the rebirth of God

the core of all gospels
Have you met different individuals of different sizes and ages? Do you know different creatures including various kinds of animals and plants? Have you learned different words and do you even know of languages foreign to you? You can identify many different perceptions, right? So, could it be that all identifying and all perceiving have a single source?
First, consider that there is only one ultimate authority or power, and one word to label it is God. However, beware of worshiping the label and missing what is symbolized by the label. Note that many labels have been used in many languages for the ultimate authority, which is the source of all of those languages and all of those labels. With caution, use the labels. However, do not make any labels or any symbol in to an idol. That would be an error or mistake or sin or foolishness.
Further, turn away from whatever is troubling to you. Let it be. Choose grace and calm.
Leave your troubles to God. Do not leave God for your troubles, making an excuse of them. That is also idolatry.
If your cleverness is useful when you are relaxed, be grateful. However, if you are troubled and then still presume to rely on your cleverness, you may be humbled. Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.
Abandon your troubles while they are still small. Direct your attention away from your troubles toward God.
The ultimate authority organizes the capacity for sensations such as seeing and hearing, plus the capacity for language. God is the source of the interactions and interpretations which lead to perception.
If someone else has a different perception from you, that is natural. Different creatures have different capacities for sensation. A hawk sees better than a human. A dog can smell better than a human. A person who is blind may be able to hear better than most other humans.
Further, one who looks from the peak of a hill has a different view than one who looks from the bottom of a hill. The one on the hilltop can see many distant things which appear small, while the other may study something very close that appears huge. If most everyone has the same perception of something, then a new perspective could be of great benefit and advantage.
Differences in interpretation are the most subtle. When a logger and a squirrel look at the same tree, do they experience the same thing? An squirrel may be looking at the tree for nuts or for a place to rest safely. A logger may be thinking of the value of the wood and of the process of cutting and hauling that tree.
Beware of those who would argue over interpretation. They may not yet recognize the authority of God. They may worship their own conclusions, perceptions, interpretations, and linguistic labels, which is idolatry.
However, it is only natural to have interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions. Hell is the developmental stage of experiencing alternative conclusions as a threat to your arrogance. Of course, alternative conclusions in fact are a threat to your arrogance, but perhaps arrogance is not the most valuable quality you could develop or experience. That may be why God has exposed you to alternative conclusions which you rightly perceive as threats to your arrogance: in order to reveal to you your arrogance and turn your attention toward repenting and to God.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:22

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”  Isaiah 43:11 

So, if some use repetition of words and songs to turn from whatever troubles them, could that be God’s Will? If some use rituals or scriptures to turn from whatever troubles them, could that also be God’s Will? If some argue with each other and quarrel, leading to the experience of loss and regret and then repent, could that also be God’s Will?

Which of God’s creations is not God’s Will? Which of God’s creation is not the creation of God?

God forms individuals and words and languages. God forms groups and traditions and rituals and songs and oral teachings that may be written and translated and interpreted and argued about and defended with fences and weapons and wars.

So, you may have been taught that God has created you. But have you been taught what God is?

“Timeless truth, I tell you: ‘whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.’ “ John 14:12

What is the source of works greater than the works of a Prophet of God? Further, which of God’s Prophets is not the prophet of God? Indeed, which of God’s religions is not the religion of God? In fact, do all religions point to a few  consistent principles?

“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14 

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the [harsh, arrogant] words that come out of your mouth…. The [harsh, arrogant] words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you [and disturbs you].” Matthew 15:11, 18
Turn away from whatever troubles you. Turn away from whatever disturbs you. Turn away from evil. Turn away from blame, condemnation, animosity, and arrogance. 

Let attention rest at the source of perception and interpretation and the capacity to create. What is the capacity to create? 

Yeshua said, “Those things which are impossible for people are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27  & Matthew 19:26 & Luke 18:27 & Luke 1:37
The same idea is also in the Old Testament. See
What is a single word for the capacity to create? What is a word for the source of all words, all labels, all conclusions in language, and all formations in language, including this sequence of words and every other sequence of words? What is a word for that which anything is possible?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Responses to “the rebirth of God”

  1. Paul Hursh Says:


    I appreciate your acknowledgement of the need to see words as symbols based on experience – because of this it would follow that using words to describe or understand God as futile. It is true that G-O-D is a word, but unlike most words, it is not an attempt by a reasonable person to name or describe a concept, but rather acknowledging something (or should I say no thing) that cannot be described or known except for what it is not. In fact I would posit that if we can express god in words, then it is precisely not God.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Paul, thank you for your reply. I am not so ready as you may be to discard all of the religious traditions in their use of the term God as if there might be some value in using that term. 😉

      So, for the one who does not know what an X-box is, it might be futile to use the term and speculate and so on. One cannot figure out X-box just because one knows what a B-O-X is and is also familiar with various uses of “X” as in a shape or in reference to something that used to be a box but is now just an x-box instead.

