model. I don't believe I'm taking it at face value. Newton's research creates the most logical explanation to fit the observations, (mine at least) I've ever encountered, and does so better than the bible does. It fits so much better on theological, scientific and philosophical fields. It explains alleged phenominon such as ghosts (one of Newton's clients claimed to be one after a prior life, though Newton nor the client appears to have used that word), empathy, senses of de ja vou, prodegy children, phobias, the placebo effect, and even the joy eminating from babies (they've just come from paradise). Everything fits so very, very well. Yes, that is a possible explanation. But in my opinion, Newton's explanation fits the observable world much better. Well, the beauty of it is that it doesn't matter in a Newton model. In the Christian model, it does. This is another example of how Newton's model fits better -- no conflict with evolutionary theory, regardless of whether that theory is right on wrong. In the Christian model, earth is the only place in the universe where souls can originate. That because Jesus died once for all time for the redemption of souls.... but did so in human form. Ergo, any souls in non-human, alien bodies on other worlds, can't see redemption. In the Newton model, that's not a problem. The universe could be full of life, even intelligent life. Another example of it making more logical sense. I say that's not an accurate description of Newton's model. Isn't belief in a doctrine a function of the physical brain? A brain created according to DNA coding, and destined to return to dust? Some here have sourced their faith in the bible because of fulfilled prophecy, have they not? Isn't such academic research and conclusions a function of the brain that's destined to perish? Why then would a soul's destiny be determined by the function of a physical brain? Not logical. Best...
No, we are not. This is a point I tried to make earlier, I guess unsuccessfully. We as souls have strengths and weaknesses. Our goal is to make those weaknesses strong, and our strong points stronger. Your perception, the Christian perception of sin is of a negative force, something that stains us, like dirt, which must be washed away, removed from us. But there is no dirt. There is only weakness, and weakness is not a negative force to wash away. Weakness, in whatever form, is instead the absence of strength, and it's treated by adding something that is good, not by taking something bad away like "sin". Much of your response alludes to the necessity of washing something bad off of us. But that's not applicable in this model. Two points to address here: 1) Even in the Newton/Reincarnation/Karma Model -- IF the "goal is to make those weaknesses strong, and our strong points stronger," doesn't some remnant imperfection of morality still remain? With each and every "new" life which to "correct" past imperfections, aren't new imperfections/sin created in the meantime? How are past imperfections/sin remembered? Or am I still not getting your gist? 2) The Christian perception of "sin" is indeed based on a real "weakness" -- of moral discipline and fortitude. The bad news is, it is innate "Human Nature." Ergo, the need for a Perfect Redeemer. I understand that no "dirt" need be washed away in your model. But it seems counter-intuitive to discount moral accountability and "universal justice" in whatever model is chosen. In the Heaven model (as per "God's House Rules," yes, we must first be "de-contaminated" ;-) I don't believe I'm taking it at face value. Newton's research creates the most logical explanation to fit the observations, (mine at least) I've ever encountered, and does so better than the bible does. It fits so much better on theological, scientific and philosophical fields. It explains alleged phenominon such as ghosts (one of Newton's clients claimed to be one after a prior life, though Newton nor the client appears to have used that word), empathy, senses of de ja vou, prodegy children, phobias, the placebo effect, and even the joy eminating from babies (they've just come from paradise). Everything fits so very, very well. By "it," do you mean Newton's model of Reincarnation & Karma? Or the destination of the soul? Q: Is the metaphysical really explainable via "science"? Yes -- we've ALL had those senses of deja vu, familiarity, unexplained phobias, that shared "baby-high." Dunno how to explain it...other than as rare heightened hyper-empathetic sense as a result of hormonal/brain synapsical "eclipse" of sorts. "Perfect timing"? (Do winners at the track, lottery, and stocks/soul-mate choosing also fall under this catagory?) "Man" is not so hardwired, but souls are wired to recognize right from wrong, perhaps at the start only to varying degrees. But every soul is completely unique, and young souls have an enormous amount to learn, and one is an acute perception of how the things we do, good or bad, affect others. I concur that all souls are unique. AND need to "learn" much -- under fire and through adversity. But if we both agree that there IS a degree of "hardwired" sense of right & wrong," doesn't Newton's model need to explain that creative source? And WHY we imbued with that sense to begin with? (along