Marek: The Question is not, "Is it Heretical? but, "Is it Right?"

I am not sure I got the idea across to Marek in http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2016/02/e-mails-from-and-to-marek.html that the question to be asking about Neville Goddard's and his ilk's views is not, "Are they heretical?" but, "Are they correct?

Perhaps the thing to remember is that the Bible is not about the things that happen on the earth but the forces that form the earth. That is quite a different departure from the basic "What is going on?" So some people look at history and tradition and others at metaphysics. We believe that whether or not the history is true, the Bible's authors were writing about metaphysics. The article I will post tonight on Sarah and Jairus' daughter, God willing, will illustrate. See you tomorrow.
http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2016/03/sarah-returned-to-youth-and-jairuss.html

Genesis 1: 1and the Son of Man: Our Becoming Fully Human -- Victor Alexander Corrects My Speculations

-----Original Message-----
From: imagicworldview@aol.com
To: vic@v-a.com
Subject: I used you as reference

Mr. Alexander,

I was struggling to express a thought connecting your translation of Exodus 3: 14 with Genesis 1: 1 http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2016/02/victor-alexanders-translation-of.html. I used you as reference (not for my ideas, but they would not have been possible without your translations). Perhaps you could take a look and see if I have gotten too far afield.
Thanks.

Dan Steele
______________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Alexander vic@v-a.com
To: imagicworldview imagicworldview@aol.com
Subject: Re: I used you as reference

Hi Dan,

No, you are on track. I enjoy reading your blog posts. It's the best use of my translations. All I can hope to do is preserve the original wordings of the Scriptures.

I'll read it again later today.

With Maryah's blessings,
Vic
___________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Alexander vic@v-a.com
To: imagicworldview imagicworldview@aol.com
Subject: Re: I used you as reference

Hi Dan,

Alright, I understand where you're coming from, I know where you're going, but I'm not sure about the conclusion.

It seems to me, you're following the logic of 'becoming one with God.' Instead you should be following the logic of 'becoming a human being' (barnashah, bar=son, na-sha=human.) In English, it translates as becoming a 'Son of Man.' Eashoa refers to Himself as 'bar-na-sha' or 'son of man.'

He is literally saying that He is a human being, but He also asks His followers to become 'human beings.' He is inviting his followers to become fully human!

In that way you also want people to understand that we have the potential to rise to a much fuller stature as children of God.

So, only the ending throws me off: that you are espousing for people to become 'God.'

Your analysis of the words and concepts otherwise is accurate; but you drop the reverence for the Creator a bit.

Let me know what you think. Please clarify your theology some more. You're definitely on to something.

With Maryah's blessings,

Vic
___________________________________

Vic,

Thank you. As I have neither the Aramaic text not the ability to read it, I was unaware of the word barnashah. It is a game-changer in the understanding of Genesis 1: 1 toward the way I now understand it, which is as an expression of Exodus 3: 14.

No, I am not saying to become one with God. I am saying that even in this state we are one with God; that He is in this state as us. We are Him -- an aspect of Him in this state of development.

We are Him in the state of becoming fully human as the human is destined to become fully Him. We are not the ones doing this; HE is the one doing it. He just happens to be us. I am not saying to become God, but to become God-like because He is what we are. We have a lot of room for improvement.

There is a point at which we will be fully reconciled with God -- our natures, that is (attitudes, values, principles) -- when our human-ness coincides with His God-ness. In my theology, the Ineffable planned His manifestation as Man, the human being Eashoa, becoming through the development we are now in. He, the Manifestation, is the end we are all going to -- the "Him" of Exodus 3: 14's hiyeh (-- the Him of Genesis 1: 2, the Eashoa Msheekha of Mark, and the Lamb Who is worthy in John's Revelation). The planned Man is there already, for the Ineffable imagines the conclusion of the process. Us, not so much. But we shall be as He is.

The Ineffable is exactly that: there is not anything we can know about Him. But I think we can conclude that He imagines. We are His portrait, and we are consciousness imagining. We know (kind of) that the universe is made up of particles. What if His consciousness is made up of particles also? What if we are specks of His consciousness, and He want us to be just like Him? Instead of following suit, to be suit. We need to evolve in the character of our imagining.

If the Ineffable imagines, and His imagining is His "Son," His perfect manifestation Man imagines also, and his imagining is his "son." We are all part of that perfected end Man, and his imagining, the son of Man, exists in us. I know that he has spoken to me, healed me, and provides for me. As a particle of His consciousness, I am ignorant of what I am to be. The son of man has come not from a distance but from the silence of my ignorance to guide me into His likeness, to the planned humanhood -- the perfect Manifestation of the Ineffable. I just have to get over this ignorance.

Sorry. Got kind of preachy. I know this is all speculative and hard to follow. I will review and work on your suggestions.

Thanks again. God bless your work.

Dan Steele
_________________________________

If Mr. Alexander responds to my e-mail, I will post it here.

In the meantime, please visit and explore the many facets of his web site at v-a.com and v-a.com/bible/. If any of the above finds resonance with you and/or is enlightening,  remember I would never have had any of these thoughts if it were not for Alexander's translations (well, okay, Neville Goddard's lectures have had a lot to do with them, too). Push the envelope of your humanness toward manifesting His Godhood.

Romans 5: 12 Only Makes Sense If Christ's Crucifixion Occurred at Genesis 1

My Romans professor, Dr. Ray Shelton, said that from constant use a theologian's Bible automatically falls open to whichever page that has Romans 5: 12 on it. Romans 5: 12 is THE perplexing problem.

Romans 5: 12 states: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (KJV).

The verse seems to say that death passes upon all men because we all sin. No sin -- no death. But that is clearly not the case: "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come" (Romans 5: 14).

Dr. Ray explained that the confusion stems from the translation of the Greek 'o (ho), "because of which." They translated it as "for that," which now means the opposite of what it did four hundred years ago. The verse shows a parallel: one man sinned, so death passed upon him. All men have sinned, and death has passed upon all men. But what about the 'o? The 'o reverses causes. It is not saying that having sinned we died, but that death passed upon all men, BECAUSE OF WHICH -- DEATH -- all sinned.

Oy vey! The theologians' minds go 'round and 'round. Is it original sin? Where is the justice? A person is to be judged for his own faults. If we are judged for Adam's . . . ?

Systematic theology gets derailed at Genesis 1: 1, for it sees separation between the Creator and his creation. Beep! Division is not there. The Creator is an emanation of the Ineffable, and his "creation" is his manifestation. There is no separation or division between him and it -- either which way. The Creator is the conscious intelligence of the Ineffable's imagining. This is infinite and unlimited in potential. It imagined a man, and all men from that man. It imagined that man having become Its perfect manifestation. Cool! Except to become that perfect manifestation, the man would have to be generated to perfection through affliction and futility. Whoa! Who came up with that plan? God. For us to become generated into the perfection of the Ineffable's imagination, we have to spend our "three days in the grave."

Thus the one man died for all at the beginning. In fact as the Beginning. He became UNLIKE GOD -- sin -- in ignorance -- to become us. And by that ignorance death entered upon us. All of us in becoming into the world become unlike God. We become ignorant and "die" of our Godhood. We enter the death of forgetting, BECAUSE OF WHICH FORGETTING we sin in our daily lives. We do not die because we sin, we sin because we are "dead." We are dead because one died for all, and if one died for all, then all are dead.

That is why we have to repent, i.e., take a new direction, and accept regeneration from God. Regeneration. It has got to work, because he who imagined the man perfected in Genesis 1, imagined all the men from him perfected, too, for they all are him! "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5: 21).

Victor Alexander's Translation of Genesis 1: 1, the Apostasy of Western Christianity (and maybe Judaism, too), and My Effort to Fix the World

Western theology diverges from biblical theology from the first verse of the Bible. From the first word, actually. And it never gets back. It is hard to imagine anyone not knowing the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1: 1, according to the authorized King James Version: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." The Jewish Publication Society says exactly the same thing (give or take a couple of capitals), while the Stone Tanach states, "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, . . . " indicating that God's creative action is ongoing. I propose that this verse is the beginning of the Western apostasy and the source of aberrant Jewish and Christian theologies. We get the Bible wrong from the get-go, from the very beginning! Because this is not what Moses said, nor is it what he meant.

