YHWH / Yahweh / Jehovah (the Lord God) is the Ineffable's Becoming -- His Imagining, and is Jesus Christ, the Original Buddha -- YOU!

The other day (July 29, 2015), while reading Victor Alexander's translation of the book of Daniel from the ancient Aramaic, I noticed that Daniel was talking to the Lord God about another God in the third person -- "Him": "I beg you, O, Lord God, great and almighty, the guardian of covenants and blessings for those who love* Him and those who guard* his commandments" (Daniel 9: 4, Alexander; emphasis mine; see http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2015/07/two-gods-in-daniel-9-and-another-on-way.html).
*9:4.1 Lit. Aramaic: "Mar-yah Aa-la-ha."
*9:4.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Are merciful."
*9:4.3 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: "Observe."

I thought it very interesting that Daniel seemed to be recognizing two Gods.

As always, Bullinger's great study Bible, the Companion Bible (http://www.heavendwellers.com/23%20Daniel%201179-1206.pdf#page=19&zoom=auto,-74,767) yielded wonderful insights on the passage:
a) in "the LORD* God" in verse 3 and "O LORD*" in verse 4, the word translated LORD was changed by the Sopherim from YHWH in the primitive text to Adonai. I.e., Daniel had written YHWH and had addressed God as YHWH, and the Sopherim toned it down (the asterisk denotes this; see note at the end of Appendix 4, VIII 2).
b) the Hebrew word translated "God" in verse 3, Elohim, has the definite article: THE (true) Elohim. So Daniel had set his face "unto YHWH, the true God."
c) Elohim is the Creator God (Bullinger's note in his Appendix 4).
d) in verse 4, in "O LORD (YHWH), the great and dreadful God," the Hebrew word translated God is El -- the Almighty. El is the God who knows all, sees all, performs all things for His people, and in Whom all the divine attributes are concentrated.

I know from Victor Alexander's web site (v-a.com/bible) that "Eil is the name of the Father that Eashoa (Jesus) used from the Cross, when He declared: 'Eil, Eil, l'manna shwiqtani.' Eil is the correct translation. ('El' is the article 'the' and therefore this leads to error in all the translations that don't transliterate the name of Eil correctly.) Only the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures carry the correct name of 'Eil.' This is the supreme name of the Eternal Creator of the Universe. It appears for the first time in Genesis 17:1 as Eil Shaddai (Eil the Almighty.) Modern day Hebrew language revivalists do not accept the name of Eil as being the true name that appears in Genesis 17:1."

So El (Eil) and Elohim are the Creator God. This brought to my mind Ashur, the Creator God mentioned in the ancient Aramaic version of Exodus 3: 14, "Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh." I discussed this in the early morning hours of July 31, 2015:
http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2015/07/dr-walter-r-martin-ancient-aramaic-text.html. I resolved that "Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh" in that verse means "I - I THE CREATIVE IMAGINING AM HIS (THE INEFFABLE'S) BECOMING."

This explained to me why God is referred to as YHWH, which means HIS BECOMING. Yes, YHWH is third person singular; it CANNOT mean I AM. The Ineffable's imagining, His CREATING, is His becoming. When YHWH speaks or works wonders, it is the Ineffable imagining, HIS BECOMING!

YHWH (His Becoming or the Ineffable's imagining) is the character said to have become a unique, individual human in the New Testament as the person Jesus Christ -- Eashoa Msheekha -- the one who came unto his own, Israel. Bullinger notes (Genesis 32: 28, margin note 'Israel,' http://www.heavendwellers.com/01%20Genesis%201-71%20Preface%20i%20to%20xii.pdf, pg. 47) that "out of some forty Hebrew names compounded with 'El' or 'Jah,' God is always the doer of the what the verb means." That means that God is the "doer" of Israel -- "God ruling in/as man." You will recall that Israel was the new name, or nature, that was given to Jacob . . . who is our subtle, inner man, as opposed to Esau, our physical, human host. (YHWH, Lord of Hosts?)

The question is, can the Ineffable's imagining become a human individual? It certainly has in us! But is another human individual apart from ourselves, a distinct "federal head" of humanity and of all creation, even necessary? I do not think so. All his teaching is already known to man -- he imagines it right into our heads! It is my personal opinion that Mark, the Gospel writer, was a Buddhist missionary, and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a wake-up call: "Hey, Jews, listen up! This is your God, YHWH, who is speaking in you. He is the original Buddha" (see CLT, http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/CLT.html).

Christ's death, burial and resurrection has already been accomplished in the promise of his having becoming us and his ultimate intention for us -- HE WILL NOT FAIL IN ANY ONE! So what is to be gained in his becoming another human? (Not that he could not, but even if he did, he could only reiterate what is already manifest.) Let him become all in you! Don't let the Messiah be cut off when he comes unto his temple -- your consciousness. Make it a House of Prayer and a House of Praise. Imagine good for everyone and everything, for you are His imagining and His becoming. Imagine -- and become -- well.

Dr. Walter R. Martin, the Ancient Aramaic Text, and the Jesus Who Saves: I AM HIS BECOMING

You might not think it to read what I write now, but my Apologetics professor at Melodyland School of Theology was Dr. Walter Martin of Bible Answer Man fame. One thing Dr. Martin stressed was that if you  believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, you had better make sure you have the right Jesus, because there are an bunch of them out there, and only one of them works.

Dr. Martin in his book Kingdom of the Cults ripped a lot of false Jesuses -- the Jesuses of Moronism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Religious Science, &etc. The dualistic Jesus of common "Orthodox," Western and Evangelical Christianity could be included in the list if Dr. Martin wasn't one himself. But what he taught was and is true: if you are going to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, you had better make sure you have the right one.

Which brings me to the proclamation by the Lord God in Exodus 3: 14 that his name/nature is "Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh." What on earth do those words mean? Alexander gives us in his footnotes:

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" (Victor Alexander translation; v-a.com/bible).

That might not strike you as particularly clarifying, but I have been considering these words for some time and think I have worked something out. Ashur was the ancient name for the Creator god, the god in charge of creating. Yes, there are other names for God in Hebrew, but 'Ashur' was specific in their minds to creating. The question which had been in Moses' mind was God's excellence, his abundance, or if you would, the provision (creation) of God's salvation. This is what Moses was addressing, and now it was addressing him.

The thing is, the Lord God IS Ashur. And Ashur, the Lord God, is agent for the ineffable Most High God. It (Ashur) is the Ineffable's imagining. The imagining of the Ineffable is the manifestation of the Ineffable; they are one, not two. This imagining, Ashur -- the Lord God -- is the "One Who Comes in His Coming." So "Ahiyeh Ashur" means "I, Ashur -- the creating imagining who is the manifestation of the Ineffable -- become."

Hiyeh means His becoming. "He" is the Ineffable, the Most High God who becomes manifest in his imagining. Note: if the Ineffable believes something is profoundly real, it is profoundly real. The Ineffable believes he is. Ashur IS that. And so the Lord God says to Moses, "I (His imagining) AM HIS BECOMING (or BEING) -- AHIYEH ASHUR HIYEH."

I think that puts it all together neatly. And that is our salvation: Ashur is Christ, Christ is us, we are Ashur -- the Ineffable's becoming. So recognize this: you are the action of the ineffable Most High God's becoming manifest. You can take that to the bank when praying in faith -- believe that what He wants for you is. Its creation is your middle name. Do not forget to say, "Thanks."

Two Gods in Daniel 9, and Another on the Way

I find reference to two different Gods in Daniel chapter 9. Here is the portion I just read from Victor Alexander's translation from the ancient Aramaic version -- I will make some comments in blue:

3. And I raised my face* before the Lord God* (this is the God Daniel is praying to, Maryah Allaha in the Aramaic [Bullinger notes in the Companion Bible that this is one of the 134 places where the Sopherim changed the ancient Hebrew text from YHWH** to Adonai; see his appendix 32]) to beg on my knees* through searching and fasting; in sackcloth and with ashes.
4. And I prayed on my knees before my Lord and my God,* and I confessed and said, I beg you, O, Lord God, great and almighty, the guardian of covenants and blessings for those who love* Him (notice the switch from second person to third person: the "Lord God" is guardian of the covenants and blessings, for those who love "Him," the other God) and those who guard* his commandments.
5. We have sinned and have been foolish, we have been depraved and rebellious, and we have strayed from your commandments and your judgments.
6. And we did not heed the prophets who spoke in your name, regarding our kings and governors, regarding our ancestors and all the people of the earth.
7. For yours, O, Lord, is the victory* but ours is the shame-faced reality of our daily life,* to the Jewish men and women,* to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israelites* near and far, that are in every place on earth, where you scattered them, because of their abominations, with which they acted against you.
8. O, Lord, ours are the shameful faces, and those of our kings, governors and ancestors, as they sinned against you.
9. Nevertheless, you are the Lord God against whom we rebelled.
10. And we did not hear the voice of our Lord God (the Lord God had been active in giving commandments and judgments and had been sinned against by Israel), so as to walk by his Laws, that He placed before us (by Israel's not walking according to the other God's Laws), through the hand of his servants, the prophets.
11. And all Israel ignored* your Laws (Israel ignored all y'all Gods' Laws), they strayed and did not hear your voice, and they brought against themselves the curses and oaths that were written of in the Law of Moses, the Servant of God, upon those that sinned before him (they did not listen to the Lord God's voice and sinned before the other God who gave the Law to Moses).
12. And he upheld the words that he spoke against us and against the judgments that they decreed, that brought against us the great evil, an evil unlike any that was brought against us under heaven, as that which was brought against Jerusalem.
13. As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil befell us and we did not go down on our knees* before our Lord God (the other God upheld his words because Israel did not go down on their knees before the Lord God), so as to repent from our abomination; as we foolishly abandoned your faith (the Lord God's faith is in the other God: THEY know that they re one; it is we who are not "getting" it, the faith that we are one), and the Lord saw the evil that befell us.
14. For He is holy, our Lord God, in all the works that He performs, but we did not hear his voice.
15. Now then, our Lord God, who liberated your people from the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made a name for yourself as always,* despite the fact that we sinned and acted in an outrageous manner.*
16. O, Lord, like all your righteous acts that you performed upon us, let your anger and wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem and your holy mountain, for because of our sins and the abomination of our ancestors your people were scattered in every country, and Jerusalem became the spoil of all the nations.
17. Now hear, O, God the prayer of your servant and of our soul-searching and shed your light upon your sanctuary that lies in ruin,* for your name is the Lord***.


*9:3.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "Faces."
*9:3.2 Lit. Aramaic: "Mar-yah Aa-la-ha."
*9:3.3 Lit. Ar. id.: or "pray."
*9:4.1 Lit. Aramaic: "Mar-yah Aa-la-ha."
*9:4.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Are merciful."
*9:4.3 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: "Observe."
*9:7.1 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: "Righteousness."
*9:7.2 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: "Yours is, Lord, victory and ours shamed faces like the daily."
*9:7.3 Lit. Ar. idiomatic figure of speech: "To the humans Judeans."
*9:7.4 Lit. Ar. id.: "Iss-ra-Eil," pronounced: "Essrayil," or Israel.
*9:13 Lit. Ar. id.: "Pray."
*9:15.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "As daily."
*9:15.2 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: "And we sinned and raged."
*9:17 Lit. Ar. idiomatic figure of speech: "That is destroyed."


It is hard to miss the two different Gods: one is being spoken to, the other is being spoken about. There is still another one coming. Also in Daniel 9:

24. "Seventy seventies (the second seventies means weeks-of-years) shall rest upon your nation and upon the town of your reverence,* so as the obligations may be concluded and the sins may be curtailed, so that the abominations shall be abandoned (Israel was obligated by covenant with the "other God" to observe Jubilee, and their abominable non-observation was punished by the Lord God), and that they may usher in the eternal righteousness, such as the vision and the prophesies* may be fulfilled (prophecy is not, as I see it, foretelling the events of the future, but is the proclamation of the glorious nature of God Most High which will come to pass in manifestation in the future as the eternal right-ness; the vision and the prophets are fulfilled when Israel realizes its God-hood), and to the Anointed One we may commit our blessings (Israel in full realization of its God-hood is the Anointed One, and each who is submitted to God's ruling in his or her life is "Israel").


*9:24.1 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: "That you revere."
*9:24.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "The Prophets."


Okay, we have three Gods here: the one who gave the Law to Moses, the Lord God who enforces it, and we who perform it. It all works when you realize that there is only one God -- he has become everything, and everything is becoming him. The truth is, there is nothing in the universe but God: the ineffable God Most High, the Lord God Jesus Christ who is in us, and we who are coming around.

**The textbook definition of our Lord God, YHWH, is "his becoming." What could his becoming be but the imagining of the Ineffable? So we have the Ineffable . . . imagining . . . us. One God. Learn and imagine according to his rules, my friend, for he is what we truly are . . . and are becoming.

 *** = for your nature is YHWH (his becoming).

Finally, this gives another bent to Exodus 3: 14 where Elohim says, "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh,"**** in the ancient Aramaic. Possibly: "I (the Lord God) become the creative forces of imagining . . . his (the Ineffable's) becoming"?

*****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" (Victor Alexander translation).

Confucius' Doctrine of the Mean (中庸): What Heaven Confers is Called “Nature.” That is What We ARE

I am impressed with Confucius' Doctrine of the Mean (中庸; translated by A. Charles Muller http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/docofmean.html, revised 7/6/2013). The short text excerpted below is followed by over twenty pages of commentary there. I have added a few personal notes below.

The Text:

天命之謂性。率性之謂道。修道之謂教。

What Heaven confers is called “nature.” Accordance with this nature is called the Way. Cultivating the Way is called “education.”

道也者、不可須臾離也、可離非道也。是故君子戒愼乎其所不睹、恐懼乎其所不聞。

That which is called Way cannot be separated from for an instant. What can be separated from is not the Way. Therefore the Superior Man is cautious in the place where he is not seen, and apprehensive in the place where he is not heard.

莫見乎隱、莫顯乎微。故君子愼其獨也。

Nothing is more visible than the hidden, and nothing is more apparent than the subtle. Therefore the Superior Man is cautious when he is alone.

喜、怒、哀、樂之未發、謂之中。發而皆中節、謂之和。中也者、天下之大本也。和也者、天下之達道也。致中和、天地位焉、萬物育焉。

When joy, anger, sorrow and pleasure have not yet arisen, it is called the Mean (中 centeredness, equilibrium). When they arise to their appropriate levels, it is called “harmony” 和. The Mean is the great root of all-under-heaven. “Harmony” is the penetration of the Way through all-under-heaven. When the Mean and Harmony are actualized, Heaven and Earth are in their proper positions, and the myriad things are nourished.

Notes:
"What Heaven confers is called 'nature.'" That is what we are, the base of the subtle, "inner man." We are supposed to live in accordance with this nature; accordance is the right Way. When our emotions have not yet risen, it is called the Mean (中 centeredness, equilibrium); when they have risen to their appropriate levels, it is called “harmony.”

Confucius' commentary is full of priceless jewels:
The Superior Man treats people as human beings.
The Superior Man acts accepting his own situation. He does not hope to be somewhere else . . . There is no place where the Superior Man is not completely himself.
The greatly virtuous always receive the Mandate of Heaven.
Sincerity is the Way of Heaven.
How great is the Way of the sage! . . . It waits for the right person and then functions. Hence it is said: "If you do not perfect your virtue, the perfect Way cannot be actualized."

If you read the Doctrine of the Mean's commentaries, you will no doubt be puzzled by the transliterated Chinese word ren. I think that if you are familiar with the Old Testament concept of chesed, or of God's "loving-kindness," forgiveness, mercy and grace as being part and parcel to the nature that we are, you will get the picture. Here is discussion on ren (which is written in Wade-Giles' romanization as jen), from

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Ethics/glossary_of_terms_for_confuciani.htm:

jen/ren - humanity, humaneness, benevolence, compassion, love for fellow beings, "co-humanity" (Boodberg in Tu Weiming, "Chinese Philosophy: A Synoptic View" in A Companion to World Philosophies edited by E. Deutsch and R. Bontekoe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1997) , p. 9). This term also can be translated human excellence, humaneness, virtue. It is a characteristic of humanity at its best, a source of moral principles, and the outcome of a moral life. "The Chinese character jen is formed from symbols that mean "two human beings." Thus it represents the ideal relationship among humans." (John Roth, "The Analects of Confucius," in Masterpieces in World Philosophy. ed. F.N. Magill (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), pp. 1-2).  The following comment by Muller is also enlightening:

 [Comment by Muller] The Chinese term jen has been translated into English as "humanity," "benevolence," "goodness," "Perfect Goodness," etc. It is a difficult concept to translate because it doesn't really refer to any specific type of virtue or positive endowment, but refers to an inner capacity possessed by all human beings to do good, as human beings should. This is the reason some have translated it as "humanity." The problem with this translation is that it does not indicate the "goodness" implied by the term jen. In the Chinese "essence-function" perception, jen can be understood as the essence of all kinds of manifestations of virtuosity: wisdom, filial piety, reverence, courtesy, love, sincerity, etc., all of which are aspects, or functions of jen. Through one's efforts at practicing at the function of jen, one may enhance and develop one's jen, until one may be called a Superior Man, or even better, a "Person of jen." In the Analects, "person of jen" is an extremely high state, rarely acknowledged of any human being by Confucius.( http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/contao/analects.htm Most accessed 4/11/02 and 8/18/02).

"Unless you believe I am he": Moses Preached the Gospel of John 8: 24: Another way of Saying Exodus 3: 14, "What I would be, I become by imagining"

Neville Goddard said it many times: "Unless you believe that you are the man or woman that you want to be, you shall die in your sins." That was his take on John 8: 24, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" -- "he" is who you desire to be.

Do you want to be "abundanced?" The Hebrew word 'jethro' means his jutting over, his excellence. Moses was contemplating thoughts of the jutting-over, excellent man he wanted to be when the revelation struck him: "What I would be . . . I become . . . by imagining" (Exodus 3: 14). In the ancient Aramaic that is "Ahiyeh Ashur hiyeh" (Victor Alexander's transliteration). I have been contemplating this verse for some years:

Ahiyeh: the absolute sense of being the one who comes;
Ashur: the power, the Beginning Spark that kindles the fire of imagination, the uncreated Creator who creates everything from nothing (except what it itself is);
Hiyeh: the person I desire to be.

In today's simple English: "What I would be, I become by imagining I am." That is not God's name; it is his nature in us. God's nature orchestrates what is "now" toward that desired and intended end.

Apres-Christianity is not Less Christian, but Deeper, Founded

I have not left Christianity; I am only finding it. If Christianity is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God IN us, and we have not actually found that, and do not actually believe it to do it, how are we Christians? Finding in reality -- in the "blood" of Jesus Christ -- what the theology is about, to do that wisdom and power and to be him,

Well, I am getting really shrill.

To Those Who Want to Manifest and Who Get Excited When Neville Says, "Now, Tonight is All Technique": a Word About Humility

My apologies to everyone who just wants to know the method of causation by imagination. "Don't give me theology, give me technique!" they say. Sorry, friend, but if you really listen to Neville, you will realize that his theology IS the technique.

Neville was a student of the Bible, of theology, of mysticism and metaphysics. Manifestation was incidental, a happy consequence of learning the truth that God is imagination and has become man, and man is God becoming form.

I know you want to learn technique, to master magically making things appear, to have everything you want in life free and easy. O! The great glory to you!  You will find technique in my posts, nothing new or fancy, just what I find in Neville, the Bible and other teachers, but hopefully clearer or collected all together.

I am writing this to steer you toward something more important than manifestation -- the core that manifestation is incidental to. We are just emanated imagination of "the Ineffable," a Source of power and wisdom we cannot fathom in the least. We cannot imagine It, but  when Abdullah taught Neville to imagine and it worked, Neville realized that he had found Him. Had found Him somewhere in there, in the working of imagination into manifestation. THAT became Neville's life cause, not the getting of whatever he wanted.

I do not care if you are a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist or a Baptist; this is for all mankind: be humble before God. You are an Atheist? Fine. Be humble before the world you are OF. I do not give a rat's hinnie if you are righteous or a thief, a drug addict, a dealer or whatever. Be humble before that Source of the world. He is becoming in us what he is, if you can understand that. That is his purpose and mission, and it is unbelievably grand.

Make progress. You want to manifest all your desires? Go right ahead, but be making progress in it. HOW does it work? The Law of Attraction? If you believe that unmitigated lie, I worry for you. If there were a Devil, that would be his sermon. It is just blatant ignorance compacted into utter stupidity. And I speak of it here too highly.

There is a thing, an inconceivable Source which has no thing we know of about it, which is power and wisdom and creates by imagining. Learn to imagine, for you are It, albeit unaware. We are all going to work out being EXACTLY like It, individual but without division from It. One. I guarantee you we will be humble when we are there.

Victor Alexander's Movie Mission Complete: "I got it done, Father"

Call me sentimental. I heard of Victor Alexander's desire to make Story of Eashoa Msheekha a long time ago. It seems to be his one great mission in life. Can you see him holding the finished movie in his hands, placing it on the shelf of his film library and saying proudly, emotionally, "I got it done, Father."

John Chapter 1 and My Being 102 Years Old on Facebook: It is not a Lie, Because My Dad was Born in 1913

I am 102 years old on Facebook. Of course, this is because I was in my father when he was born. My father was born in 1913, and if I was in him when he was born, then I am as old as he is--102 years old.

This is John 1: 1: "In the beginning (of my father) there was his manifestation (which is me), and that manifestation (me) was with my father, and my father was me.

We are the spirit of God, the Eternal one. We are Its consciousness, but It started to think of us, and we only know ourselves as us having forgotten our beginning. We were with It in Its beginning, and as It is eternal consciousness, It was us--and IS us.

What frame of mind is this, to be conscious of being your father? I was unconscious of all other of his life until I came forth as me, but from then on I was daily his delight. I hope. I don't know, maybe I peed on him a couple of times. Well, I forgive myself for that, because I know that he forgives me too, and I can take the stance of him who I am. I am just him still becoming . . . eternally becoming.

The One and Only God Has Become Everything. That Truth in Us is "Jesus Christ."

The Bible was written as a success manual, not a record of history. We can be successful because of that which exists ontically, which is that the one and only God has become everything and IS everything. That truth in us is "Jesus Christ."

It means that he has become us, and that we are him. If he is creating by what he "says," which is by imagining, then we are creating by what we say, which is by our imagining, because ours is his imagining. Want to change the world? Change what you imagine! Change the way you imagine. THAT is what the Bible is about.

The stories in the Bible--I don't know how many--are MEDITATIONS for the purpose of creation. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are us in relation to God. Simply put, if you can envision and mentally hold what you want in your hand so clearly that you actually experience it wholly and spiritually, you will experience it. Or, if you just hear it reported to you that clearly, &etc. I am not joking. This is not "wishful thinking."

I think the meditations are for finding that truth in us. Miracles happen all the time without being in focused meditation, but I think that is God saying, "Hi," just trying to get our attention . . . to get us focused on his intention. It has taken God a long time to get us to this point; not just this lifetime, but many lifetimes. It is only the dying that is once, and that was his to become us.

The meditations are not for manifesting things; they are for finding him. "When it works, you have found him." Where? Take another look. Do not look at the thing gotten, but the getting. You meditated, imagined, and invisible power that is intelligent orchestrated. THERE, that power, that intelligence, the SOURCE of that is just behind your eyes. His name is not a name; it is a nature.

Support Victor Alexander's Indiegogo Campaign: In the Eastern Perspective, Jesus is the Manifestation of God, the Life-giving, Living Branch destined to this death and subsequent ascension. It is a whole different vibe. Not a Christ coming, but a Christ eternally HERE (the same yesterday, today, and forever). "The Story of Eashoa Msheekha" is the one socially redeeming event of our lifetimes--to present Jesus Christ the way the Bible actually does.

I don't know if this will make sense to you, but I am more Christian than I used to be. After salvation and conversion and baptism in the Holy Spirit and seminary and seminary and seminary . . . I kept learning. I knew when I got saved that I had been deceived, and that everyone else has been deceived, and that the deception "of the whole world" is ONGOING (Revelation 12: 9). So I am always testing what I am taught, and what I have learned, and am always stretching, wrestling for that clearer grasp of the truth of what is really going on.

I disprove myself on everything. I know that I am always wrong. That is why I keep reading and studying, just to move myself TOWARD right. I use the Companion Bible for study and for looking things up in the King James--I am more familiar with it--and I use Victor Alexander's translations from the ancient Aramaic for reading what the authors of the Bible actually said (v-a.com/bible). I have three Companion Bibles in the house. I paid twenty for the ripped up old Zondervan hardback I always use. I paid thirty for a large-print reserve for when I left my bible at work, and forty for the black leather-bound I gave my son. Forty dollars for a black, genuine leather copy of the premiere study bible. I gladly paid fifty just for Alexander's New Testament. And thirty-five to forty for each of his other books. EACH.

"Holy Schnikies, Danny, that is expensive." No, no it in not in my book. I spend hours looking things up in my dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, and shelf of different versions/study bibles. And then I have to wrestle through error. With Alexander's translations from the ancient Aramaic, the original original tongue, I can read the whole book or passage for context and gain quantum leaps of understanding. Forty dollars a book for someone else to translate the best I don't have access to for me is CHEAP!

Was Jesus Christ--Eashoa Msheekha--a unique man born according to the New Testament story, or a unique man born as ME? The New Testament tells it both ways. That is Mark's invention. Well, Moses'. I told you the other day that I had discovered Aryeh Kaplan's Sefer Yetzirah, the earliest kabbalah text on meditation as a method of creation (you can find it online). It pretty clearly states that passages in the Bible are not historical record but rather meditation TECHNIQUES. I already knew that from Neville Goddard, that the "rib" in Adam's becoming Eve is my desire; that the antediluvian fathers are the attitudes that build up to the state of Noah, the rest/meditation that creates the right world (Noah's sons are Nature, Heat and Expansion, the three elements of creative meditation); and that Jacob is the subtle inner man that is actually God in us, our imagination.

Well, I caught in Sefer Yetzirah on line some discussion about "Abraham" being about meditation. This morning, I "accidentally" struck upon Matthew 8: 11 in my Aramaic New Testament: "'I am telling you however, many will come from the East and the West and will dine with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven; but the children of the Kingdom will go out gazing at darkness, and there will be crying and gnashing of teeth,' and Eashoa told the centurion, 'Go, according to your faith, you shall receive.' And the boy was healed that very hour." Click! Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are meditations for the power--"Kingdom"--to create. Dining means they receive what they desire--satiation--with these meditations. They is we.

The word 'dine' above is not in the King James. There it is 'sit.' Young's Literal Translation has 'recline (at meat),' and The New Jerusalem Bible has 'at the feast.' Long story short: I never would have equated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with the meditative key/technique of the Kingdom of Heaven if it weren't for Alexander's natural 'dine.' Thanks, Vic.

The Bible presents God in us as stories of historical people. There were historical people, but these stories are put upon them to teach us these things. Eashoa Msheekha--Messiah Jesus--is presented as a man born of a virgin who grew up to start his ministry of healing and teaching at about the age of thirty . . . in the Western Bible. In the Eastern Bible, he is the Manifestation of God, the Life-giving, Living Branch destined to this death and subsequent ascension. It is a whole different vibe. Not a Christ coming, but a Christ eternally HERE (the same yesterday, today, and forever). And that is why it bugs me that no one seems to care whether Story of Eashoa Msheekha gets made or not. This is the one socially redeeming event of our lifetimes, to present Jesus Christ the way the Bible actually does.

Yes, I may exaggerate and am full of hyperbole, but this movie may be the only vehicle of the truth that will touch many thousands, millions of people over the years. How many of the general public will buy and read Victor Alexander's translations from the ancient Aramaic? Vic ain't getting rich selling these books. A movie that tells it the way it is--THAT the general population may see. "That's the Jesus of the Bible? It isn't the way I pictured him." Maybe the most important words ever to broach lips, to broach hearts.

Please consider supporting the oddly titled movie Story of Eashoa Msheekha at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/story-of-eashoa-msheekha#/story. He isn't your father's Jesus Christ; he is the Father's Jesus Christ: Eashoa Msheekha of the Church of the East.

We Human Beings are Eternal Beings at the Threshhold of a New and Glorious Age

We may have been living and dying in this sphere of forgetting for thousands, even millions of years. I have no reason to not believe that we have been single-cell organisms and germs and grass and bushes and trees and animals in all ages up until now, at which time we are humans just about to graduate from this death unto the new age of eternal life as some other kind of being, something like angels (which as far as I know are ideas of the Ineffable).

We know that as humans now we are at the top of the spiritual conscious chain. Every time we have died we have come back freshly forgetting everything that has happened before. Stomped-on, eaten, burned; we have always been born again to carry on in our development. Now we have reached NEAR the apex of all the development we can attend to here. We are still not ready to be as the Ineffable, but in the next age of development we will not die again. We will have "glorified" bodies. It is something that eye has not seen and ear has not heard, but is according to the will of the Ineffable in our continuing generation into Its likeness.

There are still ages to go in our becoming like--totally like--the Ineffable. We have the choice here to go on into "heaven," the higher consciousness, or to death, which is back here for another stint of development through anguish and affliction. We can take another stab at repentance and regeneration in our next life here, or accept Jesus Christ's offer to "Come unto Me." He is our imagination, the spirit of God enclosed within us as our subtle "inner man."

Jesus is not separate within us: he is us, but like the other side of the coin that we are. It is funny: the Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet. He is, of course, for he speaks of God within us, for he IS God--the power of God and the wisdom of God--within us. Every one bears God--Jesus Christ--within them, AS them. We cannot submit to God without submitting to his power and wisdom within us, and THAT is Jesus Christ. So every good Muslim . . . is a Christian.

Hello, people. Time to wake up.

All the Gods are Me, Only I am Not, for There is No "Creation"

I got interested the other night reading the hundreds of books reviews by L. Ron Gardner on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2DZH9TUCDFU6P/ref=pdp_new_read_full_review_link?ie=UTF8&page=1&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R5GE1YPNXPBCF). I like Gardner's idea of Electric Christianity. This is an imagic world, so Ohm's Law corresponding to the power of God is quite logical.

I am not sure what it is about Ayn Rand's objectivism that he likes. Certainly with all his spiritual maturity, Mr. Gardner cannot believe the creation is objectively separated from its Creator. Yet he seems to disparage the concept of advaita--the idea that all is one.

Maybe I am missing something. As for my own conceptualization of advaita, I see "God" (the e'had), the universe, the powers of creation, spirit/consciousness/imagination and everything else one might conceive . . . to be the in-house action of the ineffable Most High God's imagining. When God creates, his powers do not separate from him to go do what he wants "over there" separate and divided from him. When my imagining manifests in the world around me, it seems separate from me, but that separation is illusion. On my part it is delusion. My world and I are manifesting together; we are both part of the package deal that is the emanation or expansion -- Japhath -- of the Ineffable.

All the Gods are me. And you. "We," as separate and distinct creation divided from the Ineffable, do NOT exist. We are individuals OF the Ineffable learning to imagine LIKE the Ineffable. We all have quite a way to go. The deal is getting back to being the Ineffable, because we ARE the Ineffable. There is no creation separate and distinct from the Most High; this is Its action of imagining.

The knock-on-rock solid physical matter that facilitates our and the Ineffable's manifestation imagines itself to be what it is, just as we do. This is "the faith of a mustard seed." Each quark imagines itself to be a quark, and intelligently does what a quark is expected to do. But objective . . . it is not. This is the Secret of Light Walter Russell talks about. Without the continued presence of the Ineffable's imagining, everything would cease to exist. If this is what Ayn Rand was saying, God bless her. Well, God bless her, anyway.

So what should we do? God. Godding is thinking the best for everyone and everything. I do appreciate L. Ron Gardner's formula for the Godding state of mind: the Presence + Oneness. THAT is a wonderful attitude to take.

No One Believes in Jesus Christ More Than I

I am sure that some are offended by my statement, "I . . . believe that there never was such an individual as Jesus Christ as the Church defines him" (http://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-i-support-victor-alexanders-making.html).

The test of faith is not that we believe the historical timeline of Jesus' life, but that we believe that that life, the Eternal Life that he is, is in us: "Or did you not realize that He, Eashoa the Messiah, is in you? And if not, you are deficient" (2 Corinthians 13: 5; Victor Alexander translation).

The problem is the way Church defines him. No one believes in Jesus Christ more than I, but I do not believe in him that way. The Church's God is way too small. Their Jesus is way too small. God is not a big guy made out of unapproachable light sitting in a big white chair on a planet called heaven, and Jesus was not a man-child of God who became born as human nature and discovered that he was God and, having read the prophecies about himself, decided to die for us to save us from our sins. I believe the alternative:

The ineffable, Most High God is beyond all our conception and is totally incomprehensible. It is called No-thing not because It does not exist, but because whatever It is is nothing that we can know--none of this stuff is It. It certainly exists, and we get our existence from It.

Our problem is that we are "from" It. We cannot understand, in the ignorance that we have being from It, that we still are It. We equate 'from' with division. It is actually that we have 'forgotten' for the sake of individuality. We think that creation is separate from God. It is manifestation of God, for creation is not a noun; it is a VERB. As is imagination.

Here is the deal: the Ineffable is that unmoving consciousness beyond everything comprehensible to us. Just as No-thing does not mean that It isn't something, for certainly It is, unmoving (for It has nothing to move) does not mean that It does not move; It imagines. It (the Ineffable) is Its imagination, and that imagining is Jesus Christ. It says in 2 Corinthians 13: 4 that Jesus Christ was "crucified forcibly." Because the Ineffable imagines him. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever: the Ineffable imagines us, and WE are Jesus Christ crucified upon these bodies of flesh. We are sent to save this nature by elevating it through our remembrance. We "died" of what we were and are born here in ignorance and live lives in accordance with the will of God and eventually become perfected and ascend back to what we were with this nature in tow.

Moses and Mark saw the "big picture" of what is going on and found it convenient to liken it to the course of the human lives we are going through. Of course--this is an IMAGIC world. God has created it after his own nature. He can't do otherwise, because he cannot lie (how could he do what he does not know?).

Anyway, believe me when I say that I believe in Jesus Christ, that I know and believe all the kerugma (the message preached), but not like that. The historical man--I do not know. I wasn't there. He wasn't necessary, and Jesus Christ is us. God said we cannot do what the "historical" man is supposed to have done, but we can as us, so I am going with us.

We are Supposed to be Learning and Teaching Meditation

The strangest thing happened to me in 1975. I was invited to ask for the gift of tongues, and as I did, after I realized that I was rejected of God, I fell into a trance. In this trance, I saw that I had been living my life by my own decisions, which, as I had been given this life for God's purpose and not my own, was rebellion. I confessed God's lordship and cast mine out of myself, and was subsequently baptized with the Holy Spirit. I had not realized it, but this was a meditation.

Some time later, I was asked what Jesus had done for me. Again I slipped into a trance and saw Jesus scourged and crucified. As he was laid on his hamburger-like back on the cross and a spike was set at his wrist, he turned his head to me and said, "Come unto me." I heard it in my brain's hearing nervous system, "audibly." I had not realized it, but this was a meditation.

For many years I have been given a subscription to Guidepost Magazine. Hardly a month goes by without someone mentioning that they heard a voice speak "as clear as day." I have come to the conclusion that God can speak to our imaginations because he IS our imaginations. When Jesus said, "Come unto me," that was where he was heralding me to. I am a slow learner.

I know the Bible talks about meditation, and that we are supposed to meditate, but recently I discovered Aryeh Kaplan's Sefer Yetzirah and realized, oh, these passages in the Bible ARE meditations. The commandments in the Bible are not just outward, ritual things we are supposed to do, they are inner MEDITATIONS we are supposed to accomplish. Yes, the Bible is a success manual, and the method of success is by meditation. Napoleon Hill had his council of counselors, and Burt Goldman has his doppelgangers, and all their interaction is in meditation.

The church and the synagogue are supposed to be teaching meditation. Because they themselves are not talented in it, they give us a theology of our impotence and subjugation separated from God (Who is within us!): "I need an easy job, and to hell with God's will for your life."

I am appealing to my readers to take on a new life-course of ministry, to learn and to teach Biblical meditation. Keeping God's commandments is doing his prescribed meditations. I think I am finally going to have to learn Hebrew.

I hope I do not need to point out that this is ministry, not a commercial business. Please do not charge people for it. If donations cover your costs, great.

The Key Revelation/Enlightenment in Mark's Gospel of Jesus Christ

The key point in Mark's Gospel is that the nature of God is "Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh" (the quote from Exodus 3: 14 in Victor Alexander's translation from the ancient Aramaic), which is essentially that we are the imagining of the Ineffable and by our imagining create our own worlds.

The whole, wonderful, Western theology of God has been built upon a misconception of the Hebrew word for 'name,' shem. The name of a thing had to do with its nature. The nature of the thing was what they called it, and the word shem mean nature. Moses was not saying that God said, "This is my name forever," like Chuck or Stevie; God was saying, "This is my nature forever, and by this nature I shall be known," etc., etc. "Signs then to those who believe, they who adhere to us, in my nature, they shall cast out demons, and they will speak in new languages, and they will handle snakes, and if deadly poison they drink, it will not affect them" (Mark 16: 17-18; Victor Alexander translation from the ancient Aramaic, emphasis and alteration ['name' to 'nature'] mine).

We share the same nature of the Ineffable, because we, the consciousness of God within us, are Him imagining that He is us. The Ineffable is the original Buddha, and we all are the same Buddha--Jesus Christ.

Mark was a Buddhist, and His Jesus was Buddha.

It has become quite obvious to me that Mark, the author of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, was an Indian Buddhist missionary to the Palestinian area (see the Christian Lindtner Theory, http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/). Mark learned the Hebrew scriptures. His "Jesus" was the spirit, or consciousness, of God--Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God--that becomes each person's inner man. That inner man is our imagination, that being the imagining of the Most High.

Mark's Jesus was Buddha, and he ascribed to Jesus many of Gautama Buddha's sayings, teachings and actions. But the Buddha that Jesus was was the Source Buddha who had caused the historical Buddha. We all are Buddha. We just have to wake up to the fact.

A Lesson in Forgiveness: We Each are Everything--We are All the Same Buddha

We live in a dysfunctional world. A large part of this dysfunction is the desire and drive to be accounted as significant. Boy, does this stick out in the "Me" generation: "Are you talking to me? to ME?" "That is not who I am." "He disregarded me." "HEY! What am I, chopped liver?" You can find hundreds, thousands of these assertions of the significance of ones self.

Some people cannot take contradiction. Some are arrogant. Some are jealous. Many looks down on everyone else, even their seniors and superiors, imagining that he or she is really the superior one. We all think that we are something, something significant, someone to be noticed, respected and paid attention to. And if our significance is not honored, recognized or is slighted, it makes us very, very angry.

We ought not be this way. The world ought not be this way. We are not something or someone significant; it escapes our notice that we each are everything, including the contradictions and slights, because we create the world that we are in. It . . . is an extension . . . of OURSELVES.

Gautama Buddha. We have all heard of him. He got it: our desires, our desiring, creates our worlds. As Col. J. Garnier asked in The Worship of the Dead, how did Gautama know that there was such an enlightenment to be had? From a tradition of an earlier Buddha, Noah. "Noah" is the rest of a man who has "got it." Noah is the rest which rises above the facts of the world and in submission and faith receives a world free of corruption, a creation of THE Buddha, the Ineffable. Gautama came to realize we all are the same Buddha: we are His imagining, except OUR imagining screws up His program.

I know that Buddha's teaching was that there is no "God"; there is nothing but us. But that is the truth: there is no God separate from us: we are Him. We all are the same Buddha. If Christ, who is Buddha, died for all, then all died. We are all Buddha who has died for us. We are all the same Buddha--and Jesus Christ.

We all share the same significance. If we are slighted, disrespected, hey, we are Buddha, Christ, the Ineffable, and have done it to ourselves. Why pride in a dead man? Why vengeance against yourself? Let it go.

Next: Mark was a Buddhist.

Get Your Religion Wholesale From the Source and Get Esotericized

Judaism was supposed to be esoteric life, but they took the esoteric element out.

Christianity was supposed to be esoteric Judaism, but they took the esoteric element out.

Pentecostalism was supposed to be esoteric Christianity, but they took the esoteric element out.

Get your religion wholesale from the Source of Life, and be sure to get esotericized.

Why I Support Victor Alexander's Making the Movie "Story of Eashoa Msheekha"

It should strike you incongruent that I, who believe that there never was such an individual as Jesus Christ as the Church defines him, support the making of a movie about that self-same individual. Well, I do in this case. And the reason is that you turn a ship in small increments, and I am trying to turn a great ship that is steaming in the wrong direction.

The Eashoa of the ancient Aramaic Gospels is significantly different from the Western Church's Greek New Testament version of Jesus. I do not for a minute think that Alexander or the Western Church are interpreting the person of Eashoa Msheekha as I do, as that energy of consciousness of God which has become our subtle inner man, but I trust that watching the movie a lot of Western Christians will get their first taste of just how wrong the Western image of Jesus Christ really is. We have to start the wheel turning.

The first thing is to get the fantasy believing Church exposed to the authentic written Gospels. The Gospels do present a human "Jesus Christ." Hopefully, the church will recognize that a) the living context of the Gospels was Aramaic, that b) the Aramaic version of the Gospels present a significantly different human, Eashoa, and that c) they will come to the conclusion that "Everything I thought I knew was wrong."

Anchor's aweigh! Once we can get the impotenced Western Church to question the error it has been fed and to begin searching for the real truth, then God has a ship to steer toward enlightenment and empowerment.

I do believe that the movie Story of Eashoa Msheekha will be like the engines that turn the rudder of a large steamship in correcting the direction of the church. Alexander's script tells the story, the movie sits in the hearts of the believers, and the Lord of Hosts Who is pursuing the church cranks that rudder over to a new course. We cannot get the church to repent to the right course without getting the wheel to begin turning the rudder in the right direction, and Alexander's movie Story of Eashoa Msheekha puts the helm in God's hand . . . if it gets made.

Victor Alexander (v-a.com/bible) has a script ready to go. I have not seen it, but I am sure Victor is anxious to present to the world the reality of the Eashoa Msheekha the authentic scriptures have presented to him. Would to God that I could afford to fund the movie's production myself: I'd give God enough to get the movie made well. I hope one of my readers has the money, or knows someone who does, and will make the investment to make the movie Story of Eashoa Msheekha. Maybe we could get Alexander to add, "the authentic Palestinian Manifestation of God," or something like that. You make the investment, you can talk to him about it.

Please visit Alexander's Indiegogo site https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/story-of-eashoa-msheekha#/story

Why "I Remember When"

Because if you believe you have received, the need is passed, and you have what you desired. The condition of need you (or whomever) were in does not exist anymore.

CLARITY: Is Clarity of Vision in Imagining "the Woman Who Touched the Hem of Jesus' Garment" in Mark 5: 27?

When you read the story of Jairus' daughter and the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment in the book of Mark, chapter 5: 22-43, remember that there is only one person there. You. The name Jairus means enlightener, from the root to be or to make luminous. That is your nature.

You have a desire in your house, a daughter of your mind, and it isn't doing too well. You have had this desire a long time, but your efforts to get it to fulfill, even to keep it alive, are failing. What it needs--what you need--is the clarity of God's imagining. If you could just imagine your desire as clearly as God imagines your reality, it could live. Imagine that desire as having been received with the clarity--the power and the wisdom--of God's imagining you. Touch the hem of God's garment--your "physical" reality--and touch your desire/daughter with such clarity of vision in imagining it.

Our efforts to pull off (accomplish) what we want are not worth squat. They only make matters worse. They are beyond worthless. The Light of God, though, this clarity, this brings life. Imagining is the investment we are to make. As I understand Neville, there is one thing that we are to do: tell others.

CLARITY: Dream So Clearly and Real That It Shocks You When You Return to This State of Reality

Neville Goddard was stressing that our imagining should be as crisp and clear as this state of reality is to us. So real, he said, that it shocks you when you return to this reality. This state of reality, he insinuated, is the imagining of God who is dreaming that he is us. So this reality is a dream, and we should dream as clearly as this.

Why o' why should we learn to dream as clearly as the Ineffable? I think it is to practice waking up. We create a dream as real as this one, and wake up from that dream. As we learn to wake up from our dreams, we learn how to wake up from THIS dream.

We have to first learn how to dream as clearly and vividly, intensely as this "waking" reality. I honestly am not there yet, but I hope it helps you to know that this waking experience is how clearly we are to imagine.

Do not forget to come back. Perhaps some precautions are called for: someone monitoring you, or tape on your forehead saying that you are meditating or imagining. My supervisor at work had had a friend at college who was known to meditate. He was told that his friend had died in his room--they couldn't detect a pulse or breathing--but his friend's body never entered rigor mortis. Scary.

A Bit More of References for Cynthia and Readers

Cynthia asked about references, and I want to mention some of seminal works which have informed me:

You can find several texts online by Gerald Massey. His vitriol against the church may be hard to stand, but his insights into the ancient Egyptian myths are worth a careful reading.

It might be telling of the kind of reader I am, but Col. J. Garnier's The Worship of the Dead or the Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry and Its Bearing Upon the Early History of Egypt and Babylonia was a page-turner for me. You can find it free online, or please buy, if so inclined, from Kessinger Publishing (www.kessinger.net). The thing is, this is real ancient history and the spread of religion throughout civilization. Even if it is not your cup of tea, read chapter 17, "The Moral Aspect of Paganism," pages 352-365.

Speaking of Pagans, there are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy who wrote The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Again, this is real history and--spoiler alert--the "lost Goddess" is our oneness with God. Turns out that at least some "Paganism" is the real Christianity.

Oops. Almost forgot to mention Christian Lindtner's Theory that Jesus is Buddha (http://jesusisbuddha.com/). It was Lindtner who convinced me that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a Buddhist Missionary. It is "completely obvious" to me now. After you read about Emperor Ashoka, you will probably get it too. By the way, Garnier (above) notes that Gautama wanted to become a Buddha before he was enlightened, so how did he know that there even was a Buddha to become? Garnier suggests that NOAH was the first Buddha, and we all should become like him!

The Mythic Past by Thomas L. Thompson makes it pretty clear that the Bible is not a record of secular history. Makes it pretty clear how stupid and ignorant we are as Christians, too. Thick, small print, no pictures, and brilliant.

Rabbi David A. Cooper's God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the practice of mystical judaism changed everything for me. It is not just that we are one with God or that we are God; it is that we are the action of "God": we are the ACTION of the Ineffable! We God. Truly mind-blowing. Interestingly, very much the same was suggested by Frank C. Laubach in Channels of Spiritual Power in 1954(!). What is interesting about it is that Laubach did not learn this from studying the Kabbalah or Baal Shem Tov and the sages; he got it from his personal devotional life and his practical experience as a missionary.

God is a Verb (above) along with Aryeh Kaplan's Jewish Meditation are the two books which most heightened my view of the Ineffable.

I cannot skip C. H. Dodd's Apostolic Preaching and Its Development. The authors of the scriptures grew, too. In chapter three, Dodd explains how Paul woke up from expecting a future physical return of Christ to a present awareness of him expanding within.

And within us he is, which is why John wrote the book of Revelation. Worthy is the Lamb by Ray Summers explains why that--"Worthy is the Lamb"--is the message, the whole message, of Revelation.

I cannot say that C. F. Rehnborg's Jesus and the New Age of Faith is a reference book, but it is a brilliant apologetic against the apologetics of nut-case Bible thumpers. It is one of the soundest analyses of the New Testament I have ever found. The book was a private printing from the C. F. Rehnborg Literary Foundation, 5600 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California 90620. Rehnborg--he founded Nutrilite--saw that the New Testament was about something real . . . but terribly mishandled by the church. That is why he called for a new age of faith, one built upon the REAL thing the Bible is talking about, the Life that is Jesus in us. I have found three copies, gave one to my Pentecostal Baptist friend when he became a Rabbi. I keep it where I can see the title every time I enter my study. Jesus and the New Age of Faith is the byline of my life.

Another title displayed just so that it reminds me of my fault is J. B. Phillips' Your God Is Too Small. Women used to embroider "Home Sweet Home" to hang on the wall. Every home should have an embroidered "Your God Is Too Small" in its living room. Tell me there isn't a market for that.

All these along with Neville Goddard's books and lectures have formed my present frame of mind and understanding. I am sure there are others, but I am not going out to the garage to dig through boxes of books right now.

A Reply About References for Neville Goddard and Bible Study

Hi Dan,

It was great to see your blog. I love Neville Goddard and hang on every word; delicious. I was wondering what version of the Bible (or other reference or concordance) you use? They’ve all been “revised” aka tampered and changed…doing the very thing we’re instructed not to do. But if you have a version that you like, I’d appreciate a recommendation.

Thanks,

Cynthia
______________________________________

Dear Readers,

I am expanding on what I replied to Cynthia. I hope she reads this:

Thank you for reading my effort to understand Neville/Gospel. You are correct, the Bible is heavily edited. But its message is ubiquitous in it--it cannot be edited out. For study and for looking things up I use The Companion Bible by Ethelbert Bullinger. He was the son of one of the great reformers and was an "ultra-dispensationalist," which means he divided God's work into different eras of "housekeeping." He wasn't right in his divisions, but that does not bother me. I am. In the text's companion margin are notes and insights which yield upon study another Bible, much closer to the original. I never get more than a few verses into reading before Bullinger has sent me off onto some marvelously fruitful search through the scriptures and his appendixes.

The Companion Bible is King James Version. I have several study Bibles in several versions. The King James is known to have numerous faults, but I stick with it for personal reasons:

a) It is the Bible God used to speak to me when I was saved.
b) After forty years of study I know many of its faults.
c) It is the version used by everyone I have known to be used in miracles.
d) I think it is the easiest to remember/memorize.
e) It is the version Bullinger used to make what is in my opinion the premier study Bible.

But -- after encountering God in miracles and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, one tends to become an insatiable Bible geek. Those miracles and the baptism in the Holy Spirit experience are my personal version of the Bible. Everything I read or hear taught gets processed through my personal-experience-with-God. That is my navigational star, my anchor for reference and justification.

ALWAYS at hand is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. There is a compact, paperback version. THE NAMES IN THE BIBLE MEAN THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRANSLATED. The Hebrew word for 'name' (shem) means the nature of the thing.

I read Victor Alexander's translations (v-a.com/bible). As you will find in Bullinger's notes (appendixes 30-34), the Jews edited the Bible a lot, but largely kept notes of all the changes in the margins of their scrolls. The KJV translators did not take those changes into account when they translated the scrolls' texts into English. Bullinger does. Alexander uses ancient Aramaic versions which apparently predate many of the changes. His translations are a bit expensive--I suggest you read through his website extensively to see whether you want to buy them--but I bought them and have not regretted it. I will warn you, though, that Victor uses some ancient Aramaic terms that defy translation. It can be a little disconcerting to read Allaha for God and Maryah for Lord and YHWH. Bear with him. The Aramaic is an Eastern version and has a very, very different theology to it. The West is dualistic (sees separation), the East is non-dual (no division). Alexander could not translate using Western terms and maintain the Eastern theology, so he transliterated. When the meanings of the terms dawn on you, well, I do not think prostration will feel a ritual thing.
________________________________________

A Distinction, I Think, Between Abdullah, Murphy and Goddard, and Napoleon Hill, Stone, etc.

Hill and Stone, et al, spoke well of imagining. And they emphasized our human contribution, the effort we need to put forth to get things done: "Faith without works is dead."

Maybe I am missing something, but didn't Abdullah, Goddard and Murphy imagine as praying and entrust God to do the work? Not that they did not work, but their "work" was their ministry--learning and teaching.

CLARITY: A Big Part of Neville Goddard's Secret of Imagination

Clarity. The Ineffable is imagining us. Our vision, our experience of reality, is Its imagining. We are to learn to imagine with the CLARITY of Its imagining. Imagine with the FULNESS of the experience you envision.

REVEALED! The Secret Meaning of The First Verse Of The Bible (Hidden Code!): How the Truth is Misread and Misinterpreted

"REVEALED! The Secret Meaning of The First Verse Of The Bible (Hidden Code!)" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fs_J34cqKc) decodes the first words in the Bible. Supposedly, this reveals that Jesus Christ, the Son of God who created the world, is also its redeemer. I invite you to watch the video a few times and take notes. You will see the author's presumptions and the process of misreading the verse. I agree with the code, but . . .

Let's go to the second word decoded in the video; it is bara, the Hebrew word for "created." Bara was PREVIOUSLY decoded in the same video as part of the first word, barasheet, meaning there "the Son of God." 

Question: why did bara mean "the Son of God" in the first word and "created" in the second word?  

Answer: Moses was constrained to put absolute essence of his Burning Bush enlightenment in the very beginning of that enlightenment's teaching, the book of Genesis. Moses put the most important part of his message right up in front. That very most important part of his enlightened understanding was: "Ahiyeh Ashur Hiyeh" (Exodus 3: 14, Victor Alexander translation; see his chapter notes below*).

A rough and basic translation of Exodus 3: 14 is: "I BECOME -- ASHUR-- HIS BECOMING." What is Ashur? Ashur is that which creates the world of mankind, the imagining of the Ineffable. Ashur was the national God of the Assyrians. Abraham was an Assyrian. Ashur is "The Creating God." The Creating has become man, and dwells in man as his imagining, the action of the subtle "inner man." This is Jacob who, as opposed to Esau, the flesh, becomes Israel: God ruling as man.

Moses had learned that "I become by the Creating, my imagining, what I desire to be." "My imagining," he would say, "is the Son of God."

So bara is both the Son of God and the Creating Power and Wisdom. And It has become attached to--crucified upon--the flesh of man. Absorbed in this vision of death, of having completely forgotten Its Godhood, our consciousness must ascend to remembrance and destroy the ignorance of the cross. This is the Gospel: it is promised: "The Creating will destroy by my hand the cross."

So, let's put it all together as the first verse of the Bible: "The Promise is creating God, the multitudinous energies of the One (ehad), as our minds and our bodies."

Many thanks to Rabbi David A. Cooper's God is a Verb and to Victor Alexander's Exodus/Liberation.


*Exodus 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." 

I do not believe in stories that are not there

I do not believe in stories that are not there. I believe in Jesus Christ's death for me on the cross, but not like that. He would not have told me that you cannot do that (one die for another), and then have done it and required belief in it. I believe the kerugma as my life. And your life. Do you believe the kerugma?

The crucifixion was not at the end of historical individual's life; it was at the transition point of my beginning "life" in this sphere of death. In Mark, it is put at the end as a summation of what is going on. Crucifixion is our initiation here. God's desire for our development is the virgin mother. Because we all are Him doing everything in His self-imposed ignorance, all is forgiven.

Adam and Eve a man and a woman? There is only one man there. Man and his imagination a marriage do not make.

Satan the Serpent of Genesis chapter 3? The church is so afraid of the Devil it can't think straight. Somehow the Jews got along without a devil for centuries. You have got to remember that the Jews were under the Persians while in exile. The Persians have an Evil. Paul was brought up among people who had been influenced by the Persian Evil and the expectation of a human Messiah. Somewhere along the line, the priests had so misread the Genesis parallel to the burning bush episode that the Serpent became Evil, and the seed of the woman future, not the present that it was. Is. Paul, when he first heard of Jesus, thought that the expected human savior had come. He did not know the Christ is the spirit that is in man. When he got it straight, he did not worry about the return of Christ but our standing in awareness of Christ--God--in us.

The books of Thessalonians are examples of Paul's errant human Messiah expectation. "Look, guys, if you read the Bible as literal-historical, you wind up with a confused mess like this." We are seated with Christ in the heavenlies--the brain--right now.