Brother Michael Sky

exactly my opinion as well... I do not pray with a desired result in mind.... I pray that the difficulty experienced by the individual will be clarified, and that their Highest and Best good will be accomplished - and yet I do not imagine that I have any firm grasp of what that may be... I am simply joining that soul in a desire for clarity and understanding....

my prayers and energy healing will be added to those of the others.

Thanks Carl !! and Happy Thanksgiving from me as well !!

I would say that I am satisfied... sometimes I am Happy, sometimes not nearly so... things are not perfect in my life, I even have some things that distress me greatly at times, but it does not detract from my overall satisfaction with where my life is at right now. I am satisfied because I know things could be much worse...

ummm, wasn't it Origin who created the Hexapla? Which contained all the previous versions in one? what could be clearer than that? how could that be considered misleading in any way? you're jumping all over here dan.... It was Marcion who prompted the Early Chruch to specify their authoritative sources... And Montanus as well... they had enough followers to be trouble... and they were definitely gnostic... It was almost the 200's before the church started talking about " official scripture" and it was Irenaeus who decided " for since there are four zones to the world in which we live, and four principal winds... it is fitting that the church should have four pillars." making Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Gospel, because in his view, the gospels symbolized in the four cherubim in Ezekial 1:5-10 and Revelation 4:7. Each Face represented both an aspect of Jesus' work and a characteristic of a particular gospel... The argument involving Origin and Clement and others was allegorical interpretation of the Gospels... The Damage was done when they went after Valentinus and produced the Apostle's Creed... and Irenaeus went crazy..

what I thought was funny, was your stated belief that gnosticism was a " a religious/philosophical movement " which " corrupted " Early Christianity ", and your stated belief that the " more reputable Byzantine scribes " were somehow more faithful in reproducing the message of the Text.... History does not support either view... and it obviously comes from a place of bias.... You are, of course, referring to the infamous council of Nicea.... which had several pointed goals : 1. Settle the vexing problem of the Divinity of Jesus - which they did by introducing The Doctrine of the Trinity... 2. Figure out the Problems they were having involving the Date for Easter... 3. Smack down the rebellious Pope, who disagreed mightily with emperor Constantine... and of course several more mundane matters...... and it is even funnier considering Eusebius was the author of one " Preparation for the Gospel " which was an argument why Jewish and Christian belief were superior to Pagan myth and Philosophy... all the while Christians were gathering Pagan holidays and believers like the pied piper.... Athanasius was there as well...the first to use the term " canon " to describe the " official sanction " of the contents of the Bible... A man who was exiled five times during his career.... exiled from ALEXANDRIA..... which had the biggest Library of the ancient world.... he didn't even agree with his buddy Eusebius on a regular basis..... It seems ridiculous to me, that folks will make judgments that support their view of things directly in the face of proof otherwise... There was only one thing the byzantine scribes could be trusted to do : EXACTLY what they needed to do to make their emperor happy... and Constantine had POLITICAL motivations - he used the religious belief of the Jews and Christians as a club to keep them in line.... he had his scribes find justification for the way he wanted things, and made sure that the Text which resulted from the imprisonment of clergy, supported his desires.... and the rest was hunted down and burnt, under the people who held the documents which disagreed.... I believe the Church Fathers had a genuine desire to get things right, but in the landscape of the time, accuracy was not the primary motivation.... THERE WERE TWO POPES at the time, for crying out loud..... and the Pope in Rome was at direct odds with Byzantium - ask yourself why.....

Didn't mean to offend you Dan54... it really WAS funny.... I would suggest a little MORE research for you, however... mine own is ongoing... The Church Fathers, as they are called, had a specific thrust to their actions. You must understand the men, to understand the politics they were engaged in... I honestly didn't mean to offend, but I can see how I should have been a little more reserved... sorry, Mate..

I continue with my prayers for her...

Neither accurate nor likely.... and flies in the face of historical truth.... but very funny!!!

typical opinion of the time period... then you throw in all the Greeks who are accusing Early Christians of stealing all the good stories in their new faith from previous sources... I honestly think anyone who feels there is nothing to " prove " about the text of the bible hasn't researched enough... or is not thinking clearly.... It was very clearly put together out of a bunch of pieces, of specifically chosen texts, and all that was meant to remain was a very specific portion of Early Christian belief... Folks use as their defense a foundation which does not exist in which they feel perfectly secure saying " The Word of God as displayed in the Holy Bible is perfect. " The reason I say this foundation does not exist is this : To understand Christian concepts one must understand Jewish concepts.... Concepts which developed over a couple thousand years before the birth of The Christ... which had only been written down after about 1500 years of history... and argued about constantly afterwards.... and were still being argued when The Christ arrived... Concepts which had to be unified for the formation of the Religion of the Empire - if it hadn't happened in 2000 years, do you supposed the EXACT right thing was written down? There is considerable variety in the text. the same books from different sources have differences.... and there seems to have been the intention of altering the text... proven by evidence... as proven by the addition in 1 John 5:7 which means it is recognized as an " addition ", and stricken from the text as such.... and that is only one example... others were provided... There was by no means a unified Christian Body in effect when the words were written down. We have discovered that it is VERY unlikely that the words were written by the people we commonly ascribe them to, and are at their best - the remembrances of youth by an old man.... because the best bits we've found, which refer to events of the New Testament, were recorded at LEAST 35 years after the fact..and MANY are much much later.... so you are not arguing that God is Perfect - you are arguing that a man's memory had such critical detail. When we go back to historical personages who are discussing Christianity, a very different picture emerges, which should cause questions...when questioned leads to errors, omissions, and insertions.... which leads to the acknowledgement of themes within the texts... and those which might have been inserted or modified... So the conclusion MUST be, YES, the text was altered, mistranslated, abused.... but that does not make it worthless... It still remains ALMOST all we have to root through, to discover the Message delivered two thousand years ago... a piece of the puzzle..... but not the only piece....

