Yes Thomas, i do actually remember it. The verses actually continue:

"13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
14HE SHALL GLORIFY ME: for he shall RECEIVE OF MINE, and shall show it unto YOU.
15ALL THINGS that the FATHER hath ARE MINE: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Really!!!! dont remember Jesus saying all those things!!!!

I quoted jesus' real words as written in the bible out here before and apparently noticed that it is his real words that actually dont count as may be seen out here:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977358405&nav=Namespace
Dar R., Oct 6, 2008, 4:52am EDT
Dar R., Oct 7, 2008, 7:55pm EDT

As for celebrating his b-day. I dont see where the biblical jesus ever says it should be prohibited. I would agree though if someone were to suggest that there should be a realization that he wasnt really born on the 25th of december & the history behind how we arrived at that date.

Well stated Jerry, it does make sense wirhin the context of the scriptural readings and all i have been suggesting so far is that we must not disregard the entirety of such texts in forming an understanding. Simply taking one verse fro here and another from else where and finally adding these to reaching premature conclusions appears to defeat the whole purpose. At least that is what i think of it.

"One of the many solutions to world problems today is a common currency for the entire world. "

Thomas, a one world currency does not really address the problem as it stands, it rather leaves it unanswered as it is today. There may perhaps be certain other benefits & certain other problems, but it does not go down to directly addressing the core principles behind the creation of money.

For one we need to understand what money is; i.e its the most common means of exchange in barter (it is therefore an asset in itself, that is far more divisible than others in denomination than others, which is why it becomes the most common means of exchange and therefore money). Paper money that we use today, isnt really money although it used to be, when it was backed by assets such as gold/silver etc ( it was therefore the asset that gave it value and not the paper itself that was worth anything). Unbacked money or a reduction in backing therefore amounts in inflation (i.e. demand pull inflation), a phenomenon in modern economics that should never exist (except for cost push inflation, a more legitmate form) but something that we have come to exist simply because we have come to accept a flawed financial system as well.

It is therefore no surprise that the gold at the time of ceasar, as the scholar and writer edgar griffin puts it, is more or less the same value as it is today in terms of purchasing power. The fact that gold prices appear to be going up today is not a reflection of it value but rather that of the falling value of the currency able to purchase gold. This is a further indication of inflation.

It has got to be realized that if we are to return to a sound financial system, one that can not be destroyed or manipulated, we would then need to resort to sound money, the kind that is backed by assets (which are what give paper money its value) rather than the current fiat based credit based system. The international bankers had long bankrupt all of europe & since 1913 they had not only taken control of the american central banking system as well, but systematically destroyed the asset backing ( i.e gold) of money & even stole the nations gold reserves. In other words not only is our money today worth nothing more than paper (it only maintains a particular value at any given time due to our psychological recognition of it), but is also subject to both inflation as well a possible and ultimate decline in its value to the extent of the asset it represents. That is to say if paper money stays unbacked for long periods, there is a possibility that inflation may deteriorate its psychological value or worth making it worth nothing more than paper itself, for unbacked paper represents nothing but itself and is worth no more than just that.

As far as your suggestion of a one world currency goes, its benefits & drawbacks are a secondary matter. There are more important issues that first need to be addressed, namely the asset backing of a common currency as well as the centralization of control over the financial system, the currency, regulation and particular attention in regards to the people who regulate or control it. Regarding the first issue of assets backing, ive already discussed this earlier and said that an unbacked common currency would be nor better than our current system, perhaps it could be worse. To the issue of regulation, we need to understand exactly who’s in power and what it is that they really wish to achieve. The international bankers & banking families have always looked to consolidate power for themselves at least as far back as the last two centuries. Over time they’ve engaged in corporate take overs of companies as well as nations, their banking & financial systems, global institutions and have looked to integrate & consolidate these while looking ahead towards global domination. Instance such as those mentioned in my earlier comment like the take over of central banks, the creation of the IMF and World bank etc, are not exclusive incidents. The creation of the Euro, the Euro zone & free trade blocs were well designed way before they actually happened. The fact is that nothing has ever been accidental for the creation of trade blocs and common currencies applying there in is most likely a precursor for what is to perhaps to come. People should know that over the last few years, the globalist have been pushing for a trade bloc for north America (namely Canada , US and Mexico) with a common currency called the Amero (the plans for which were pretty much planned, discussed & in full flow if it weren’t for resistance towards the loss of national sovereignty.

