Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Back to this "Virgin-Birth" issue!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Back to this "Virgin-Birth" issue!

    Before we start, I have to assure you all that is if what I am saying below is even 1% right, then those who are trying to establish themselves as the 100% source of Daheshist knowledge are... only ... 99% right... and that's called establishing "reasonable doubt."

    Anyway... On with the presentation:

    I recently (tonight actually) read a "treatise" about the Daheshist view of how Jesus (who is a Spiritual Fluid from THE LORD CHRIST) was conceived.

    Basically, the "treatise" goes all out to prove that no sexual intercourse (in other words: no human act) whatsoever was involved in the conception of Jesus.

    As evidence, the "treatise" offers "evidence" in the form of excerpts from Doctor Dahesh's writings as well as a couple Bible and Koran references.

    One key piece of evidence the "treatise" offers is the prophecy from Isaiah (7:14)

    "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    My first question is this: How come the prophecy (as per the Bible) did not say (specifically) "and shall call his name Jesus?"

    (If it pleases the court, I am trying to establish that prophetic visions might have been... less than 100% literal... and that there might have been some ... symbolism ... involved.)

    But let's say I am wrong and that this passage is to be taken literally. Why, then, shouldn't it mean the following :
    "A woman, a virgin, will have intercourse for the first time with her betrothed then conceive and bear a son" ?
    or... "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive [after laying for the first time with her betrothed and chosen one], and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    Of course, in "proper" circles, we would not be so graphic. Even the Old testament referred to "The Forbidden Fruit"... and we all know it wasn't about "produce!"

    But check this out: the woman could have been a non-virgin to begin with. Right?

    But she was not. (Hold on, don't jump yet to the part where Joseph is confused by what happened... let's do this linearly!)

    In this case, a Virgin was chosen.

    Then, and back to the "treatise" we are presented with what Doctor Dahesh wrote, namely a passage from "Strange Tales and Wondrous Legends, Part III" and another from "Memoirs of Jesus the Nazarene."

    Now, at first glance, what we read in one book seemed to allegedly contradict with what was written in the second book. Of course, because we cannot have any contradiction, further argumentation was used to finally deduce that there was no contradiction whatsoever.

    Personally? I never thought there was any contradiction.

    Did the fact Doctor Dahesh PONDER the existence of Extra terrestrials in 1940's when he visited Baalbek and PONDER about who actually built the monuments contradict or diminish his piece authored over 30 years later ( Planet Voomaalzaab)?

    In any case, that's why we're back to this issue of the Virgin-Birth once again.

    I'll start with the last argument:

    "Had the birth of Christ been a result of a physical act, Mary and Joseph would not have questioned how it came to be."

    Y..y...yeah... but, here is my counter-argument:
    "why would Mary and Joseph be arguing about how 'Jesus came to be' in the first place if both were certain about what happened?"
    Oh, please, of course the glass is half full... no, wait... it's half empty! Is...isn't it?

    Of.... course, it depends on what your definition of "is" is...

    Luckily, we have the "record" of the conversation between Mary and Joseph:

    First, in that chapter, Jesus is telling us how his mother sometimes was torn between taking his side and the side of his siblings.

    And, before I go on, Jesus clearly refers to Joseph as his Earthly Father NOT his adoptive father, which he would have been had Jesus been born without his "intervention". He calls him "Father" and always shows the proper respect.

    In that chapter, Mary and Joseph are having an argument. She wants Joseph to speak up and say something when Jesus and his brothers (who didn't agree with him) were arguing. His TWO sisters, on the other hand where crying because they believed in him. So, for the record, his brothers (and he refers to them as his Brothers) did not support him, while his two sisters did.

    Now, and according to the story, on page 49 (Arabic version) she looked at his "EARTHLY FATHER Joseph" (can someone please lookup the definition of FATHER?) and said to him (and here, with all due respect to those who know the text by heart, I will summarize and paraphrase):

    "Why aren't you saying anything?"