with all the other fundamental discerning senses of beauty, honor, loyalty, etc?) IF Newton's NDE subjects provide the bulk of "evidence" in support of his model, your model, and the Reincarnation model, I again must express a deep cynicism for its "proof" given the existence of Satan and demons, and their power to invade, deceive and provide illusions. Our dream-state is evidence that our sense "reality" is prone to alteration (Many innocuous post-dream reactions: "DID THAT REALLY HAPPEN??") Yes, "knowing" is key. And yet the point I made in my prior post is that there are varying degrees of awareness, of lucidity. If you crash into someone in the kitchen causing them harm because you just crawled out of bed in a stupor, are you just as accountable as doing so when wide awake? A problem with the concept of sin is that it is a binary thing. At judgement day, you have it or you don't. And yet the knowledge, or lucidity, required to commit sin comes in varying degrees. The two simply do not mix so well. Good premises to consider. That's what intuitively leads man to believe in a final accountability of our lives and judgment. As we progress in our spiritual development, the benefits of earthly life diminish, and at some point, we stop incarnating on earth, so the wheel is not never-ending. At that point, we are still far from our ultimate goal. Souls become guides for other, lessor developed souls, and continue the path of spiritual development at that level. (We all have guides, perhaps otherwise referred to as guardian angels). How far the path of development goes, Newton says he does not know, as his only source of info are, of course, the clients who are still incarnating. I understand this theory of a "graduation" of sorts, and mentoring seems to make great sense for you, and quite logical. I can't help but question at face-value an entire theory of the Afterlife based on the similar NDE experiences of people whose subconscious firewall were breached and opened to the same power of suggestion scenarios from external forces. Newton reports that our guides select candidate lives for us to live, perhaps 2 or 3. One is usually recommended, but the final decision is ours. Perfect free will is in play for all of us. No one is ever forced to live a life they do not want to live, or even forced to choose. A soul can decline to incarnate if it wishes, for as long as it wishes. But incarnation is the most rapid way to progress spiritually, so not coming to the gym called earth means you stay weak. Progression without incarnation is very, very, very slow. But this free will element is why it can be said that life is completely fair (another beautiful element of this model), because no one is dealt a hand of cards they did not freely choose. Interesting -- and I'm trying to be objective here....But as cynical and taking seriously so important a philosophy as life and death. Observations: Newton appears to be taking on the role of guide and mentor himself, speaking from authority. Might it be possible that HE himself is chosen as a subject and vehicle of external powers of suggestion? Free will in play. +1 The possibility of a hijacked "free will" -- always a possibility of ANY one. Deception at work potentially in a weakened/damaged spiritual state. As to the "fairness" of life, hundreds of millions of Asian starving teens vs. Buffy in Beverly Hills may have slightly different views on those dealt cards. Rhyme or reason -- NOT seeing it in this model. Hard for the soul to progress spiritually when Priority One is the next meal and Karma 101 teaches that the current hopeless lot is the result of a past life's transgressions and the NEXT life most likely just a tick on the wheel better :-( This question, as with much of your response, is not applicable to this model. Is the spiritual step of "accountability and justice" for the soul eliminated totally in this model? Yes, that [Satan's power to hijack his hypnotized subjects AND then implant these same glorious mirages of "Heaven"] is a possible explanation. But in my opinion, Newton's explanation fits the observable world much better. Our "observable world" is often an illusion, a deception. Well, the beauty of it is that it doesn't matter in a Newton model. In the Christian model, it does. This is another example of how Newton's model fits better -- no conflict with evolutionary theory, regardless of whether that theory is right on wrong. In the Christian model, earth is the only place in the universe where souls can originate. That because Jesus died once for all time for the redemption of souls.... but did so in human form. Ergo, any souls in non-human, alien bodies on other worlds, can't see redemption. Newton's Model offers as its Centerpiece of Proof of Karmic progression of the soul one single "observable" anecdotal study that is admittedly prone to spiritual deception. The rest is pure speculation. Often, simple IS "beauty"; In this case it appears to be mask. I labor to find any "logic" or solid "observability" in his model that supersedes/displaces the Judeo-Christian of love/accountability, justice/reward. The Christian model relies on thousands of years actual "observability" and scrutiny. It presents a genealogy, historical persons, those