Brother Michael Sky

he claims to be the reincarnation of John ( Jacob ), the brother of Jesus. I don't know if he is self-proclaimed or otherwise, but yes his very own website refers to him as a prophet... I cannot be absolutely sure, Cool, but it DOES APPEAR that scholars and the more famous of ministers avoid him like the plague.... I believe he does make the attempt, but gets very little in the way of responses... He quotes from absolutely EVERYTHING !!! and honestly Cool, I have yet to catch the man in any deception... and you know how hard-headed I am about tracking things down... I am even having a hard time catching him giving opinion that he cannot back up - ( given the difficulties we are aware of, when it comes to pinning the earliest things down that is... when you research the oldest of Biblical facts, you are actually reading the words of others about previous works... ) edit - his prophecy, and his personal opinion based solely on his personal experience must, of course, stand all on it's own...

When I read such words as these I am reminded of Edgar Cayce.... Cayce knew many, many things which were seemingly inexplicable. Things which were verified later as becoming true, and some things which were seemingly in error. His accuracy rating gives the serious scholar pause. Was it simply good guesswork, or was there SOMETHING there which the man had access to that the average person does not? IMO, it is not possible to decide, so one must judge a man by his record.... As far as Allan Cronshaw goes, I choose to simply withhold any sort of judgement on the matter, and move on to the other 40 pages or so of the man's writings... I choose to take what I know to be true and look for indications that the man COULD POSSIBLY be on to something in these other writings... I find within his writings things which resonate with my own personal beliefs, which I have acquired over many, many years of study. That does not mean that my mind does not question some of the things he says... and I believe that is the way it is supposed to be. We must question the veracity of such important subjects... and decide for ourselves after the necessary study. I WILL say, in the man's defense, that he either has some sort of valid inspiration, or he has done MUCH study in Biblical matters. Either way, as I check his references, and the conclusions he comes to, I find I am learning many, many things which I was previously unaware... for the man gives ACCURATE conclusions based on the material which is available - and I am not convinced easily - I need to see and follow, in a logical manner, the line of thought which has brought him to his conclusion. He is VERY good about listing the references which he has for the conclusions he makes... and when he is giving information which he acquires from metaphysical sources ( which I understand cannot be verified as his biblical information ) I simply skip on by and with hold judgement... but the clarity of his thought, and the clear, LOGICAL method by which he goes about his writings has me wondering out loud at times about those things I cannot verify.... I put my trust in the things I can verify, and let the other things dangle - as it were - with holding judgement.... which is the very same thing I find I must do with the Bible.... after all, we read in the bible of, like they are discussing above, women turned to salt... storehouses in the sky, woman being formed of a rib bone, etc, etc, etc..... which is also what we must do with the writings we find from everywhere. I have found simple textbooks which were wrong, I have found statements made by world famous scholars which turned out to be wrong, I have been wrong myself, and I choose to do the research when confronted by a questionable statement - if I cannot verify the TRUTH - then I must simply, as I said, with hold judgement and keep my mind open to possibilities... my mother used to use a saying " Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water ", I try to keep these words in my mind, as I have found some value in them...

I'd say I know a little about him, Cool........ anything particular you'd like to discuss? The Long Island Mystic

I do not believe that Jesus was the only one who had the Spirit of the Lord as an indwelling host. That is a Gnostic belief as well. So even inspiration which comes from with, comes from God. THAT is the point you seem to be missing. you are mixing up the concepts of triune and trinity... and the explanation of how it DOES indeed deny the trinity, is within the quote you refer to. when we have such debates as these, and we are instructed to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV), as Paul said - than yes, there is a certain difficulty... If we look at Matt 13:25 NAS and consider the Roman Church -"But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away" then we must "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn" as we are told to do in Matt 13:30 NAS. This is a task which requires hard work and constant attention - so in my mind no... the easiness is true once the wheat is gathered into the barn.. the tares must be collected first.. and the more time passes - the harder for us to recognize the wheat from the tare....

well, I guess I have learned something here...

Have you ever sat in on a quaker service Pete? It was a bit unnerving the first time for me, as I didn't know what to expect, but there IS a different feeling when sitting in the silence with a room full of people. It is a powerful experience in my mind... and I can immediately understand why it holds the attraction that it does. There's a quaker meeting house about 20 minutes from my house...