    Joseph replies: "I am perplexed and I don't know what to say, and you know more about the reasons more than I"

    Mary replies: "And you don't?"

    Joseph: "No, No, I don't know them as well as you do"

    Mary: "Do you not want to speak to YOUR SON?"

    Joseph: "He is NOT my son. He is the son of the sky/heaven"

    Mary CONFIRMS: "On the contrary HE IS YOUR SON"

    Joseph then says: "He is the gift from the sky to us and to everyone else. He is not of this Earth and anyone who is not of this Earth then his teachings are without a doubt heavenly"

    OK, NOW, check out what Mary says, which doesn't make sense:

    Mary: Joseph, if I told you I DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIM because his SPEECH is very strange"

    OK, did we all get that, MARY is saying that she does not believe in him. And Mary saying to Joseph, "Talk to your son'' ... "He IS your son"

    OK

    Now, Joseph begins to remind Mary of a few things...

    "Doesn't he call for goodness? Don't you see him praying all day long?" (so, here, Joseph, is Citing Jesus' virtues)

    Then Joseph says (pay attention): Doesn't THAT prove he is NOT human?

    Why would Joseph feel he has to PROVE that Jesus was not human if it WAS an open and shut case?

    That's when Mary says:

    "If what you are saying is true... then WHY DID HE COME TO US THROUGH THE HUMAN WAY?"

    That's when Joseph says (and here, I am paraphrasing Brax's translation ):

    "How's that? Don't you remember the Angel of God when he came to me in a Dream saying :

    (The Angels speaks in the dream)" Don't worry Joseph, for your wife became pregnant with him through the Holy Spirit"

    That's when Mary says:

    "Yes, I remember that, and I am greatly surprised because I cannot until this day explain that RIDDLE."

    You know what I think? I'll tell you: There is a RIDDLE here...

    Seriously, at best, we see Mary and Joseph conflicted and utterly without an answer to that Riddle.


    And putting aside what Doctor Dahesh said before me in the NYC apartment:
    "Jesus Christ came into this world as any human child. I don't understand why some people will not accept it. What's the big deal?"
    But let's not take my word for it, let us look at the actual text, in Arabic, from his Book "Strange Stories and Wondrous Legends, Part III"

    Oh, and ordinarily, this information would be found (and it is actually available) in the Members Only section (even more reason to become a registered member)

    In any case this is a scan of page from "Strange Tales and Wondrous Legends" Part 3. (followed by a scan of the cover). And here is a translation of some of the key elements ...

    " And what beckons deep thought are these fairy tales in which all the people of Earth were carried away, and especially the Christians who are connected to me, is in that they say that I was born from the Virgin Mary, meaning that I sprang from the Holy Spirit, for what merit would I have — if only they realize — if I was born by a spiritual power and by a Heavenly Miracle, for then I would be enjoying a Godly Power that would protect me from committing [ al danaaya ] (lowly acts?), and places me over humans, and eliminate from me the aspect of being human, and then there wouldn't be any merit in my being correct and honest [...] and for calling towards... righteousness and to be steadfast in religion and fearing the last day.

    "And merit, all the merit would be mine if I was born from two parents and upon me was applied what would apply to every human being, only then would I have all the merit ... that is if I was able to overcome my earthly temptations... and called for righteousness... after I was able to practice (it) myself and made it bow to my will
    , without negligence overwhelming me or weakness that makes me fall on my face before the temptations of Earth. And that is what makes me wonder about the weak-mindedness of the millions who the truth missed, so they believed the hoax and abandoned the true fact which they were obligated not to forsake."








    Now, the aforementioned "treatise" goes into some of what I like to call "linguistic calisthenics," and using one verb (practically) as the fulcrum of the meaning that hung in the balance ... and concludes that Doctor Dahesh did not contradict himself because (and I paraphrase): there is a big difference in saying that Jesus "emanated" (which I translated as "sprang") from the “Holy Spirit" (hold that thought) and (ready?) "came to be through the Power of the Holy Spirit".

    Isn't that ... really... the same... thing?

