The Pure Language: Jesus Doesn't Look Like Us

Sorry, but people are ugly. Jesus was, too. People who see him today say he is beautiful beyond words. It's an imagic world. This side of glorification is ugly as the sin that predominates it. That side is perfect, as beautiful as God. (Listen to T. L. Osborn 33:00 to 35:00.)

I heard a nice teaching from Robert Morris. Never heard of him before. It came up on the subject of tongues. The idea is that the first language of mankind was a spiritual one. Adam and Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, Nimrod -- they all spoke this spiritual tongue. Men were of one accord in the building of the tower of babel, and because they all spoke this spiritual language, "they will not be at a loss to do whatever they imagine" (Genesis 11:6 Alexander). So God gave them other languages to muck things up. They were and are mucked up. In Zephaniah 3:9, God says he will restore the pure, spiritual language. In Acts chapter 2, he did. Things are un-mucked. Therefore, we are not at a loss to do whatever we imagine, IF WE HAVE the spiritual language.

I do not think we all speak the same prayer language. "It's an imagic world. 'Language' isn't language, dummy, it's LIFE, thought, conduct, behavior, communication -- i.e., living." Oh. It's a metaphor. Not (only) a language per se, but the "language" of manifesting the Big Guy. It is restored. Life doesn't need to be ugly anymore.

Added 1/30/2020:
In response to the first comment below, I'd like to say that consciousness was the first image of the Ineffable No-thing. God speaks to us in ILLUSTRATIONS. All we manifest is imagic communication OF us and TO us. Neville Goddard's 1948 Lesson 5 lays it out very neatly and practically: we can reject OUR consciousness and assume GOD'S consciousness. I am just learning and communicating here that we can and should do so in His language -- tongues and a moral, loving life in integrity.

Other Religions Are Not Like That, and Neither is Christianity

After high school, I fell away from dead-church Methodism. I became familiar with Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, Sufi Islam, mysticism, and areas of the occult. I practiced Transcendental Meditation and other forms of meditation. I did a lot of reading. I got saved from all this, of course, but as a seminarian studying Judaism and Christianity I was dismayed that other religions were so thoroughly MISREPRESENTED by Christian scholars. They would say, "The (adherents of any other religion) believes that blah, blah, blah." I was like, "No they don't. You've got it entirely wrong. They do not think anything like what you think they think." I finally realized that the Christian scholars did not understand other religions, and in fact did not understand Judaism or Christianity, either. They are just counting on us being more stupid than they are. And unfortunately.... (I personally believe that Mark was a post-Ashoka Buddhist missionary to the Jews, who came to understand their religion even better than they did.)

A case in point is a clip of John MacArthur linked to in my last post. He so massacred modalism I was left blinking at the monitor. "He can't be THAT dumb," I thought to myself. "That is SO wrong, so stupid, so aberrant, so NOT modalism. He must have a commercial interest as a pastor to keep his people from discovering the oneness of God. 'Got to keep 'em separated.' For if his people found out, it would be all over for him." But no, I understand it's just that MacArthur doesn't have a freakin' clue as to what modalism is, because he learned about it from other Christian scholars who also didn't have a freakin' clue as to what it is. There has been a long chain of Christian "scholars."

I much prefer to think about God existing in modes than as persons. There is one God ONLY. Anchor yourself in that. NO!! GO BACK AND READ THAT AGAIN. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD ... ONLY. That one God exists in three modes. Or, that one God has three modes in which It exists. There is the ineffable Most High, the spirit or power which existed as No-thing before there was even Its own thought. That spirit or power was just a mode of existence. I envision the Most High as an infinite, eternal field, like gravity. Except that field or force became conscious. Consciousness was not something other than the field; it was just another mode that self-same field -- infinite and eternal -- existed in. The eternal field thought; it imagined. This was the only action the Ineffable was capable of, for there was no "thing" for It to otherwise act by. So there was the basic source of all things, the ineffable Power without consciousness -- that's one mode -- and there was that same Power conscious, consciousness being another mode. There was just one power. It existed as both conscious and unconscious. So while It is not just one mode, but two, it is not two things. It is certainly not two separate persons.

Consciousness is receptive of the Power. Thus It is feminine. Consciousness is a mode of the Power. Consciousness is the action of the Power, and -- do not lose it -- it IS the Power. It is just the Power in that mode. In that mode is the intelligence of the Power. Being infinite, eternal, and conscious, the ineffable Power has had a lot of time to think. How much thinking could you do if you were an infinite, eternal, and conscious field of power over countless billions, billions of trillions of years? You'd probably want some books. Fortunately for the infinite, eternal, and conscious field of power which is God, Its intelligence is power to become whatever It imagines Itself to be. What is formed by Its intelligence is the field or force -- God -- in that form. In the Manifestation mode of that force. We are the Ineffable Power writing Its books, telling Its stories. We are a poem the Power is writing OF ITSELF.

There is only one God here, there, or anywhere. The one God exists in three modes: the "Father" Power; Its "Female" Consciousness, and Its "Son" -- Its Manifestation, the Milta (per my understanding of Vic Alexander). The Jewish guy we refer to as Jesus Christ, and ourselves, are all the Intelligence of God in form: Manifestation. Our physical bodies, our minds, everything about us is the manifestation mode of God's Intelligence, and is NOT SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER MODES. The one God is in these three modes: Body, Mind, and Spirit. They all work together, for they are one Being. That is why His nature or "name" must be being hallowed, His kingdom must be being restored, and His will must be being done both in heaven and upon the earth. There are no other "persons" involved. Any point of existence anywhere at any time is all three. That, by the way, includes us.

Christianity is not belief that the Manifestation of God, having been here, is now in Heaven and is going to return. Christianity is belief of Him HERE, NOW, with us, in us, and as us -- Emanuel. That one, ineffable Power, which is also Conscious Spirit, destined Its Manifestation to become like It IN AND THROUGH US via death, burial, and resurrection, ALL AS ONE. THAT is what Jesus said on the cross in Mark 15:34 - "Infinite God, Infinite God, for this you destined me!" (see Alexander). And there WE are, IN Him - ALL OF IT.

I am a oneness Pentecostal in the ONE God. Not in Jesus but not the Spirit; not in the Spirit but not the Father, but in the One God of triune "spirits" or modes. The only one of Whom I can ever know is the Milta, the Manifestation, in His flagship/epicenter Jewish guy we know as "Jesus." Blessed be His NAME.

Bible: What Are We Saved From? From Being Unlike God

"His name will be called Jesus, for he will bring his people back to Life from their sins...They will call his name Emanuel, which means 'God Is With Us'" (Matthew 1:21,23 Alexander).

It doesn't say we will be saved from the punishment for our sins, but saved from our sins. Sin is missing the mark of being like God. Oneness with God, that God is with us -- in us, as us, is us -- eliminates sin. We are unlike God due to Ignorance. We need the Holy Spirit, the Consciousness of God, to become fully conscious and aware of our oneness with Him. That is Wisdom.

I take the Hebrew word for 'name,' shem, to mean "nature." A thing's name is its nature. Adam would have named the chicken 'chicken' because it was a chicken. Adam was 'Adam' because he was God's Blood (Consciousness), and he named Eve 'Eve,' "Cause of Life," because that was what she was in and of him. Taking the nature of Jesus brings us back to Life from our sins, for His nature is God with us.