      Now, for several thousand years, people have been telling stories and proverbs and making references to a set of related linguistic symbols that include the word “God,” which is derived from ancient roots (not all that old actually) meaning “voice” and “to invoke” or “to declare in to being,” as in the story of Genesis and the creating of the world and of light and so on… through language. It is okay to repeat those stories without really understanding them, like a child may learn the sounds and melody of a song but not even speak that language. It is no problem not to comprehend. It is also not a fulfillment of the forming of the language unless there is a learning beyond the sequence of sounds and words themselves.

      Also, it is not unusual that some people might claim to comprehend those stories and words without actually having a FULL comprehension. This would be like a child who has learned the song “Frere Jacques” and knows that “it is ALL ABOUT sleeping” because they know the translation of “dormez vous.” However, someone saying “I understand that it is ALL ABOUT sleeping” may not be quite accurate.

      So, in many scriptures, there are references to God and similar words. There are authors who refer to scripture with an openness to dialogue and a quality of “authority” in their communication. Other speakers re less open to dialogue or even threatened by it and violent about it, like wanting to crucify heretics who some people may claim to be prophets.

      Jesus is recorded to have been one of the people who spoke not just from repetition, but from authority. Further, that was distinctive in a time when apparently few others if any spoke with such authority. The integrity of the tradition had been dilluted or had faded, we might say.

      Of course, all of the actual originators of oral traditions that were later written down as scripture, including Jesus, spoke with some degree of authority or authorship in regard to their use of the term God. Other authors may use the same word, but clearly have a distinct degree of comprehension. A Pharisee may claim to fully understand the term X-box but knowing that someone is a Pharisee is not a definitive test for whether they fully understand the term X-box.

      So, I do not claim to be a reasonable person. Others can assess whether they consider it reasonable or unreasonable for me to claim to be speaking from knowledge of what an X-box is or from the direct experience of God. The more harshly that someone might claim “no, that one CANNOT know the true meaning of X-box,” the more that I might presume that they have no direct experience of X-box. Someone who really knows what an X-box is would not be likely to make much fuss at all if someone else used the term X-box without comprehension.

      It is not futile to use the term X-box. It is not futile to use the term God.

      God is the source of the term God, and of all else, including the various traditions that use that term in various ways, some calling it futile and some calling it (God) “threatened by a competing power called the devil” and some even referencing God as the source of the devil, with the devil as one of the agents of God, given that the only kind of agent may be agents of God, though some may not recognize that they are agents of God yet, and we might call those agents “agents of the devil.” However, what if God does not fear devils, but simply commands them and blesses them and forgives them?

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I think also to refer to the use of words such as incurable or unpredictable. If someone says “cancer is incurable for me, as in I do not really understand it, but here is what I have to say about it,” then any reasonable person would know to be skeptical of what else is spoken, right? The speaker has basically established their lack of credibility.

      However, what if someone says “I come from a group in which 86% of the people have never developed what you call cancer, 13% of the people had been diagnosed with cancer before they joined and no longer do as of now, and 3% recently joined and still have the symptoms of cancer?” One thing is that that speaking is using the label “cancer” as a label or as a diagnosis, not as a reality. They do not begin by saying “I really have no idea what I am talking about, but here is my advice for you anyway….”

      So, there are those who say “I recovered from diabetes, autism, and two kinds of cancer, plus I know dozens of cases like mine and I can document thousands of other cases like mine, plus millions of cases in which none of those physiological conditions developed.” They may even claim to understand the relevant physiology and biochemistry. They may be wrong or only partly right, but they are claiming competence as distinct from those who are making no claim to competence and may even criticize others for claiming competence, like who they may perceive as an economic threat.

      Now, I also am aware of 10 authors including myself who predicted some or all of the major developments in economics of the last several years. I also know many more people who assert that economic trends are not predictable. However, many of them follow their dismissive comment of “trends are not predictable” by predicting that “real estate always rises” and other similar contradictions which they seem not to even notice as ironic or contradictory.

      Obviously, real estate prices do not always rise. Obviously, some people notice changing trends earlier than others. Obviously, some people comprehend physiology and biochemistry better than others. Obviously, some people create and use terms like immaculate conception and God with competence and others merely repeat those terms. Some people create terms like X-box or scurvy or cancer or diabetes, and those labels in language are not “wrong” though there are different ways of using those terms, some more negligent or even futile and some more authoritative and effective.