I find inspiration sometimes IN the minutiae.. when my mind is tracking down these dry, dusty things it has a tendency to be open to inspiration.. i find myself taking long, winding pathways to EXACTLY what was troubling me... and there I find comfort.... one way or another... It is seldom that I am completely stumped, because somewhere along the way my understanding is enlarged, and I find a new avenue to consider... but I do recognize that we are all different and take different paths to understanding... and I do truly believe we are greater together, than in our individual parts, which is why I frequent here so much...

I was trying to point out earlier that it is possible to get an idea of how the usage for the words themselves have evolved throughout the course of time....by looking up one word, you are introduced to similar words, and you begin to see the slight differences in usage... and i personally think it is possible to get a firm grasp of INTENTION when following this chain.... It's just that you have to draw a line somewhere in how much you are willing to post as reference - sometimes awareness is enough - it will cause curiosity which will send another on the same search, so that they might form their OWN opinion... and we ARE here to share... and I genuinely DO want to know other opinions... it's a dry dusty thing to concentrate on the words of scholars and ancient persons... real live contemporary peers make it so much more " flavorful "..... I feel much more confidence in doing the work for myself cool, so I don't find myself handing out another's opinion blindly... It's important to me, and the bible tells me to SEARCH for the truth... besides which, I am always wondering if this type of work is being done in these Biblical Higher Learning places like YOU are in.....

the interjection of the trinity was for exactly this reason... confusion... and to place an intermediary between God and Man... when no such intermediary was intended... Yes, Pete while I am always excited to see a fellow minister has decided to approach me in private - that was not a warm, fuzzy kind of thing....

because the Triune representation of the Godhead is not the same as The Doctrine of the Trinity... which would be the reason for quoting the church elders who DID have a chance to read from those texts... one would think it would be obvious that one needs to keep an open mind about such things however... which is why I would make sure that such references quote the texts which those opinions may be found in.... that seems to be where you are stuck, cool... repeatedly asking the same questions, waiting for me to get tired, so you can assert yours is the winner.... and a less comfortable method would be hard to find... it's like talking to a parrot.... your spelling seems to be falling apart... are you getting a little upset cool? Is that why you resort to insulting e-mails questioning my understanding of everything from the facts of this particular matter to my own understanding of the New Testament? It is quite obvious how upset you are, because I could hardly follow your insults.... most of it made no sense whatsoever... what exactly does this mean? " If you take the comments of the Church Fathers and remove the allusions to texts that it is not clear about what they are talking about, you will find that your confidence in the New Testament text will increase, and you will see the strong foundation in which it sits. " I assume it means you would like me to stop referencing the Church Fathers? You assert there is no use in reading what they had to say? cool, they are the only ones who had the chance to read some of those missing texts we were just referring to - of course one must keep an open mind about their opinions, but to insist their opinions are worthless? It becomes more and more obvious the mindset which makes these conversations so difficult... and cool.... If you have a personal problem you would like to talk about, or you simply miss me, and would like to chat- by all means send me an e-mail, but please keep your arguments where they belong....

exactly as it does in any version besides the KJV... and yet you continue to see the Trinity in every version...... which I have explained from my view, while you continue with your repetition.... kind of like seeing the trinity where no genuine references exist.....

there ya go pete... good enough for me... I take it further because the concept appears no where else in the text... In my mind that is definitive.. I feel the need to be assured of the NATURE of the DIVINE... because the use with which Jesus is put to with the concept of the Doctrine of The Trinity... that does not mean I do not see God as being able to show Himself in whatever aspect He chooses... whether it be The Father, The Water, or the Blood.... I simply insist that the WATER does not translate as the concept of The Word as described by The Doctrine of The Trinity... and I believe that is supported... I believe that the the Doctrine of The Trinity is used for a purpose not implied In ANY early text... but i agree with everything else you said... I guess it truly does come down to a belief... well, each to his own... and I'm fine with that...

I would say that you are reading a CORRECTED version of the text... ( and you haven't dropped the reference to the Trinity which was inserted - and removed when corrected ) It is the obedience to the son part which is the misunderstanding, and exactly what that means... It is obedience to GOD as DISPLAYED by the son... and yes, we have no argument that the Son was sent by God... ALL are sent by God - who else is there to send a soul anywhere?

