1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

Thomas Jefferson's views on Jesus

Discussion in 'Spiritual Growth & Development' started by Goldie, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Spiritual dogmas also are taboo, if indeed that is what they are. In the two cases that you mention - the notion that we leave most of our eternal minds behind when we come to earth, and the claim that deep grief is a profoundly low-vibration emotion that can block communication with the dead - there is a lot of evidence that these are facts. For example, Mikey Morgan in Flying High in Spirit tells us that both of these phenomena are true, and he demonstrates them both in his own life.
     
  2. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    I am glad to hear that spiritual dogmas are also taboo.

    It is still a matter of what each individual accepts as "evidence". In the two cases I mentioned, to me there is insufficient evidence to establish either of those theories as proof; I view them as a couple of the possibilities among others. Not that my opinion is or should be the be-all and end-all, by any means, but there are many views on these two subjects as well as others, some aligning more or less with my views, others aligning more with yours/Mikey's, and everything in between. Nothing against Mikey, but if he does exist in an afterlife, he is still only one individual, and I think it's generally unwise to accept one individual's views as "facts", or as absolutely true, even if that individual has moved on to a next phase of existence.

    In particular, regarding the claim that "deep grief is a profoundly low-vibration emotion that can block communication with the dead" -- I have personally experienced some things that may very well be instances of my husband communicating with me. As I've made clear in other threads, I don't know if there is an afterlife or not, so I don't know whether my husband still exists or not, but I accept it as a possibility, and other people to whom I've detailed the experiences have often thought they were communication from my husband. My grief is soul-deep and never-ending, so if my experiences actually were instances of my husband contacting me, then that would mean that deep grief does not block communication with the dead, or at least does not always do so. Maybe it depends on the particular relationship, maybe it depends on the abilities of the individuals involved, or maybe it's never really an issue, I don't know. I only know that if there is an afterlife, my own experiences may disprove the idea that grief always blocks communication (and I am certainly not the only person in this position). Therefore, while I think it's ok to say that grief blocking communication is one possibility, I don't think it's acceptable to state that it is definitively the way it is (I'm not referring to you specifically here, I mean in general, on this site and/or elsewhere). To state so definitively would be to attempt to establish dogma.

    On a related/side note, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this in a civil manner, and I thank you for it.
     
  3. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I'm glad you've provided guidance, Roberta, as I was getting grief earlier when I tried to point out your 'no religion' principle here on ALF.
     
  4. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I greatly miss hearing from Mikey and Carol. It was something special on ALF and set this website apart from run-of-the-mill websites. But he's gone and that's a shame as I used to enjoy hearing about his experiences after he returned to the etheric dimension(s).

    As I often used to say, though, what he told us he had experienced was always indisputable even if I didn't always accept his philosophical 'take' on all issues. Quite rightly you point out that he was simply one individual and not everyone would necessarily share his approach. That's understandable because discarnates come in a metaphorical range of sizes, shapes and colors. And even if he were exactly right about every issue and its interpretation, he may not have been able to communicate the details adequately in the way he was forced to use.

    In my view the emphasis should be that it CAN make communication more difficult (than it is anyway) but doesn't necessarily prevent communication.
     
  5. Nirvana

    Nirvana Active Member

    So he doesn't communicate with Carol anymore? What happened?
     
  6. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Mikey isn't heard from on these forum boards because Carol doesn't visit here now.... I didn't say that Mikey and she don't communicate with one another. I'd be very surprised if he didn't but I don't know what their present situation is.
     
  7. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Good points, mac; thank you. Regarding the latter point, if the emphasis were put on the word and meaning of "can", I would have less of an issue with it. I have generally not found that to be the case, however (not just on this site, but on others as well).
     
  8. dopier

    dopier Member

    I concur, bluebird. In fact it is my understand that these differences go on for a good while even in higher dimensions, although most likely in a much more mild and loving manner. Perhaps it's part of the greater picture, if there is one, that we should be able to agree to disagree and still co-exist respectfully/peacefully. The golden rule seems to always find ways to rear its ugly, err...its beautiful head.
     
  9. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Amen to that! (to coexisting respectfully/peacefully, that is, and to observing the golden rule.)
     
  10. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    Is that because when the words of Jesus have been turned into a religion they are able to be perceived with our physical senses and therefore materialized?




    Oh, never mind, Roberta I just found the answer in post#26 that you gave to bluebird.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  11. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    I couldn't agree with you anymore than now bluebird!
     
  12. jimrich

    jimrich Active Member

    I wonder if Jefferson ever examined and translated any of the ORIGINAL biblical writings to see what those writing actually said - for him self? I wonder just how many folks have ever gone to the original biblical material and did their own, personal research and interpretations of any of it rather than mindlessly swallowing what so-called scholars have given us over the years?
     
  13. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Jefferson read neither Aramaic nor Hebrew, so no, he did not. He read the Gospels only, and in English, French, Latin, and Greek, in all of which languages he was fluent.

    It should be noted, too, that the "original Biblical material" is in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic so already we have translation issues. Furthermore, the Council of Nicaea in 325 both took words and phrases out of the Gospels and added things to the Gospels (mostly fear-based lessons on church-building), so the only way we can be reasonably sure of what Jesus actually said is by comparing Gospel sections to what the dead tell us on those same topics.
     
  14. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    The idea that the Council of Nicaea edited the Bible is, I think, a common urban legend. If you have a source for the claim I'd be interested to see it. In fact, even the claim they determined the canon is pretty dubious.
     
  15. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I majored in Early Christian History in college, fifty years ago. It was a big turning-point for me! All I can say is, if you enjoy hot dogs, don't watch them being made. If you want to think the Christian Bible is the Inspired Word of God, then whatever you do, DO NOT study ANY of the early Christian councils! And Gene, the biggest Biblical urban legend of all is that the Christian Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Having read it cover-to-cover at least half a dozen times, I can personally attest that it cannot possibly be the Inspired Word of a rational, internally consistent, and genuinely loving Deity. No way.
     
    kim marine likes this.
  16. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

  17. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Perhaps actual church history has changed in the fifty years since I was taught that Nicaea (a) removed most references to reincarnation and (b) added fear-based church-building stuff, but somehow I doubt it. Believe whatever you like, Gene, but it is clear to anyone who actually sits down and reads the Gospels that the Lord's words on love, forgiveness, and the meaning of life are dramatically inconsistent with the sheep-and-goats nonsense tucked in at the back. There is a whole appendix in my book Liberating Jesus that details what they added.
     
  18. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Would you post that appendix here please, Roberta? I'd like to read the details you guys are debating. :)
     
  19. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    The question of what church scholars say the Council did with respect to reincarnation is a factual issue, not a matter of belief. I thought I could settle it since it's discussed on Bart Ehrman's blog, but alas, the answer lies behind a pay wall. The free stuff does go far enough to find he emphatically rejects the idea the Council edited the Bible.
     
  20. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Gene, If you are going to rely on "church scholars," then of course you will never find objective truth about anything! The possibility that the Bible might not after all be The Inspired Word of God is anathema to people who have devoted their lives to defending the notion that the whole thing is God's truth, and any evidence to the contrary be damned. In point of fact, the Bible CANNOT all be the Inspired Word of a perfectly loving, internally consistent, or even of a sane and rational God. Believe whatever you like, Gene, but Dr. Ehrman is a Christian apologist. I am a crusader for the perfect eternal truth of the genuine Jesus! In the 21st century, we can be for Christianity or we can be for Jesus, but it is no longer possible to be for both.
     
    kim marine likes this.

Share This Page