      For God, nothing is impossible, nothing is incurable, and nothing is unpredictable. One who is humble recognizes that competency and capacity vary, so what seems impossible for one who is incompetent, or incurable for one who is incompetent, or unpredictable for one who is incompetent… may be entirely possible, curable, or predictable for someone more competent, or even for the same incompetent one as their competence develops.

      It is not hard to predict what chemotherapy or radiation will do, at least generally. Neither is it hard to predict the results of eating lots of B-17 as a remedial intervention. Exposure to certain chemicals will predictably produce the symptoms known as cancer and discontinuing that exposure could predictably reduce the urgency of any remedial interventions.

      For God, is arrogance a threat? Is truth a threat? Is science a threat? Is “the devil” a threat?

      For God, arrogance is arrogant. A gentle confidence is gently confident. Competence is competent. Negligence is negligent. The spirit of the devil is negligent if not also arrogant, threatened, and dismissive.

      But God does not condemn a devil for being negligent, arrogant, threatened, or dismissive. God recognizes “devil” as a stage in a sequence and initiates devils to a new stage. Aho!

  2. Hell-raising Love Monster Says:

    I experienced a lot of peace and freedom reading your words.

  3. jerrellctn Says:

    What is absolute and unadulterated? Can we mortals even understand such even when it stands right in front of us and tweaks our nose? Thus to me, I must rely on the fact that only God can completely know what God is for only He can know all about Himself and comprehend what He knows. It is therefore fruitless to define God. God reveals Himself to each of us as we are able to understand and need to know in order to successfully live from moment to moment.

    The object of the game is to learn how to rely upon the “Spirit” of God without the need to analyze and decide to agree or disagree with the knowledge or desire of God for you at that nanosecond. I guess this amounts to faith in Who you place your trust (my sheep know my voice); a decision to eat from the tree of eternal life (God’s revelation of Truth for me at that nanosecond); and, a decision not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (make an analysis of what is good and true or what is not, thus making myself my own God).

    So far, it has taken me 20 years as a conventional Christian, 10 as an agnostic, and 35 finding out if true reality actually exists or is this all a dream or nightmare. To me, Truth is just reality from God’s point of view; therefore, by my confession of this, I am a believer that God exists and that God has an interest in who I think I am. The trick seems to be to allow God to create us rather than creating ourselves based upon what we have seen, heard, and extrapolate.

    Either God is or He is not; either there is a True Reality or there is not: choose we must and act accordingly we shall. It is incumbent upon each of us to make that decision and live with the consequences. I am not in a position to condemn anyone’s religious position as I have experienced growth and know things change as we grow (are perfected according to God’s needs).

    Accordingly, if you need to stand upon your own interpretation of the Bible, that’s good enough for me. The real question is: is it good enough for you. If so, live it and let that be your example and praise of God. Only the dead do not move, so move we must!

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      All of life is true life as in true reality. The portion of reality called language is the true language of true reality, though that true language may include lots of jokes and nonsense and obscure vague symbolic codes. Jokes are part of true reality. Nonsense language is part of true reality. Obscure vague symbolic codes are part of true reality.

      • jerrellctn Says:

        Well said. Of course the problem is that what has evolved as reality in our civilization is what I question. Our civilization only sees what it has made, and I do not consider that limited view as meriting the title of True Reality

        I allude to an absolute that is true from all angles that can only be known by the Creator of the System. The point is, can I believe my God because of what I know about Him personally, or should I rely upon a third party to determine how I should think and believe?

        So then, my bottom line is: in whom do I place my trust, and is that One worthy of such responsibility. That is a question that each of us must answer for themselves. So the existence of True Reality is not actually provable: It is more a quest than a destination.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You seem very focused on “what our civilization sees.” To me, if someone sees something, then that seeing is the true reality of them seeing that (or believing that, etc).

      I invite you to forget about what you should think and should believe. It may work in certain contexts to say only particular things openly.

      My sense is that you do not know the word God very well yet. The English word “God” has a history as do the older words of older languages which may all be translated in to English as “God.” Consider that God refers to something that is within your capacity to directly experience with no concerns for reference to any external validation. Indeed, the word “God” is quite related to other words like “authority” and “authoring.” If you know “True Authority” directly, then reference to validation and evidence and so on may be no longer of interest.

      When people reference “believing in God,” that generally indicates no direct knowledge of the subject. For instance, would it be weird if someone said “I believe in the existence of bicycles. Do you?”