    OK, here is my thought...

    When a person is conceived, there are a series of mechanisms that have to take place in order for the conception to occur. Otherwise, (and here is a really dumb question) why didn't Jesus just spring out of thin air? Why be subjected to be inside the womb...and to be subjected to all that... mess?

    In any case, isn't everything — in essence — happening for a reason? And, isn't everything the creation of GOD ALMIGHTY? Including the Sperm and the Egg?


    Here is what a Daheshist called "Hussein" wrote on Daheshville:

    Originally posted by Hussein View Post
    And about the subject itself, may I have some words as I heard from different brothers and all of them have been from the closed brothers to the Beloved Guiding Prophet.

    Jesus has been borne from a completely sexual relation, from a spiritual Sayyal for Joseph the father itself recreated for that. And in the Noble Qur’an mentioned that: “And mention in the book Miriam, when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east, she placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then we sent to her our spirit and he appeared in front of her in a form of human being”. Sorry for my translation, so I’ll write in Arabic language as it mentioned in the Qur’an itself.

    واذكر في الكتاب مريم اذ انتبذت من أهلها مكاناً شرقيّاً. فاتَّخذت من دونهم حجاباً فأرسلنا اليها رُوحَنا فتمثّلَ لها بشراً سويّا ). سورة مريم – ألآية-16 و ألآية -17

    one more thing I would like to add, that the one who made Jesus Christ " The God" , it's not strange to make Miriam " The Virgin ". With all respect.

    Best regards.
    But the "treatise" seams to negate Hussein's claim, all based on the Doctor allegedly had said (versus WROTE), which was:

    that a Personality of Joseph had materialized from its lofty realm and "initiated the pregnancy" ... and that the act had nothing to do with normal human intercourse...

    And all that we are left with in the end is the knowledge that not all individuals will merit to know how exactly the "initiation of the pregnancy" occurred.

    Fair enough.

    But you know what? I have the words that the Doctor uttered before me, including the revelation that a "WOMAN DOES NOT NEED A MAN TO CONCEIVE A CHILD and that science had not yet discovered that scientific FACT."

    I also trust Hussein.

    And, last but not least, we have the Doctor's WORDS that he WROTE.

    Would those able to read Arabic please glance this over and tell us what they think this means?



    Daheshists cannot repeat the mistakes of the past...
    Last edited by Mario; 12-23-2008, 07:07 PM. Reason: Typo. Expanding the Translation
    "Fail, to succeed."

  • #2
    I was thinking about what I read and I went back to "Jesus the Nazarene" and came with a thought (which might be completely wrong).

    When a male and a female have a child, he's considered to be part of both, i.e. has fluids from his mom and his dad (probably he has also ones of his own too). I think that in the case of Joseph and Mary, Jesus came through them, but his fluids are from neither one (even though he probably had earhtly fluids too from previous reincarnations). He is human , but with much loftier spiritual fluids (much loftier than the human race itself).

    I think that this idea might explain that he came through the human way, which shouldn't be a great deal, as the Doctor has said, but in essence he is not human, even though once he was born, all the human feelings, sensations, temptations, laws applied to him like any other human and his greatness was in overcoming all these temptations. So he came through Joseph and Mary ( the human way) as a tool to come to earth, but neither as a cause nor as a decision from them which makes them his earthly parents only.


    Other thoughts related to the subject,

    - Jesus already had sisters and brothers, even though there is no mention to how old they were. He was around 12-13 years old, so I don't think all of them were younger, as they were fighting with him and speaking in a way which seemed indicative of an older age. This I guess, might end the idea of "Virgin" Mary.

    - The idea of Jesus being God is explained and is clear once and for all.

    - Jesus said to his parents, that no matter how hard they try to know the real truth of his birth, they won't be able to, and that the important message to take is his presence among them and to benefit from it, and not how he came to be among us.
    An idea, which i believe, still holds till now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Consistencies

      Couldn't it simply be the in vitro fertilization of Mary performed by a beings of higher dimensions and a more spiritually evolved planet - more of the same of which Lot had encountered?