The truth as it appears is that the idea of a common currency becoming a reality is not far from reality, it is however not far from being representative of a sign of destruction for personal & national liberties & freedoms, particularly by virtue of those in control of the financial system, their keenness towards achieving such an objective and the power (& its scale) they would then exercise over the peoples of this planet. I am therefore strongly against a one world government & a one world currency, for this is exactly what our masters want for their slaves. And I am no ones slave.

I've had my disputes with greg elsewhere over another issue, but i'd agree out here that the man made global warming talk is a total scam. I'd also like to point to another comment that put it very well (Fresch Fisch, Oct 13, 2008, 5:33pm EDT) regarding the matter. Also take note of the reference to the financial bailout. Anyone who understands the basic principles of (asset based or asset backed) money and inflation should soon realize what a scam the bailout really is.

The fact that the internatinal bankers control central banking and therefore control everything (simply because money buys everything) is yet to be realized by most. Sadly, this fact might only begin to appear more visible to some after inflation hits the roof, paper currency loses its position as legal tender & therefore ceases to be money & an economic collapse is actually experienced.

Am happy that no 6 being mentioned, dont totally agree with no 5 though. Am pretty sure a few others could fit in there, depending on the criteria chosen. Another potential name that no 8 reminds me of is kennedy.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws." ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1790)

If people understood the significance of this quote, the person saying it, the control over our current financial system, the people controlling it & the period over which it has been controlled, they would have known how important & influencial a factor the financial system is in terms of its role over our lives.

Almost everything can be bought with money, which is why rothschild said those words over 200 yrs ago. Today they actually run the whole financial system without people even knowing what is going on.

Just how flawed the worlds financial system are, i think people still havent begun to realize as yet, nor do they have an idea of who's responsible. But sooner or later, when inflation kicks in greater proporions and paper currency becomes almost worthless and when people begun an all out rush towards tangible assets & precious metals instead of currency, thats when people will for sure understand the full extent of what has truly happened. That is when economics fears will be amongst the preceding most fears for most men & women of this planet. Sadly though i fear that at such a time, like always, peole will again look towards their leaders demand a solution and it is then they shall be duped into false solution, like always. And like always, this is when they will consolidate power. They did it during ww1, ww2 (the creation of federal reserve,nation of leagues/UN, the IMF, the world bank, BIS and post 9/11 events are only examples of these).

History, repeats itself and yes people are indeed ignorant enough to let it happen again. Time and again they do it and it with success, its called the "problem-reaction-solution" in laymens terms. They create the problems, we react & demand solutions & the provide false solutions which are in fact themselves problems and had already been set by tem as preconceived objectives.

Does anyone fool think for instance the bailout is actually a solution? How in the world is it possible? How exactly? By printing more money, inflating the currency, increasing the debt per capita and not allowing markets to adjust losses (as ron paul correctly suggested)? Anyone should understand that if you blow the credit bubble even bigger, the chances of it bursting with a louder sound are ever greater.

I'm almost certain that they are going to ask for the global financial system to be consolodated & centralized after this (the current financial system fails), with regulation being centralized as well and it spanning globally applying to institutions over the globe.

There are several ways to look at this. Some may look at the bible at talk about sound money, others with equal amounts of sense may simply understand the same problem in other ways.Bible or not, the fact is we've allowed ourselves to be controled by the few (elite) and it is simply our ignorance that has led us here.

We allowed the international bankers (banking family bloodlines) to bankrupt all of Europe & when they weere done out there, it is ignorance that allowed them to finally take over central banking in the US (with the federal reserve in 1913).

Good sound money was backed a 100% before that, it was them who destroyed it replacing it with partial backing & finally replacing it all together having atolen all the nations gold reserves. They then used this unbacked paper money (which was & is worth nothing but paper) within the fiat system to create further credit via regulation of national banks by using fractional reserve banking means. Since 1913 they've had control to print the nations money(paper) out of thin air & lend it (paper) out as currency in creation of debt for the nation. In other words, the nation issues interest bearing bonds for borrowing paper which is treated as debt. Since 1913 as long as money has been in circulation, this debt to the international bankers has been increasing along with its interest. The same sstem of usuary was employed by the bank of england & is a practice that upon which thr global banking system relies.

The international bankers & the banking system itself including all the agencies owned by the (the bank of england, the fed reserve, IMF, world bank, BIS) are are in fact the problem itself in spite of appearing as our savours. Even now with the bail out & their further credit injection policies, people fail to see that it was them & the very same policies that caused these problems in the first place.

Where has the wold gone with ignorance, when troubling times arrive, people run to the devil for help. How in the world are things going to get any better?