      A believer in bicycles may have no actual direct experience of bicycling. A believer in God may have no actual direct experience of the Divine Authoring of Creation.

      I have no interest in proving the existence of bicycles, nor of True reality, nor of God. I know what I am and I do not need to prove what I know that I am to myself. I know what bicycling is and I do not have any doubt or pride or arrogance about it, and no interest in arguing about it or defending it or converting anyone to a belief in bicycles.

      As for who to trust, I explored that here:

  4. Wayne Says:

    Great question: “What is a single word for the capacity to create?”

    My long winded answer?


    • jrfibonacci Says:

      That is sensible. Of course, people tend to associate that sequence of 5 letters as the name of a specific historical figure, as well as thousands of Hispanics over the centuries who name their male children Jesus and pronounce Jesus like this: “hey, Zeus.”

      Ultimately, I prefer an answer like “Logos” (and the ancient words from which that Greek word derives, namely the ancient Sanskrit word rendered in to our alphabet “Yoga.”) However, people might consider that rather cryptic, so my final answer, for now at least, is “language.”

  5. word of a woman Says:

    Thanks for the ping back. It is funny how there seems to be synchronicity in life. This issue of labeling has been coming up a lot lately. Rock on.

  6. dunawords Says:

    God (as in the authority that Jesus of Nazareth claimed and the diety the Christian Bible refers to) recognized our lack of capacity to understand let alone explain with our words who He is.

    That’s why even Jesus who was our God in the flesh never attempted to explain who He is; He used the parables and stories to put His guidance and explanations in a way that we can understand and relate to… consequently (deliberately by God) we relate to those stories differently based on our own experience or in reference to your work: perceptions of life.

    So while it is futile to argue who knows and understand God better, because it is like the blind men describing the elephant… all may be partially right and all are equally wrong… It is imperative that we continue to study His words and be ever constant in prayer.

    Do be careful though… God is a singular diety and while we each may have a personal and unique relationship He does have general instructions to us all that require no interpretation.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for your comment! Have you heard of this saying: “I am in you and you are in me?”

      Do you know God within you? do you know Yahweh within you? Do you know Allah within you? Do you know Buddha within you? Do you know Christ within you?

      If you did, would you say what you said? If you know nothing about which you speak and instead you are only repeating things you have read without any direct personal experience, then you may have believe only, not faith.

      Faith has no fear and no uncertainty. I am referencing not a blind faith but a faith based on experience, like someone who has read a book about bicycles can talk about riding bicycles but someone who rides bicycles has total faith in their statements about riding a bicycle.

      You know nothing of God. Because you know nothing of God, you know nothing of me. Because you know nothing of me, you know nothing of God.

      However, you indicate at least a glimpse of intelligence and humility with your reference to the blind people talking about an elephant. The issue with your metaphor is that you not only may be blind, but may not even be touching the elephant at all, even as you preach some words that you learned from someone who may have never touched the elephant either.

      The elephant does not have any doubt about the elephant. The elephant does not need to say a word to know first-hand.

      You claim to be outside of God talking about looking at an invisible God. Perhaps you know nothing of God. However, you are at a blessed and auspicious doorway. If you dare, knock.

      • dunawords Says:

        As a matter of fact, I am aware of that saying, and I understand it… and I know God.

        But perhaps you feel you know Him better… well enough that you not only can tell me who knows Him and who does not but also well enough to identify who does not know Him?

        “Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.”

        Your X-Box metaphor: A person that has no idea what it is cannot begin to explain to a person what it does… but you imply that a person that understands the x-box would easily identify someone that knows nothing… maybe so… but even if you know the x-box well enough to disassemble it, rebuild it, maybe even modify it.. does that give you the same understanding as the person that invented it?

        no… you will never have the knowledge or understanding to have built from scratch a working x-box.

        “You know nothing of God. Because you know nothing of God, you know nothing of me. Because you know nothing of me, you know nothing of God.”

        This statement… is made out of shear ignorance of some of your own words… if you can say this in complete confidence then you are assuming an understanding of God so complete that you also understand His creations…

        As to the blind men and the elephant… God is niether the elephant nor a person with vision…

        God is the creator of the elephant. A man with vision may be able to see what an elephant is and identify where the blind men are wrong and right, but they cannot predict the elephant’s actions or know it’s thoughts or even what he should do for that elephant… feed it? water it? leave it alone?

        The elephant is Christianity, the blind men are those that try to understand it but only under certain stipulations:
        1: that there is no God
        2: that they can have authority over God

        The man that can see is one that submits to God’s authority and seeks not to understand God but rather to understand what he can do for God. Part of that is knowing that it is not our place to understand God…

        I’ve been trying to get bead on your own religious beliefs from some of your blogs and my current read is that you’re agnostic:

        You recognize the existence of a supreme being, but you don’t recognize their supreme authority.