It is my belief that in Genesis 1: 1 Moses restated God's startling revelation of Exodus 3: 14, "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh" (Victor Alexander's translation from the Ancient Aramaic; see his footnotes http://www.v-a.com/bible/supporters/exodus_1-4.html). This was to Moses not idle chit-chat. From these words' meaning is the springing forth of the universe, of life, and of all history: "all its evolution." Encapsulated in the words is the purpose for all creation. No more important words existed in the universe for Moses, so from the very beginning of his writings he explained their conception as the basis for all that he would write. And we got them all wrong -- and their conception, completely wrong. Yeah, "Oops."

We can start fixing our understanding by considering the nature of the God who spoke to Moses and whom is mentioned in Genesis 1: 1. (By the way, there is a big to-do about the name of God. Forget about it. God does not have a name; he has a nature. All the titles of God are references to his nature. "Thou shalt call upon the nature of Jehovah." That is much broader than any one word can express. I mean, really, any one word is going to encapsulate all the nature of God? Get over it.) It is important for us to understand the nature of the God who said, "Ahiyeh" -- "I come." I say "nature" purposefully. His one nature contains sub-natures or "aspects" which can be very confusing and misleading for us, for any aspect sub-nature -- consciousness, power, or wisdom (or for that matter, ignorance) -- may speak for itself, or, because it is all one, for the whole of the ineffable Being. The ineffable Being is the key here, for that "Ineffable" who has aspects and sub-natures is one being. It is especially confusing for us because they all are called God and they all are God. There not being division between them drives us nuts. But that IS our problem(!), because we are part of the aspects!

Yes, getting too deep.

In my studies I came across Jewish concepts of the Ineffable, the most high form of God who is the Source of all existence. "It" is beyond form or substance. It is beyond all concepts of thing-ness. It is beyond force and energy, beyond mind, thought, consciousness, and beyond even the endlessness of this dimension and all other dimensions. It has no movement, for It has no thing-ness. And yet . . . It acted. THAT was, and is, a really good trick -- having no thing and yet still acting. My contention is that It "acted" by imagining. What else could It do? Its intelligence in imagining has the power to become what it imagines.

Here is the thing: I believe that the Ineffable's imagining aspect is Its "Son," the child of Proverbs 8 and elsewhere. We cannot know the Ineffable, but we can know Its imagining, because that is what we are. We are here because It imagined us imagining, and we imagined that we are here. We have really fooled ourselves. But I am getting off track again.

Among the Jewish concepts of the Ineffable I learned is their proposed ancient form of Genesis 1: 1: "With a beginning, [It] created God, the heavens and the earth" (Cooper, Rabbi David A. 1997. God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism. New York: Riverhead Books, p. 66.) The Ineffable imagined, and that imagining was the creation of Its Son (rather, Its imagining IS Its Son) -- "God," and by Its Son It created (i.e., by imagining) the heavens and the earth. That is good, but it is still not what the verse says.

As I understand, it is Victor Alexander's contention that the very ancient Aramaic language was the very ancient Hebrew language. They were at one time the same language. Over time and space they diverged, but always the ancient Aramaic has been the scribal language of the "Hebrew" scriptures (talk to Vic about it). The first Aramaic word in the Bible is brasheeth: before the beginning (emphasis mine). This is the word by which everything in Western systematic theology goes to pot. It is not a reference to time. For before the beginning there was nothing but the Ineffable. Brasheeth is a reference to Him -- the Him who in Exodus 3: 14 said to Moses, "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh." That Ineffable being who is coming by imagining is that which was "Before the Beginning."

The Ineffable's Son, Its action of imagining, is that by which It is coming into this dimension. The Son and the Ineffable are one, so AS the Beginning (i.e., the imagining of the Ineffable being the Ineffable), the "Son of God" (in Alexander's translation -- the imagining of the Ineffable being the intelligence which is power) -- creates the heavens and the earth.  Or, as Alexander translates Genesis 1: 1: "As the beginning, the Son of God creates the heavens and the earth." The Son of God is the beginning, imagining as the Ineffable who is from before the beginning, which he is, which ongoingly creates the world we are in. 'Ashur' is the name of the Creator God, this aspect of the Ineffable -- nature of the Imagining of the Ineffable.

The third word in Exodus 3: 14 is 'hiyeh'. This is the most interesting word, because it is THIRD person. Kind of blows the translation "I AM THAT I AM" right out of the water. Sorry to burst your confessing bubble, but the priests changed it because they either did not like or could not handle the theology of the original wording: "His becoming." Let's look again at God's revelation of Himself:
'Ahiyeh' -- I Come -- this is the Ineffable.
'Ashur' -- the Creator God -- this is the Son of God, the imagining of the Ineffable by which He comes.
'Hiyeh' -- his becoming -- this is the manifestation of the Ineffable, which is ongoing and developing.

Ashur is the imagining of the Ineffable . . . and IS the Ineffable. There is not anything else in the universe or anywhere else except the Ineffable. There is nothing but Him. The Godhead is not divided: He is the one thing. As the Ineffable, the imagination of the Ineffable is creating the heavens and the earth. "And the earth was for Him and by Him" (Genesis 1: 2, Alexander). For and by whom? For the Manifestation of the Ineffable, and by the Manifestation of the Ineffable. This where we come in.

"And the darkness was (became) over the face of infinite space" (Genesis 1: 2, Alexander, parenthesis mine). We are aspects of the Imagining of the Ineffable. Its manifestation is by us and for us. Imagining that we are humans, we completely and absolutely moved into the amnesia of forgetting . . . that we are God! We make ourselves ignorant of the fact and honestly see ourselves as humans. Our purpose here is to manifest the Ineffable.

We take on the complete ignorance of what we are in order to enjoy this realm, this sphere of forgetting -- "death" -- so that we may progress to becoming more like the Ineffable in freedom. Cast here in ignorance, something in our lives tells us of the existence and goodness of God. I believe that is the 'Jethro' Moses was contemplating when God revealed Himself to him. Jethro means "His jutting over" and "His excellence." It is the excellence of God, his goodness towards us which draws us to seeking him. Jethro was the question in Moses' mind when he sought God. And God answered: "Jethro? Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh" -- "I MYSELF, ASHUR, AM HIS, JETHRO'S, BECOMING. That is my nature forever!"

Be noble, and be loving. You have some big shoes to fill. Give up to Him, and He will fill your shoes. For WE are to be Jethro. Take on the nature.

Response to Anonymous Criticism of "Neville Goddard and the Development of the Gospel from Mistake to Correct"

I received a useful criticism in the comments section of "Neville Goddard and the Development of the Gospel from Mistake to Correct" (http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2013/07/neville-goddard-and-development-of.html). I couldn't release the comment because of conflicts in its scripting (it apparently had been cut from one format and pasted into blogger's format). It was an "ESI" -- an Evangelical Standard Insult from Anonymous.

Said Anonymous:

"I just hope by now that you’ve been committed like the nut-job Neville Goddard should have been. How can any of you believe that garbage and interpret the Bible like you do with a straight face? You twist and turn it to however it feels good to you. I can only hope that your wife talked some sense into you, that is, if she hasn’t left you already. I’ll pray to the REAL God in Heaven for your soul."

I could reply snidely to Anonymous, but I see a jewel in his vitriol. He says, "How can any of you believe that garbage and interpret the Bible like you do with a straight face?" That is just the thing, Mr. Anonymous, that you do not understand: you do not have a Bible. I got onto this kick about twenty years ago CORRECTING MY BIBLE. You've got a study Bible, no? Are there not hundreds of margin notes in it correcting and explaining the text? My favorite is The Companion Bible edited by Ethelbert Bullinger. The margins are more than the columns of text. It is King James Version, which is known to have several hundreds of errors and mistranslations. When I read it, my mind automatically accounts for those errors and, with Bullinger's margin notes, corrects my reading.

As Bullinger notes in his Appendixes, the Hebrew text has been edited so that even an accurate translation still is not what was originally said  (see, e.g., app. 30-33). The Sopherim changed it because they didn't like the original's theology! Taking some of Bullinger's observations to Strong's Concordance's Hebrew Dictionary and New Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, I found that much of the Bible, though it says what it means, does not mean what it says. That is because we take what it says WRONGLY.

