Thanks for the link Lucy.

I just read one of the translations and bought this book used on Amazon:
The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholar's Version (Paperback)
by Robert J. Miller

I have always been interested in Gnostics in early Christianity.  They seem to have sensed a lot of what Moen is reporting.  Elaine Pagels has several good books out on the Gnostic Gospels and Judas.

It is easy to see why the Infant Gospel didn't make it into the Bible.  I am sure it curled the toenails of the church leaders that selected the Bible contents.

After I bought the book mentioned above, I wondered if I should just apply myself completely to learning the Moen and Monroe techniques and ask the key people myself.

You have a lot more experience than I do with Afterlife issues.  What is your take on asking the source vs reading about it.  I am a compulsive reader and studier.

  Interesting link there Lucy.  I read one of the translations of this Gospel from that link/site.   Boy did Yeshua sound like a big willful brat sometimes!?   

  Does make one think, i suppose, but it's not necessarily a true account just because its known as or called a "gospel".   

  Here's another take on it, which comes from the Cayce readings:

"Q-Why does not the Bible tell of Jesus" education, or are there manuscripts now on earth that will give these missing details?

A-...There are some that have been forged manuscripts.  All of those that existed were destroyed,--that is, the originals--with the activities in Alexandria..."
Reading 2067-7

  Besides the E.C. info, there's another source that i mostly trust in relation to the "lost years".   It's called the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ by Levi, and while i don't believe its error free, or that Levi saw all that he could regarding Jesus and his life, it's still an interesting read and does seem to ring more than not of truth. 

  Levi himself was quite an interesting person, if the accounts are true..  Lol had he been born today, some might have labeled him an "indigo child" considering the pattern of his childhood and early dedication to Spirit and to spiritual principles. 

   Levi claimed he could read the Akashic records, and that he read/viewed/experienced the ones relating to Jesus's life and that's where his book comes from.   

  Oddly enough, Levi and his book comes up in the Cayce readings, because a couple of people were interested in the truthfulness or not of that account.   

  This shows you how old of a book this is, for one (Levi was born in the middish 1800's).   Anyways, Cayce's guidance seemed to say that Levi could indeed and did tap into the akashic records, but more so from the perspective that he too had had a life then and read his own records primarily.    Cayce's source also stresses that Levi was tapping into these from the point of perspective of someone who was not fully Source attuned or Christed themselves, hence to be understood that some skewing, misinterpretation, error was possible as is in any psychic work of any channel not fully balanced and merged with Source.  Yet they seemed to have said, this account was largely true from Levi's perspective.   

  Sooo, anyways, in Levi's account, he talks about Yeshua's childhood a bit here and there.   I don't remember the exact age, but when Yeshua was still young, somewhere from 7 to 10 years old, there was a kind of birthday celebration for him, and his parents asked him what he wanted.   He said that he didn't want or need anything for himself, but that he would be delighted if some of the other kids in the neighborhood with less than his family, could come over for a big meal.

  Dunno, sounds more like the Yeshua i imagine.

  Oh, Cayce's sources also address the issue of childhood miracles and what not.   They say that it wasn't until after puberty, that he accomplished any miracle in a conscious, self directed way.
While he was a little baby, apparently some were healed by being near him and touching his garments, but it wasn't something that Yeshua willed or directed, as a personality, but more that "his body being perfect, radiated that which is life, healing, and health itself."   

  In other words, it was a potential effect of being near such a pure, fast vibrating, and balanced energy source, but something that if happened, was more an automatic/unconscious phenomena. 

   

  Dunno fully, but Elisha (not Elijah who was later John the Baptist) was purported to have performed many very "miraculous" things, and E.C. sources vouch for that Biblical truth, and say that he more than any other person besides Yeshua during collectively slow vibrating cycles, performed unusual and numerous miracles.

   I don't think he was fully Christed himself.   There are E.T.'s without full connection to PUL and Source, who can manipulate what we call physical reality, in what most people would call miraculous ways. 

  Sure, there are probably very few humans, unless completely Christed, who could walk on water and all that.

Perhaps the best way to find out is to meditate and ask him.

Lucy:

At least ways there is a historical connection between the gospels and Jesus, unlike ACIM. Not too long ago I wondered about who Jesus was while meditating, and I was sent the message: "The Bible's story of the lamb is mostly correct." I've never heard the same thing for ACIM. If fact, I've received a numer of messages which state differently.

Regarding how my discrimination concurs with the messages I received, I'll stay mum, because people don't tend to be interested.





[quote author=Lucy link=1201363992/0#8 date=1201645591]Yes recoverer I agree that if there are questions that one needs answered then perhaps the best solution is to get in touch with the living Jesus and not the one stuck in the Bible. However, if you do, it is probably better to keep it to yourself and it still won't keep you out of disagreements. For instance, even here, p[eople who may have felt they contacted the living Jesus through ACIM are met with disagreement. Still, ya gotta try.

Lucy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2008 at 6:26pm:


  Hi Lucy, as regards the last part, i don't have the definitive answer on things, but i've realized that the intellect can become a very limiting way of perceiving and understanding the fuller picture.    I tend to be more whole brain kind of person (even physically, i'm left footed, right handed, and if i hadn't had a hand accident many years ago, would be pretty ambi), and so my feelings about things are important to me, as well as reasoning stuff out in a more left brain kind of way.   