        Christianity assumes complete submission under God and accepts what doesn’t make sense to us. You seem to think you understand Christianity, but spend more time trying to show it’s faults.

        Similar to Buddhism your writing implies the ability to achieve an understanding of God, but unlike Buddhism you imply the existence of a God…

        You’re not hostile against other religions so you’re not Muslim…

        and like Christianity Judaism assumes complete submission and accepts what doesn’t make sense.

        If you’re a Christian then stop acting like you know more than all other Christians… especially in America where Christianity is under attack, join the ranks and defend your fellow followers of Christ and stop assuming a pharissee role crucifying Jesus.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Dunaway, Thank you again for your reply. I recognize that you might deny that you are God. One who knows God within also knows any other form of God. Yes, I understand the creations of God, the images of God, the branches of God, or whatever labels we might apply to them. I know the labels distinct from what is labeled.

      My prior assertions about you personally were not from arrogance, but a kind of knowledge that may be unfamiliar to you. I have no animosity toward you, as is the case with arrogance. I recognize your innocent mistakes as sacred idolatries to you and of no concern at all to me.

      I also have no special concern with your acceptance or approval of me or anything I share with you, again as is the case in arrogance, though I do have a general interest in anyone’s recognition AKA revelation, because I know that “you” and “I” are just two words.

      I accept your assertion that you do not understand God and do not seek to do so. So, that could explain why when I write, you claim not to understand, but instead argue, or perhaps it is just debate or even dialogue.

      The supreme authority is the one who creates or authors sayings like “the supreme being.” So, if you wish to distinguish between the two phrasings, I would say that the Supreme Authority is the more fundamental or essential phrasing, and that “The Supreme Being” is relatively trivial once one is present to the activity of The Supreme Authority.

      As for my religious beliefs, does God require religious beliefs? God creates all of them and has no special concern with any of them.

      You can claim to be the one who is concerned with labels like Agnostic or Christian. God knows the spirit or heart without respect to persons and personas, recognizing “lip service” as vanity, though also an innocent vanity, like trivia or an idolatry that is a bit tragic bit also a bit comic, or perhaps even hilarious.

      To God, the innocent mistakes that someone might label Christianity are of no more concern than any other innocent mistakes (or what you called “faults,” which God is okay with, too, since God is the one operating the instruments of God, like the typing of fingers and speaking of sounds). God has no special preference for Christianity or any particular prophet or denomination, but God also recognizes each of them as “the only true one.” The “only true branch” of a tree with many branches is whichever branch one happens to inspect.

      Since you claim not to understand God, forget about Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and Jews and instead seek first to know the Kingdom of God within, or whatever else you might prefer to call it, since the labels MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, at least not once the direct experience is present. My recent post focuses recognizing the kingdom of God within:

      Those who are following Christ do not need defending. Those who claim to be following Christ may be idolatrous, arrogant hypocrites who are attracting the merciful rebukes of God. They know not what they do.

      Be ware of the “spiritually blind,” especially if they call themselves prophets. They serve their purpose, too, though, which is to offer futile detours to those who reject God in favor of naive vanities, even if they use long capitalized words for their naive vanities, such as Christianity and Buddhism and so on.

      • dunawords Says:

        Christianity, Buddhism, Muslim, Judaism are not just labels.. they are very different belief systems that change the very behavior of the people in each respective group….

        And while the names of the groups may have been self proclaimed by some, most are given to the groups by those outside of the groups. (Christianity first got it’s name shortly after Jesus’s ascension into heaven, the Roman’s used the word ‘Christian’ to refer to those that ‘followed Christ’ or ‘of Christ’

        the label was a descriptive word referring to a group that was seperated from the rest of the groups by their beliefs, teaching, and ultimately their acts and ways of life…

        Go visit Syria, Northern Iraq, Iran and tell me that Muslim is just a label placed on a religion following the same God… and tell me that God is indifferent to the different religions…

        There is a passage in the old testament where Elijah is instructed to kill nearly 700 prophets of another religion… and Elijah was not a prophet subject to interpretation, he was able to speak directly to God and he heard God speak directly back… it was black white instruction… God is not indifferent..

        and while you mean no animosity to me… when you speak to me about my God and my King in a context of authority over Him then you have indeed offended me.

        But I understand you do not recognize Him as YOUR God.. so it is only fair that I acknowledge your opinion and take no offense.