If you will read some books by Jews, you will find that they do not read the Bible like we do. I am talking about books by Rabbi David A. Cooper and Aryeh Kaplan. Come on, you've got a computer -- you e-mailed me. Look up Baal Shem Tov and search out what Jewish Rabbis say about the oneness of God. Their Bible is not your Bible. Their heads do not see the same things you see BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT THE WRONG BIBLE. And you have a bunch of church doctrines you read the Bible by that are made up out of a bunch of fantasies based on a bunch of things that the Bible really does not say.

I can interpret the Bible like I do with a straight face because I am making the effort to find the real Bible and translate it and interpret it the way it was written and meant. I am not twisting and turning it; it is twisting and turning me!

Don't take my word for this. Victor Alexander happens to be a native speaker of modern Aramaic who studied ancient Aramaic and cuneiform writing, the basis for ancient Hebrew and the Aramaic of the first century Israel.
______________________________
Says Alexander:

"It's mind boggling that there are so many variations in the Bible Text as translated. Aside from all the possible reasons why the Scriptures were mistranslated over a period of two thousand years, there is the unanswered question: how could so many translators have looked at the same verses and come up with totally different interpretations? There is this, that no one has mentioned before: the translators didn't know the original languages well enough, they didn't grasp the poetic elegance, they lacked translating skill, and the task of translating so much text overwhelmed them.

"I come up to verses everyday that I say to myself, 'They just didn't know what this meant.' Sometimes the translators didn't understand a certain idiom or expression. Other times, they simply made up something that may have sounded good in the language they knew well -- the language into which they were translating.

Sometimes the translators came pretty close to the meaning, but usually it is clear that they didn't know the original languages and relied too much on Greek and Latin. (http://www.v-a.com/bible/  June 4, 2015).

Also from Alexander:

"The translation you find on this website is not only different in a few passages; there are differences in every sentence. There is at least one word in every verse that has been translated differently by the Western translations from the Greek and Latin. If you look at these differences you might conclude that they are superficial, that the meaning is still the same; but this is not the case, and there are many reasons why this is the case.

"The first reason is that as Christians certain phrases and doctrines have been drilled into our heads. There are all the beautiful hymns and the marvelous sermons preached on certain concepts that have become second nature to our faith. There are lyrics and music that have warmed our hearts for years. There are doctrines that have sunk deep into our spirit. And there is all the fellowship that we share with our members in the congregations we have attended for decades. The weight of all these teachings are impossible for most people to shake loose.

"This is why the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures do not reach the great majority of Americans and the English language speaking people of the world. At best my translation project reaches only a handful of people everyday. I know that there is at least one word that has been mistranslated in every sentence of the Scriptures, but how can I present all the wrong translations of every passage of the Bible? Many of my supporters have asked me to choose a few of these passages -- maybe the critical ones -- and write about them. This I have done, but the result is still nothing; most people just ignore a few differences. There are millions of differences between the translations of all the churches already. So the few differences that I present are simply ignored or chalked off to 'Okay, what else do you have to tell me?'

"Here it is one more time: when you change one word in every sentence of the Scriptures, over the years these words take on a different meaning. Every translation into other languages magnifies the errors. The new interpretations of the Scriptures produce new denominations. The sermons that are preached by these denominations multiply and the end result is a gigantic divide in theological matters. This is how the Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church, and later how the Protestants split from the Catholic Church. Now we have four hundred and fifty different translations of the Bible in English alone.

"This is the dilemma I'm facing now. How do I make it known that the Scriptures are preserved in the Ancient Aramaic language of the time of Eashoa Msheekha, and that if we go back to these Scriptures we will be able to read the original writings of the Apostles? I have translated the New Testament and some of the Books of the Old Testament. I'm translating the Book of Proverbs now. I invite you to read my translations as I post them online, and purchase the Books I have published so far. I will continue despite the difficulties of reaching people on the ever expanding universe of the Internet. This is my mission" (Emphasis mine -- Steele). (http://www.v-a.com/bible/AAC/AAC-blog-1.html  Mar. 31, 2014).
 ___________________

So you see what I am saying, Anonymous, that you do not even have a real Bible? You have never even seen one. You may ardently believe the "bible" you have, but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES FROM REAL GOD IN HEAVEN that you are going to pray to for me (thank you very much, though, for the thought). Your concept of Him must be in error because the Bible you learn about Him from is nothing but error. THAT is why you should want to get a better version of the Bible and with it consider what the Rabbis and "nut-jobs" like Neville Goddard and I write so you can understand it. I hope you do not think I'm doing this for my health. At 3:40 AM?!

From Marek, and To Marek: Response to a French Catholic's Inquiry

-----Original Message-----
From: Marek
To: imagicworldview imagicworldview@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 3:18 pm
Subject: Regular visitor of your blog

Hi Dan,

I have come across your blog very recently (through this post) and after reading all the old posts with absolutely consuming interest over a couple days, I can now call myself a regular. Not only is the subject seriously mind-bending stuff to me, but your writing style cracks me up! I love it. In my initial enthusiasm I started drafting a mail to you to discuss a few things, but left it unfinished for lack of time. But then you published a "send me an e-mail" post, so I kinda took it personally.

I am a French engineer living in London. I have recently stumbled onto Neville Goddard by way of this reddit, and have been reading a lot of his stuff, practically all I could get my hands on. Your blog has been very helpful in shedding light of some of the more opaque concepts.

I enjoy a lot of Neville's stuff, but being a practicing Catholic, I must be honest and say there remains a lot of things that don't sit too well with me - to put it mildly. The first thought I had about Neville's teachings is that this stuff is, indeed...heretical! I wanted to see what others said and thought about it, and that's what led me to the post linked to at the beginning of this mail. Very simply, the whole "Jesus was never a physical person" I do not accept (as a Catholic, it is easy to understand why). I do, however, completely believe in Mark 11:23.

Another thing that is ringing huge alarm bells for me is Abdullah's "brothers" that foretold Neville's visit. Who would those invisible "brothers" be, in your opinion? When I read "ascended master" (as I read suggested elsewhere), I tend to hear "demon"....not unlike the one you slammed the door onto!

It would not be the first, or the 100th time that deceiving spirits spread false teachings to gullible humans.

So... I'd like to know where this all came from.

Another things that I am uneasy with is that most websites that reference Neville are of the "Law of Attraction", how-to-attract-riches, I-have-a-method-to-sell-you variety. Said otherwise: garbage for the brain and for the soul. I was happy to find that you do not associate with these.

I know that you do not believe any of the characters of the Bible to be literal. However, I wanted to ask you: would you not consider that said characters should be taken BOTH literally (as Vic Alexander believes) and symbolically (as Neville believes) ? Why have to chose? It is very difficult for me to believe the strictly symbolic reading. Simply because I think that the Living God could not, in any way, let so many humans remain in such a state of misunderstanding, for so long!

Anyway, I am looking forward to your new posts, and perhaps a dialogue.

I'll see you on the blog.

All the best,

Marek

PS: Thanks for introducing me indirectly to Vic Alexander's work. Super interesting stuff.

_________________________________________

Dear Marek,

Thank you for writing. Most interesting stuff. The link to reddit scared me - so many people discussing things they admittedly do not understand AS ANSWERS to sincerely asked questions. Were to God we could go to our priests or pastors to get knowledgeable explanations. We usually cannot. We have to get input and construct the knowledge ourselves. Many happily discern God's orchestrating activity in this endeavor.

Let me refer you to an interesting book, The Worship of the Dead by Col. J. Garnier. You can download a PDF to read: https://archive.org/details/worshipdeadoror00garngoog. George Stanley Faber's Origin of Pagan Idolatries, vol. III, too https://archive.org/details/originofpaganido03fabe. I mention these because they support your hypothesis that both the literal and the symbolic are true, at least to some extent. They also deal with demonic influences. The historic events and heros, well known to the audience to be literal, are utilized to present the author's symbolic theses.

Faber discusses the literal, historical Moses around page 600. Gerald Massey discusses how the mythical Moses image of Egyptian scripture became the symbolic Moses of Hebrew scripture even though the historic Moses was something else. I'd have to dig up the reference for that. So, while there may have been people as the basis of the stories, the stories are not about them. They are about you. Because the scripture are about God, and YOU are God -- the inside you who plans to go to Heaven when you die.