Proverbs 4 (per Alexander)
1. Listen, O children, to the experience of the father, and heed the knowledge and the schooling.
2. Because I give you the good knowledge, do not abandon my law.
3. For I was a son to my father, and [one of a kind,* (special)] an only child before my mother.
4. And he taught me and said, "Contemplate my Manifestation* (Milti," or My Milta) in your heart, guard my commandments and Live, and [let] my Law be like the pupil of the eye.
5. Gain wisdom and gain learning, and forsake not the words of my mouth.
6. Do not abandon the Manifestation that shall protect you; love her so she will redeem you.
7. On top of wisdom gain wisdom, and through all your resources attain learning.
8. Love her* (wisdom and learning) so as she may hold you in high esteem, and embrace her so as you may be honored.
9. And she will consecrate on your head the unblemished empathy, and she shall satisfy you with the wreath of glory.
10. Listen, my son, and accept my words, and the years of your life shall increase.
11. I shall teach you the ways of wisdom, and make you walk by wholesome paths.
12. And when you walk, your gait shall not falter, and if you run, you shall not stumble.
13. Grasp firmly on to my knowledge and do not let go; guard it, for that is what life is about* (that is what she is your life).
14. Do not follow the path of sinners, and do not envy the way of the wicked.
15. And do not enter into the country* (land) where they dwell, except turn off and pass away from it.
16. For they do not sleep until they have performed evil, and that sleepiness even turns into insomnia unless they have imposed their own will.
17. Because they eat the food of abomination and drink the wine of fraudulence.
18. The way of the righteous is then like the sunlight that shines [in the morning,] and her light shines forth until the day is spent.
19. The way of the criminals, however, is the darkness, and they know not by what they stumble.
20. My son, listen to my words, and extend your ear toward what I say.
21. Do not let them get out of your sight, except guard them inside your heart.
22. Because they are Life* (Lives, or Everlasting life) to whoever finds them, and his or her flesh shall all be healed.
23. With every enlightenment guard your heart, because it is from him that the Life* (Lives, or Everlasting life) emerges.
24. Do away from you the impertinent mouth, and put off from your lips the recommendation of fraudulence.
25. Let your eyes gaze objectively, and your eyelids take in what is in front of you* (idiomatic construction: "Your eyes with wholesomeness they look, and your eyelids make do in front of you").
26. Let your feet pass from evil paths, and all your ways shall be well established.
27. And do not deviate to the right and the left, except let your foot avoid evil* (pass from evil).

Canaan and Fakers of Tongues

I mentioned in my last post that Canaan, the perfect country, comes from the Hebrew root kana, to be brought low. It was when in asking for the gift of tongues I had been brought low and had found acceptance by God that I was filled with the Holy Spirit and, in gratitude and adoration, spoke in tongues as the Spirit empowered my mouth. Exercising no control over my mouth at all, I just let it go.

I do not know of any other way of receiving the Holy Spirit gift of tongues than by being brought low. If you cannot get there, into that accord, cannot find humility, I do not know what else you might do. Sorry, I really don't. I know that some well-meaning folks have thought that because tongues sounds like gibberish to them, that if you speak in gibberish, you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. It patently does not work that way. I am so sorry for the people who have been so led and disappointed that their "baptism" was bogus. THE ALTERNATIVE, OF COURSE, MIGHT BE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURE, IF YOU WANT TO TRY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Just because your baptism didn't "take" because you were misled is no reason to say the promise of scripture is of no effect, or was for another era, or, even worse, is of the Devil.

The formula is not rocket science. You believe God, persons who HAVE the Holy Spirit lay their hands on you, YOU are brought low to humility before God, and in repentance you find acceptance by HIM (not the other way around). If you can find acceptance by God for all your sins and be filled with the power of His Holy Spirit flowing up from your bowels to your throat and NOT speak in tongues, well, that I'd like to see. Safest bet EVER.

Note in youtube videos of people who "leave" Pentecostalism that they FAKED their baptism or were so horribly misled and misinformed that it never happened:

Why I am not a Pentecostal.

EXPOSING SATAN'S POWER: SPEAKING IN TONGUES

John MacArthur on Pentecostal Oneness Heresies about the Trinity (however, John MacArthur Acknowledging Godly Pentecostals and Charismatics)

Oh, by the way, I'm a Pentecostal

Canaan, the Perfect Country and "The First Thing is You Must Know Exactly What You Want" -- YOU!!

"The first thing you do," Neville repeatedly said of his technique, "you must know exactly what you want in this world." We must decide exactly what it is we want in life.

Cultivate that. It isn't one thing. Don't think just, "Chocolate." Expand. What you want is lot of specifics, "a land flowing with milk and honey." You want the land, the house, the job or business or sources of income, the friends and the family, the time and the climate and the government, & etc.. What we each want is "the perfect country, Canaan." Contemplate the Canaan for your life.

The name 'Canaan' puts a lot of people off. Canaan was cursed in Genesis 9:25, just for being the descendent of Kham, the middle son of Noah. For Kham had seen his father's business. The land of Canaan was full of Pagan idol worshipers of the worst sort. God was going to drive them out so Israel could settle there, but after Israel rebelled, they had to drive the Canaanites out forty-plus years later.

'Kham' is "heat, to wax hot" and I take that to be imagination: vivid, active, intense imagination. This is God's business, the fount of Creation. Knowing this business makes us kind of prideful, which is our downfall. Our rebellion is from our being ignoranced by amnesia, but it is unlike the Ineffable and is cursed. The root of Canaan is kana, "to be humbled, to be brought low." A strange name to give a kid. "Hey, Brought Low," no wonder he was going to be a servant. I'll take it, though, for I remember how, before the baptism in the Holy Spirit, when I realized my own "natural" rebellion against the lordship of God I was brought low. I would have died if it could have been any help or relief from my situation. All my life, I had exercised self-lordship, never thanking God for the life he had given me nor recognizing this "given" life as His life. Unable to just die or pay God the loss of whatever purpose he had for this life, I shrank to nothing and cast my self-lordship and self-control out of myself. I FOUND low. I found humility -- the perfect country. The Promised land, flowing with milk and honey.

I had found synchronicity with God: "Remember this, and it is all right." Being there, what is it that I really want in this world? What world is it that I truly desire? What "state" would that be enmasse? Each day I can ask for and receive a specific bread for that world's tomorrow. Canaan was also the Land of Purple, of wealth. It was the center of trade, of the flow of merchandise and prosperity.

You must know exactly what you want. I want that world: humbled, submitted, living, imagining, spouse, kids, house, cars, incomes, ministries, and daily specifics.

Ancient Hebrew had no Future Tense: Whatever You've Got, You've Got It Wrong

When you are reading, translating, trying to understand the Scriptures, give their meaning a wide berth; i.e., a wide place to anchor. Whatever you've got, you've probably got it wrong, so give it some leeway. Read it as a neighborhood: -- "It has this flavor . . . "

I do not know ancient Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic. I have read Robert Young's Introduction to Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, which stresses emphatically that the ancient Hebrew had a past and a present tense, but no future tense. That may or may NOT be true. Their language had aspects of action: either the action was perfect (completed) or imperfect (uncompleted). So I looked around the Internet a little bit to search a little deeper. OMG. Hebrew teachers, language specialists, Rabbi's, ancient sages -- everyone making a pitch yea or nay on the subject. "Yes, they did," "No, they didn't," "They had this," "Yes, they had that, but it didn't mean that," "It doesn't matter what they had; even if you got it right, you still understand it wrong."