who have literally "spoken" to God, their respective prophecies relaying His message and Laws, outlining His Plan for current living; Outlining moral/spiritual criteria for The Afterlife; recording physical eye-witness testimony and material evidence in support of Resurrection as the much larger Christian model of "basket" -- beginning at Point "A" and ends at Point "Z." The extensive volume of measurable evidence adds up to logic PLUS faith dwarfs the Newton Model by any standard. Just calling it as I see it. As to the consideration of being "inclusive" of potential ET souls, is it really relevant to our discussion of Man's soul? Or even the issue of "evolution"? (which is amoral in it's "survival of the fittest" premise even if it were a historical fact instead of a scientific impossibility -- another debate for another day :-) I say that's not an accurate description of Newton's model. Which specific assertions are not? Isn't belief in a doctrine a function of the physical brain? A brain created according to DNA coding, and destined to return to dust? Some here have sourced their faith in the bible because of fulfilled prophecy, have they not? Isn't such academic research and conclusions a function of the brain that's destined to perish? Why then would a soul's destiny be determined by the function of a physical brain? Not logical. Analyses to determine validity in beliefs or doctrines are indeed DNA attributes. The soul's destiny is determined by our inane hard-wired "logic" and knowledge that we are indeed finite, fragile, spiritual creatures who instinctively "know" we indeed have a Creator. Is it our "processor" -- our "brain" that determines the direction and destination of our soul, OR is it our spiritual "guide" which exists outside the realm of the brain? Can't it be both?
In *my* view, it appears you are not getting my gist, being unable to fully get away from the concept of imperfections as something to wash away. A weakness is not something that's remedied by taking anything away, but by adding. In this case, strength. One of Newton's case studies describes the birthing process of souls. The common term used for God is "the Source". I don't recall any real explanation for "why" we are the way we are though Newton usually queries hypnotized clients at length on topics of interest that are encountered. First, they are hypnotized subjects, not NDE subjects. On that note, this as an aside, there are many NDE's that relate overwhelmingly wonderful encounters with heavenly beings, but also many that talk about views of hell and demons. By contrast, Newton says he has never had a single client ever relate to him any view of demons, devils or hell. Newton's stated opinion about this, in at least one interview, is that NDE's often, if not almost always involve people who are suffering severe physical trauma. Hit by car, shot, severe pain and the sort, and that this psychological and physical input generates fear, which combined with preconditioning about the afterlife presents highly negative illusionary experiences. It takes some time for souls, after leaving the body to fully "awake" from the physical life experience and for the amnesia of our eternal existence and soulmates to wear off. By contrast, hypnotized subjects do not have the traumatic input factor that NDE subjects do. So Newton's opinion (and he objectively states it as his opinion, which is indicative of his approach being objective, which I like about him) is that the NDE's of hell and demons are illusionary only. It could be logically argued that anyone who is being hypnotized has obviously never been condemned to hell for all eternity after some prior life, and that could be the reason Newton never had any clients talk about demons and hell. But back to your point, no there's no "proof" that Newton's model is correct. I don't think we have proof any spiritual model. If we did, there'd be only one religion in the world, and it wouldn't be called a religion. We have evidence in support for both Christian and Newton models, and evidence is not proof. It comes down to faith to make the connection between that evidence and what we conclude as truth. That's how it is for both you and me. Other forces could also account for such concepts. Lifelong regret for deeds and negligences that result in severe harm to others, a desire for revenge on wrongdoers, envy of those living prosperously at the expense of some lower class and even a desire to control the behavior of others can be the source of such ideas. I can't cite any source for this but I was told or read somewhere Constantine declared reincarnation a heresy, possibly for the latter. Tell people they are here for one life only, and after that the judgement and you get more obedient people. True or not, that is a political motive for any authority to discard reincarnation. Then the subject of whether hypnosis involves any such "firewall breaching" would be a subject to investigate and agree upon. Could Newton be the subject of external manipulation? Sure, but we also have Brian Weiss, an author in the same profession has corroborated Newton on so many points, and without referencing Newton's work in the slightest way. I want to be extremely clear that Newton's never comes off