In the case of Jesus, I am quite vested in the symbolic interpretation of spiritual truth as revealed in scripture, yet HE  SPOKE TO ME. That voice, His voice, is my eye in the rock, my anchor in the bedrock of my faith. I believe that both the un-ignoranced Christ AND the ignoranced Christ dwell in me, God AS my imagination, Christs (one, actually) reconciling. I am the thoroughly ignoranced Christ: "Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of your life" (Genesis 3: 14 KJV). The un-ignoranced Christ is here in me, and in you also, trying to lift our imagining, which is Eve. Thus the enmity. Thus also the un-ignoranced Christ could speak directly to me through the hearing lobe of my brain.

Could God who imagines he is me-thinking-that-"I"-am-thinking not also manifest physically as himself-thinking-that-he-is-him-thinking? He could. Did he? I do not know: I was not there. I am not sure the report "who hath believed?" is that he did (though I would not put it past him to do it just to say that he did). The report in Isaiah 53 is not about a coming man but is a status report on the project. THAT is true prophecy. The He and Him in Isaiah is the third person in Exodus 3: 14! That which we -- God(!) -- are becoming -- the Ineffable manifest! "I Myself absolutely come by causative imagining His becoming." (May I refer you to the name of this blog?)

In either case the whole and absolute all of the kerugma is true. The "symbolic" is literal and true in manifest reality in the medium of the spirit we are. The "literal-historical" is symbolic of the spiritually true. I think we need to cut through all of this to what IS: "Because God's plan for me is the risen Christ, I am saved," and go with that.

Abdullah's "brothers" are a mystery of ignorance. They raised red flags with me, also, initially, but I have matured a bit since then. And I am not sure his explanation was really meant the way it has been taken. He was at a level, though, where it could have been unincarnate spirits of God (either what we were before we flipped into incarnation, or what we will become when we develop to a higher realm; remember the sunflowers in Unless I Go Away), or it might simply have been his having heard the ideas of students and/or associates who were trying to get Neville to attend Abdullah's lectures.

"I think that the Living God could not, in any way, let so many humans remain in such a state of misunderstanding, for so long!" We are not humans. We entered this sphere of "death" -- forgetting -- eons ago in order to be generated into the pure manifestation of the Ineffable. We keep forgetting -- getting "ignoranced" -- life after life. Generation is "here a little, there a little," in a long, long project. Our part of eternity is less than a speck of His eternity. Ray Summer sums it up so well: Worthy is the Lamb!

Thanks again for reading and responding to my request for e-mails.

Dan Steele

James Says to Show God Mercy -- Be(!) Merciful God by Really Imagining

James, probably the first epistle written in the New Testament, tells us to show mercy to God. An odd thought? Not from a oneness perspective.

"9. The gentle brother or sister is uplifted in their exaltation, 10. And the wealthy in their humility, because like the flower of the herb they pass along. 11. For when the sun rises and dries the herb with its heat, its flower falls off and the beauty of its sight passes away, thus also the wealthy shall be struck by your warmth. 12. Blessed is the person who anticipates being tested; so as when they win, they receive the wreath of everlasting life, that which Allaha has promised those people who are merciful to Him" (James 1: 9-12, Victor Alexander's translation from the ancient Aramaic).

Because if you believe God, are God's friend -- Av-ra-heim (Abraham), Allaha's Mercy (James 2: 23, Alexander. In God's oneness we are the Father, and the Father is Merciful. And everyone else is the Father, too.

"5. Listen, dear brethren, was it not those poor in worldly possessions and yet rich in faith that Allaha chose to be the heirs of the Kingdom, that which Allaha bequeathed to those who showed mercy to Him?" (James 2: 5, Alexander).

"12. Thus you shall speak and thus you shall vow, as people who are destined to be tried by the Law of Freedom. 13. For a judge has no mercy for the one who shows no mercy. You win the judge over with mercy" (James 2: 12-13, Alexander). To Him!

"27. For the pure and holy ministry before Allaha the Father is this, to [make a difference in the lives] of orphans and widows in their tribulations and to guard oneself from the world without malice . . . 8. And if you adhere to the Law of Allaha, you would do well, as is written [in Scriptures,] “Be merciful to your brothers and sisters* as though they were yourself.” (James 1: 27; 2: 8, Alexander). Because they are.

As I see it, "Him" is whom we are becoming by mastering how to imagine like Him, the Most High. "He" is the third person in Exodus 3: 14 in manifestation.

James was preaching Mosaic Christianity. The pre-flip, unignoranced Christ is here with the ignoranced, flipped-into-us Christ we actually are. I know that sounds weird, but God has become us by imagining. Now we are to reconcile to the nature and character of the Imaginer. We are to be doers of the Word spoken by the Most High, the Source of all, the "I" who is coming into manifestation by imagining, by actively imagining like It, not just saying/being of an opinion with our physical mouths, which I do not believe the Most High has. Our REAL mouth is our MIND. DO the imagining!



See more at http://www.v-a.com/bible/james_1.html

Why We Love Neville Goddard

Like you, probably, I have read and watched scores of books and videos on the power of the subconscious mind and chakras and the solar plexus -- all kinds of complex and weird voo-dooy stuff. Neville told us simply to imagine.

Why can't our thousands of priests and ministers teach people to imagine well when they pray, to imagine goodness, with belief, with movement to that goodness, to live in its end-state as they fall asleep, to live nobly with clearness . . . and STOP teaching visions of chaos and wars and famine and ruin?

Please Sent Me An E-mail

Hi. I get readers from all around the world -- Russia and Ukraine, India and Indonesia, France, Canada, Japan and Australia, even Morocco (hello, Germany and Sweden) -- but not many comments. Which is good, but I am curious as to who is reading my posts and why. Is anyone getting anything out of it?

Please do me a favor and e-mail me at imagicworldview@aol.com. Tell me just a little about yourself (if you would, please) and/or the reason you read my blog. Are you using it somehow? Are you getting anything out of it? You do not have to tell me your name or exact city location. Maybe something like: "My name is Boris. I live in western Russia where I teach school. I am writing a book on causative imagining," or whatever -- as much or as little as you care to share.

I do not intend to publish responses, compile anything or even respond to the e-mails unless they contain questions. I will not post anything without your consent.

So, is there anything in particular about the Becoming God or Neville Goddard's lectures or writings you are looking for or are interested in? Thank you for your interest and your help.

My e-mail address is imagicworldview@aol.com

I Learned Exodus 3: 14 Differently Than Neville Goddard: There is no "I AM THAT I AM."

"This first letter, JOD, is your I AMness, your awareness." --Neville Goddard, 1948, Lesson 1.

No, JOD is third person. Aleph is "I come (absolute, in the sense of become)." This is my awareness. To HIS becoming. (Exodus 3: 14 says, "AHYH Ashur YHWH," not "YHWH Ashur YHWH." Check your theology.)

"I come . . . to his becoming." Imagine your coming to be his becoming.

FYI: YHWH or "yod-hey-vav-hey" -- Yahwei or Jehovah -- is THIRD person singular. YHWH means "His becoming." I.e., when it works, you have found God. "See that working . . . ? That's God!"

Of course, this is a wash in the oneness of God, but it does pertain to our present experience.

In What Way Are the Antediluvian Patriarchs Us?

It is easy to see that Adam is the power of Life, the spirit consciousness of God that God makes into us. The "rib" that comes out in sleep is the creative power of Life's purpose and desire in the dream state, imagining. God empowers the purpose and desire of Life to manifest, thus the rib's creative power becomes Eve, the mother of all living.
Man is the plan, but this sphere of death is not a pleasant proposition. God's spirit consciousness follows God's will, but, "Do I really have to do that?"

Says the Shining One, the Power and the Wisdom of God that has become us: "Hey, you will become more like the Most High if you get with the program. You won't really 'die' in that form of death; it is just forgetting for awhile while you get generated into a better being. Besides, I will always be with you, because I am you."

So we descent into humanhood and acquire fixity of being, Cain, and Abel, transitoriness, and complete ignorance due to the amnesia that makes being here possible.

"Whoa! I didn't see that coming."

"What?"

"I don't know. I forget. Are there sandwiches?"

In humanness we see the fixity of our being and can count on that. God's nature of transitoriness, not so much. That requires faith. We live our lives following physical whims instead of relying on God, who is almost entirely shut out of our consciousness (which, ironically, is God). "Well, we have lost Abel, consciousness of God's transitoriness."