      Then he sent two envoys in a luminous ship and he annihilated them. And Lot the righteous had thought they were two angels, whereas they were none other than the emperor’s messengers, and they were from the line of giants. For giants on our planet rival the sons of planet Earth in height.” - Dr. Dahesh, Journey of a Musk Rose

      Scriptural references to giants:

      "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. " (Numbers 13:33)

      "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." (Deuteronomy 3: 11)


      I doubt in vitro fertilization was even considered a possibility at the time of Mary, so certainly a virgin birth was seen as mysterious and miraculous.


      "In height, they [the beings which brought Michael aboard their ship and then to their planet] varied from 280 to 300 centimetres, their bodies being so well proportioned, they were a pleasure to behold - neither too muscly nor too puny, and without deformity of any kind." - TP, p.86
      ...
      ‘We [the beings] observed that these people [Hebrews], following Solomon’s death, were heading towards anarchy and allowing themselves to be influenced by evil priests.
      Alexander the Great invaded Egypt but, in the end, did nothing constructive for the world. The Romans succeeded him, building an immense empire that was oriented more towards materialism than spirituality.
      ‘The great peoples, such as the Romans, were technologically advanced for their time - relatively speaking, of course. But they brought with them a smattering of gods and beliefs - just enough to cause spiritual confusion, and, certainly, not enough to lead the people to Universal Truth.
      ‘This time, we decided to give a ‘big hand’. Rather than give it in a spiritually sterile land like Rome, we did it in Israel, thinking that the Hebrews were very intelligent, having ancestors who were spiritually highly advanced. We considered them adequate to propagate universal Truth.
      ‘The Hebrew people were unanimously elected by the great Thaori. On Earth, they were referred to as the ‘Chosen People’ and the name could not be more appropriate - they were indeed ‘chosen’.
      ‘Our plan was to capture public imagination by sending a messenger of peace. The story of the birth of Jesus, as you know it, with the Virgin Mary as mother, is quite true. The appearance of an angel at the Annunciation is correct in every detail. We sent a spaceship and one of us appeared before the virgin, who was indeed a virgin, telling her she was going to become pregnant. The embryo was implanted in her while she was under hypnosis.
      ‘I see, Michel, you are having enormous difficulty believing what I have been saying. Never forget that we have THE knowledge - you have not seen one-tenth of what we can do. Attend carefully and I will give you a few examples to help you understand what I’m going to tell you...’
      - TP, p.140
      Last edited by WingedPaladin; 12-21-2008, 07:30 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        To Winged Paladin, a friendly reminder...

        Regarding quoting from the book by that Michel charlatan...

        http://www.daheshville.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=34
        Last edited by Daheshville; 12-21-2008, 07:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by may04 View Post
          I think that this idea might explain that he came through the human way, which shouldn't be a great deal, as the Doctor has said, but in essence he is not human, even though once he was born, all the human feelings, sensations, temptations, laws applied to him like any other human and his greatness was in overcoming all these temptations. So he came through Joseph and Mary ( the human way) as a tool to come to earth, but neither as a cause nor as a decision from them which makes them his earthly parents only.
          Exactly. Mario once was privileged to live alone with Doctor Dahesh for 3 weeks and saw proof that "in essence he was not human".

          Originally posted by may04 View Post
          Other thoughts related to the subject,

          - Jesus already had sisters and brothers, even though there is no mention to how old they were. He was around 12-13 years old, so I don't think all of them were younger, as they were fighting with him and speaking in a way which seemed indicative of an older age. This I guess, might end the idea of "Virgin" Mary.
          That is an excellent deduction!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Daheshville View Post
            Regarding quoting from the book by that Michel charlatan...