Anyone who's taken a little time to stufy the occult should learn that our whole whole global system, all the major financial goverming bodies, even religious ones like the vatican, intelligence, media and such have all been compromised. They all want a one world order and absolute control and they're out to get it.

As the phylosophy goes "order out of chaos", that's what you're going to see from time to time. And they do this with the knowledge that problems need solutions, so that when people begin to react to the problems they(the elite) themselves have created, they(the elite) can propose the very same agenda as solutions (which arent really solutions as such; more like problems in themselves which are implemented to consolidate control).

The problem simply is that people have not cared to take notice of these dark occult powers that have controlled everything from behind the scenes and they will soon pay the price for it. The inevitable can not be stopped if people continue to live in ignorance.

Oh well another couple of things running through my head right now, it almost feels like you’ve tied knots and rather a whole lot of these all over. Some how I seem to get the impression that texts or rather words written, basically count for nothing. Simply building sandcastles in the air would appear to be sufficient for some.

“Second, the statement, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME, he shall teach YOU all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto YOU.” was not being addressed to the disciples or apostles but to people of the future.”

How did you reach this conclusion, particularly the fact that the apostles were not being addressed within the entire reading as a whole? Look at the line of questioning from the beginning to the end, first Thomas asks a question then jesus answers, then Philip asks another question and jesus responds again. Finally Judas (not Iscariot) asks a third question, which follows verse 20 which I didn’t put up & jesus answers once again. The apostles therefore were definitely being addressed.

What is all the more striking is the verse preceding the one that you seem to have quoted. It’s a strong indication of the fact that jesus was indeed talking to the apostles. When 25 & 26 are read together, this is how it reads:

“25 These things have I spoken unto YOU, BEING YET PRESENT WITH YOU. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME, he shall teach YOU all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto YOU.”

Aside from the fact that jesus was in continuation of his response to the apostles (continuing with an answer to judas’ question at that point in time), it is worth while questioning, if verse 26 was addressed to people of the future, who was being addressed in verse 25? Furthermore, keeping this in mind (that the apostles were certainly being addressed), the possibility that any secondary or implied message suggesting that there were other recipients/beneficieries to this message of the comforter (perhaps even in the future), does not in any way deny the apostles, who were directly addressed on the message, the right to receive the comforter as had been promised. Therefore as per the words of jesus, despite any possibilities that his promise may have extended to others in the future, the following had been first been promised to the apostles, with the following conditions having to apply as well:

1) Jesus promises that the comforter would be received after jesus leaves.
3) In addition to making his certain appearance within the timeframe of the disciples existence (since they were amongst those promised), the comforter would also have to enlighten them as was promised.
4) He would have to glorify Jesus, as is Jesus himself in his own words stated within his promise.


“If you read Matthew 23, you can (but not necessarily) see the connection I'm pointing out. In Matt 23, Jesus clearly points out and teaches that God sends "prophets and wise men and scribes" from time to time and even promises that He will do so in the future (i.e. Muhammad and Baha'u'llah). He also states that the people will persecute them as they had before.”

I think we out to get our feet out off the accelerator a bit and reverse back to the verse in the first place.

“Jesus clearly points out and teaches that God sends "prophets and wise men and scribes" from time to time”

Yes he does say that

“and even promises that He will do so in the future”

“34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:”

Jesus does not use the word father, but instead suggests that he would now sanction prophets among those he would send and from the within these movements, to carry on his message.

“(i.e. Muhammad and Baha'u'llah)”

Well lets just hold on a minute and not jump that far ahead. How do we necessarily fall upon this conclusion? We know that jesus had his disciples (a group that subsequently grew & expanded &) whom he sent out to carry on his message.

Subsequently we also observe the following within the scriptures:

"During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea." Acts 11:27-29

“"Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers." Acts 15:32”

"After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, 'The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."'" Acts 21:10-11

"It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, SOME TO BE PROPHETS, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-13

So then how can we be certain that Matthew 23:34 is in reference to Muhammad or Bahiullah?

“This is exactly what Jesus was pointing out by the COMFORTER, although Christians twist it to mean something that gives them eternal power and control... precisely the opposite of what God teaches through Jesus and Muhammad.”