     My overall sense is that maybe it was an overblown, PR, exaggerated piece, designed to dramatically get the attention of its listeners.     It seems to have been written by Greeks originally, and the Greeks as a whole have long had a penchant for such and tendencies to the  dramatic. 

  If you are interested, here's a Cayce reading which talks about the 4 accepted Gospels and whence and how they came to be.   From a supposed historical perspective, i don't know how true the below is, but accepted historical perspectives and theories based on the intellect and its work, tends to change over time i've noticed. 

"...19. (Q) I am writing a book. Can you help me, from the hall of records? Who actually wrote the four Gospels? In what order? and when were they written?
(A) These as we find may BEST be determined by the investigations of the records as related to same; that is, to satisfy self as to its claim - or a physical record - in the Vatican's own libraries. These will be accessible, or made accessible, if there is the seeking, during this present year.

As we find, this will be the manner in which these are indicated; but VERIFY same for self's OWN understanding, as well as self's satisfaction:

MARK was first dictated, greatly by Peter; and this in those periods just before Peter was carried to Rome.

The next was MATTHEW, written by the one whose name it bears - AS for the SPECIFIC reasons - to those who were scattered into the upper portions of Palestine and through Laodicea. This was written something like thirty-three to four years later than MARK; and while this body - that wrote same - was in exile.

LUKE was written by Lucius, rather than Luke; though a companion with Luke during those activities of Paul; and written, of course, unto those of the faith under the Roman INFLUENCE - not to the Roman peoples but to the provinces ruled BY the Romans! and it was from those sources that the very changes were made, as to the differences in that given by MARK and MATTHEW.

JOHN was written by several; not by the John who was the beloved, but the John who REPRESENTED or who was the scribe FOR John the beloved; and - as much of same - was written much later. Portions of it were written at different times and combined some fifty years after the Crucifixion..."
Reading 1598-2

BUMP!

Testing the buttons, thank you.

Hi, Lucy,

Perhaps the reason that the gospel of Thomas and other unknown New Testament writings did not make it into the bible was because god did not want them there. I mean some sort of divine influence to ensure what was in the bible was what god wanted it to contain.

alan

People get confused and upset by sensationlistic literary nonsense in books like "The Da Vinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" because scholars have failed to address the real questions positively: (1) What evidence do we have for Jesus' teaching and deeds outside the Bible?  (2) How can we identify the period of history and the documents which lack any historically reliable oral tradition?  These questions can be addressed easily enough.  The New Testament Gospels can be historically connected with eyewitness testimony and later Gospels can be dated in a period beyond the scope of ancient oral tradition.  Also, there are several time-tested criteria to distinguish authentic from inauthentic Jesus materlal.  More specifically, there are 4 sources of potentially authentic Jesus material outside the Bible:

(1) the odd story or saying in the early 2nd century Gospel of the Poor (Latin: "Ebionites"),
     a Gospel that survives only in fragments
(2) a few sayings in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, not to be confused with the spurious
     Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Apart from this Gospel, all Gnostic allusions to new sayings of
    Jesus and stories about Him are considered fictional by most reputable scholars.
(3) several sayings of Jesus quoted by early church fathers from John the Elder, Aristo of
     Pella, and Papias, 3 early Christian writers with connections to surviving eyewitnesses
(4) the Jewish anti-Gospel with traditions from the first two centuries: These traditions
     preserve the perspectives of Jesus' opponents.

Among other things, such a positive approach reveals that none of the later traditions about Mary Magdalene have any historical merit.  All of the traditions about Jesus in the Koran are traceable to historically worthless apocryphal infancy Gospels from the late 2nd to the 5th centuries. 

The famous story of the woman taken in adultery (e. g. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") was originally absent from the Gospel of John, but was lifted out of the Gospel of the Hebrews and inserted in John 7:53-8:11.  This story seems to be true.  The Gospel of the Hebrews now survives only in fragments.

Don

Hmm maybe the other kids thought Jesus was "working" but Jesus sounds like a typical boy with super powers. I mean so what if he made some clay birds? Kids make stuff with play doh all the time. I think the other kids were a bunch of tattle tales and deserved a good spanking. Serves them right that Jesus made the birds come to life and fly away. He should have used some of that Godly wrath and sent the birds after the kids that tattled on him!!

(EDIT) Wait and then Jesus strikes down a kid because the kid bumped into him?  Oh wow. Even as a child I don't think I could see myself doing that. And Jesus seemed to be a highly intelligent child so you would think he would know better.

If I was his father I would give Jesus a firm spanking. Or maybe have him die for his sins... woops that happened! My bad. Maybe Jesus didn't die just for our sins after all.....


(EDIT AGAIN!!!)

Oh wow, I just read this part:
Chapter 11

(1) When Jesus was six years old, his mother sent him to draw water to carry into the house. But he accidentally let the water go in the crowd, (2) and crashing, the water jar broke. (3) But unfolding the cloak which was thrown around him, he filled it with water and carried it to his mother.

(4) When his mother saw the sign he had done, she kissed him and treasured in her heart the mysterious things she had seen him do.

So the clay jar broke and Jesus decided that instead of FIXING the jar with divine powers he brought water using his cloak? UM... As long as it was some sort of leather material I could have done the same thing. If it was some sort of cloth then yes that would be impressive. Regardless... why not just FIX the broken jar?

Hi,

I don't execpt  these spurious accounts of the life of Jesus before he was filled with the SPIRIT and was tempted by Satan in the wilderness he had no supernatural powers.



alan