There is a difference between us humans and Jesus, who was God incarnate. Christ had direct communion with the heavenly Father in a way that no human can, as he was essentially one with the Father, and according to the Bible, we are separated in our sin. There is good reason why God does not want us contacting the spirit world through occult means.

There is also a difference between God and God's angels making contact with humans as part of God's divine plan, and humans attempting to make contact with disincarnate spirits through occult means as part of their sinful ego's plan.

It's not a matter of being fearful of deceptive spirits. It's a matter of loving God enough to follow his word.

Deuteronomy 18:9-14

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-sorcery.html

Albert,

Yes, I agree with you.  During the council of Nicea, the main chapters for the NT were chosen and many gospels and texts which HAD been thought of the word of God were dismissed as not being worthy or essential - by men.  Constantine and others needed to consolidate the dozens of gospels, testaments, etc. into an essential text. 

My alarms and red flags go up when I try to have a discussion and I get scripture quoted to me, which does not acknowledge any discussion.  JC's parables and teachings were about love, love of God (what is good and what is true) and love of the neighbor.  The passages given as warnings against false prophets, mediums, etc. were for a purpose, not doubt.  But they were few and far between. 

I believe the warnings are for people to put their faith in God, and not in a substitute (medium, channeled spirit).  The thing that concerns me about this thread is that some Christians see themselves as separate from the divine.  For that reason, they need scripture to tell them what is divine - but in doing so, they separate themselves even more from the divine.  Jesus told his disciples that they can do what he did, and that following his path (of love) they can become what he became (one with the Father, love and heaven).  The idea then that one should feel unworthy of this is sad to me.  The notion of man being born in sin, and hellfire without following dictates written in the Bible is a fear based approach to God's love.  It doesn't work.  Well it works, but for the wrong reasons.

If a person follows the laws not because he incorporates the spirit of the gospels into his heart, but because he feels he is a damned sinner and has no other hope of redemption, then he/she is acting in the right way for the wrong reasons.

I would rather find the insight of the gospels that love is our nature.  That we are all one, and that God's love is our foundation.  That we are not sinners, but but part of a greater whole of consciousness.  In doing so, i feel that I will follow right action from my heart, not out of fear.

M

Oh, come on Dude. Tell me about the life threatening experiences you have had while phasing. There is no such thing. It is all one's own fear in one's own face.

Vincent,

The events of Nicea have not been written down precisely.  However over time, biblical texts were chosen for the NT.  Biblical scholars argue over the time of the writing of some of the gospels.  You can research this as you see fit (i.e. - the consensus as to when each of the gospels was, in fact written).  My point isn't to question faith, but rather the acknowledgement that there was an agreement as to what was and wasn't going to be included in the canon at different points in time.

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view). 

The gospel of Mark "was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution."

As to the choosing of scripture to include in the NT:  In the Synod of 397 (a good source to research),

"The primary source of information about the third council of Carthage comes from the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. In one section of this code the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."

I can understand the concept that the teachings of Jesus, the gospels, demonstrate God's love and  for all to see and follow.  Since the NT was written and arranged by man, I'm not sure that quoting scripture as if each line were written by an anthropomorphic God for us to obey or not at our own peril makes any sense (to me).  Again, I see that as a fear based approach (not your own personal approach, but the approach of "do as it says here or be damned.")

I do respect your own experience with astral travel and negative entities.  I don't doubt that negative entities exist.  However, a blanket statement that due to your reading of scripture, all spiritual contact should be avoided and is likely demonic is unsubstantiated, although interesting.  I don't think one can dismiss the likes of Swedenborg, Monroe, and other explorers so easily.

M

I Am Dude wrote on Apr 14^th, 2017 at 11:21pm:


Hi I am not joking when I suggest you change your avatar name to Vincent and not OutofBody Dude. May God bless you as the knowledge of the Truth takes over ever facet of your being

Jesus was/is exactly who he said he was, which was not an adept but totally unique as part of the Godhead made manifest as a human being.

Alan

Alan

Vince,

There are many reasons why the Bible cannot be taken literally, but I think one very good reason is that it has been translated numerous times and much could have been lost in these translations.  For example the first English version was done by William Tyndale who was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the scriptures, yet his work became the foundation of subsequent English versions.  For the Old Testament only later versions of manuscripts have survived, with the exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk as well as a few fragments of other books, so the established versions were derived from text that were many centuries after the books were written. 

For the New Testament there are a large number of Greek manuscripts, some of which were only two or three centuries old and the revisions were based on Hebrew and Aramaic text from the early Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars from the sixth to ninth centuries.  Throughout the centuries there were likely copy errors, language errors such as vowel sounds were an issue, along with the meaning and understanding of the original languages.  In addition, much of the Old Testament was written in prophetic symbols and apocalyptic language.

While I do believe the Bible is more than classic literature or a historical document, I do not believe that it can be taken line for line in a literal manner, but must be seen as a whole; as a record of God revealing himself among men.  The one thread or theme that I believe ties the entire scripture together is God's promise to Abraham that he has been blessed to be a blessing, as we all are going forward. 

Kathy

PS Don, in several of his posts indicated that in the New Testament retrievals are discussed.  He also fully acknowledged the existence of evil spirits, yet never discouraged anyone from astral projection.

I Am Dude wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 9:03am:


What puts some people off the bible is that it depicts the world and its people "warts and all" and not as they should be in an ideal world.

If you find the Old Testament hard to accept, remember this, Jesus came and in him was a new contact or agreement set up between man and God made, making the most of the Old Testament null and void.

Jesus once said to his disciples, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus elaborated even further by stating if you do just that you have fulfilled both the law and the prophets (Meaning you have fulfilled all the conditions set out in the bible, by no less than Almighy God himself)

Also people get it wrong as far as the attributes of God are concerned. It is wrong to think that Gods has only one attribute, namely benevolence, because God allows evil to exist, so that we can freely choose to reject him or freely follow and love him. God wants companions not robots that will be forced into loving and accepting him.