Holy cow. I'm not kidding. You'd think the Bible COULDN'T possibly be read and understood. My solution: read it and let God sort it out. He's big enough to control the universe, so He's big enough to teach me also what He means. That goes hand-in-hand with controlling universe. My mini-search was rewarding in substantiating my conviction biblical meaning is broader that we allow, more like a flavor or color of meaning. I had just the night before realized that Exodus 3:14 could be translated, "I - I (am) evolution." I.e., God is the ONLY thing evolving. We are GP Zero of that evolution -- that's what we are HERE for. If you have been following this blog, you'll know that I've translated that verse about twenty different ways -- all correctly, too.

So, as Mickie Silberling advised me in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in 1977, "LIGHTEN UP." Don't take everything so seriously. You are wrong on almost everything, anyway.

Is it true that there are no verb tenses (past, present, future) in Biblical Hebrew? (Read a number of the responses.)

Hebrew Tenses (Read the medieval and other commentators given!)

Biblical Hebrew Grammar for Beginners (The vav-consecutive was supposedly dismantled and rejected by Young.)

Hebrew Tenses (Another, different.)

Enjoy! And LIGHTEN UP!!

The Real Reason I Reject the So-called Law of Attraction, Which is a Satanic, Bogus Fraud Anyway

I am not saying that the Law of Attraction does not work. I am saying it works (if it works at all) for reasons other than are stated. It's statements of reasons are what I reject. My beef is the underlying assumption in the Law of Attraction that what is working is simply a natural, neutral force in the universe. I know this force as the Consciousness of the Ineffable (..?). There is no body sitting in a big chair there surrounded by adoring angles, but there is "Person" there. The Ineffable is a field of Person. It is a consciousness Who thinks, imagines, dreams, interacts, deliberates, judges, responds, and ACTS by the power of Its imagination. Its intelligence is power to become whatever It imagines It is.

Yet in the Law of Attraction there is no reverence for the force or the force's source, no recognition of the "force" being the consciousness of the Ineffable, the Person Whom we are of. For the Law of Attraction practitioner and advocate, it is simply: "I do this mental vibration work, and it attracts whatever I desire of the same vibration. Other than that, it is dead to me. It isn't anyone, it isn't a person or mentality, there is no thought or deliberation, no judgment involved. It is just a force, an vibrational energy of the universe which respond to and can be directed by my vibration. It has no discreet consciousness of its own." This is almost palpable ignorance to me.

The Law of Attraction discounts, detracts, and deceives from the reality of a conscious, ineffable (..?). I do not like it, even if it does work by the same means as the Law of Assumption. In fact, the Law of Assumption, which is faith, is the only reason the Law of Attraction, which isn't actually a thing at all, works at all. I do not actually give a rat's behind whether the Law of Attraction works or not, or is a lie or not. I reject it because it deceives from our right relationship with the Ineffable and Its Consciousness. That Consciousness is what we call "God." It is what is doing us by Its imagination. It is what we are supposed to be in right relationship with. The Law of Attraction doesn't get it.

Malachi 1:6 is what I hear in my mind every time I see the Law of Attraction promoted: "A son honors his father and a servant his Lord. If I am the Father, how are you honoring me, and if I am the Lord, how are you submitting to me?" (Alexander). The Law of Attraction doesn't have a Father or a Lord or honor to any thing. The universe to it is a vibrating blank slate. You put in your order with the universe by your selected buzz, and that buzz in the world finds you. The only consciousness involved is you selecting the frequency of your buzz.

Satan, to me, is the inherent ignorance of the Ineffable's Imagination. We are a small part of the Ineffable's Imagination's manifestation; specifically, we are the Ineffable's Imagination's ignorance. The ignorance of the Imagination is that it doesn't know how to be the Ineffable, but rather perceives separation between itself and what goes on through it. Yes, that's a weird idea, but getting over this ignorance is what we are here to do for God and as God because we are God. The truth is: all is one.

The Law of Attraction appears to work because God provides. That's His "Howdy-do." There is thought and deliberation, judgment on His part. God speaks to us in illustrations, of which the Bible is full. 'Eil Shaddai' is God, of whom we are part. Shaddai means “breasts.” God PROVIDES everything. The Holy Spirit is feminine gender. The feminine is receptive. We are receptive of everything. The Law of Attraction PRACTICES the Prayer of Assumption. You think you are vibrating, but you are actually telling God what desires are in your heart, desires He has put there (Psalm 37:4). HE IS FAITHFUL TO HIS PROMISE TO BRING THEM TO PASS.

"A son honors his father and a servant his Lord. If I am the Father, how are you honoring me, and if I am the Lord, how are you submitting to me?"

Again from Malachi, Chapter 3:8 - 4:1, per Alexander:

8. "Why, does man exploit God as you have exploited me? And if you say, 'How have we exploited you?' In tithing and in first fruits.
9. "By curses you are cursed, and to me you are exploiting.
10. "All the nation brings its tithes into my stores and there is food in my house, and they test (prove!) me with this," said the Almighty Lord, "and I open a window for you in heaven and shower you with blessings until you say, 'this is more than enough.'
11. "And I cry out against the pestilence so as it may not destroy the fruit of the earth, and not one of the earth's vines is ruined," said the Almighty Lord.
12. "And all the nations glorify you, as you become the land of my desire," said the Almighty Lord.
13. "Your words [weigh] heavily on me," said the Lord. "And if you say, 'What did we say against you?'
14. "You said, 'It is in vain working for the Lord, and what wealth did we gain by guarding his treasures* and walking meekly before the Almighty Lord?'
15. "'And henceforth are we to give blessings towards the abominable, and the sinners* will restore* us, and we are to tempt* God and he [still] delivers us?'"
16. Thus they spoke, those who feared the Lord, each man saying [thus] to his companion; and the Lord listened and heard, and he wrote in the Scrolls of the Offerings* before him, [he wrote] regarding those who feared him and regarding those who glorified his name.*
17. "And they are mine," said the Almighty Lord, "on the Day that I make up the Congregation* and I embrace* them, as the man embraces the son who works for him.
18. "And you turn back and see [the difference] between the righteous and the abominable, between those that worked for God and those that did not."*
1. "Because, behold, there shall come days and my anger shall burn like a furnace, and all the workers of abomination and the committers of sin shall be like stubble which I burn on the following Day," said the Almighty Lord, "and I shall not leave them a root or branch" (emphases mine).
________________________________________
Notes:
*3:14 Lit. Ar. idiomatic expression: "Guarding his guardeds."
*3:15.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "Performers of sin."
*3:15.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Build."
*3:15.3 Lit. Ar. id.: "Test."
*3:16.1 Lit. Ar. id.: Or: "Scriptures of Memorial Offerings."
*3:16.2 NB! These are the two types of faith: those who worship out of fear and those who worship by glorifying the Lord out of a desire to honor him and out of love.
*3:17.1 Lit. Ar. id.: Or: "Assembly."
*3:17.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Stick to."
*3:18 NB! Prophesy regarding those who followed Eashoa (Jesus), like the Disciples, the Apostles, and the early Churches, when Eashoa (Jesus) came to the World.

They obeyed the Law of Assumption, and it WORKED by God's deliberate action of FAITHFULNESS. It PROVED God, but they discounted His actually being there. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Person of the Ineffable (..?) isn't conscious, and don't refuse to honor Him as Father.