as any "authority" in any of his books or interviews, saying things like *this* is the way things are and anyone or any religion that says otherwise is a lie and falsehood just subverting/deceiving people, etc, etc like members of traditional faiths like Christianity so often do. He comes off ONLY as a messenger of sorts, listening to what his clients say, truly interviewing them, relaying what they have told him. He does not pass judgement on concepts that are conveyed, such as the life selection depiction I mentioned above, which may well seem silly to you (given your "trying to be objective" phrase). If he did, he'd be telling his clients while they are under hypnosis, that what they are talking about is nonsense, and that he does not do, and no hypnotic therapist should ever be doing. He always talks with them in the context of what they are seeing *IS* real to them, saving analysis for another time. Two more points about this, also. 1) There is an element in hypnosis called "conscious interference" in which a hypnotic subject may relate things about the past that are influenced by the subjects conscious mind, such as desire to not believe that some past event really occurred the exact way it actually did. This could be tied to subjects not being as deeply hypnotized as they could be, and hypnosis is something that occurs at various degrees. Meditation, deep prayer, and the effects of fasting can all be considered a mild form of self-hypnosis. Times when you get out of your car after a routine trip to/from work, realizing that you have no conscious memory of the actual trip -- you were under very mild self-hypnosis. For this reason, no single memory uttered by a hypnotized client should be considered as necessarily factual. Only if many clients relate the same information would some aspect be considered as having some "authoritative" basis, and as I mentioned numerous times, with thousands of clients that standard has been met (at least for Newton) with the general concept of reincarnation and a spirit world complete with a "social structure" of sorts with soulmates, guides and a life selection process. A place that is central to our existence with earth being only the place away from home, instead of the reverse. 2) Relating views of the spirit world into English or any human language is problematic. Frequently people complain that words cannot describe what they see/perceive of this extra dimensional place, and that's quite reasonable as our language(s) evolved completely on earth for the purpose of living on earth. So it's appropriate to lend some slack to descriptions that may seem silly on the surface, much as we would listening to a first grader describe his field trip to a to a space launch facility. Also, hypothetically speaking, it's not unreasonable at all that future events on earth could be known well in advance if one has the advantage of an extra-dimensional view. A 3-dimentional view could offer enormous advantages in a 2-dimensional world. So why not a 5-dimensional view of our 4-dimensional world? I'm sorry, but I think I've already answer that more than sufficiently on this thread. But your source of faith, the bible, is part of this observable world. Not one, but thousands as per above. I see an enormous amount of logic to it. Enormous. Makes complete sense. We also both observe accounts of reincarnation. It's just that you discount them as lies of satan. Condemnation is simply not something God would do. That seems more likely a human attribute that was pinned on God in the early days, and carried forward into just about every major religion today. The #1 question taught in the unofficial "Atheism 101" classes is very valid: if God really loves everyone, why would he send people to hell? Christians answer with doctrine about God's nature saying he has no choice. The much better answer: He doesn't. My take: The bible is based on ancient documents claiming all you say, created by decent, artistic people, accumulating more respect as authority because of its antiquity with each passing generation. It does contain much truth and goodness which is a basis to claim all of it must be true. But also contains flaws, in the form of God being ascribed human attributes, painted as being angry, jealous and condemning. That in spite of such traits being an intrinsic sign of imperfection, insecurity and weakness when we see them in the people around us. Heck even the bible says we should rise above these shortcomings, and yet we're to believe it accurately describes God? To me it is, as the Christian theology precludes the existence of ET souls, and possibly even any form of life existing anywhere else in the universe depending on one's reading of Genesis. In the christian model, would an ET soul need to be saved (have sin)? and if so, could it be saved through Jesus's (human) death on the cross? Shouldn't Jesus incarnate on that ET world and die (again) as an ET for them? Repeat for every planet that has intelligent life seeking God? For that matter, do chimps have souls? If not, there has to be something holy and sacred about human DNA.... and then things get messy. Very messy. With Newton's model, everything here is squeaky, squeaky clean. But yes, ET ... discussion for another day.