        If I was to describe your words I would choose the label ‘agnostic’ but should you take the label ‘god’ out of your words and insert ‘understanding’ then you would be Buddhist.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for your reply. Your participation is welcome.

      Now, God is “no respecter of persons.” God causes the sun to shine on the rich and the poor, the law-abiding and the lawless, the young and the old, the sick and the healthy, even the Orthodox Jews and the Reformed Jews alike. God is indifferent to the different labels: Shi’ite, Sunni, Sufi, etc….

      By the way, Jesus offended many Pharisees. They did not recognize him. Do you?

      Did Jesus speak to them with authority over God or with the authority of God? Do I speak to you claiming authority over the supreme authority or do you mistake the supreme authority, which is not just a mere verbal label like Yeshua or Jesus or Joshua or Massioch or Messiah or Christos or Christ, as only a mere word?

      I rebuke your vanity. However, I proclaim your innocence. Before the rooster crows three times, you may say that you do not know me.

      I do not need your recognition or approval or attention or worship or praise. Those would be for your benefit, not to benefit God.

      So, when I say “God,” I am referencing the only God. It is clear to me that you have been denying God- though just as an innocent mistake- for you worship an idol that can be offended and needs defending, at least according to you. God does not need your defense of God. Your defense of your so-called god is arrogant and idolatrous, but that is typical of Pharisees like you. 😉

      • dunawords Says:

        Jesus bewildered because He spoke as though the authority was His… the pharisees hated it because until Jesus’s coming they held that authority. The didn’t claim it as their own, but as though it was task…

        This confusion over the placement of authority has been the instigator of many religions… The pharisees used their authority to manipulate the law… you’ll notice that many religions were formed because a leader assumed authority of the religion and manipulated it’s written beliefs or ‘rules’

        consider Mormons… Joseph Smith assumed authority over many Bible passages and used a very wild method of interpreting the ‘third testament’ if you will… similarly the Muslims’ Mohammed assumed authority over the Old Testament and began writing the Koran changing the original belief system leading into Islam…

        So, to be clear… your assumed authority over me… since you say it is not over God, does it come from God? or is it self-proclaimed?
        Keep in mind that Mohammed and Joseph Smith’s ‘authority’ was self-proclaimed…

        Jesus spoke with authority, but even that inherent authority was given to Him by God His Father… The authority of the 12 Disciples was directly given to them by Jesus…

        After Jesus’s ascension we were given the Holy Spirit… nullifying the need of ordained authority and allowing all persons the ability to speak to God.

        While God requires no defense, His word and instructions are constantly under attack and it is a Christian’s responsibility to defend against those attacks so as to protect those with weaker faiths form being led astray.

        Unfortunately more preachers are interested with lining their pocket books or boasting their popularity instead of defending these attacks, and typical Christian is afraid of being labeled as a bigot or a racist to say anything.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Hi Mr. Dunaway,

        Thank you again for your interest. Regarding these things that you write about, on what authority do you write them? Are these statements that you make based on some traditional presumptions? Are these things that you read or heard and then retell second-hand from your memory of someone’s interpretation of someone’s translation of someone’s statement?

        You are just an argumentative, afraid, guilty, ashamed Christian, right? I have no quarrel with you, though.

        I understand. You have been led astray- at least to some extent.

        I do not call what you demonstrate faith at all. It is mere belief.

        Your so-called faith is weak at best. That is why you experience fear.

        The truth sets free. Are you free from fear? Are you free from the confusion of beliefs and presumptions? Are you free from shame?

        You write about the behavior of certain preachers with shame, right? You defend based on fear, right? You are afraid of being labeled unchristian and disloyal, right? I know your spirit.

        In regard to matters of spirituality, perhaps I demonstrate authority and perhaps I do not. Perhaps Pharisees recognize it and perhaps they do not. Perhaps they hate when someone demonstrates authority that they have been referencing defensively and argumentatively from traditional presumptions of second-hand belief.

        God can claim nothing and yet still the authority of God is clear, at least for those who have the eyes to see. Charlatans who insist on their own sincerity and even their “responsibility to defend God” can claim anything and yet still God is clear that mere sincerity is not faith and mere familiarity is not authority.

        These charlatans are just scribes writing phrases that they once read. They worship their own words and little shapes of ink on paper. They make sounds with their lips and then give themselves glory for it.

        Eventually, by the grace of God, they may recognize the reality of Authority. Until then, let them gather in to assemblies where they will congratulate each other for their pious repetition of ancient sayings and rituals.