            http://www.daheshville.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=34
            So you have judged and might it be so. I have quoted the book again because I find it overwhelmingly consistent with what Dr. Dahesh has said on more of the basics rather than obscure topics and details such as Atlantis (and bees) of which Michel got a briefing. (Just as obscure as using the mentioning of Enoch as the final word and measure of Dr. Dahesh's validity.) Michel had much to lose (his wife and reputation) and little to gain from writing this book, which he basically gives out for free or to cover printing costs. He has no interests in starting a movement or religion of any kind - only to tell us what they taught him as they instructed him to do. Those who know him personally have said he doesn't have the imagination to make this up.
            Last edited by WingedPaladin; 12-21-2008, 08:02 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WingedPaladin View Post
              So you have judged and might it be so. I have quoted the book again because I find it overwhelmingly consistent with what Dr. Dahesh has said on more of the basics rather than obscure topics and details such as Atlantis (and bees) of which Michel got a briefing. (Just as obscure as using the mentioning of Enoch as the final word and measure of Dr. Dahesh's validity.) Michel had much to lose (his wife and reputation) and little to gain from writing this book, which he basically gives out for free or to cover printing costs. He has no interests in starting a movement or religion of any kind - only to tell us what they taught him as they instructed him to do. Those who know him personally have said he doesn't have the imagination to make this up.
              Enoch was a great prophet. His name was mentioned in Father Noah's letter.

              Michel is someone whose accounts on the matter of Atlantis — and by the way, Doctor Dahesh's accounts were detailed — were way off. WAY off. That alone is the proof we need that he is a charlatan.

              As is the case with this business of the "Virgin Birth."

              If you were able to read Arabic you would have been able to confirm that Doctor Dahesh is (once again) saying the following:

              " And what beckons deep thought are these fairy tales in which all the people of Earth were carried away, and especially the Christians who are connected to me, is in that they say that I was born from the Virgin Mary, meaning that I sprang from the Holy Spirit, for what merit would I have — if only they realize — if I was born with a spiritual power and with a Heavenly Miracle, for then I would be enjoying a Godly Power that would protect me from committing lowly acts..."
              .....
              "And merit, all the merit would be mine if I was born from two parents and upon me was applied what would apply to every human being, only then would I have all the merit ... that is if I was able to overcome my earthly temptations... and called for righteousness... after I was able to practice (it) myself and made it bow to my will, without negligence overwhelming me or weakness that makes me fall on my face before the temptations of Earth. And that is what makes me wonder about the weak-mindedness of the millions who the truth missed, so they believed the hoax and abandoned the true fact which they were obligated not to forsake."

              There was no miracle. No Extra Terrestrials. No Hypnosis (Doctor Dahesh did NOT believe in Hypnosis). There was a natural process.

              However, there was a Lofty SPIRITUAL FLUID involved.

              Either there was a Spiritual Fluid (which is NOTHING that ANYONE can see) that entered Mary during ... or, a SPIRITUAL PERSONALITY of Joseph materialized on Earth and ... (The spiritual personality would have looked JUST like Joseph once it materialized on Earth and its origin would have been so lofty that to associate it with any Extra Terrestrial entity traveling using space ships would be blasphemous — to a Daheshist, that is. )

              To be fair, none of your posts featuring that Michel character were banned or edited.

              Our apologies if we offended you (it seems like you are a big fan and supporter of that Michel) and perhaps another Forum would be more open to your defense of his claims...

              We are democratic... but to a point.

              Thank you (again) for your understanding.
              Last edited by Daheshville; 12-21-2008, 09:18 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I appreciate your comments, explanations and openness - even if it is to a point. That is very understandable in your desire to protect Dr. Dahesh and Daheshism from becoming tainted.

                The quote you gave reminds me of the words of Brigham Young concerning Jesus' birth:

                "The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

                Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgen Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so [p.51] on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

                It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

                Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

                I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."
                - JoD 1:50-51 (April 9, 1852)

                Originally posted by Daheshville
                There was no miracle. No Extra Terrestrials. No Hypnosis (Doctor Dahesh did NOT believe in Hypnosis). There was a natural process....to associate it with any Extra Terrestrial entity traveling using space ships would be blasphemous — to a Daheshist, that is.
                I believe the suggestion of Extra Terrestrials would be considered blasphemous by many religions who consider Jesus to be the Son of God, and even God in the flesh. I personally believe Jesus to be the Son of God and, spiritually, our elder brother, we being children of God. (Some Christians have called me blasphemous for making such a statement calling us lowly humans "children of God".) I believe Jesus to be much more spiritually evolved than the rest of us on this Earth. I believe Jesus to be a multidimensional being who is not limited by time and space in the way we perceive ourselves to be limited.