Ok I'm not following this whole conversation. Is there evidence of this or is it just wishful thinking to make your beliefs jive?
#92. To: A K A Stone (#91)
It's a deep subject at times. That question pretty much summarizes what the thread attempts to answer. In a nutshell, there is evidence for both the Newton and Christian models, and doubtless wishful thinking for both as well, on the part of everyone here.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
ping
#25. To: Pinguinite (#20)
Well, satire or not, the theological model I subscribe to does not mean Jesus never lived and performed miracles. There may well have been a man named Jesus (or whatever the ancient version of his name was as it certainly wouldn't have been spelled in our present day alphabet), walking the earth, performing miracles and spreading a message of good will, and upsetting the establishment in the process.
“....where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”~ Mark 9:48
“...he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”~ Revelation 14:10
#34. To: Liberator (#25)
First, let me say that I appreciate your deep thought, intellectual honesty, and search for the truth.
Isn't this the presumptive narrative often cited to invalidate the entire Bible, its underpinnings of wisdom for living, and message of love and redemption? IF we can concede that an Almighty God and Creator of the Universe is capable of all things -- including divinely inspiring man to "transcribe" His message, laws, and word -- why must we presume He would allow His word(s) to be corrupted in the written form? (yes, I know -- because man is fundamentally corrupt. I get that part...) God's Word is incorruptible. This is what we must remember and maintain that faith.
It could be said that we are spirits and souls born in the flesh -- human form (in the image of God.) We ARE indeed "human beings" while living on this earth -- again, [possessing spirits and souls that transcend the flesh.
In any context of the term "Reincarnation," it is totally incompatible with the "Christian" theology which punctuates the destination of the eternal soul once and for all. Either one must embrace Scripture and the Word of God as a matter of faith, OR reject ALL of it. But certainly, all the answers are there. IF we truly seek the truth and open our hearts for the Holy Spirit to imbue that faith.
#54. To: Pinguinite (#34)
If we are willing to concede that God is capable of all things as you say, why does that NOT include the ability to save someone who has died with sin?
#65. To: Liberator (#54)
(Edited)
Btw, how do we define "sin"? As "evil acts"? "Spiritual filth"? "Violations of the spirit"?
In the reincarnation model, an eternity of lifetimes couldn't fully redeem man's nature -- which is to sin.
Which bring me to ask again -- to what authority or source of its validity as a redemptive solution can we trace "Reincarnation" and its partner, "Karma"? Have those who believe a memory of past transgressions and "mistakes"? Do YOU remember you past transgressions so that you may correct them? Since there is no "cheat-sheet" to this model, how does one ever hope to correct the sins of the past?
"Endless love with endless patience"? Yes, I do see it with God. But I see it in the context that despite our "nature" to be narcissistic, selfish, liars, hurtful, and abusive to ourselves and our fellow man, God has offered a simple Solution, but it DOES take faith. Why not accept instead the solution found in the Bible and God-in-the-Flesh -- a Messiah -- who picks up the entire tab IF we simply believe? It is backed by logic, history, eyewitnesses, testimony, fulfilled prophecies...and conclusive FINAL Destination based on man's Free Will. And yes, God own Word, shielded by an impenetrable firewall.