It was also a very fine example of teaching basic Karmic principles.... It's a big circular thing.... that religious thought will have such a wide range of belief.... all we know is : Religion - control=bad , freedom=good ........ and we state our belief clearly........ because there will ALWAYS be a forum to do so...

neither do we understand prevailing sentiment, The structure of daily life, or the colloquiality of Life ( The Common, everyday fluxes of language ) pertaining to a world two thousand years in our Past... The Average Joe doesn't put himself in the place of the Early Jew who was part of the beginning of the Christian Faith... And in my personal opinion - all the elaborate belief structures built on a shaky footing will tumble before solid reasoning, common sense, and awareness of the subject matter.... and the POINT is : we can most positively be aware of the INTENTIONS people have edited into the book, while we go about deciphering the meaning for ourselves - because, again IMO, there is enough to study on and question within the MESSAGE of the books, that arguing meaning which was printed INTO the books simply takes up useful time..... but until we start answering these question, we have no choice but to simply share what has been shared with us.... handing out a range of beliefs so that folks can choose one that " feels right "..... uncomfortable fact... but a fact nonetheless....

sometimes it's a year later and I'm STILL modifying my opinion of what i FIND says... I could see long conversations there... much less, processing out the OPINIONS we have been taught, that have zero basis in truth... But I have to say... Lack of credentials means very little to me - a clear line of reasoning is my only qualification... It makes ones task a little easier to go about, IMO, when someone is arguing a point - you must find where it is supported or denied... searching for themes within a host of texts is an impossible qualification for forum conversations - it's dry dusty work, and takes more time and energy than most will commit... no judgement, just truth...

people are confused in the separation of the ideas of a triune representation of God, and the Doctrine of The Trinity... The reason I was so persistent earlier in the conversation was to bring this misconception out.... and make others think of exactly what the difference IS.... It is fair to say that the Doctrine of The Trinity is not supported in the Historical beginnings of Christianity... But I think the important question is - why IS there a triune representation forwarded? What are the purposes of the concept? And exactly how does it differ in its implementation towards our faith than do the trinity teachings?..... I think these questions are important to hold in your mind, while you search for satisfaction... whoever feels the need to search, that is.... the strange thing is - I never intended that the conversation center so focused ON the trinity.... I knew how touchy a subject it is... But Cool nailed me down on that one.... he knew that any discussion of changes to the text MUST focus on THAT concept..... It was the foundation for the rest of the Crime.... It's a long winding trail to personal satisfaction... and some never find it at all....

Well, as you said, folks have a tendency to look for what they want within the scriptures, and looking hard enough - find what they seek.... so, with that in mind, wouldn't just sharing the message you've personally found be the right action if you believe the average Christian is Biblically illiterate? Maybe he feels that when they do their searching in the Texts, they'll find the message he is suggesting... Maybe he's been working on his parables..... I'm curious what course of action YOU think he SHOULD undertake? It seems you were questioning his ability to preach non-standard doctrine.... am I right? That he shouldn't call himself by a name which has very specific connotations? Is that it? What do you think the PROPER action would be if he wants to share such a different message?

Interesting take the Essene Gospel of Peace displays towards cleanliness.... It starts out with Jesus telling the sick how to make themselves strong again....

By that same token... There's been more than one time this song has just jumped out of the blue at me... Jerry didn't last too long after recording these songs with David Grisman ( Thats who's strokin that banjo... ) He was on his way Home...

Imagine how carefully he would critique you if you did start using Cronshaw as a source - He'd walk on eggshells... ... wondering for your sanity.... but thats just how it is...... I admit to reading his words and checking his sources just to follow his train of thought... some of it will get your mind spinning with ideas... but you ALWAYS have to make up your own mind.... thats just being reasonable... and yes, I understand what you mean very well.... and yet I still had a completely different picture in my mind of that conversation I mentioned, than how it turned out to strike me when I did first read it... There was something visceral about taking that conversation in..Reading of Origins life and history in the foreward..... The impression you get of Celsus ... The topics, the insinuations, heck ... the very nature of the fact Celsus' part is fragmentary.... like I said... I like to read it once in a while... a moment in time... I'm rather excited, as my sister implies that she has a four book set, about the Jews lives, experiences, and influences, during the early years of Christianity... in literature of the period... she's been at the thrift store again... sound like she hit gold, huh?

Your comment made something " pop " into my mind - have you read Celsus ?... and Origin against Celsus? I had so many deja-vu moments reading those words... moments from forums ( yes, even this one ).. for fun sometime Cool, go back and refresh in your memory the tone taken by Celsus, and yes, even Origin's tone...... here, I snatched it from my links : Celsus the contents section are links to read the text... Origin contra Celsus and here is Origin's reply very interesting the tone and attitude which Celsus displays.... he is so arrogant and superior, and yes - downright nasty...I wondered as I was reading if this was an attitude early Jews and Christians found all around them... it is interesting to listen to his ideas of where so many Biblical tales originate from - this may not be your pick for entertainment.. ... but I felt it a very interesting read... and I refresh my memory once in a while.... and as i said - it will remind you of arguments you've seen on forums...

I admit to a little underhanded exploration as well... no public records of him being any sort of malefactor....

I'll give it a go.... but I want two guesses.... 1. were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period - "Osler recommends chloroform at sixty" 2. the coelacanth is almost worthless as its tissues exude oils that give the flesh a foul flavor - penis captivus do I win the prize, Rabbi?