"Who?"

"The thing that makes good things happen."

"Oh, yeah. I always loved that guy. Not to worry: I'll come up with a Seth, a substitute to put in his place."

"Won't be as good, Enos."

"Sure it will. Now, what was he? Spirit stuff of some sort. There is a God out there somewhere that was impressed as hell by the guy. How about Cainan? We can build a religion and occupy it like a nest, maybe become monks and lament our faults. Or how about Mahalaleel? We can shine in exuberance and throw out our hands and dance all around enthusiastically -- make a big show of how clearly we love God."

"I'm not sure those are the kinds of things that impress God. Spirit is an inner thing. I would rather Jared: descend into myself in deep meditation -- get down and get serious. Maybe if I Enoch -- narrow myself and apply discipline, he will teach me and initiate me in what Abel is like. Then my way will eventually get there."

"Sounds like a long project." . . . "How'd it go?"

"By Jove, I think I've got it. Over some time I matured -- Methuselah -- into an adult in my consciousness and saw that God's Life is the animating force of my life. 'My' life that I have been controlling to do whatever I want is really HIS Life. I have robbed God of whatever purpose he had for putting his Life in me. My self-control in my own self-lordship has for all my life been used as a weapon against myself! I saw that I had made myself a rebel against God, and that the only thing to do was to go back to square one, to cast self-control out of myself, and just wholly undo myself in complete submission to God. I chucked self-control out of myself and fully expected to fall flat on my face like a blob. Instead, I didn't fall, I just felt curiously Lamech, the opposite of a king -- powerless. I had abdicated self-rule in full. I had a peace I couldn't understand, Noah, a rest wherein I knew God was with me, in me, that I was accepted by God and that everything was okay. God was in charge, and MOMENT BY MOMENT HE WOULD WORK THINGS TOGETHER TO GOOD FOR ME. I found God's acceptable substitute for Abel: Noah, trust in God and letting go to let him do it. Let him float your boat!


Associated with http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2015/10/anger-caused-cancer-healing-by_22.html

The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16: 23-24

Added 11/17/2022 https://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2022/11/jesus-christ-and-when-you-make-two-one.html

Added 2/6/2023 Did the 4th Century Church Edit John 16:23–24?

Seems some are not noticing this link which mitigates the claim of editing. See my post on "Make What Two One?"
___________________________________________

The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16: 23-24:
Neville Goddard taught causative imagining. The premise is that we can create our futures by imagining what we want with feeling, gratitude, and the absolute belief that what we wanted presently exists. We need to give our imagined post-end "all the tones of reality" in our imagined experience. It needs to be real, a present experience of what we desire already existing. This is what the Bible said in the ancient Aramaic, according to Neil Douglas Klotz (Prayers of the Cosmos, pages 86-87; also noted in Braden's Secrets of the Lost Mode of Prayer, pages 166-167).

According to Klotz, John 16: 23-24 has been edited of this method. The passage originally said:

"All things that you ask straightly and directly from inside my name you shall be given. So far you have not done this. Ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer. Be enveloped by what you desire, that your gladness be full."

If I may add emphasis:

"All things that you ask straightly and directly from inside my 'name' you shall be given (name = nature = imagination). So far you have not done this (asking with our voice is not doing this: we need to "ask" by imagining the condition we want). Ask without hidden motive (i.e., do not be judgmental, but forgive the present with grace) and be surrounded by your answer (in fervent, vivid, '3D' imagining). Be enveloped by what you desire (the end-state having already been established), that your gladness be full." (parentheses mine).

"The great secret of prayer is thinking from, rather than thinking of" -- Neville Goddard.

I got this information from a Gregg Braden youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JMELyhuvws, discussed in the video about 12 minutes from the beginning, which see.

Recent add: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3z1SWP9uos&t=674s

See John 16:23-24 Without Ulterior Motives

___________________

Added 3-17-2023: Still working on the idea, posted "Where is the Love? John 16:23-24 and Exodus 3:14: Missing the Authors' Intent

Correlating Jesus to the Serpent in Genesis

-----Original Message-----
From: joe
To: imagicworldview imagicworldview@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: Questions

Hope u don't mind the questions...but how do you correlate Jesus and the serpent in Genesis?
_________________________________

Joe,

I do not mind questions. Except when they are on things I have gone over extensively recently (I'm like, dude, I just answered that). Jesus and the Serpent I covered long ago and it bears updating, so THANKS for the question. Things to keep in mind:

a) There is nothing but God. "Jesus Christ" is his manner of saving us by his power and wisdom and is in us, as us. Jesus Christ does God's will.

b) We are bereft of our divine intelligence and given over to futility for a purpose: to be generated through affliction into the likeness of the Most High.

c) There is no serpent in Genesis chapter 3. God made all the animals and brought them to Adam to name (Gen. 2: 19), and there was no helper suitable to him. This "serpent" was not one of them. The word here is nacash, which means "a shining one." See Bullinger's note on 3: 1 and his appendix 19 (http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app19.html) in The Companion Bible (available on line in pdf).

d) The Shining One did not lie to Adam and Eve. They did not "die the death" as we think of death. They did become as God, knowing good and evil. So what is up with God's commandment in Genesis 2: 17? Did God lie to Adam? Or are we misapplying what he said to Adam as a commandment when really it was an observation. As God's spirit life in Paradise, Adam didn't want anything to do with dying the death and coming to this experience of death, the forgetting of Godhood. So Adam REFUSED to eat of the tree in the midst that God WANTED him to eat. God was saying, "Come on, get with the plan!"

e) Oh. An 'E' ticket ride (what can I say; I was raised next to Disneyland): the Shining One, Jesus Christ, the inner man within us who does God's will, acted as conscience and talked Adam into it, to leave Paradise and lose, for awhile, consciousness of being God to become MORE like the Most High God. Man entered ignorance of what he was and became fearful of God as though he were separate, and Jesus Christ, the Shining One who is our inner man, HAD TO COME ALONG. Our "ignoranced" desires are contrary to his desires, so we keep bruising one another -- he keeps knocking on our door, inside, as our conscience, and we keep imagining sinfully causing our own afflictions.

Therefore, the so-called Serpent was Jesus Christ as our consciousness becoming ignorant due to amnesia in our descent into humanhood. The "adversary" is IGNORANCE. THAT is the Devil we rebuke and resist and overcome.

Does this make any sense to you, Joe? Because of our amnesia induced ignorance our fleshly consciousness (Cain) has become oblivious to our spiritual transitoriness (Abel). It is still there crying out in our conscience, so we come up with substitutes (Seth): weak, sickly substitutes put in place of God's operation of blessing (Yahweh) in our mortality (Enos). These are the antediluvian patriarchs -- inadequate substitutes for Abel -- until we get to Noah, the rest in God.

"Go to Pharaoh and tell him to let my people go." 'Israel' is God ruling in us, as us -- our inner thoughts turned over to him. Moses was telling us in Genesis what he learned in Exodus. They are largely parallel stories. Getting Israel out of Egypt, our flesh-consciousness, is just like getting ourselves to rest in God as Noah and turn everything over to him. I hope you have heard Neville Goddard's "If You Can Really Believe."

I'll see you on the blog.

Dan Steele
_______________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe
To: imagicworldview
Sent: Tue, Feb 9, 2016 9:03 am
Subject: Re: Questions

That's mind blowing..I need to digest that... that is huge!!!

How frustrating it is when a lot of folk are saying the wrong things and misleading the masses ... it's difficult to find the truth at times in the middle of living life; i.e., kids, wife, job, siblings, and all manner of issues  ... to spend time trying to find out biblical truth because the people that think they know really have no idea  ... thanks for the insight ... we have no choice but to find the truth...yes, I was venting a little but :)

Joe
___________________________________-

Joe,

We have to remember how pervasive ignorance is. Everything and everyone becoming flesh completely forgets that it is also spirit. Our only touchstone with that spiritual reality is revelation, and that is psychological and must be psychologically "concrete," like Moses' experience in Exodus 3: 14. One time Jesus spoke to me clearly and audibly in the hearing lobe of my brain. Another time he grew out my arm a short distance while I intently WATCHED. He has revealed his being in me and his being God. I am him "ignoranced": He is me not ignoranced.