I appreciate you remarks and thoughts as well...
IF we can both admit that God the Almighty who created EVERYTHING from scratch, reason and purpose, how can we then rationalize that He wasn't capable of transcribing EXACTLY his Will and His "Onwer's Manual" into papyrus/paper/memory? To me it's illogical.
Reincarnation and Karma? Concepts -- though rational in some senses -- hasn't enough answers. IF the "eyewitnesses" of hypnotized subjects who've seen Heaven" -- regardless of degree of morality, faith, or religion -- ALL pretty much describe the same exact beautiful experience, IS there a possibility that the entire trip is Satanic Deception?
What common element is conveyed upon return? That essentially ALL who will leave this earth will enter Paradise -- regardless of ANY faith whatsoever.
#71. To: Pinguinite, Orthodoxa, redleghunter, don (#65)
(Btw, how do we define "sin"? As "evil acts"? "Spiritual filth"? "Violations of the spirit"?
1) A proud look
7) Him that soweth discord among brethren
2) A lying tongue
3) Hands that shed innocent blood
4) A heart that devises wicked plots
5) Feet that are swift to run into mischief
6) A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
#80. To: Liberator (#71)
But even if we remove the act of "sin" as a moral violation of human behavior in your model of Reincarnation, aren't we also removing morality that Reincarnation hopes will be addressed and corrected in future lives?
I think we can both agree that there obviously still exist "evil acts" being created and perpetrated upon others (as well upon our own flesh and spirit); Traits we as rational humans are hardwired to recognized (psychopaths/sociopaths excluded.) CRUCIAL QUESTION: Do you believe man is "hardwired" to recognize "right from wrong"?
Have those who died in infancy committed such deeds? Highly unlikely since they haven't yet developed the capacity to know good from evil. And THAT is key: "Knowing." Might there be some exceptions to the "age-rule"? Presumably. God knows the heart and spirit.
Wait -- it DOES appear the concepts of "sin" and "redemption" ARE indeed "issues." Otherwise, why the never-ending "teachable moment" returns to this life of suffering and disappointment, spinning forever upon a never-ending “wheel of reincarnation”? When does the wheel stop?
We're still left with further mysteries and gaps -- WHO does the "choosing" of lives (in the future), by which all such believers retain an acute sense of past transgressions so that lessons could be learned?
Again -- by what universal law of "justice" does suffering the same pain in previous lives atone as penance for the past? And again -- to whom and what force decides at what point such penance (or tab) is finally paid for our soul?
I'm still not understanding the foundation or genesis of Newton's field of "evidence" in support of reincarnation and Karma. Neither any definitive "answers" (other than the "evidence" provided by what appears to be the same deception depicting a vivid "Heaven" that also replicates a peace and love.) Odd that this "Heaven" requires NOTHING other than....passing on from this life onto the next (that one.) Since Satan is the Father of Lies, the Great Deceiver, and sly, obvious stealer of souls, why take Newton's research at face-value in the first place?
Q: Is it in Satan's power to hijack his hypnotized subjects AND then implant these same glorious mirages of "Heaven"? Satan presented a similar vision of glory more or less in change for his soul. Satan's greatest lie is in convince some that he does exits. Which is exactly why my premise could be dismissed.
Moreover, the "science" of evolution -- if anything -- is totally un-proven from A-Z (but that's obviously another story.)
MESSAGES TO ALL: "God is irrelevant. Judgement irrelevant. Morality irrelevant. EVERYONE arrives at the same place -- regardless of degree of moral observance, deed, faith during our mortal lives."
Where is it written that DNA somehow controls the destiny of our eternal soul? Your premise presumes quite a bit without authority.
#89. To: Pinguinite (#80)
"But even if we remove the act of 'sin' as a moral violation of human behavior in your model of Reincarnation, aren't we also removing morality that Reincarnation hopes will be addressed and corrected in future lives?"