Dan, you have a very typical fundamentalist viewpoint. And by fundamentalist, I am referring to a mindset. As Mr. Cronshaw stated : why not use the definition I clearly intended to use? If Paul was indeed a believer in the Doctrine of the Trinity - Why do his letters speak against such a misunderstanding? and speak so clearly...? very clearly indeed.... Once again, why not use the definition which fits the context? note that there becomes a political connotation..... and as far as it being an " either - or " situation.... that idea shows a misunderstanding of the Nature of the Message - the VERY REASON Jesus spoke in Parables... a refusal to see the layered meaning to the text... Matthew 13:10-17 " I don't care what the facts show - I refuse to believe !" - the rallying cry of the fundamentalist..... Does this come from some " inner knowing" or " gnosis"? because all historical FACT shows otherwise... The Gnostics were not written, they were ( and ARE ) a very real group of believers... the "trying to turn the truth into a lie" was done long, long ago. I find Hope and Joy in the Biblical Jesus, In His ACTUAL message, which even though there has been so much meddling with, and obfuscation of, His Message - it is still there to be understood. What is easy is to swallow is the misdirection which was purposely put into the texts... But no where does it say in the message that it would be EASY to enter the Kingdom... that should be your first warning that something is fishey...... "Try accepting it instead of investigating it." - No, thank you Dan, for that is directly in opposition to our instruction ... i.e. - "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV). - Dan, that could be seen as being in direct opposition to our instruction from the text... you are slipping into gnostic thought, without the benefit of an understanding of the written word......I understand that folks will have a different understanding - But our conversation is about what IS or IS NOT in the text. Our conversation has been about what is Provable or Not... not necessarily about our teanslations of what IS there... it has fallen into interpretation at times, but I will assume we are all adults here, and able to see each others opinions as just that - our opinions... For ME, there is VERY CLEARLY, a message which lies sleeping within a text which has been badly misused throughout history. This , again for me, is yet another proof that there is TRUTH and VALUE in the message brought to us by God's Wisest Son - that no matter how much meddling there has been - the message can still be found. I mean, sheesh, we are talking about 2000 YEARS of time which has passed, with the message in the hands of those who purposely sought to pervert the Word to their own purposes, and yet I may sit here at my desk, and find the Message brought such a long time ago... THIS is my proof... and it causes me JOY... is it any wonder why I should go through so much trouble to try and share it? But fear not - I do understand that this is my OPINION.... and I am not trying to negate the VALIDITY of other opinions.... I simply don't share them.... I share MY understanding.... thats what we do here....

The problem here is not on my end Cool.... I understand perfectly well that you see references to the trinity in that passage.... what I am repeatedly trying to get across to YOU, is that I do not believe they exist..... there is a basic difference between our beliefs.... and it breaks down to Jesus' role in things.... you see him as God incarnate ( am I correct? ) and I see him as a MAN who, through living the correct way, was graced by our Creator's Conscious Personal Presence - from an INDWELLING source.... I believe that Jesus shared with us that ALL are capable of what he accomplished.... and I believe that is what the text tells us....THAT is why references to the doctrine of the Trinity are such a dangerous misdirection.... I even gave you the definition of the WORD, i.e. LOGOS, that is the root of the problem.... you quickly ran past all of my attempts in an effort to WIN the argument... an argument that scripture DOES NOT back up for you - interpretation only gets you so far - you must at some point pay attention to the LANGUAGE USED..... THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY that scholars consider legitimate - interpretation alone gets you that reference.... As a self-proclaimed Biblical Scholar, that should be knowledge you already possess... You keep referring to two texts that are well recognized to have , more or less, the very same problems, one is simply a little more contaminated than the other.... Jesus, in my belief, was born of a Human union, between Joseph and Mary, and was a normal human boy, until the point at which he was Baptized by John the Baptist..... at which Point he was Graced by the Conscious Presence of God.... THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE... You DID tell me you had read what I posted - I do not want to infer that you, in actuality, DID NOT, but if you had - how could you have missed this: Unless that is, you simply could not see it in your attempt to WIN an argument that is not supported on your end........ I KNOW you are going to simply repeat that I did not see your point - but before you do - PLEASE GO REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK..... AND LOOK FOR THE USAGE OF LOGOS...... what is ACTUALLY THERE......

I think that along with the other references to the trinity which were dispersed throughout the entire text, it allows for a misunderstanding... due to the wording of the verse... The only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" Word (wɜːd) — n 1. Christianity the 2nd person of the Trinity [translation of Greek logos, as in John 1:1] that SHOULD show you that the trinity was NEVER in 5:1-11

the violence against the early believers started with the stoning of Stephen, who was arguing against the Hellenist's, and their belief in Jesus.... and Paul's campaign ended in 35 a.d. - The fighting was between Jews and early Christians... it wasn't until 64 a.d. that Nero began the persecutions - those who were handy and clogging up Rome... and neither him,Domitian, in 95.D.,or Diocletian in 303 cared what gospels were being read.... a Christian was a Christian was a Christian... and in 95 it was against anyone who refused to honor the emperor cult... in 303 it was specifically about Christians again, but they burnt everything Christian they could get their hands on... Essene or otherwise...