I acknowledge that you have your own interpretation of the scriptures and might anyone else. I do however fail to see there might be a necessary connection between matt 23:34 & John’s chapters 14,15 & 16 on the comforter/Advocate. If anything it appears to be a forced connection. Further, while the former is a reading on Jesus sanctioning prophets to a particular people, the latter readings concerns a promise by jesus to his disciples (as far as direct promises go) to send them an advocate/counselor/ comforter to aid them strengthen them (& their understanding & recall of jesus’ teachings) in the absence of Jesus . Apart from connections between the two, I feel that even in the understanding of the independent readings you may have lost out to the context as well as the entirety of each of these readings. I do however believe that you are entitled to your own opinion or interpretation nevertheless.

“As to your view that Jesus was speaking to the disciples when He said this means that He was speaking exclusively to them, I don't agree with this simplistic view.”

No, I’m suggesting that even if the disciples weren’t the exclusive beneficiaries to the comforter message of jesus, they would have still have had to have had the promise made out to them, which means that at some point in time the comforter should have appeared to them.

" I also am surprised that you talk about what Muslims think.”

How often do I do that? I generally point out to Islamic references instead. I mentioned what muslims believed in order to make a point that their in many cases muslims interpret their beliefs based on islamic sources rather than on other ones, but in some other cases they choose to interpret or derive meaning from non Islamic sources as well.

“Forget about the Hadiths and what "Muslims think". It is the Koran that is the only SOURCE.”

I don’t have to believe in any of these, but at the same time the Koran & hadith both very relevant as sources of information (even though both of them lack credibility in a number of ways). In your case however, since you appear to make this suggestion, I would in turn suggest that you forget all relevant Islamic stories that have been derived from the hadiths & focus only on what makes sense within the Koran alone. By that standard only information laid out within the quran should be allowed to form Islamic history.

Let me first address the issues I never really intended to focus on, but which appear to have caught your eye. Namely, the issue concerning jesus dying or not, rising from the dead & going up to heaven either in spirit only or along with his body as well.

“The idea of Jesus rising up alive is total nonsense and was intended to convey a sense of "continuance".”

I presume you may be referring to my statement, “Jesus dies within Christianity but only appears to do so within islam and is actually taken up to heaven alive.” Firstly, I never suggested went too heaven alive without dying, but implied that it was the view that muslims had. I believe a more precise use of words should have instead been “according to the muslim view” instead of “within islam” as I had actually intended it. As I’ve already expressed the muslim view on this issue earlier, I should also suggest the there appears to be a a rather significant degree of confusion when reconciling the muslim view on christs death with the quran (Im not sure what the hadiths say). Actually the quran is practically silent on christs death accept for this one verse below:

“That they (the Jews) said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Apostle of God" - But they killed him not nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is exalted in Power, Wise; “
Surat-un Nisaa (4):157

There are two ways of looking at this, one the most commonly known suggested & interpreted by muslims as Christ never having died at all. The second often suggested by the few non muslims who read the Koran which suggests that the verse does not necessarily imply that Christ did not die, but that the Jews did not kill him. Regardless, the above interpretation appears to stem from the Koran, unlike other typical Christian ones that Christians derive from the bible, which apparently was my point all along (i.e.)we have different interpretations from different scriptures rather the different ones from the same scriptures.

“And by the way, if Jesus did arise physically and is in the "other world" or "kingdom" in the flesh, where does He go to the toilet? Is there a Wal-Mart where He can buy His groceries?”

First of all, which of my statements implied that I was ever talking about an alive jesus, I was pointing out discrepancies in views over his death. Secondly, I wouldn’t have a clue as to how things work in the next world, if at all there is one, but given your created scenario, he might just have a toilet (if earth can have one, can’t heaven afford one?). The same goes for the hypermarkets as well.

And finally, why do we have to assume that the rules aren’t flexible enough for jesus to not require all these in heaven in the first place. On earth itself, we see that the scriptures reveal a different jesus after his death. We see that after his death, the rules appeared significantly bent in his case. After he left the (empty) tomb (and mary Magdalene) , luke reveals in incident where jesus happens to accompany two travelers along their journey. They relate to him the incidents that had unfolded and jesus in turn explains the scriptures. Shortly after this jesus joins them at dinner, where he performs a disappearing act by simply “vanishing” into thin air. Moments later when the men headed out (overwhelmed by the earlier incident) and began claiming that the “Lord has risen” again jesus performed an “appearing act”, by appearing before them. Having witnessed both of these, quite understandably the men were quite shaken with fear, frightened that this person was of pure spirit & not flesh. But what does jesus do next to calm their fears. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Jesus may have had the rules significantly bent for him at that point, but he ensures them that he was physical for sure. Incidentally, another event in john parallels this with the apostles being locked behind closed doors, when jesus again appears amidst them in the same fashion, despite the closed doors. He then does the doubtful Thomas stuff, once again making a statement about his physicality. This degree of showman ship directed solely at himself only appears in events following his death. If jesus was physical at this point as the scriptures reveal, and then he soon appears to be ascending into heaven later on with his apostles watching him rise into the clouds, why might me not assume he was physical on to his way into heaven, at least as far as the scriptures go?


“The "Christian" view of their own scriptures is as confused as the "disciples of Jesus" were by their own admission …..In fact, your who chain of quotes above testify to this.”

I hope you’re not suggesting that just because the apostles were confused at that point in time, that they would never be able to understand these subsequently. Despite clear indications that jesus’ words were often too much for his disciples to handle (or grasp), we can clearly see that time one contributor to the limitations of the disciples understanding. We see that jesus warned of his death, even while quoting the scriptures, way before it happened. They later did come to realize what had happened & what jesus spoke of. Judas & Peter were both warned of their denial & betrayal respectively, but did not catch on until later. For instance, immediately after the cock had crowed, Peter remembered what jesus said & wept bitterly having understood everything clearly.

You say that the disciples were confused; of course they were. But by jesus’ own admission, they would begin to understand at a later time. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME, he shall teach YOU all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto YOU.”

It is very clear that the disciples were also limited by the fact that the events jesus spoke of were to unfold right before them (of course with them having very different expectations of what should have happened). Unlike the disciples, we today have the luxury of looking back in time when reading history, for the disciples, history hadn’t yet happened.

“The implications I get from your comments -- and especially this last one immediately above -- is that you are of the same bent as those (Christians of today and His disciples of His time) in your thinking.”

Ok but how exactly do you mean though? Since you were particularly referring to that last comment of mine, is there something wrong or incorrect that you would like to point out? As for disciple of Jesus’ time, I think I’ve already addressed that, but if you are talking about the Christians of today, they would address the issue differently. In addition to what I put up regarding Jesus’ quotes on the comforter, a Christian would probably point out to further readings perhaps like 1 John & a few others to make the “Holy Spirit” case for the comforter. For instance, one could easily jump to the Acts of the Apostles (the other follow up book written by luke) and point out to the Pentecost incident suggesting the fulfillment of Jesus’ words on the comforter/Advocate.

But from the onset what exactly did I do here, I’d sacked the “christian holy spirit theory” from the start, not because it may not be true, but because it’s the one I’m already well aware of & not the one i care to consider at the moment. Secondly I did not choose to quote all over the scriptures but instead focus on the SPECIFIC quotes by jesus which address the particular subject of the Comforter.

So now am I really the one appearing bent or for that matter who is? I’m sorry for not bending to just any interpretation of scriptures, particularly to words that I do not seem to find within the bible itself.
And by the way just as a reminder again, those other words I put up are not mine but instead (biblical) Jesus’ and it was for this very particular reason why I put it up in that fashion, so that his words are taken to be what they really are (& not someone else’s interpretation of it). My only suggestion was that if anyone were to refer to these particular readings of jesus on the comforter, they would have to apply the whole reading & all the words therein in order that an outright claim suggesting the identity of comforter might stand validated. Despite setting aside “holy spirit theory” as an interpretation, the facts readings however remain unchanged and therefore the following within the readings have to be accounted for:

1) Jesus promises that the comforter would be received after jesus leaves.
2) Jesus is apparently & very clearly is in conversation with his disciples it is apparent that his promise within the reading is being extended to his disciples. Also take note of the repeated use of the word YOU.
3) In addition to making his appearance within the timeframe of the disciples, the comforter would also have to enlighten them as was promised.
4) He would have to glorify Christ, as is written within the scriptures.

Having said that, now don’t go suggesting I’m twisting things around when it is clear as to what has been written. If the comforter appears to meet the (biblical) scriptural criteria of (biblical) jesus’ promise, then he clearly is the comforter of the (biblical) scriptures. If he doesn’t, perhaps he could still is the comforter, but does not necessarily have to be one as promised by jesus of the bible. I don’t see how anyone can disagree unless there is a desperate need for someone to draw lines between dots that don’t exist or simple rather to just forcefully make things happen.

And regarding the Jesus alive, dead, resurrected, risen whatever, i think i'll discuss this later. I think i made my point with the little i said in above. My key focus was regarding jesus' words on the comforter & on whom he might be.

I think we could discuss the state of jesus on earth & beyond (alive/dead & so on stuff) after that.