        It is perfect for them to gather together in their fear. They are like little boys who stand underneath a big tree and brag about how great it is to be able to climb trees. Then, someone walks through their crowd and goes up to the tree and climbs it.

        Who is the authority on climbing trees? The ones who stand around and talk about climbing trees or the one who is up in the tree already?

        Go to church. Read your scriptures.

        The one who is up in the tree does not need a book about climbing trees to speak with authority on the subject. Further, speaking is entirely optional. The one with authority has authority with or without speaking.

        Speaking does not give authority to one already in the tree. The skepticism and criticisms of the Pharisees do not take authority away from the one who is in the tree. Further, climbing down from out of the tree does not end authority, does it?

        You would not know authority if it was looking at you in a mirror. You say that it is in books and churches. It is in books and in churches, but Jesus did not get authority from books or churches, but directly from the Holy Spirit. Either you know what the Holy Spirit is from direct experience or else it is just a sequence of letters that you have seen on screens and pages.

        Imagine that Jesus steps through the doorway of a church. Was there authority in the church before Jesus entered? When Jesus leaves the building, is there still authority in the church?

        Authority does not come from spoken words or books or churches. Spoken words and books and churches come from authority.

        When Jesus spoke, did he have authority before anyone transcribed his words on to paper? When Jesus silently stepped in to a church, did he have authority before he stepped in to the church?

        When Jesus climbed up on to the top of a roof, did that give him authority? When he climbed up in to a tree, did that give him authority? When he climbed down out of the tree or stepped out of the church building, did authority suddenly vanish?

      • dunawords Says:

        And to be clear… the Pharisees attack on Jesus was not in defense of God.. but in defense of the old testament law. The pharisees assumed authority over the law and would use that authority to manipulate it to their benefit…

        leading up to Jesus’s trial they had nothing against him and began using their authority to twist the law at their will to make Jesus appear illegitimate.

        Being who He is, Jesus knew and understood the law better then them and was able to counter every attempt they made… seeing their authority and credibility slipping they screamed blasphemy at the idea of Jesus being the Son of God and went with it in spite of having nothing to back it up.

        “I rebuke your vanity. However, I proclaim your innocence. Before the rooster crows three times, you may say that you do not know me.”

        I recognize your reference to Peter’s innocent comment, at least I hope it is a reference… otherwise you have referred to yourself in a way that places you in Jesus’s position…

        ‘in place of Christ’ there is a single word that sums this up… be careful where your words are leading…

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Correct. Similarly, your attack on God is not in defense of God.

        Your arrogance is perfect and innocent, but also arrogant and of course afraid. You fear where words could lead for you do not know authority.

        Imagine a crowd of rowdy Pharisees gathered around a tree issuing warnings to Jesus up in the tree. The Pharisees can kill bodies, but can they die without terror?

        “So, Jesus, you are saying that you are in place of God, then? You are saying that you preceded Abraham? That is blasphemy against our most sacred myths. Save yourself now, punk. We’ve got you surrounded!”

        The one with authority can speak or not. The ones who are terrified do not have the ears to hear anyway.

        If you are not ready to climb up in to the tree, stay on the ground and talk. If you are ready, how would you demonstrate that?

  7. indowaves Says:

    Thanks friend for making my write-up part of your article..

    -Arvind K. Pandey

  8. … for nothing will be impossible for God. « Inspirations Says:

    […] the rebirth of God ( […]

  9. Cynthia Dunaway Says:

    @ Dunawords; It appears jrfibonacci is a spiritualist. Like Shirley McClain, ‘God is everything, everything is God, God is in me, I am God. Everything is just a ‘label’. The Holy Bible is the only true revelation of God. The Lord Jesus demonstrated the authority of the scriptures when He quoted them to Satan during His testing in
    the wilderness. God chose one nation, apart from all nations, to
    give His sacred revelation. He demonstrated to all the world by
    signs and wonders when He destroyed the Egyptians and
    conquered their false gods with the ten plagues. Read Ezekiel.
    …And they shall know that I am the a repeated theme. This
    time is coming and it may be closer than you think. Once again, the
    God of Israel will demonstrate to the whole world that He is the one
    true God. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any spoil you through
    philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
    rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.9 For in Him dwelleth all
    the fullness of the Godhead bodily. is an interesting website and Mark Biltz of El Shaddai ministries. Shalom

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Cynthia Dunaway,

      Of course you and I might agree that every label is a label. Beyond that, do you accept the possibility referenced in the Christian scriptures that “a special something” called God could “abide” in a human and that the human could also simultaneously “abide in God?”