                What defines an Extra Terrestrial?

                ex⋅tra⋅ter⋅res⋅tri⋅al
                   /ˌɛkstrətəˈrɛstriəl/ [ek-struh-tuh-res-tree-uhl]
                –adjective
                1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.
                –noun
                2. an extraterrestrial being

                Where do we as human beings come from? Did we as a species originate from this planet and, as Charles Darwin explained, evolve from amino acids that became single celled organisms, more complex organisms, and finally homo sapiens? Do our souls originate from this planet, a conglomerate of planetary spiritual fluid which flows into individual organisms, only to return to the planet at death (Final Fantasy VII idea)? Did Jesus' soul originate from this planet?

                If the answer is "yes", then indeed, there were no extra terrestrials involved.

                I am not ready to pawn Michel off as a charlatan and treat him like a dirty tissue because I see no motive for him to lie about his experience. What are the possible motives?
                • Money: He gives the information out for free in ebook form to those who are not able to buy the book. The book speaks strongly against materialism.
                • Fame and the desire for followers: He says in the book he does not want to start a religion or create a movement. (He was an agnostic and did not believe in extra terrestrials before his experience.) He does not claim to be a prophet or anyone more than anyone else, but a man with an experience. I've watched a few videos of him, and he seems to be a somewhat timid person but speaks calmly in "a matter of fact" manner ("Zis is vat happened to me; Zis is vat I saw whether you believe me or not or think I am crazy or not; Zis is vat I learned.") much like a professor.
                • Personal pride and wanting to look smart and important: this is a possibility, but he did so at great cost with his wife leaving him because she thought he was ill and going crazy with his talk of aliens and planets. He would often ask, "Why me?"
                • He is crazy: He says he told Thao (his abductor) he didn't want to tell people about what he was experiencing and witnessing because people would think he was a "kook" and a liar. He asked Thao why they didn't choose a journalist or a reporter who could do a better job than him. Thao replied that journalists and reporters sensationalize and they need someone who will tell nothing more or less than the truth - so they picked him.

                Michel's experience lasted for 9 days - Dr. Dahesh had a lifetime - and it was so intense and overwhelming at times, he stated he had trouble remembering some of the details, but had some help being reminded by Thao of the details afterward in order to write the book.

                I have never read Dr. Dahesh's account concerning Atlantis, so it is impossible for me to make the comparison. I appreciate your assessment having read Dr. Dahesh's account of Atlantis in Arabic.

                "The people on Earth allow themselves to be pushed around, bullied, exploited and led to the abattoirs by political and financial cartels which are sometimes even associated with well-known sects and religions.
                ‘When these cartels fail to win the people with clever advertising campaigns intended to brainwash them, they try to succeed through political channels, and next through religion or through a clever blend of the lot.
                ‘Great men wanting to do something for mankind have simply been done away with. Martin Luther King is one example; Ghandi is another.
                ‘But the people of Earth can no longer allow themselves to be treated as fools and led to the abattoirs like flocks of sheep by leaders that they, themselves, have democratically elected. The people form the vast majority. In a nation of one hundred million inhabitants, it is absurd that a group of financiers comprising perhaps a thousand individuals can decide the fate of the others - like the butcher does at the abattoir.
                ‘Such a group has well and truly stifled the business of the hydrogen motor so that it is no longer mentioned.
                ‘These people couldn’t care less what might happen to your planet in years to come. Selfishly, they seek their gains, expecting to be dead before ‘whatever is going to happen’ happens. If the Earth disappears, as a result of horrific cataclysms, they assume they will already be dead.
                ‘There, they are making a big mistake, for the source of the coming disasters is the pollution which is growing daily on your planet, and its consequences will be felt very soon - much sooner than you can imagine. The people of Earth must not do as the child forbidden to play with fire; the child is without experience and, in spite of the prohibition, he disobeys and burns himself. Once burnt, he ‘knows’ that the adults were right. He won’t play with fire again but he will pay for his disobedience by suffering for several days afterwards.
                ‘Unfortunately, in the case that concerns us, the consequences are much more serious than the burn of a child. It’s the destruction of your entire planet that is at risk - with no second chance if you don’t place your trust in those who want to help you."
                - TP, 163-164

                This passage just stood out to me, especially with the mention of Ghandi and the potential fate of the planet. ("No second Chance: Can Earth Explode as a result of Global Warming?" article http://nujournal.net/ which discusses the scientific potential of the planet exploding.)

                Michel, in his lecture, mentions the Bible and that the Book of Enoch was taken out of the Bible and believes that Enoch and his people were abducted by the same beings who took Michel to their planet and that Enoch described what he saw on their planet in his own terminology.

                Michel doesn't believe in the existence of satan, the devil or hell, believing it to be religious fear propaganda. I would have to disagree with him there on the point of its non-existence. I do believe some religions do intentionally use it as a control mechanism.

                I would like to comment more concerning what Dr. Dahesh taught, said, did, etc.; but I am limited in my resources. I apparently have a knack, a gift, a talent, a habit, a curse, (whatever you want to call it) for drawing connections between many "revealed" sources. Often it surprises me. I get so excited about it I want to share what I have found. Because Dr. Dahesh and Daheshism is already filled with revolutionary and extraordinary ideas, it feels natural for me to share my extraneous findings here. I apologize if I have offended anyone by my exuberance.
                Last edited by WingedPaladin; 12-22-2008, 08:01 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Much was made about Jesus' lineage!

                  Please correct me if I am wrong. But was not Jesus supposed to be of the blood line of the "House of David". And was not Joseph the connection here, being of the blood line connected to "David. Or was Mary also related by blood to "David"?

                  Who has the answer to this question? Anyone? Someone?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can!

                    Originally posted by ronschaum View Post
                    Please correct me if I am wrong. But was not Jesus supposed to be of the blood line of the "House of David". And was not Joseph the connection here, being of the blood line connected to "David. Or was Mary also related by blood to "David"?

                    Who has the answer to this question? Anyone? Someone?
                    I think Father Noah's Letter (in the Members Only section) will provide you with the answer. Check the "Do the Math" portion — that's where we're shown how to calculate the age of the Earth since Adam. Noah lists all his descendants ...

                    Adam
                    Seth
                    Enosh
                    Kenan
                    Mahalalel
                    Jared
                    Enoch
                    Methuselah
                    Lamech
                    Noah

                    Shem
                    Arpachshad
                    Shelah
                    Eber
                    Peleg
                    Reu
                    Serug
                    Nahor
                    Terah


                    And then we have Abraham.

                    Noah then instructs us to review the Gospel of Matthew and says

                    "From the era of Abraham to David: 14 generations
                    From David to Zerubbabel: 14 generations.
                    From Zerubbabel to [Jesus]Christ: 14 generations."

                    That "treatise" also mentions that Doctor Dahesh and all the other prophets were conceived like Jesus was.

                    Well, that goes against what we know of how King Solomon — who was a prophet — was conceived. David was the one who had to provide the seed to fertilize the egg.

                    What people (especially those Daheshists who are bent on bending the obvious) seem to forget is this: A prophet has a HUMAN constitution and is subject to HUMAN laws. Even though certain human aspects of Doctor Dahesh appeared non-human (such as his need to shower once every 6 years only...) and which can be attributed to an external, invisible, force "cleansing him" (and sometimes — literally — shaving his beard)...
                    despite all that, Doctor Dahesh was human... people... HUMAN.