So there you go, two Laws of opposite effect because of two differing assumptions within them. Both use the same power, both do the same thing. But one recognizes the Person the power is, and the other does not. I hope for your sake you realize that the power acts deliberately and with purpose, which a natural, neutral force cannot. I.e., I hope you meet the Big Guy, and then on favorable terms.

Heading For Healing 20: How Many Times To Be Healed?

How many times to believe you are healed?

A little anecdote I heard a number of decades ago:
A group of boys were playing baseball while on a church retreat. One broke his leg, and the counsellor told him they would call an ambulance for him, or he could have his healing. The boy said he'd have his healing. They prayed, got him up on his good leg, but when he stepped onto the bad leg, he crumpled. They repeatedly prayed, he repeatedly got up on his good leg, and repeatedly crumpled again. The counsellor was perplexed. "This time," it came to him, "get up on your bad leg." When the boy put forth his bad leg to get up, it was healed.

"It will come back three times," the Lord warned a healed person of her symptoms. I don't know why, and I don't know how symptoms of a disease return after a healing, but they sometimes do. It could be a challenge to or test of one's faith. A pain returns. Were you healed? Do you KNOW you were? "By his stripes ye WERE healed." The boy was healed when they prayed. We are ALWAYS healed, but do we believe it? Do we always ACCEPT it? Getting up on his bad leg showed it. Neville Goddard pointed out that if by imagining you became a multimillionaire, and by some means lost it all, you still have the means to gain it all again. Pray just like you did before. The pain returns, or the lump, the heartbeat, or whatever. If you were healed and are still in good grace, you ARE healed. Believe like you did before.

It used to be that the right sleeves of all my long sleeve shirts were snugger than the left. Then my left arm grew out as I watched. I never had a sleeve snugger than the other again. One night I entered a strange realization that everything is the intelligence of the Ineffable. I don't do drugs, but I seemed to be "tripping." It was the kind of realization or perception that makes you afraid, except knowing the love of God gives you confidence to withstand it. That night my left shoulder was throbbing from the arthritis in my neck. As I lie down to sleep, in this mental euphoria I said to the Intelligence, "You can heal me." The pain was gone before my head hit the pillow.

The years go by and the pain returns, and it just now occurs to me that the perception of everything being the intelligence of the Ineffable, i.e., the healing, is more precious to me than the healed state that follows. Like when Janet Gunther found herself in the Presence of God and the Voice said, "You are healed." Her healing was just icing on the cake -- she wanted the Presence! Maybe we should be looking at returns of symptoms as opportunities to rehearse healing -- just another thing to thank God for. The boys learned that faith was getting up on the bad leg, no matter how many times putting weight on it had failed before. That was a fruitful retreat.

Vic Alexander’s Translations: The Biblical Blemish is Not Typo, Grammar, Or Spelling; It Is Wrong, Error, Ignorance, Stupidity

Biblical sheep are thoughts, ideas. Moses tending the flocks of Jethro means he thought a lot and meditated about God’s Excellence. We are to offer God a spotless, unblemished lamb. I think that is hard to do with bibles that are mistranslated toward the prejudices of translators who did not speak the source language nor know the source culture. Where they miss the bible’s authors’ meaning is biblical blemish. How can we think correctly to give God unblemished minds with the blemished input of such bibles?

Yes, this is a shameless plug for Vic Alexander’s translations to English from the ancient Aramaic scriptures, and I’m not even working for him. I do this for the church way back then, the Ancient Aramaic Church. There were a lot of blemishes in that church, and the way given to get out of those blemishes was the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is given free upon complete belief and submission to God. The scriptures, well, if you want a copy to read, study, and carry around with you, those are produced at somebody’s expenditure of time, effort, and materials. Vic’s translations are not cheap, but how much do you want to be less blemished? To be less wrong, less in error, less ignorant, less stupid?

The faults in Victor’s translations — punctuation, spelling typos, etc. — are not blemishes to God. Where Vic hits what the original authors actually thought and meant is Glory to God, and I think he hits it more often than any other translation I am familiar with. If nothing else, Vic’s translations give me more to think about, and it seems to me that God likes that.

The Old Testament Scriptures is limited to those Old Testament books Vic has translated: Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.. I do not know which of his other texts can be ordered directly through him. It is probably safer to go directly through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. But any appreciative saints can contribute directly to him at

1129 Linden Ave. #2
Glendale, CA 91201

He can be communicated with via e-mail at vicalexander37@gmail.com

Again, I do not work for Vic, he doesn’t pay me, I get nothing out of this, but I think God does.

Heading For Healing 19b: Imagination and Memories of the Past

Can we change the past? Neville Goddard asked, “What would it be like if it were true?” If what ‘it’ were true? If the past we desire were true. We can assume that that past was and now IS true, and let it become true. All is past relative to the end. If we practice the technique of revision, it is revision of the past. If we hear bad news and refuse to hear it, and hear good news instead, it is still the past. “I remember when...” is remembering the past, even if it is in the future. The lady with the pained back in The Law and the Promise, page 19, remembered her swinging and falling badly in the past. In her imagination she went back to that event and relived it. What would it be like if it were true ... that she swung and fell well? She did over and over in her imagination, and healed her back.

I do not know if we actually change the past, or change God’s memory of it. Not sure there’s a difference there.

Heading For Healing 19: What To Us Is In The Future Was Healed In The Past

Don't look forward to healing. It is PAST TENSE in the Bible: "By Whose stripes you WERE healed." We hope for healing before the end of the universe, for certainly by the end of Revelation all healing will be accomplished. But Hebrews 9:26 says, "He offered Himself only one time* (one season) AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE in the Sacrifice that annihilates sin" (Alexander). The end of the universe is PAST TENSE TO US!! Jesus "offered Himself one season (the Season of Grace) to obliterate the sins of many, so as in the SECOND season -- THIS season -- those who held onto Him would see themselves Alive without their sins" (Alexander, parenthesis and emphasis mine). "Faith is taking now what God offers" (Bosworth, 1973, Christ the Healer, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, p.127). Our judgment is PAST: "It is finished."

"Therefore, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, who took on these curses on our own behalf" (Galatians 3:13 Alexander). "Surely He hath..." "Himself took..." The redemption is PAST. "When God puts a promise in the past tense, He thus authorizes and expects us to do the same. Nothing short of this is appropriating faith" (Bosworth, p.128). Our future is in the PAST. "Believe that you have received them, and you shall have them" (Mark 11:24). Bosworth says we are to believe God GAVE us what we ask for. It is AFTER we have made the assumption that the past WAS as we wish that God goes to work.

You cannot be what you have not become in the past. Let me put it this way: if the sacrifice was at the end of the universe, the present and the future up to that point WAS its past. The sacrifice was for everything before it. Everything before it was covered by it. “You cannot change the past.” Uh, yeah, yes you can. In fact, the past is the only thing that can be changed. It’s the only thing there is here, for manifestation can only be of what is.

"Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me" (John 11:41 KJV). Heard in the past. Has he even spoken yet? Bosworth (p.129) says, "Faith refuses to see (as reason for doubting) anything contrary to the Word of God. It sees the health and strength bequeathed to us as already belonging to us because of the death of the Testator. By His death the will is in force.

Jesus says to us, 'As thou hast believed (past tense), so be it unto thee.'" We weirdly believe the PAST. He doesn't say, "As thou believeth (present tense), so be it," but "As thou HAST BELIEVED." Back THEN. "Faith is believing you have what God says you have and acting accordingly before you either feel or see that you have it" (p.130).

Do not keep your blessing in the future tense, a hope promised. Faith takes the offered PAST blessings NOW. It is like the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It only happened ONCE. Now it is GIVEN, and only has to be RECEIVED. If you need the consciousness of God, the Holy Spirit, to get back there (if you do not already have that quickening), anoint yourself with oil, the given symbol of the Holy Spirit. Receive it, and be healed.

Matthew 6:9-13, The Bread Prayer: An Exceptional Verse About An Exceptional Bread

I've got a hundred posts that deal with Exodus 3:14, but what really fascinates me is Jethro. Jethro was the subject of Exodus 3, and is actually the subject of the whole Bible. Jethro is God's Excellence, the abundance which remains. God's Excellence fascinated Moses, and it introduced him to God. That is what Jethro does: God's Excellence makes us notice God. It opens the door.

In "The Lord's Prayer," Matthew 6:9-13, there is only one thing that is asked for, that being in verse 11, bread. "Give us this day our daily bread." The disciples were just told, "For your Father KNOWS your necessities before you ask Him. Consequently, you must pray in this way (not asking Him for anything)." Our Father knows our necessities, so we certainly are not going to ask for bread. This is a reference to Jethro. Bread is manna, the manna which came down from heaven is Jesus, Jesus is God's Excellence, Jethro.

Unlike Ferrar Fenton, I am a Aramaic priorist. I believe the Bible was first lived and written in Aramaic. Fenton was a Greek priorist, a Greek fanatic ... in a good way. Fenton's translation Of The Lord's Prayer is famous among Nevillites for its first aorist of the imperative passive mood, which is that the first things mentioned "must be being" whatever they are:

“For your Father knows your necessities before you ask Him. Consequently, you must pray in this way:
Our Father in the Heavens;
Your name must be being hallowed;
Your kingdom must be being restored.
Your will must be being done both in heaven and upon the earth.
Give us today our tomorrow’s bread;
And forgive us our faults, as we forgive those offending us,
for You would not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from its evil.”

Ferrar Fenton's Comments on The Lord’s Prayer in Modern English:

“The above is a literal translation of the original Greek, retaining the Greek moods and tenses by the clearest English I could. The old versions, having been made from a Latin translation, could not reproduce the actual sense of the Saviour as given by the Evangelists, for Latin has no aorist of the imperative passive mood used by Matthew and Luke. The force of the imperative first aorist seems to me to be that of what is called a standing order, a thing to be done absolutely, and continuously.”

We are not to ask that the Father’s name be hallowed, that His kingdom come, that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. For the Father's name MUST BE BEING HALLOWED, the Father’s kingdom MUST BE BEING RESTORED, and the Father’s will MUST BE BEING DONE BOTH IN HEAVEN AND UPON EARTH. These are not options!! These are STANDING ORDERS, REQUIREMENTS, WHAT WE NORMALLY CALL COMMANDMENTS. This is the way life is. “Therefore,” should be the next word before 'give us today' in verse 11. In fact, the whole prayer should have begun with 'because': "BECAUSE, Father, your name must be being hallowed, your kingdom must be being restored, and your will must be being done both in heaven and upon earth, THEREFORE, give us TODAY ... TOMORROW’S bread."

I want to call attention to Fenton's translation of verse 11: "Give us today our tomorrow’s bread." Note how Neil Douglas-Klotz (below, The Nazarene Way) translates 'bread/manna': "Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need." The one thing we ask for is what to desire (per Psalm 37:4) for tomorrow, that we might receive it TODAY (per Mark 11:24) for its manifestation TOMORROW. “For your Father knows your necessities before you ask Him." All we are saying is, "Tell us (the congregation). Give us wisdom. Give us understanding. Give us Jesus, Your Excellence for OUR need, SO WE KNOW WHAT TO BE. We will receive that now, as we shall have it tomorrow."

The Anointing of YHWH which is Jesus is the bread, the manna which came down from heaven (John 6:51). It is not apart from us. We are asking for the Anointing, for awareness of participation in the Milta who is the Anointing and ALL OF GOD. “Because ... Therefore, give us this day the Bread of Life for our daily needs tomorrow ... Amen.”

Ironically, this is called the Lord’s Prayer. That, the Lord, is exactly what we are praying for. It is the way Jewish guy we call Jesus prayed. The Anointing of YHWH, Jesus, is the manna. It is an interior prayer; we are praying for what is inside of us. We are not asking for anything from outside of us. Given us the Bread, spiritual quickening, we say, “Because Your name must be being hallowed, Your kingdom must be being restored, and Your will must be being done IN US, get our heads straight and our lives right.” If you have been praying the Bread Prayer with a mind to get exterior things, like for instance real bread, well, wisdom is the principle thing, therefore first get wisdom. Then, with wisdom believe ye receive real bread, and now having had it, tomorrow you’ll have it.
__________________________________________

Some translations from the Aramaic:

Victor N. Alexander's translation:
9. "Therefore, this is how you shall pray:
Our heavenly Father, hallowed is your name.
10. "Your Kingdom is come. Your will is done, as in heaven so also on earth.
11. "Give us the bread (the Manna, Jesus) for our daily need.
12. "And leave us serene, just as we also allowed others serenity.
13. "And do not pass us through trial, except separate us from the evil one (emphases and parenthesis mine).




The Prayer to Our Father in the Original Aramaic (from the Nazarene Way):
Abwûn O cosmic Birther, from whom the breath of life comes,
d'bwaschmâja who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
Nethkâdasch schmach têtê malkuthach. Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha. Let Your will come true in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna. Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên. detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),
ela patzân min bischa. but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Heading For Healing 18: Do Not Discount "It Is All Evolution"

"It is all evolution." Of course it is. It is the evolution of a power or force which either has consciousness or a nature which corresponds to consciousness and the attitudes of beneficence and love. I.e., a nature of intentional increase through changes in states. I am saying that the kingdom of God is a natural order. It is nature doing what it does. What it does is consciousness, communication of intent, and manifestation of conceived conditions. Between ourselves and that end, we do not know what we are missing; i.e., we do not know what we lack of our own being to DO that.

"Two Kinds of Knowledge" (see E. W. Kenyon) comes into play here. We know what we are lacking by name. I happened Providentially to pick up F. F. Bosworth's Christ the Healer (1973. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company) and flip it open. "Zoe," the Life of God, Bosworth said, is what we are missing. Cool. But what is that? Well, it is the subject of chapter 11 in the book, pages 149 to 154. Zoe is the secret of victory. We have it; we need to be FULL of it -- full of God Himself. But how do we un us and fill up on Him? The experiential knowledge we must find is being fully un-ed of ourselves and fully upped with Him.

The only way to find out is to go there. Jesus died. God doesn't ask us to do that -- one died for all, so He accounts all died. But the Power or Force which has or corresponds to consciousness would have us "die" attitudinally to effect changes in states. When we "die," we find ourselves seated in the heavenlies with Christ Jesus. "Oy," He says. "There you go, mate. You've found the way to take My yoke I called you to in Matthew 11:28-29. It's easy, isn't it? You've just got to DO it. Good job!"

Heading For Healing 17: On Conscii: All the Gods are One -- Here, There, and Everywhere

I received a question from Anonymous on my response to AmberLC:

"Dan, thank you for the reply. I have long struggled with the 'I Am God' part of Neville, and visited your blog many times, looking for clarification. How is God different from 'God the Sent'? and how does this idea of there being a giver and receiver apply to it? DO NOT MISREAD IN MARK 11:24 THE WORD 'RECEIVE,' FOR WE RECEIVE FROM GOD."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:19 AM
______________________________________

Dear Anonymous Anonymous,

How is God different from God the Sent? I want to take you on a little mind trip. First of all, you should get a copy of the book by J. B. Phillips or make a plaque you can prominently display where you will always see it which says, "YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL" (1961 New York: The Macmillan Company). I am not insulting you; we all have too small of a God. Take this consideration with you into your shower or bath: "What is God?" Be ready to be informed by the Big Guy.

The Big Guy

It is fairly certain our portion of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I say our portion because time-space is expanding so rapidly that the furthest galaxies in the observable universe are falling out of sight, as they become too far away for their light to ever reach the earth. You probably missed that. Not only is the universe expanding in space, the space the universe is in is expanding as well. The portion we can see -- from Deep Field observation this way to Deep Field observation that way -- might be but an infinitesimal speck in the overall mass of universes. We have hundreds of billions of galaxies in our neighborhood, each with trillions of stars, and trillions of trillions of planets. Infinity is a BIG place.

Now for the trip. In your mind, eliminate it all. Wipe out our universe. Wipe out all the stars. Wipe any other universes, and even all the empty space the universes were in. Blank out all forms of existence. There is no light. Creation and Creator are gone. You probably still imagine an empty endlessness. Eliminate that, also. Not only is everything blank, the blank is gone, too. Could this be done, there would still be a consciousness, the Ein Sof, the Endlessness from which the endless infinity we just eliminated came from. I am not interested in that. Eliminate the Divine Consciousness, too. There is no thought or imagination.

What is left isn't nothing; it is the No-thing, the ineffable (..?). I honestly haven't even a clue as to what That, the Ineffable, might be. I envision It as being like an infinite electromagnetic field or the field of gravity WITHOUT electromagnetism or gravity. It is a power with the potential for consciousness. THIS is the "Big Guy." It is a infinite, invisible, thing-less, ineffable, actionless, non-mass. And It is the cause of everything else because It did attain consciousness. It imagined and became aware of Its own existence.

In my mind, the Big Guy existed as a non-conscious field for a really long time before It became aware. The Ineffable's consciousness, Its awareness of itself, was the first "thing," Its Manifestation. The Ineffable's Imagination is Its only Manifestation. The imagining Consciousness might weirdly have been non-local, an awareness as high, as wide, as long, and as deep as the field Itself. Maybe it still is.

THAT, to me, the Big Guy -- the non-thinking, non-acting Power Who now thinks and acts -- is "God." Note: the Ineffable's action is eternally limited to imagination. It is now Infinite Intelligence. For the Ineffable thought and thought and found out -- self-discovery time -- all that It was, all the powers that It had, and all that It wasn't.

"Wait. What? What do you mean, 'that It wasn't'?" the Ineffable thought to Itself. "What else could I be? How else could I be? I don't like missing stuff, especially if it is Me. Missing ain't right, and I am right." It thought through all that It could be. It thought through, I believe, everything that would or could happen for It to become RIGHT with nothing missing. It thought through every way It could exist as right, everything that could go wrong, everything that would remedy, every need, every provision, every way anything could happen, everything it would take to become right. The Ineffable thought through to the end of Revelation for all the universes before there was any universe.

Remember Abarim-Publications.com, who gave us: "compartmentalization: to break some continuum apart into separated elements." This is a key concept. Everything in the continuum from Big Guy to the end of Revelation would exist as transitory states. All would be the Big Guy going there, becoming complete. "Hey, wait what will be a minute when time exists," the Ineffable thought. "I'm thinking all this stuff, and I've got a bunch of sunflowers — conscii — the height, length, depth, and breadth of Me who aren't getting it. It's like they are stuck in the mud or something. For Me to be complete, they need to be like Me: RIGHT: free, moral, loving, and powerful. What's a Mother to do?" (The Big Guy isn't really a guy.)

The Milta (Alexander. It is everywhere else 'Miltha,' and I wonder if it wouldn't be pronounced 'milt-ha')

Consciousness as the Big Guy's manifestation wasn't all that It could be. It, the Consciousness, needed to be manifest in all those other ways. For the Ineffable Big Guy to actually be manifest in them, they needed to become HIM!! It's self-discovery, right? The Ineffable would become them, and then they would become Him by having His nature inculcated and generated in them. The Ineffable had been an infinite, invisible, thing-less, actionless, ignorant non-mass. It had attained consciousness, and was now a Power Who thought and acted by the conscience's IMAGINATION. His manifestation would have to follow suit.

I am familiar with a half dozen words or so of Aramaic, but not to so well as to explain them. 'Milta' is an especially challenging concept. Victor Alexander's note on John 1:1, where the Greek uses Logos, says "'Milta,' ... the essential connotation for a person or thing. There is no true English equivalent for this concept." I'll throw this in, too:

"Translator of the Aramaic Bible Translation Project, Victor N. Alexander, explains his translation of Matthew 15:6 in the Syriac translation of the P'shitta:

"I opened up John and started reading the ancient Aramaic of this Gospel for the first time, and I was awed by it. Here was a clear view of the Triune God, from the very beginning of the first chapter. The key word was 'Milta,' a beautiful word in its theological connotation. 'Logos' and 'Word' are such poor substitutes. There is essentially no English translation for the word 'Milta' in a theological sense. Therefore, I had to come up with one. I have translated the word 'Milta' as 'Manifestation.' Jesus Christ is God Manifest. There is one God. There are three Manifestations, the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit."

I am going to suggest here that the Milta is the Ineffable’s Consciousness. The Big Guy, as it were, lie down to sleep, and dreamed He was I. Ignorant, lame-brained, stupid me. This was the fall of man and the crucifixion and the Beginning of all fractured existence. The Milta is conscious of all the Big Guy AND the sleep states. It is Him AND His manifestation. It is God (the only God we will ever know, by the way), and it is sent into this darkness of ignorance without reservation (except it still knows what it is). It is God’s Consciousness which is “Jesus Christ.” It was the Consciousness which was the Anointing upon the Jew who believed and dared in faith to die at the end of the Season of Grace. That act initiated this New Age of Faith Rehnborg wrote of.

What has all this to do with receiving in Mark 11:24? We are a cooperative one. We are God’s Consciousness ignoranced becoming Him. We are becoming unignoranced. We ASSUME, as He does, that we HAVE what we desire, and we allow Him to bring it to pass. His bringing it into experiential manifestation is His part. We are free within the perimeters of His nature to desire whatever we will and assume that that state is received. If we so dream it, He dreams it, for we are one: God the Big Guy, and God the Sent. The Jewish guy did a real good job of getting unignoranced. We should do as well in having a BIG God. BIGGER. BIGGER.

Observation on the Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God, according the the scriptures, is the place we are going; and, according to the scriptures, we are already there (if, confessing Jesus Christ is YHWH, we have faith for salvation). Seems like I've seen this pattern before.

Answer to Amber on Name/Nature

AmberLC asked:

"Not sure if you feel like addressing this, I love reading your posts. I was thinking about in the Bible how it says ask "in my name" so many passages about in Jesus' name, which is how people cast out demons, heal, etc. and am trying to figure out which many people say is literal, in the name of Jesus, and can be very successful with, like is it their belief in the name, vs. nature more like Neville style. Or quite literally those exact words but why doesn't it always work, then it comes back to confidence and belief in our authority in Jesus."
___________________________________

Again, something I myself struggle with. Suddenly, had something of an answer. Remember, "Compartmentalization: to break some continuum apart into separated elements." God is a continuum of consciousness. We are ignorant conscii. We know that we are, but we do not know what we are. Life is out there in front of us, manifesting us, but we do not know what is BEHIND us. I.e., the real Consciousness. We are here to find it to fix ourselves (which entails finding Christ [who we are] and being fixed by Him).

A thing's "name" is its nature. The "name" of Jesus Christ IS (the nature of) that man at the end of the Season of Grace who died, resurrected, and we joined in ascension (if indeed we have believed -- had faith unto salvation -- confessing He [and thus we] is YHWH).

We are, or at least have been, ignorant conscii. Ignorance is a part of the continuum. It is consciousness, alive and powerful and in its way wise, BUT IT IS ITSELF LESS THAN WE ARE. Consciousness also, it lives and works, but is subject to us for it is OUR ignorance. We simply have authority of a higher order than it. It is RIGHT for it to obey us. It, "Satan," affects a person. We command it, ignorance, to leave. The person is unaffected. Deaffected. Affected by ignorance no more. What ignorance? That we are apart of YHWH, of the Ineffable, and not apart from Him. David, THE Christ, calls us Father, THE YHWH, Who is the Consciousness of the Ineffable. WE CONSCII DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT IS, WHICH IS OUR IGNORANCE, WHICH IGNORANCE IS SUBJECT TO US. Resist it, cast it out; its gates cannot withstand us.

AmberLC writes,

Hi Dan,

James 4:3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

What do you think about this vs the teachings of Neville Goddard? I read a ton of Neville and the Bible and this has me a little bit confused as what NG teaches would seem to contradict this.
______________________

Hello, Amber. Thank you for the question. If you have been reading this blog for awhile, you have seen I am struggling with this problem, too. It has made me reevaluate what Neville did teach, what the Bible does teach, what is the truth, the kingdom, and what do false prophets teach. I personally believe that the kingdom is the power (of a consciousness) which makes us as we want, and that, as Dr. John Messer said at Melodyland School of Theology while I was there, "The Kingdom has to do with attitudes."

Neville taught a number of things I mentally modify or refine. One was that the authors of the Bible wrote what they did so that we might have whatsoever we desire. I see enough of the mechanics of this in the Bible and in action in my life to believe it, but not like that. Everywhere I read about Neville that he was a New Thought teacher. Neville HATED "New Thought." My impression is that he loathed it. "There is no new thought!" he screamed. "We are here to fulfill DESTINY." Destiny is already laid out. There is nothing new under the sun; it was all laid out in the Old Testament. The New Testament is commentary on it, explanation of it. It is God who gives us the desires of our hearts. Psalm 37:4 and 5 says He gives us the desires, we COMMIT OUR WAY TO HIM WITH TRUST, and then He -- God -- brings it -- the desires he gave us -- to pass. He is far more that the frequency of our thoughts.

Another thing you hear frequently from Neville is that no character of scripture was a person who had a personal history. Review what Dr. John Messer said above. If anything, the characters in scripture are illustrations, or perhaps rather manifestations, of our attitudes. The facts of metaphysics, that everything is imagination aside, there were people. They just weren't the people of the stories the authors wrote. Something was going on in their world. The writers of scripture wrote about THAT. They wrote about the Season of Grace, a bit bigger span of time than the 70 7's of Daniel. Or maybe the exact same - I don't know. But I know that God called it a man. One guy formed as the culmination of the Season, who saw and believed and by all accounts died, and rose a life-giving spirit. There was a man, but the authors wrote about the ATTITUDES. I have never heard of anyone who believed more in that man than Neville, except for the man himself.

Which brings me to your question: the wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. Pride, selfishness, separateness. I see all the guys (and gals) boasting in their commercials about how well they are doing, the mansions, the cars, the boats, the planes, the wonderful vacation life-style, and I think, boy, are you missing it. Nebuchadnezzar was given the whole world(!), and learned it didn't matter. The trouble you and I have is understanding that Neville taught to sleep here as though you were there, and it will come to pass; and the Man DID, and had nowhere to lay his head. We can't wrap our heads around that success. Was it limited to pre-resurrection only, or is it still success after resurrection? Joined with Him, we are resurrected, seated with Him in heavenlies. So then, where do we sleep?

As I read the commentary, the New Testament, I hear, "Touch not the spoil. Not for yourself -- you don't need any of this." I think Neville's attitude was, "It's okay." No real connection. Have confidence in God; it will happen when he makes it happen; do not care or be anxious; everyone should BENEFIT, there should be no loss from it for anyone. We are made for OUTFLOW, for giving, for love, for other people's pleasures. For ourselves, distant and disconnected -- it's just a state. Maybe that is what Abel means. Cain is acquisition, Abel -- it's just a state.

Kind of makes me wonder what false prophets preach. They seem to be or preach that we should be the terminus of shared wealth. The spoil is for us by giving to them. Jeremiah heard an earful from the false teachers. The weird thing is, even today, false prophets don't know that they are false. They are quite confident and assured they are telling the truth. What they say is what they think. At least, I think it is. I don't believe the lying, thieving skunks are colluding to defraud their constituents. They believe they are to prosper and keep 90% of what they get to spend it on their pleasures.

The War is not with Iran, Islam, or Insanity, but with Ignorance -- Duality --- Our Supposed Separation from God

My previous post mentioned "compartmentalization: to break some continuum apart into separated elements. Human minds are designed to be nodes of a much greater network of exchange." That is an elegant description of the reality we are in. The continuum of the Ineffable's consciousness is broken into innumerable bits -- "conscii" -- which is what our conscious awareness inside us really is.

The fact that God's consciousness is a continuum of which we are part is a big problem. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus all hold that God is one. What that one is, and what it includes, is open to conjecture. There are two extreme views: 1) God is one entirely separate and alone, and creation is entirely separate and alone and nothing like God; and 2) God is one entirely alone, and creation is entirely his consciousness in the action of his own manifestation without any separation.

The first extreme joins creation to God, and is shirk. The second extreme is emanation of God -- He is One and All -- there is no creation apart from Him. NO creation is independent, or apart, or not completely God Himself, whatever form it may be in, because God is one -- EVERYTHING! There isn't anything that exists that he isn't. He is the most and the least WITHOUT DIVISION. Obviously, if he made and maintained creation apart from himself, he would be divided.

The whole thing of ancient Aramaic Christianity is the realization of the oneness of God in the second extreme. We emanated from God without separation and still are Him without division, but unfortunately also without awareness of it.

We are, as I said, in truth conscii, bits of the Ineffable's continuum of consciousness broken down into discrete elements without division from him. These states we are in are for the resolution of our ignorance of what it is to BE him. A meaningful bit of humor: God deals with us according to his Separate-O-Meter. The higher our Separate-O-Meter score, the higher we are on his Reject-O-Meter. We want to get to perfect zeros!! Even the idea of him being immanent has him too distant. He isn't in; he is.

THE TROUBLE IS: WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS TO BE HIM. We all, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, occultists, Satanists, and flat-earthers, are poking around in the dark trying to find what is right to fix what is wrong, which is what we are here for. We do not know what the answer is in our not being us, but him. How do we Him? All we know is that our practice/manifestation of God is too small, too insipid, too ... ignorant. And to resolve this we have to discover Him in us ... as us.

Do You Want To Build A Moses?

Blame the music from the movie Frozen on my granddaughter.

'Moses' is the germ of the Gospel in us, a potential we all have. Apparently, it gets built. Having some sterling, noble qualities in one's self, you find interest and education, the Princess of Egypt, in world philosophies and religions. You know something is there behind these, but you don't know what it is. Trying this and that blindly, you just make so much of a mess. It is there, and you aren't finding it.

Then you get some good advice and venture into the Median land of Yah -- the workings of God. "Hmm. I see actions, manifestations. There must be a real God behind and causing these things." You can almost smell it. You are reaching the state of Reuel, the friend of God. Congratulations. Let me share something I learned in Bullinger's Companion Bible, in his note on Genesis 32:28, Israel (page 47): "Out of some forty Hebrew names compounded with 'El' or 'Yah', GOD IS ALWAYS THE DOER OF WHAT THE VERB MEANS (cp. Dani-el, God judges)" (emphasis mine). It isn't your friendliness toward God; it's God's friendliness towards YOU! Holy Schnikes! Have you engaged the Hound of Heaven? Believe me, things could be worse.

Regarding 'friend', from https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Reuel.html#.XhBBq0dKjct:

רעע
"Most broadly, the root רעע (ra'a') describes compartmentalization: to break some continuum apart into separated elements. Human minds are designed to be nodes of a much greater network of exchange, and must continuously interact to maintain a liquidity of wisdom — hence the noun רע (rea'), meaning friend or companion (and hence too the story of the Tower of Babel).

"All wealth requires liquidity and that requires units of economy to go around. This explains why "evil" — רע, ra', evil — is not the opposite of "good" but instrumental to it: hence the perfect Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the heart of perfect Paradise. Despite popular misconceptions, in the Bible, all רע (rea') comes from God (Isaiah 45:7) and has a specific and wonderful function in any naturally evolving system" (bold emphases mine).

This suggests God's friendship will entail the "liquid" exchange of Divine wisdom or intelligence with us. Hence Moses kept the flocks, or thoughts, of God's Excellence -- Jethro. And there he "saw" God. And God SPOKE! "My name or nature is Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh -- My imagination in you manifests as your life."

I suggest keeping your Friend close.

A Bit Of Why I Hate The So-called Law Of Attraction (Which Denies The Specific Consciousness, Action, And Power Of God)

Action requires an actor
Provision requires a provider
Direction requires a director
Timing requires a timer
Coordination requires a coordinator
Orchestration requires an orchestrator
Specificity requires a specifier
Selection requires a selector
Judgment requires a judge
God's excellence requires a God
Kingdom requires a king
Life requires a life-giver
Thought requires a thinker
Imagination requires an imaginer
And on and on it could go. My brain synapses buzzing at a certain frequency doesn't cut it. We see the ACTION, pay heed to the ACTOR.

Vic Alexander Translation Error? 2 Corinthians 12:2's "Struggle Here Until Heaven's Revenge"

Victor N. Alexander knows the Aramaic language. That is something that CANNOT be said for many of the Bible's translators. Even those who do know the Aramaic language disagree at times with Vic's idiomatic phrasing of what the original authors of Scriptures meant by what they said. Here is a sample critiquing dialogue from http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=3062

Says one:
"Victor Alexander's New Testament is a mixture of amazingly good and amazingly bad. A case in point would be Romans 1:26 where from Greek-to-English you would have 'left to degraded passions.' But fortunately Victor Alexander sees through the smoke and translates 'abandoned them to venereal diseases.' The Aramaic phrase in question is 'Kaba d'Tsera' where 'kaba' has the primary meaning of 'medical condition' with dictionary synonyms such as disease, sickness, malady, infirmity, etc. The remainder of the phrase, 'd'Tsera' means 'of disgrace' or 'of shame.' Since the passage in question is hitting the topic of homosexuality head on, 'disgraceful diseases' would quite naturally be translated (or paraphrased) in modern English vernacular as 'venereal diseases.' So in this instance, Victor Alexander hits a home run with the bases loaded. :-) However.....there's the down side...and I wish I could remember the passage of Scripture where he incorporates the phrase 'heaven's revenge' because it was a horrible translation mistake based on a mistaken, hurried reading of a word root."

Says the other:
"Oops! It looks like you have addressed the issue of Vic using 'struggle' and 'revenge' when there seems to be no basis for doing so. I have access to Payne-Smith's Compendious, Jennings' Syriac Dictionary, and I look into the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon periodically but still don't see any recourse for this rendering of Vic's. Your input on YouTube and Amazon is quite inspiring. 2nd Corinthians 12:2 is not translated this way in any of the other Aramaic-to-English versions" (bold emphases mine).

Here is the translation in question and subsequent note:

2 Corinthians 12

2. I knew a man through Christ for fourteen years, (whether through the flesh, however, or not, I do not know, God only knows,) that he would struggle here until heaven's revenge (emphasis mine).
3. And I knew this man, however whether through the flesh or not, only God knows,
4. He was taken up to paradise and he heard words that cannot be spoken of, those that are not permissible for a human being to utter.*
5. Regarding him I am proud; regarding myself, however, I am not proud, except for my afflictions.

*12:4 Reference to John the Apostle and Revelation.

Notice in the first comment above, "Victor Alexander sees through the smoke." That is the thing with his translation; it is not rigidly literal. Vic apparently believed that here Paul was referring to John the Apostle, of whom it was said, "If it pleases me to hold this one until I come, what is that to you?" (John 21:22 Alexander). This would explain Vic's use of 'struggle' and 'revenge.'

IF VICTOR IS CORRECT, IT OPENS A WHOLE OTHER CAN OF WORMS REGARDING WHEN JOHN ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE REVELATION, how many times he received revelation, and/or when 2 Corinthians was actually written. I suspect that if John received his revelation early in his ministry, "whether through the flesh, however, or not, I do not know, God only knows," was a trademark expression of his preaching by which the Corinthians would know exactly whom Paul was referring to. THE POINT OF THE PASSAGE IS PAUL WAS PROUD TO KNOW JOHN; HIMSELF ... NOT SO MUCH.

Notice also these Aramaic language "experts" are working through dictionaries, lexicons, and other Aramaic-to-English versions. There is nothing wrong with that -- I have a shelf full of them (alas, Greek and Hebrew). Alexander, though, says that the dictionaries are not adequate, that in many cases they are wrong. I know that sounds loopy, but consider: the people who wrote the dictionaries ASSIGNED their definitions to the words. E.g., a certain "language expert" knows that the Old and New Testaments are books. Writing his or her dictionary, he defines 'testament' as a book. Uh . . . yeah NO. Knowing better, that a testament is a covenant, do you translate 'testament' from your dictionary as a book, or as a covenant? Alexander sees through the smoke and translates what the authors were actually saying.

Vic's use of 'struggle' and 'revenge' isn't really an insurmountable problem, is it?