"Again -- by what universal law of "justice" does suffering the same pain in previous lives atone as penance for the past? And again -- to whom and what force decides at what point such penance (or tab) is finally paid for our soul?"
"MESSAGES TO ALL: "God is irrelevant. Judgement irrelevant. Morality irrelevant. EVERYONE arrives at the same place -- regardless of degree of moral observance, deed, faith during our mortal lives."
#90. To: Liberator (#89)
1) Even in the Newton/Reincarnation/Karma Model -- IF the "goal is to make those weaknesses strong, and our strong points stronger," doesn't some remnant imperfection of morality still remain? With each and every "new" life which to "correct" past imperfections, aren't new imperfections/sin created in the meantime? How are past imperfections/sin remembered? Or am I still not getting your gist?
I concur that all souls are unique. AND need to "learn" much -- under fire and through adversity. But if we both agree that there IS a degree of "hardwired" sense of right & wrong," doesn't Newton's model need to explain that creative source? And WHY we imbued with that sense to begin with? (along with all the other fundamental discerning senses of beauty, honor, loyalty, etc?)
IF Newton's NDE subjects provide the bulk of "evidence" in support of his model, your model, and the Reincarnation model, I again must express a deep cynicism for its "proof" given the existence of Satan and demons, and their power to invade, deceive and provide illusions. Our dream-state is evidence that our sense "reality" is prone to alteration (Many innocuous post-dream reactions: "DID THAT REALLY HAPPEN??")
Good premises to consider. That's what intuitively leads man to believe in a final accountability of our lives and judgment.
I understand this theory of a "graduation" of sorts, and mentoring seems to make great sense for you, and quite logical. I can't help but question at face-value an entire theory of the Afterlife based on the similar NDE experiences of people whose subconscious firewall were breached and opened to the same power of suggestion scenarios from external forces.
Newton reports that our guides select candidate lives for us to live, perhaps 2 or 3. One is usually recommended, but the final decision is ours. Perfect free will is in play for all of us. No one is ever forced to live a life they do not want to live, or even forced to choose. A soul can decline to incarnate if it wishes, for as long as it wishes. But incarnation is the most rapid way to progress spiritually, so not coming to the gym called earth means you stay weak. Progression without incarnation is very, very, very slow. But this free will element is why it can be said that life is completely fair (another beautiful element of this model), because no one is dealt a hand of cards they did not freely choose.
Interesting -- and I'm trying to be objective here....But as cynical and taking seriously so important a philosophy as life and death.
Observations: Newton appears to be taking on the role of guide and mentor himself, speaking from authority. Might it be possible that HE himself is chosen as a subject and vehicle of external powers of suggestion?
Is the spiritual step of "accountability and justice" for the soul eliminated totally in this model?
Our "observable world" is often an illusion, a deception.
Newton's Model offers as its Centerpiece of Proof of Karmic progression of the soul one single "observable" anecdotal study ....
I labor to find any "logic" or solid "observability" in his model that supersedes/displaces the Judeo-Christian of love/accountability, justice/reward.
The Christian model relies on thousands of years actual "observability" and scrutiny. It presents a genealogy, historical persons, those who have literally "spoken" to God, their respective prophecies relaying His message and Laws, outlining His Plan for current living; Outlining moral/spiritual criteria for The Afterlife; recording physical eye-witness testimony and material evidence in support of Resurrection as the much larger Christian model of "basket" -- beginning at Point "A" and ends at Point "Z." The extensive volume of measurable evidence adds up to logic PLUS faith dwarfs the Newton Model by any standard. Just calling it as I see it.
As to the consideration of being "inclusive" of potential ET souls, is it really relevant to our discussion of Man's soul? Or even the issue of "evolution"?
#91. To: Pinguinite (#90)
, but by adding. In this case, strength.
Replies to Comment # 91. Ok I'm not following this whole conversation.
Is there evidence of this or is it just wishful thinking to make your beliefs jive?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 91.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]