If priests understood and taught that Ignorance is the enemy, we would expect something from them few are prepared to give: real spiritual wisdom. Says the priest: "Wait. What? That's in the job description? I am only supposed to teach you the scriptures. Revelation is His deal. Go to Him for that." Maybe in the near future we will develop churches of meditation and insight. They have popped up before -- the Moravians, Quakers and Shakers, etc. The thing about that sort of church is you have to DO it. It cannot be institutionalized. Your son either gets it or not.

Dan Steele

You Can Not Do Much Better For Yourself Than to Listen to Victor Alexander's Link Here and to Consider What "Prophecy" Really Is

Victor Alexander says he is commencing production of Story of Jesus: http://www.aramaic-bible.net/blog/?p=13. If you can act, he needs you, and of course he needs financial assistance -- this is an "ultra low-budget" project.

Mr. Alexander mentions the coming of Jesus as something prophesied to occur in time. I must admit I do not see 'prophecy' as foretelling of future events. Prophecy is bespeaking God's nature as a condition that is NOW. To prophesy the coming of Jesus Christ is not to say that he is going to come at some future time, but to make known that he exists here now, though we do not see it. Prophecy is making God's "is" known. The only future aspect to prophecy is that we have not realized it yet. When we do realized it, we will understand that he has been here all the time. What is "prophesied" is a PRESENT condition of God's nature.

So when I read scripture I "present-ize" the expressions presented as future. God will be all-in-all? No, God IS all-in-all, right now. We just don't realize it. God shall wipe away every tear? No, God DOES wipe away every tear. Right now. We just don't realize it. He shall raise us up to be with him? No, He is, presently, raising us up to be with him, but in our ignorance, we fail to see it. The Manifestation . . . is now.

Genesis 1: 1 is Exodus 3: 14 Restated -- They are Synonymous in Meaning! Moses Meant Everything is ONE -- The Most High Manifest!!!

I agree the following verses are not easy to read this way. I have extended the words to express the thought behind them, not to change their meaning. Please take the time and make the effort to understand what each one is saying. They are saying the same thing(!), which is that the eternal Ineffable Itself comes by the power of Its imagining into manifestation as Elohim, "that which is above the flames."

THIS IS THE SECRET OF JETHRO: THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD'S ABUNDANCE, which is what Moses went into meditation contemplating and for which God spoke to him. It is not supposed to be a secret! Moses broadcast it everywhere to all men as the Pentateuch. It is just that we have misread due to our unbelief. I have explanatory notes below. The basic texts are from Victor Alexander's translations and Rabbi David A. Cooper (God is a Verb).

Exodus 3: 14, "I (the Most High God) come in the most absolute sense, the Beginning who was from before the beginning, the spark that creates his becoming."

Please note "his becoming" is in the third person. "I AM THAT I AM," God as a separate being, is not in the original text of the Bible!!!

Genesis 1: 1, "(The Most High God who was from) Before the beginning created Elohim, the Power Above the Flames, the Heavens (the consciousness/intelligence that is Spirit) and the Earth (physical manifestation)."


Genesis 1: 1 is a rephrasing of Exodus 3: 14's "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh" (Exodus: translated from the ancient Aramaic by Victor Alexander). Moses' encounter with the living God was the most important thing that ever happened to him -- an earth-shattering revelation! Genesis is an explanation of what Moses learned in Exodus. The core of that learning was Exodus 3: 14, so Moses begins Genesis with the self-same teaching, but he changed the words to make it fuller, more explanatory.

You will note that in Alexander's translation, Exodus 3: 14 is transliterated. That is because the three words are too rich in meaning, and a direct translation is hardly possible and perhaps not really desirable. Better we should look at all the words mean and come to an understanding over time. These two passages and their one thought is as deep as the Bible gets. You get 'em right, you get the Bible right. You get 'em wrong,  . . . .

Mr. Alexander, God bless him, has put his translation on the Internet. Well, at least I have a direct link (of course, I have also bought all his books). If the http://v-a.com/bible/ supporter's page is not available to you, here are his footnotes for Exodus 3: 14's "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh":

*3:14 Lit. Aramaic: (1) "Ahiyeh": "the One Who Comes in His Coming," the absolute sense of "the One Who Comes." (2) "Ashur": "the Beginning Spark that kindles the Fire" or "the Light." (3) "Hiyeh": "His Coming." (4) "Ahiyeh" and "hiyeh" are related forms of the same word. They mean more than "the Coming." They signify also the "Eternal Presence," "the Ever-Present," and the "Never Ceasing Intent of the Comer to Come." (5) In the same way, "Ashur" signifies "the Uncreated Creator who Creates Everything from Nothing." (6) Also, "Ashur" signifies: "Above-the-Flames."

Ahiyeh means "I come" in the absolute sense. Please note that the verb also carries the suggestion of transition: "the One Who Comes in His Coming" (I ain't there yet, but I am on my way, and when I get there, it'll be me). We see this verb's quality of transition completed in Genesis 1: 2, "And the earth was without form, and void." The word 'was' means 'became'; i.e., the earth was not in the state of being without form and void, but became that way -- there was transition involved (See Bullinger, The Companion Bible, note on Genesis 1: 2). Well, okay, here's that, too:

was = became. See Genesis 2:7; Genesis 4:3; Genesis 9:15; Genesis 19:26. Exodus 32:1. Deuteronomy 27:9. 2 Samuel 7:24, &c. Also rendered came to pass Genesis 4:14; Genesis 22:1; Genesis 23:1; Genesis 27:1. Joshua 4:1; Joshua 5:1. 1 Kings 13:32. Isaiah 14:24, &c. Also rendered be (in the sense of become) Genesis 1:3, &c, and where the verb "to be" is not in italic type. Hence, Exodus 3:1, kept = became keeper, quit = become men, &c.See Ap. 7.
without form = waste. Hebrew. tohu va bohu. Figure of speech Paronomasia. Ap. 6. Not created tohu (Isaiah 45:18), but became tohu (Genesis 1:2. 2 Peter 3:5, 2 Peter 3:6). " An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:25, Matthew 13:28, Matthew 13:39. Compare 1 Corinthians 14:33.) See Ap. 8.
was. This is in italic type, because no verb "to be" in Hebrew. (Ap. 7). In like manner man became a ruin (Genesis 3; Psalms 14:1-3; Psalms 51:5; Psalms 53:1-3. Ecclesiastes 7:20. Romans 7:18).

Wow. That's cool. I hope the links work for you. (Our ignorance due to the amnesia caused by coming here is the "enemy." It is our ignorance that we need to overcome.)

Ashur means The Beginning in the absolute sense (Alexander, private communication). God Most High is The Beginning because he was all there was from before the beginning. His is the beginning spark that fires or empowers his becoming. What is the beginning spark of anything created? Imagination. The Most High God creates by imagining. You see any lips on the Big Guy? No. His "saying" is THINKING.

Hiyeh means his becoming. This is what the Most High God becomes by the fire of his creative imagining: him. Him who does he become? Well, obviously Moses clearly understood what it meant. Us, not so much.

So Moses explains what Exodus 3: 14 means in Genesis 1: 1. He restates it clearly. And like three and a half thousand years later I'm explaining it to you. Well, no. Let's have Rabbi David A. Cooper explain it to you. He explains in God is a Verb: kabbalah and the practice of mystical judaism. (New York: Riverhead Books, 1997. Pg. 66) that the grammar of Genesis 1: 1 allows the reading:

"With a beginning, (It, the Ineffable) created God (Elohim), the Heavens and the Earth."

The first word in Genesis 1: 1 is brasheeth, which properly means BEFORE the beginning (see Alexander http://v-a.com/bible/john_1_1-5_audio.html). The Most High God was all there was from before the beginning, therefore he IS the beginning. He is the one coming in the absolute sense. He created. That is Ashur, the Beginning Spark the kindles the fire, the power of creation -- imagination. The Most High creates and powers his transition by imagining. And who does he become in "his becoming"? Him. Him who? God, Elohim, the God we can know: the Heavens and the Earth. Us.

The word 'Israel' means God-ruling-as-man. Bullinger notes in Genesis 32: 28, that God is the DOER of what the verb portion of the word means. When the "ignoranced" inner man in us, Jacob, wakes up, he forcibly submits himself to God so that God rules in him. The inner man becomes as impotent, for it is all God, and sees the man in the mirror as the face of God. That is why Moses says in Deuteronomy 6: 4, "Hear, O Israel, the Becoming of God (YHWH) the Power over us (Eloheynu), the Becoming of God (YHWH) is compounded with us as ONE."