that cannot be supported, but IMO, it can be supported the other way around... and I think you misunderstand Gnosticism - for Paul was a gnostic as his letters clearly show... that, is a ridiculously uneducated opinion..in my opinion.... it comes straight from the issues we are talking about... misunderstandings and misdirection... and possibly a misunderstanding of the usage of paganism... at a time when it was illegal to possess the texts? when texts were gathered up and burned in big piles? they were important enough to gather up and hide away for a couple thousand years, were they not? what was left was thoroughly censored by the church.... c'mon, this is BASIC history...and it was slightly different than you suggest..

it is a common misconception and misunderstanding of 1 John 5:14-15, IMO..... again a misconception brought about by the erroneous idea introduced by the doctrine of the trinity... We are to ACT in sync with God's will, and Jesus is assuring us that anything asked for within the scope of God's will is assured to be granted.... it was not meant as a " magic formula" to get what one wants irregardless of why they want it... I don't see a mention to Jesus - I see the Holy Spirit mentioned there... 1 John 14:23 " Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." Tells us that it is the Will of the Father which accomplishes these things.... the " common denominator " can only be seen as The Father... unless one is confused by the false teaching of The Doctrine of the Trinity which was inserted...

because it adds a reference to the trinity that wasn't within the original intent of the verse.... which can only be shown by examining other verses as well... it must be considered that the theme of The Trinity was inserted in various measures throughout the gospels... which only shows the effectiveness of the two methods, IMO It changes the focus of our responsibility to The Lord... it takes the responsibility to walk LIKE Jesus, to simply asking him to let us off the hook...and assuring us that's is good enough... personally, IMO, I believe I have... and counting letters and words has next to nothing to do with it... it involves studying the text IN IT'S ENTIRETY.... again : Because the insertion of the doctrine of the trinity changes the focus of our responsibility to The Lord... it takes the responsibility to walk LIKE Jesus, to simply asking him to let us off the hook...and assuring us that's is good enough... 1.If Spong has decided that there are misunderstandings within his belief structure - which are to the detriment of those he has preached to previously, does he have an obligation to try to sort it out for them? Are you saying he should give up the collar? 2. perhaps he feels there is error in the tradition, and who better to try to straighten it out but him? If you choose to spend your time chasing heretics, maybe one would think so - but isn't this the cause of the problem to begin with?

If we accept the idea that the trinity was introduced into the text ( if only for a moment ) - where would your arguments against Spong stand? If our instruction was truly to " be taught directly by the indwelling Word " - then it would be a little more difficult to disparage his words, would it not? - and our recourse would be to " take it to the Lord " ...deep inside ourselves, for clarity..... but we have not been taught to establish and practice this connection...... and it is, IMO, a severe detriment to the average Christian.... If the Average "biblical illiterate" were taught to establish a connection with the Lord - and continually refine it, I wonder what changes would take place within the Christian community...

The way I see it is that since there is a question, we must look in other places for verification or denial... the Author goes on to say: so there is reason for doubt.... a large reason for doubt... and raises the question of other examples...as in 1 timothy 3:16 and Matthew 29:19 What we need to do, IMO, is acquire a comprehensive view, looking for THEMES which do not jibe.... and being wary of those themes... and as the author states: one of the things I find so frustrating is the lack of sources left for us, due to the destruction committed by the early church. We're left trying to find the truth in WHAT REMAINS... and pointing out one specific Verse, without a comprehensive view, is common practice for trying to prove concepts that just don't jibe, IMO..... The concept of the Trinity is a very important example, and we MUST try to get to the bottom of it... and it is a concept which, when seen with a comprehensive view, just does not jibe..... That should make us look for reasons WHY it was inserted... because, as the author has stated: the importance of this cannot be stated strongly enough , for as the author says: so in answer to your points -1. YES, a subterfuge is strongly hinted at ( as an understatement ) and 2. It changes the most basic interpretation of the Word, to the point of derailing Christian practice to it's most impotent form... edit: i'm sure you realize, at this point I'm wishing I HAD taken a week to write up an answer in my own words - for I am now in the position of framing my thoughts in the authors language - but I will do my best here Cool, as conversation IS what I wanted....

i guess that means you have something to look forward to... as the Bible Hebraica Quinta ( with the recently released qumran material ) is due in 2015... guess that answers another of your questions from above.... ok, i'm off to meditate... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere...