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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may add emphasis:

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

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

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

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

See John 16:23-24 Without Ulterior Motives

___________________

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

When We Make What Two One? On Becoming a Suckling Child: A Note on John 16:23-24 and Thomas 22, 106

On January 10, 2023, my post The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16: 23-24 suddenly became very popular. Thank you to whomever. I might be spoiling that here.

I have since become aware that the Aramaic version of John 16:23-24 per Klotz discussed by Braden might not have been edited so much as its potential meaning in Aramaic was truncated by translation into Greek (the Jewish event naturally occurred in Aramaic). I.e., the Greek was not capable of carrying all the meaning possibly implied by the Aramaic. See Did the 4th Century Church Edit John 16:23–24?

It is implied by McClellan that Klotz simply draws out more of what John 16: 23-24 in the Aramaic could mean: "All things that you ask straightly and directly from inside my name you shall be given. So far you have not done this. Ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer. Be enveloped by what you desire, that your gladness be full."

I am interested in what was meant by "Ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer. Be enveloped by what you desire." This appears to invoke the Law of Assumption; i.e., imagining what you desire was your experience. My question is whether or not this "technique" directly corresponds to making-the-two-one in the Gospel of Thomas 22 and 106 (see Revision of “Jesus Christ And When You Make The Two One (Gospel of Thomas 22 and 106)”):

(22) "Jesus saw children who were being suckled. He said to his disciples: these children who are being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom. They said to Him: Shall we then, being children, enter the Kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you make the male and the female into a single one so that the male will not be male and the female (not) be female, when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in the place of a hand, and a foot in the place of a foot, (and) an image in the place of an image, then shall you enter [the Kingdom]."
(106) "When you make the two one, you shall become sons of Man, and when you say: 'Mountain, be moved', it will be moved."

Becoming a "son of man" is another interesting aspect. The sequence seems to be: God becomes Man, the Son of God; then Man becomes God, the Son of Man. This makes one think of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the earnest of the promised reward of godhood. We remember that the Holy Spirit stayed upon Jesus (John 1:29-34). Thomas 22 may be about our BECOMING into and continuing in that blessed state. Note that it says, "When YOU make the two one." The Holy Ghost is given; the receiving of Her is in our court. She is received in our SUBMISSION OF OUR WHOLE BEING unto Him. See A Gnostic Take on the Gospel of Thomas.

Our making-the-two-one might refer to the baptismal rite of initiation, to the actuality of reception of the Holy Ghost in it; i.e., to the reality of our oneness with Christ in the invisible world. From the link above:

"Eros and Androgynes

"It is often said that unitive or mystical experiences cannot be described in words, for the phenomenon lies outside the rational system of language. We cannot define the mystical; we can only point toward it. A huge literature does what it can to put the phenomenon into meaningful words. Unitive moments are said to share some or all of certain characteristics: a feeling of being at one with everything; an intense awareness, without awareness of any particular thing; a sense of knowing what is really real, what truly is; a paradoxical state of being full but empty, of grasping everything and yet nothing, with an awareness of the connectedness of all things; a loss of concern for self; intense euphoria or ecstasy.

"'Androgyne,' the term for this symbol of union, should not be confused with 'hermaphrodite'."

I think this is the case. John in chapter 16 is not talking about the getting of any "thing" that is desired. Jesus was not interested in magic or sorcery, but in His leaving his disciples and their needful reconciliation with Him. There is the etheric presence of the Blessed One we may submit to AND BECOME ONE WITH if we have the heart to become suckling babes.

Response to Billy Kitchens' Question on The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16: 23-24

I do not want Billy's answer to be hid in a comment section, so I post the question and answer here (from https://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-prayer-technique-edited-out-of-john.html):

Asks Billy:

I love the message and have seen the Gregg Braden video. I also have the book Neil Douglas-Klotz which also mentions it. However, when I read all three major Aramaic versions of John 16: 23-24, those extra phrases are not there. Where is he getting this? I have read the versions: Murdock, Etheridge, and Lhamsa.
________________________________________

Billy,

Than you for such an excellent question. I am impressed that you have read these translations from the Aramaic. I am only familiar with that of Victor N. Alexander. I fortunately saved a number of his website articles, because at least for the time being his website is down. I think he is too involved in making his movie, The Story of Eashoa (Jesus). I cannot say for sure, as he has not answered e-mails for about a year.

Where is Gregg Braden getting his Aramaic text?
A) Only Mr. Braden can answer that. I do not think he would mind telling anyone if they asked. You will notice in Braden's video, though, that he has traveled to ancient monasteries and has gained access to off-limits libraries. Which brings up . . .
B) Why are these phrases not in the translations we commonly have access to? Here I have to weave together what I have gleaned from Vic Alexander, Neil Douglas-Klotz, a number of Jewish rabbis, my personal intercultural experience, etc..
First of all, the Western Church is quite convinced of the Greek primacy, that the New Testament was written originally in Greek. Western-trained missionaries to Mesopotamia a couple of centuries ago translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic. This was problematic because the missionaries were predisposed to translating the Greek into Aramaic according to their Western theological prejudices and biases. Yes, they produced an Aramaic version, but it was an Aramaic version of their Western understanding. No wonder English translations from this "ancient language which Jesus spoke" sound eerily like the King James Version.
Second, it is apparent by even a cursory reading of the New Testament that the subjects of the stories spoke Aramaic, even though Greek was universally known to all. Regardless of whatever is the universal language, everyone speaks their mother tongue in their home. In our melting pot of the United States, everyone is expected to be able to get along in English, but among their family and native friends, all speak their home language. Aramaic was the language of the event, whether it was literal-historical or psychological and symbolic. I have reason to believe that the first iterations of the event were Aramaic, too. The Aramaic-speaking Church of the East supposedly had copies of those most ancient texts squirreled away somewhere, like the monastery Braden visited.
Third, as you see in Neil Douglas-Klotz (I only have The Hidden Gospel), there is a phenomenal range of possible expression of the meaning of the Aramaic. Saying in our language what the ancient author meant in his is interpretive: "It meant something like . . ." Can we even understand it? Even if we know a sentiment is there, how do we say it? Gregg Braden is expressing something in his "ask without hidden motive," but what that is in the ancient Aramaic, I do not know. Alexander does have in John 16:24, "Ask and be assured (note: and be satisfied) that your joy shall be complete." That is close enough to "be enveloped in" for me.
I vary from Vic Alexander in that I read the Bible largely without future tenses. In private correspondence Vic has explained the Aramaic does have a mark which indicates a word or phrase is definitely future, but I go along with Robert Young in his introduction to Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, that the ancient Hebrew had no future tense. It certainly could express future events, but did so using past or present tenses. I largely read the Bible this way, because everything I want in the future had to exist in the Beginning in the past. The Ineffable accounted for every potential of Its manifestation which I am now living BACK THEN. The house and family manifestation I will want to have in the future was the Ineffable's experience in the past before the beginning of time. I HAVE it. It EXISTS. I AM THAT STATE ON THE WAY TO BECOMING. So I read John 16:24 in Vic's translation from the ancient Aramaic, "Ask and be satisfied that your joy is complete."

Thank you for the excellent question.

See John 16:23-24 Without Ulerior Motives

An Anonymous Comment and My Response on the Hebrew Word for 'Name' Equaling Nature and Imagination in My Post "The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16:23-24"

Impressed by Gregg Braden's video, I wrote the post "The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16:23-24". One thing that has really stood out is people's response to Jesus' words: "straightly and directly from inside my name." How does one get inside His name? I point out in my emphasis of Klotz's translation or exegesis of the Aramaic that 'name' = nature = imagination. I did not mean that nature and imagination were definitions of the word 'name' (shem in Hebrew, Strong's 8034), but that biblical names are often the nature of the person, place, or thing being spoken about. It is all representative. YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE WITHOUT TRANSLATING THE NAMES. As Jesus' name means Yah Saving (Yah's action of Salvation), and Yah is doing this action by imagining (that is His Kingdom!), it follows that that is His nature. To be "inside His name" is to be inside His nature--imagination! I did not convey this very well, and an anonymous commenter (below) pointed out my fault.

Here is what I posted:

"All things that you ask straightly and directly from inside my name you shall be given. So far you have not done this. Ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer. Be enveloped by what you desire, that your gladness be full" (John 16:23-24 Klotz).

"If I may add emphasis:

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

Anonymous commenter said, "'Name' does not equal nature or imagination. You need to look up the etymological meaning of name and the Hebrew meaning of name. In the Hebrew tongue, name is actually pronounced shame (not the same shame as in the English language) but shame in Hebrew means Authority. The Messiah is saying, if you ask anything in my 'authority' then it shall be given. This is so much more powerful when we understand the authority we have been given through our Father's sacrifice of His Son."
___________________________

I responded...(BTW, thank you) You are of course right. The Hebrew word for 'name' is shem (Strong's 8034), the same as the name of Noah's third son, Shem, and yes it is pronounced 'shame'. It probably comes from siym (Strong's 7760), meaning "to put" through the idea of definite and conspicuous position (says Strong's 8034). But do not sell what I said about 'name' meaning "nature" short. We call chickens chickens because they have the nature of chickens. A horse is a horse, of course of course. David means "beloved," and Noah means "rest"--where would Bible teachers be if biblical characters did not display the natures their names mean? You are correct, "in My name" means "in My authority," but you are not going to be in His authority unless you are a born-again believer IN HIS NATURE. YOU DIED ON THE CROSS WITH HIM AND ARE RAISED AND ASCENDED WITH HIM, else He is not your sacrifice. Jesus was put in definite and conspicuous position--authority--as our Savior. It is my belief that His nature--the nature of His etheric being--is the imagination of the Consciousness of the Ineffable Being Itself, and that His nature is to mold us up from what we were born at the beginning to being the full Manifestation of the Consciousness. We are Its becoming. And if you find a way to exercise the authority we have been given through our Father's sacrifice of His Son WITHOUT using your imagination, let me know.

5:48's Hit, and My Apology

I suppose some teacher or commenter put up a link to my post "The Prayer Technique Edited Out Of John 16:23-24," for suddenly I had thousands of hits on that one article. It usually gets a dozen or two. With all the visits there are some who will leave a comment or ask a question, both of which are much appreciated. There are sometimes trolls, too. I read the comment/outlandish rant from Anonymous 5:58, and concluded he (or she) was a troll.

I wrote pages of response correcting him, chastising him for not first reading and understanding what I had said in the post. Then I read again what he had said. Oh, he is right. Sort of. There is a misunderstanding from what I did not say correctly. Before I make that correction, let me entertain you with what Anonymous 5:48 said...

"No. You are 1000% wrong. He said "my name". Not your name. You sound like a false teacher. Are you really this illiterate or just plain corrupt? Jesus clearly states: "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "; so it would stand to make absolutely no heavenly sense that scripture instructs what you're attempting to convey here. There's multiple verses that fully contradict your asinine blasphemous interpretation; such as John 13: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the SON (Jesus)..." not you or me! The Bible isn't some fill-in-the blank children's book for you to play with, insert whatever you like and misinterpret! This isn't a land of prophets. That time has long gone and passed. This is sadly now a world of false teachers and false prophets. And a modern world of posers walking around pretending and misleading others from the truth.

"John 14 "if ye shall ask any thing in MY NAME, I will do it." This and other gospels are clearly referring to Jesus (Yeshua HaMashiach). You are not a God. You didn't die on the cross and you cannot save yourself but only through what Jesus did on the cross. Every word of you said is Gnostic heresy or Pneumatomachian heresy.

"You purposely misinterpret scripture and you need prayer. People like you are the blind leading the blind. You not only shouldn't be teaching holy scripture, but you shouldn't be teaching anyone about anything."

5:48 AM
___________________________________

At first I thought 5:48 was a mindless, immature, and illiterate Fundamentalist zealot who does not listen and consider what another Christian says before leaping onto their horse and riding off in all directions to attack "whatever." For that I owe him (or her) an apology. Sorry, 5:48 (but you have got to watch your language. Inflammatory speech like that does not do you any favors in getting your message across. Pneumatomachian? Me--a tongue-speaking Oneness Pentecostal? Big words do not really impress or make you sound smarter.)

Rereading the rant, I realized that 5:48 was concerned about praying in Jesus' name as opposed to praying in our own names--which of course I had not said. It took me awhile, honestly, to find the offending statement I had written in the post. I think it was this:

"Neville Goddard taught causative imagining. The premise is that we can create our futures by imagining."

Of course 5:48 is not familiar with Neville, and the problem here is semantic. 'Causative' and 'create' per Neville and my usage do not mean what 5:48 thinks they mean. By 'causative' is meant "directive," like a specific PETITION made in prayer unto Jesus. We THINK it, but He DOES it. And by 'create' is meant "write." We have the privilege of AUTHORING the future we desire in prayer, but it is Jesus who ORCHESTRATES the bridge of incidents that bring that future into being. WE DO NONE OF HIS PART. Voila! 5:48 and I are on the same page.

All this comes in response to Mark 11:24's "Believe ye receive." Mark 11:22. And Jesus replied and told them, "You should have faith in God. 23. For, amen, I am telling you, that whoever tells this mountain here, 'take up and fall into the sea,' and he does not doubt* (divide) in his heart, except he believes that what he says shall happen, he shall have what he says. 24. Because of this, I am telling you, that whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you will receive, and it shall be given to you" (Alexander, emphasis mine).

I agree with 5:48 that Braden seems to apply Klotz's extended John 16:23-24 in the Aramaic to the Law of Attraction where it does not belong, and I was going along with him because of the Law of Assumption--the true principle the so-called Law of Attraction (boo!) uses to make itself look real. Until I listened to McClellan and reread John 16, realizing then that John 16-23-24 is not about petitioning for anything but Jesus Himself (which is His Holy SPIRIT).

Well, "whatever you pray and ask for, believe you receive," says Mark 11:24. How do you do that? YOU DO WHAT JOHN 16:23-24 SAYS IN THE ARAMAIC PER KLOTZ!! If it works for getting Jesus and the Holy Spirit, go with it!

Where is the Love? John 16:23-24 and Exodus 3:14: Missing the Authors' Intent

In all probability and likelihood God's words in Exodus 3:14 were Arabic, meaning not that He IS, but that He LOVES, that He is involved with us. I really cannot blame Ezra and all subsequent for not catching this. It is not like Moses had said, "and God said in Arabic, ‘ehyeh asher ehyeh’." By the time Ezra pinned the Old Testament from memory, the idea of Moses' experience in Midian being in the Arabic language among Arabs with an Arabic-speaking God was pretty much lost.

The same thing may have happened in the case of Jesus' words in John 16:23-24. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and his words were translated into Greek. Neil Douglas Klotz expands on the potential meanings of the ARAMAIC version of the words to much richer and fuller ideas than the Greek language conveys (Prayers of the Cosmos, pages 86-87; also noted in Braden's Secrets of the Lost Mode of Prayer, pages 166-167):

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

The accusation has been made that portions of this prayer technique given by Jesus have been edited out of John 16:23-24 (from 15:40 in linked video). I think Jesus' heart of love just hasn't been heard or sensed, that the intent of the author has simply been missed due to hearing the wrong language. The Greek tells us to ask in His name. People believe He is telling us to ask in His authority. No, that is dominion. This is ASKING He who is Love. I believe Jesus is telling is to ask in His nature, to imagine with His LOVE. Knowing that God knows all our heart, for there is no separation of us from Him, we are to pray FROM what we desire, to feel enveloped in its manifestation of love, TO GIVE THANKS, PRAISE, GRATITUDE, AND ADORATION FOR IT. We go there in love to cause love, and there express love for there being love. This is a wholesome activity.

I am reminded that the Jews wanted Jesus in John 6 not because He worked the works of God, but because they wanted to be fed (verse 2ff). THAT'S asking with "hidden" ulterior motives. Why does that now remind me of LOA?

Neville Goddard taught causative imagining. The premise of causative imagining is that we can create our futures by imagining what we want with feeling, gratitude, and the absolute belief that what we wanted presently exists, that what we want is our present experience. We need to give our imagined end, the "manifestation" of our desire, "all the tones of reality," including that of love. It needs to be love in the real, present, established experience of what we desire--that it is already existing--with affection and gratitude. Many prayers may simply be conceptualization of the beloved desire become real and expressing, "Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You," appreciatively to God.

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

This topic reminds me of the song, Where is the Love? Is that God speaking to us, wondering, "Where is YOUR love?"

L. has a Lot to Say

-----Original Message-----
To: imagicworldview@aol.com
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2020 6:36 pm
Subject: RE: Neville Goddard

Hi Dan,

Thank you so much for your wonderful reply! I enjoyed reading your email reply back. I do have some questions. If you don’t have time to answer I understand.

"That is, we can observe that if we think in certain ways, certain things happen. Neville has simply pointed these ways out and suggested that we can control them."

ME: What is hard about this is to drift off in a hypnagogic state just before you go to sleep and try to imagine what you would like to change in your life. To be honest, I don’t require a lot of material things in life. As long as I have food on the table and can pay my bills with enough money left over in case I need it…I am fine. I see a lot of people wanting to materialize cars, houses and so forth. I guess for me its about spiritual growth and to really find God. I was raised Greek Orthodox and have since left the religion. I have since started to meditate and try to visualize. I have a hard time wrapping my head that God came down as human so that we could one day realize we are God.

All the Near Death Experience people say that we are here as spiritual beings to learn lessons and grow while here on Earth.

Neville seemed to think when we die we are in are 20s and don’t realize we are dead only to live in another planet and experience the suffering like we do here on earth. I am not sure I agree. He did not believe in reincarnation either, but it has been proven.

NDE does not support the kind of experience Neville had. Most everyone who has had a NDE report that we go back and we do get a life review where God DOES NOT Punish us. We do have a life review on how we did on earth but there is no punishment from God. And, how forgiving and loving the after life is. Some do not want to come back.

When people come back from NDE they don’t say, hey what I learned from it is that God is your own wonderful human imagination. Or I was told that God came down as human and forgot he was God so that he would one day realize as man that he is God. On the contrary we are told that we are spiritual beings to experience life and learn lessons that help us spiritually grow.

Neville wrote all this 50 years ago when NDE was not heard of. Reincarnation was not talk about it either. He even told this one lady in one of his lectures not to believe in it.

The only reason why I say this is because on many forums there seems to be a Neville Goddard worshiping thing going on. People believe in his Golgotha that when David calls you Father you will know you are God. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is different from what NDE say that is all.

If Neville is correct does God play the part of starving people in Africa who do not know that all they have to do is imagine how it would be if you have food and so forth…Why is it that only people that are not living in oppressed countries can manifest a better life?

Dan, I can assure you I have asked these types of questions on YouTube bloggers who claim to preach the gospel according to Neville. Again, I am not saying he is wrong but a lot of things feel to me as if the teachings kind of contradict themselves…I want truth just like anyone else. If Neville was alive in this day and age, I would of asked him, lol.

"I am not sure this is luciferianism. There seems to be a lot of conditions which suggest what practice, opinion, or attitude is good or bad. Love and unity appear to be good and facilitating of improvement; self-serving and independence appear to be impediments to progress. This is just the way the world we observe is."

ME: This is beautiful what you just said….By luciferin I meant that a lot of people like to use this manifestation for power and greed. What Neville was semi preaching sounds a lot like new thought movement started by Madame Blavatsky, the Russian occultist, philosopher, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875 There was a lot of bad things that happened down the line. I will not go into it in this email.


"I promote, as it were, Neville's teachings because they greatly reflect the truth of the way the world truly is, and that is a PERSON. New Thought and LOA people always categorize Neville as being in their camp, but he hardly was. They all believe in an impersonal force we can control. Neville believed in a Person we are the manifestation of, and of whole-hearted submission to that Person. "There is NO 'New Thought'!" he insisted. "There is only the fulfillment of the Word. THAT is our destiny." For the Word (Aramaic: Milta) is the Divine Person we are becoming as we learn to submit to Him. We are to be pockets of Him, channels of His spiritual power into these spheres. That is not taking things upon ourselves, but un-ing ourselves unto Him and His objectives to flow through us, because we are One. That's my philosophy, anyway.

"One last thing before I go: Seeing God and what He is doing, we must teach. How can we face Him when we pass if we do not?"

ME: I am not sure what you mean here. But, I believe we are spiritual beings and I believe love and forgiveness are the ultimate golds…But then again, that is me and maybe my own wonderful imagination..

Dan, thank you so much and I will continue to read your beautiful blogs.

L.
______________________________

L.,

Quite honestly, in all the years I have read and listened to Neville and have perceived the biblical truth of what he says and shared it with others, I have never needed to practice the technique of prayer to get anything. Not that there are no things I would like to change, but I trust God to do that. I was raised in the Methodist Church, left that after high school, got into occult type meditation after the Navy, and became a Pentecostal while living in my pickup truck in Hawaii. In hindsight I see that God has always led me toward His desire for me, so why should I want to screw with that? Success is not getting what I want, but what He wants.

Part of Neville's trick was to go to sleep when he wanted to, not just at the end of the day. At night I'm asleep within seconds of my head hitting the pillow. But the rest of the trick appears to be PRACTICING the technique of movement. He said he did the phone bench thing (imagining that he was there when he wasn't) to get "loose." He admits this looseness can be quite dangerous, as he almost died in this world going into the picture and getting stuck there. The deal of being "there" and believing that you are there, though, I believe is the "two become one" Gregg Braden speaks about being edited out of John 16:23-24 (re the Gospel of Thomas). I'll be writing about this soon in my blog.

Neville believed in not in reincarnation but in restoration; that we are restored to three-dimensional experience without punishment. Reincarnation carries the religious idea of getting whacked/judged for your karma, which Neville didn't buy into. And some readers corrected me, that restoration is back to being a twenty-something again in THIS life, but on different track of imagination. I blogged earlier that if this is the case, all these life experiences would be lived simultaneously! "Once to die" would be entering this bush of life experiences as a child, sequentially imagining branches of lives (lived simultaneously) from the root childhood, and then the judgment of accomplishment for this one life. Then on to other lives, other planets, experiences in other terrestrial spheres (eternity is a really long time, and we have so far to go).

God came down as one man? It came down as all. One guy got UP to exemplifying/"being" the Word of God.

Suffering/discontentment is the way we progress. That is what Mother Mary means. Why would a good God do that? Who else is there? All y'all is nothing but God. All is done by It, TO It, and It isn't bothered by anything (even starvation). Nothing else will motivate us to go. Someone asked today, "What exactly do you propose for those that have lost loved ones due to senseless acts of violence or other untimely circumstances?" Well, what of it? They were and are God, the perpetrator was and is God, you are God--this is YOUR world. Oddly, the question was on a post about time travel. In imagination you can be in your loved ones' time with them. Otherwise they are on another track and you can simply appreciate the time you had with them (welcome to Chinese bai' bai').

About NDEs not supporting Neville's teachings:
They certainly do not contradict them. Watch where the Death Experience testimony is coming from; usually Christians or semi-religious people who are learning through biblical illustrations. Their Death Experience follows suit with how they already think. Neville's teachings are an ANALYSIS of what is happening there. That God became man that man might become God is WHY they are having the Death Experience, not the teaching in it. Knowing the why buys us nothing but some understanding of the mechanics of what is going on. Get wisdom from the NDE, and get understanding of it. The thing is, it IS going on. THAT is what we get out of NDEs. Consider Jonah. He was a called prophet who knew about God but was not fully on board with being serious about it. A storm of afflictions sets in and he dies. But the Death Experience is a state prepared for him to become fully convinced and serious in DOING it. The Ninevites--our thoughts--already believed that God could kill them en mass, as we all do, but with Jonah's Death Experience they became enlightened as to how serious this spiritual stuff really is. When you repent, keep repented. And take the scriptures' spiritual meaning seriously.

I am pretty sure that if you look into it, you will find that near death experiences and reincarnation have been known about, even in America, for more than the last 50 years.

What part does God play in the starving masses of people, the suffering everywhere? Is it that they simply have to believe that they already have, and they will have? Hardly. A better question might be: what part does the concept of separation from God have to do with peoples' starvation? Like NDEs make you serious about oneness with God, serious belief in one's oneness with God might solve the having bit.

I do not understand why you and others are so hung up about Blavatsky and Crowley and Lucifer. They are not coming to get you. They are not worth squat nor the waste of time being concerned about them. We have the scriptures; they ARE worth the time. You don't see Isaiah or Jeremiah shaking in their boots because of Blavatsky or the Theosophical Society. Resist the ignorance, and the ignorance will flee. There is nothing, NOTHING worth more than realizing that we are the One and that the One is us--YHWH, the Triune God. We have simply GOT to become It becoming through us.

Dan Steele

See John 16:23-24 Without Ulerior Motives

Is Neville Goddard's Technique Involving the Heart Chakra in Prayer?

Gregg Braden notes that the heart itself is an electrical motor that transmits electro-magnetic waves. These waves communicate us to the universe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JMELyhuvws).

I should mention here that the physical level, including these electrical waves, is imagic (image + ic) of its spiritual corollary on a higher level: As below, so above.

God does not listen to our human languages; he looks upon our thoughts and the intents of our hearts listening to his spirit within us. His spirit does not use words; it is what it believes it is (just as the mustard seed has faith that it is a mustard). What we believe in our minds and emotions as one is what we "say" in our hearts. God, of course, is us, and for him to hear what is "said" by our spiritual heart is to create. Thus our world is created by our imagination.

Neville Goddard taught to create our futures by imagining what we want and by feeling, with absolute belief, that it is--that it presently exists "with all the tones of reality" in our present experience. This is what Braden is saying. It is also what the Bible originally said in the ancient Aramaic, per Neil Douglas Klotz (Prayers of the Cosmos pages 86-87, also noted in Braden's Secrets of the Lost Mode of Prayer pages 166-167). According to Klotz, John 16: 23-24 has been edited to remove the HOW to pray. The passage originally said:

"All things that you ask straightly and directly from inside my name (i.e., nature, which is God's imagining) you shall be given. Ask without hidden motive (i.e., do not be judgmental, but forgive the present with grace) and be surrounded by your answer. Be enveloped by what you desire, that your gladness be full. So far you have not done this" (parentheses mine).

I.e., be IN the situation you desire as if it were the true situation you are in as the transmission of your heart. The editors wanted to make sure we didn't get that, else what would we need a state government for? Just a thought.

Hearing Gregg Braden say that the heart is electrical reminded me of Electrical Christianity, a stance taken by L. Ron Gardner. Here is a book review which explains some of Gardner's concepts:
http://www.eewc.com/BookReviews/electrical-christianity/

Electrical Christianity: A Revolutionary Guide to Jesus’ Teachings and Spiritual Enlightenment. By L. Ron Gardner, Vernal Point Publishing, 2013. Reviewed by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Ph.D. 

"What I like most about Electrical Christianity is that Gardner provides cogent and clarifying analogies between electrical currents and Spirit-filled living, which he calls “Plugged-in Presence” or “Holy Communion.”  He defines the Eucharist as the act of connecting to our Divine Source (or Presence).  Gardner uses Ohm’s Law, the mathematical equation for an electrical circuit, to explain how we human beings can return to a state of universal connectedness and thus allow spiritual Light-energy to pour into us and through us.  Our bodymind is like an electric lamp, useless until it is connected to an electric outlet.  In order to save us from our primal “sin” of imagining ourselves estranged from God, we must be plugged into the socket (our Divine Source), after which we will be able to share light.  The Holy Spirit is the electrical current or amperage; Holy Communion (consciousness of unity; relational at-one-ment) is the electromotive force or voltage; and ego-resistance to the flow of the current corresponds to ohms.  The more we surrender or let go of our sense of being separate, the more freely the Holy Spirit can shine through us."


So our mind's thoughts and our emotions' feelings have to be joined as one in our hearts as its electrical current. And key in this is the Unconditional Love of the heart chakra. It is the above noted current in unconditional love.

By the way, electro-magnetic waves do not, as far as I know, attract like a magnet. You do not look out the window and see the things you want rolling up the street to your house. Your heart's transmission bespeaks what you believe is, and a conscious mind in the universe which is consciousness responds so that it becomes. There is a distinct Actor, and all of this is his action. What we desire is orchestrated into manifestation by a person, not attracted to us through the ethers. If this communication to God through the core of our spirit works, there is a Worker, not an impersonal force. Do not lose sight of the Dude with whom we have to do. May I suggest you go into your heart and say, "Hi."