A Forum for Discussing the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures

Victor Alexander has begun a forum on the ancient Aramaic Scriptures. There is almost nothing on it as yet. His first comment is on the names of God. Yikes! If you troll Youtube.com and the Internet search engines on that subject, IT WILL SCARE THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF YOU. People who can barely read at a fourth grade level make the most prejudiced and judgmental claims based on their complete misunderstanding of language. Let's hope they do not find Victor's forum ("more whacked than I . . . need not apply").

But: if you have any salient points or observations about the Aramaic Scriptures you would like to share, here is the place to publish your discovery: http://www.aramaic-bible.net/blog/

Pray for Vic Alexander and Those Who Have Not Yet Heard of the Authentic Ancient Aramaic Scriptures

I was searching for something Victor Alexander posted years ago about the true meaning of the name, "Elohim." I discovered a number of blogs Victor maintains. Some I knew before, some were new. My gosh that man writes! In his AAC (Ancient Aramaic Church) blog he stated:

"It bothers me that my translation project is not accorded proper respect by the American churches. I would like to make my translation available to more people. It is not enough just to wait for people to discover my translation of the Scriptures on the Internet. I wanted to be able to publish it professionally and disseminate it to a large audience in America. The cost of publishing it and marketing it are beyond my means. I have been praying about it for the last ten years. I do not understand why my prayers are not being answered.

"My translations of the Scriptures are not just another version of the Bible; my translations are the only authentic translations of the original Scriptures. Throughout my translation project, I have noticed that every verse of the Western Bibles contains at least one word that has been mistranslated. I am surprised that when people read my translations they do not notice that their Bibles contain errors in every verse. Even more surprising is that the pastors who preach sermons based on the Greek, Latin and English language translations of the words of Eashoa Msheekha and all the prophets before Him, that they do not notice they are preaching misleading ideas, ideas that were not intended by Eashoa Msheekha or the prophets. But in the minds of the American pastors the sermons that they preach seem to be brilliant, inspiring and true to the Scriptures.

"This too bothers me, when I reflect on my failure to publish my translations of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, and my inability to reach millions of people who are misled every Sunday by their pastors. Why does it have to be like this? Perhaps I need to do some readings of one of the Gospels and compare my translation with the major translations of the mainline churches, and in this way people can see the difference.

"I have been told this type of comparative study might help. A few people have asked me to do this. It is a lot of work, but it looks like I might have to do it sooner or later."

Would you not only pray for Victor, but also help make his translations and web site known? When you visit v-a.com, please search around and read his many postings and comments. If you have not done this before, be prepared to have your understanding of reality and Christianity challenged, for you have never seen the Truth before. Sorry about the wooden nickles you have gotten up 'til now. Please help disseminate what you learn and make Alexander's sites know. Not for Alexander (sorry, Vic), but for those who learn from you. We are on a mission to turn the world around. Lend a shoulder, please.

If you have ideas about how to make Victor Alexander's translations better known, please post a comment here or to vic@v-a.com

Thanks.

P.S.
Vic, I vote for your spending time translating the Scriptures. Deuteronomy or the Psalms would be nice (and if the meanings of names come to you, please note them).

Another E-mail Inquiry Form Joe About Who and What We Are

-----Original Message-----
From: j
imagicworldview@aol.com -- imagicworldview@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 6, 2016 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Questions

You said, " . . . but had used for myself under my self-lordship, I realized that I was guilty of rebellion against him even though I was unaware."

Since "I am he," who is the 'I' above? ego? that part of our thinking that thinks it separate?

Also: the Ineffable created God? who is us in the act of becoming God in its fullness?

I am trying to digest this.

Joe
___________________

Joe,

The one God the Ineffable created by imagining corresponds to the sunflowers Neville saw in his vision in Unless I Go Away -- myriads of thought and emotion producing expressions of Itself (the Ineffable). These know that they are God's spirit/consciousness, and that they religiously follow every perceived will of the Ineffable's imagining. That following is their being fixed in the ground, the lack of their freedom. Except the Ineffable is not fixed -- Its imagining roams wherever it wills, but always stays true to Its nature.

How to make the sunflower followers to be individual and free and true to Its nature? A generation process. That is what we are in. We, Its individual bits of consciousness, descend into this state of death -- forgetting -- in a state of complete amnesia. I use the term 'ignoranced,' as we are completely shorn of consciousness of what we are (akin to tabla rasa /blank slate state discussed in child psychology). Here we are free consciousness. The futility we find here, and the creations of our own imagining (we are, after all, still God), afflicts us and drives us to seek salvation, the provision of what we need. We seek him, and we find him: "God will provide Himself a lamb for the sacrifice" (Genesis 22: 8).

The "I" is the spirit of God "breathed" into this mud-man ignoranced of what "I" am. At the time of my baptism, I thought I was the mud-man alone who had been animated by God's Life and had usurped God's purpose and use of that Life. It took some years to realize that, yes, I am the mud-man, but more than that "I" am the Life that was breathed into him, er, me. I am the animator of the mud. I am still just as guilty, but as I am God and was ignoranced by God for this purpose, to generate his nature in me, I am forgiven. Wow. I feel the Spirit anointing. Thanks for the question.

These "ignoranced" bits of the Ineffable's consciousness learn freedom through the process and also take on the Ineffable's nature. Text on this is Raymond Holliwell's Working with the Law. The "Law" is God's nature, the nature of the Ineffable's thought.

Here is a valuable reference: http://www.v-a.com/bible/john_1_1-5_audio.html, (also http://www.v-a.com/bible/brasheeth_and_john.html), read the footnote on brasheeth carefully:

The literal translation of the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verses 1 to 5 is as follows:

1. Brasheeth* there was the Milta.**
And that Milta was with God;
and God was that Milta.
2. This was brasheeth with God.
3. Everything was created by His hands,
otherwise nothing that is would exist.
4. Through him there was Life,
and that Life became the spark of humanity
5. And that fire lights the darkness,
and the darkness cannot put it out.

*Brasheeth does not mean: "In the Beginning." It really means "before the beginning;" that is "before the foundations of the universe," or "before Creation."

**Milta does not mean: "Logos" or "The Word." The term was coined by John to mean that Jesus was God in Action. I have chosen to translate "Milta" as "Manifestation." Jesus is the Manifestation of God, or, He is God Manifest.

I take "Before the beginning" and marry it to the Jewish mystical reading of Genesis 1: 1, "With a beginning, (It, the Ineffable) created God (Elohim): the Heavens and the Earth" (see Cooper, Rabbi David A. 1997. God is a Verb: kabbalah and the practice of mystical judaism. New York: Riverhead Books, page 66). This becomes for me: "That which was before the beginning (the Ineffable) created the Power Above the Flames (Elohim), the Heavens (the Life-spirits within us) and the Earth (physical manifestation)" -- all of which is "Jesus Christ."

Goodness. I just found Victor Alexander's blog for the Ancient Aramaic Church: http://www.v-a.com/bible/AAC/AAC-blog-1.html. What a treasure trove it is. Holy cow, the guy writes a lot. E.g., http://www.v-a.com/bible/AAC/defining_the_meaning_of_the_word_god.html. I will have more to add to this within the next few hours/days (I need to find Alexander's discussion on Ashur and Al-lo-hiem).

An E-mail Inquiry From Joe, Who Asked About Witchcraft

-----Original Message-----

From: j
To: imagicworldview
Sent: Fri, Feb 5, 2016 6:04 pm
Subject: Questions

Can you expound on what you think witchcraft to be ?

Also, isn't imagination a faculty of God who is us as opposed to imagination being God? 

Love the blog by the way .. good stuff.

"Wish you insight so you can see for yourself"

Joe
__________________________

Joe,


Thanks for the wish.

In 1975 I had a spiritual experience I believe is called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit to be God's consciousness. Before I go further I should explain that I refer to a number of things as God, because they are all the same thing . . . in a way. First there is the Ineffable, the Most High God. The Source of everything. The Jewish mystics believe this is beyond Ein Sof, the endlessness, which is also God. David Cooper has an explanation of this in God is a Verb. I believe that the Ineffable created the God we refer to as God by imagining Itself manifest, which It wasn't, but in imagining Itself finalized in manifestation as Its goal, "God" existed. THAT is what Genesis 1: 1 says. And there is the rub: the finalized goal is established, thus "exists" even if only in imagination, and the matriculated universe has to catch up. We are on the way as God in formation, but are not there yet. Hence, the Bible.

During the baptism in the Holy Spirit I went through a period of preparation. There was the generation of the proper or necessary attitude in me. I have said many times in the blog: "The Kingdom of God has to do with Attitudes." When I understood that I had robbed God of the Life he gave me to use for him, but had used for myself under my self-lordship, I realized that I was guilty of rebellion against him even though I was unaware of it. I do not know if I had ever heard 1 Samuel 15: 23 in my life, but I distinctly heard "rebellion as witchcraft" when I understood my rebellion. That is why I used the term.

I had to refer to my Strong's concordance (compact edition with dictionaries) to find the passage. Certainly you have a Strong's. It is enlightening to read some of the words that accompany 'rebellion': stiff neck, transgression, sedition, a captain, sin, evil, stubborn, perverse, against, bad, and exalt themselves. Having only the slightest background in the occult, I assume the problem with witchcraft is its lack of submission to God -- take your pick which one. The witch wants its way. I am presently working on the idea of Abel. Abel was not a historical third man but is the transitoriness of God. It is a nature, part of the underlying state of God's manifestation. 'Abel' is what Solomon said everything is in the first of Ecclesiastes, "Vanity (Abel), vanity, all is vanity." I.e., everything is transitory. This very much interests me because I have read so many testimonies of people who prayed so earnestly for some thing and finally gave up trying to force it, and abandoned themselves to God's will, to "Whatever you want, O Lord." And suddenly they find themselves on a fast track to what they wanted and better. I think that such abandonment is Noah, the rest in the Lord that is the acceptable substitute for Abel, whom we have "slain" by forgetting that transitoriness is our nature. Witchcraft doesn't rest, hence, is rebellion. And we are all guilty of it.

"Isn't imagination a faculty of God who is us as opposed to imagination being God?"

Both. If I lost you in the verbiage above, it is the Ineffable Most High God who has the faculty of imagination, and that imagination is God. And the imagination that is God has become us that we may become it better than it is. Better? Yes, we are building a better God. God is the Ineffable's imagination, but it is locked into direct, fixed correspondence to the Ineffable's will. That is unlike the Ineffable, which is "sin." We are all guilty of sin, the being unlike the Ineffable. We are here to fulfill the promise of becoming like the Ineffable in freedom. That is what Moses' success manual on prayer is for: we shall be God as God is all in all. Listen to Neville Goddard's lecture "Unless I Go Away" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sux5iWH-Vmk). I have probably listened to it forty or fifty or more times. Morning commute, you know.

Dan Steele

The Meaning of Matthew 18: 3 You Haven't Heard

My wife taught me the meaning of Matthew 18: 3 today. "And he said, 'Amen, I am telling you, that if you do not go back and become like little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven'" What does it mean to become like little children? Innocent? Trusting? Obedient? My wife said in a conversation with me, "My boss would love me."

We were talking about something entirely different, and my wife's boss is an old Muslim Indian woman. "You mean your big boss, Akbar?" I asked. "Any boss. All my bosses love me," she said. Suddenly I understood: all my wife's bosses have loved her because she is a perfectionist. She is super thorough. Honest. Accurate. Trustworthy. And a delightful personality. Her recommendation letters are through the roof. They glow in the drawer. And what I understood all of a sudden was that she does it all to be seen and loved by it.

I know from experience that little kids imagine others are watching them and are impressed by what they do. "Hey, mom and dad, look at me," he calls from the roof top. "What? You didn't see me catch that wave?" "I got an A!" The thing is, KIDS SEE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO AS DONE AND EVERYONE ELSE IMPRESSED BY WHAT THEY DID.

And they are largely successful. Kingdom means power. If you see things like a kid sees what he or she is going to do, as though it were already completed and everyone impressed by your having done it, you will have the kingdom of heaven to help you. Jesus was telling them how to imagine. Imagine like a little child does: he saw himself up on the roof calling down to his mom and dad before he ever took a step up. "Boy, this is going to be great!"

A Question on the Oneness of God Most High

Anonymous inquires: "Explain the deceiving spirit you mentioned and what happened to give you your realization."

Dear Anonymous,

Wonderful question. I was raised in the Methodist Church, but not necessarily as a Methodist. Church was something we did. More of a social thing. I did not disbelieve spiritual things, but did not see how Methodism was in any way a route to them. In 1967 I graduated from high school, moved to San Francisco to stay with my older sister and look for a job. The influence of the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan and the Doors and many others was to open my mind to Eastern religions and spiritualism. I read a LOT of Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, occult and metaphysics books. People had real testimonies of real experiences. Something was "there," and I set out to find it.

Hence I found myself several weeks into a meditation class in Honolulu. In this meditation we went into our workshops in our subconscious and built a door in the wall. We were to open the door and allow an ascended master to come in and join us. I was not keen on the idea. How was I to be sure the ascended master would leave? I opened the door and peered out at the darkness. There was a ramp or stairs that came down to my right. Down it was coming Jesus, the real one who had taught his disciples spiritual realities he had discovered, but which the unspiritual leaders of the church could neither understand nor do, so they had been lost. He was coming to teach those lessons to me, personally, because I was a sincere seeker like his disciples.

As Jesus was approaching, though, and I was looking intently at him, suddenly I could see past the glow radiating from his surface and right into him. He was spirit, after all, and . . . all darkness within. Hmm. This did not seem right to me. Just as suddenly, my mind was awash with scriptures I remembered. This thing, I realized, needs my permission to enter my mind because it is below me in authority. I am of the earth; it is from below the earth. It did not want me to see it for what it is, but someone who is above me in authority did not need my permission to open my eyes -- and had the power to open them -- because he is above the earth. I also realized that the one above both me and the demon had been watching all along and had allowed the demon to influence me from without along the path to these spiritual exercises for his purposes and was now "harvesting" me before the demon could do any lasting damage. I was graduated.

It did not require for me to be a rocket scientist to figure out that framework for this newfound reality was what the Bible talks about. Now it was my testimony of what I had personally experienced. If believing in Jesus Christ makes you a Christian, I was a convert at that moment, because I had just MET him. Of course I closed the door in my workshop in the demon's face and opened my eyes to await making a gracious exit. My mind was going a mile a minute. That used to be fast. I got back to my pickup truck I was living in (it was illegal in Hawaii, but I didn't know that when I went) and found my old Bible from, yes, my Methodist days. The concordance for 'deceive' directed me to Revelation 12: 7-12. The next day I met my mother's best friend Lynn, who had a horrible migraine from reading all the Jesus books my mother had sent her by the dome light in her taxi while awaiting fares. She had just said to a testifying friend in the most flippant manner, "Jesus gave my this headache, and he can have it!" And he took it. She couldn't make her head hurt! The friend had taken her to the House of Praise, and that night she took me. Rest in peace, Lynn.

So I wound up studying at Melodyland School of Theology and have reconciling biblical theology with experiential realities for the last forty years. There is more to it than just confessing Jesus Christ as Lord. We go on learning. Big challenge: the oneness of God as God sees it. We are in it. In him, that is, because he has become us. Creation is not separate, but is an emanating idea that is manifesting. So how was there a demon? Demons are ideas of our ignorance. Just as angels are ideas from God. It is hard for us to understand how thoughts can have what seems to be independent power, but I trust the intelligence that is power understands how it all works. The universe is his imagination manifest at the particle level and up, so the wall you knock on is real . . . made of particles that are imagined into manifestation. You have heard of the faith of the little mustard seed. It isn't that it is little but has faith to become big; it is that the little seed BELIEVES THAT IT IS A MUSTARD. The intelligence believes it exists as a particle and has the power to BE a particle. It has done this a lot. That is why particles are intelligent. All we all are made up of nothing: the No-thing. We exist to facilitate Its manifestation of experiences, so he moves us around a lot.

What we are working on is his imagination that is under our control. That is why Moses wrote the success manual on prayer: we have to learn how to think like the God we are. That is the destiny we shall fulfill: the Scripture.

Thanks for the question.