                    He came into the world like any other human being.

                    True, his "spiritual code" was unlike any other human being's.
                    Still he was human. When they whipped him, he bled. When they struck him on the head with the handle of the pistol, he lost consciousness...

                    And with all due respect to those who claim only they know the truth, I don't buy it. I don't need to graduate from M.I.T. in order to appreciate what this simple, clear, and concise sentence means. And, incidentally, I had to update one minor/MAJOR word (in red), which clearly means that he was NOT born by a Spiritual Power NOR a Heavenly Miracle (the intervention of the Lofty Spiritual Fluid aside, of course!)

                    " And what beckons deep thought are these fairy tales in which all the people of Earth were carried away, and especially the Christians who are connected to me, is in that they say that I was born from the Virgin Mary, meaning that I sprang from the Holy Spirit, for what merit would I have — if only they realize — if I was born by a spiritual power and by a Heavenly Miracle, for then I would be enjoying a Godly Power that would protect me from committing [ al danaaya ] (lowly acts?), and places me over humans, and eliminate from me the aspect of being human, and then there wouldn't be any merit in my being correct and honest [...] and for calling towards... righteousness and to be steadfast in religion and fearing the last day.

                    "And merit, all the merit would be mine if I was born from two parents and upon me was applied what would apply to every human being, only then would I have all the merit ... that is if I was able to overcome my earthly temptations... and called for righteousness... after I was able to practice (it) myself and made it bow to my will
                    , without negligence overwhelming me or weakness that makes me fall on my face before the temptations of Earth. And that is what makes me wonder about the weak-mindedness of the millions who the truth missed, so they believed the hoax and abandoned the true fact which they were obligated not to forsake."

                    "Fail, to succeed."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by WingedPaladin View Post
                      I appreciate your comments, explanations and openness - even if it is to a point. .
                      You are welcome, now, I will ask you to never again post anything by Michel and I will expect you to honor my request.
                      "Fail, to succeed."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...erofjesus.html
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus

                        “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

                        Apparently both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David and in the royal line.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by WingedPaladin View Post
                          http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...erofjesus.html
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus

                          “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

                          Apparently both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David and in the royal line.
                          Thank you. That's the way I like to see our precious bandwidth used. And I say "precious" not because the measly dollars it costs to own and run... I am referring to what it took to bring and maintain Daheshville... I will say no more, and as I said regarding the prior issue, I trust we have a mutual understanding.
                          "Fail, to succeed."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mario View Post
                            And with all due respect to those who claim only they know the truth, I don't buy it. I don't need to graduate from M.I.T. in order to appreciate what this simple, clear, and concise sentence means.
                            Mormonism has claimed that and continues to claim it to a degree as far as being the "only true church". Personally, I believe it is because of the Priesthood power and organization and because of the calling of prophet which the President of the church holds, not because Mormons know all there is to know about the universe. There seems to me to be, over the years, a simplification of the message to the general public in order to enhance basic understanding and temper prejudice.

                            Michel never makes this claim. Does Daheshism?


                            Originally posted by Mario
                            You are welcome, now, I will ask you to never again post anything by Michel and I will expect you to honor my request.
                            I feel I have said my peace, so I will honor your request.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by WingedPaladin View Post
                              There seems to me to be, over the years, a simplification of the message to the general public in order to enhance basic understanding and temper prejudice.
                              Well, that may be in your faith or Church. In Daheshism, and this is what this thread is (really) about, it is the contrary.

                              In other words, I am seeing people taking what Doctor Dahesh wrote and needlessly complicating it, and splitting hairs where there is none.

                              I have my own theories about the matter. And anyone who takes the time and studies all that I have published since (around) October 2006, will eventually come to see the bigger picture.

                              In all, Brother Ali gave me the spiritual directive (as in "ordered me" ) to be a "sharp sword" and "defend" Daheshism and thus I feel that by setting the record straight as far as this matter is concerned, I am responding as expected of me.
                              "Fail, to succeed."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X