      I know that it may be natural to be skeptical of the unfamiliar, ironic or even paradoxical terminology, but do you accept that there could be “something valuable” to that strange sequence of words from the Gospel of John (which is copied below)? Or do you side against those who would say such a strange thing and side with those who would accuse any who say such things of blasphemy and that they deserved to be executed?

      John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

      31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

      33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

      34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’e? [ Psalm 82:6 ] 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God cam e—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

      John 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

      John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

      John 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

      John 15: 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

      John 17:21 [I pray] that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

      John 17:20 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

      John 17:23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

      John 6:56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

      So, Cynthia, do you accept the possibility (also referenced in the same texts) that there could be a Holy Spirit or “Logos” that is even older than Abraham? If someone claims to be the same essence of which Abraham was just a branch (or Ibraham or Brahman or whatever name that historical person may be called in various languages), do you accept that possibility or reject it?

      If you reject those sayings attributed to Jesus, based on what? Do you call them blasphemy, gospel, or “spiritualist poetry” or what?

      If you are bored or frightened by the teachings of those such as Jesus, then you may wish to focus on other websites besides this one. If at any time you find that are open to exploring the Divine Authority demonstrated by Jesus, Isaiah, Abraham, and many others, then I invite you to explore the relevant words with all your heart, all your soul, and all your life.

  10. Short Little Rebel Says:

    I was once like you. Here’s the thing. You overcomplicate what is so simple. Truth is NEVER complicated. Neither is it difficult to understand. When I read your words, I get a headache! Simplicity, my friend, is where real truth lies. I feel as if you are so close to Jesus. So close to God. You are ALMOST a Christian.

    But you wish to own them. You wish to control them. You wish to put them in a box with every other faith & concept of God. This is impossible. They are like no other. God is NOT a concept, nor is He a ‘word’. God is a real person. An individual. He defined himself simply. When Moses asked, “Who shall I say it is that sends me?” What did God say? He said, “I am that I am. Tell them, I AM sent you.” He exists. And that is the end of the story, my friend.

    In addition, God also said that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. He was quite specific. He is not the god of any other religion or belief.

    He also gave us a clue to his personality: he said that he made us in his image. When you read the old testament, you get a very good feel for his personality. For his feelings. For his PERSON. He is unique. We are like Him.

    You need to make a simple decision, JRFIBONACCI (love the name, btw). Will you or will you not bend your knees to God- the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob? The great I AM? Will you or will you not accept that Jesus died on the cross in order that YOUR sins will be washed away- that YOU can stand before God Almighty as righteous? Will you proclaim that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and was the Son of God- not merely a prophet of God? That to do so will save you- will give you everlasting life- a new body in the resurrection of the dead when Jesus comes back to rule?

    Oh, I know, these questions are not ‘cool’ questions. They lack the spiritual gymnastics of your complex reasoning. They are quite old & clunky. Quite stodgy, actually. But they are real questions. Ones that need to be answered by every human being. By you, my friend.

    Answer ‘yes’ to these questions and be free from the tortured ‘logic’ of your thinking. Experience Joy, not mere Intellect. I pray that you do, Fib. You seem like a man on a quest for peace. May you find it in the SIMPLICITY of Christ.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi, and thank you for your interest.

      I sense that your spirit is sincere. That is important.

      You bring some beliefs with you. They are welcome.

      You bring some beliefs about yourself and about many others. Are those beliefs based on your own experience of revelation and recognition or just some sequences of words that you learned from some other source? Note that I just asked a trick question for if you were speaking from revelation, you would speak with faith and you only speak with belief and sincerity and… complexity.

      You imply an interest in standing before God Almighty as righteous. You imply an interest in being saved and having everlasting life. You imply that righteousness and being saved are available just by saying a word like “yes.”

      So, are you saved yet? Are you righteous yet? Have your sins been washed away yet? Has the truth set you free, and if not, then are you sure that whatever you may call the truth is in fact the truth?

      Do you recognize the operation of the Holy Spirit within you now? Do you recognize Christ within you now? Do you recognize the Kingdom of God with you now?

      I do not mean do you accept the intellectual possibility of those things, like believing they could be possible eventually. I mean do you know them as your direct experience?

      I also know the answer already. However, I also know that, by the Grace of God, you can experience life without beliefs and concerns with righteousness and sin and salvation and experience right now what can be labeled salvation, the perfection of God, the holiness of the Almighty, the fullness of righteousness, the spirit of Christ, the perception of Heaven, the recognition of the inherent purity and perfection of all of God’s creative activity.

      Consider the following passage, which is one of thousands from a relatively complex set of passages called the Bible: 😉

      And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, ‘The reign of God doth not come with observation; 21 nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.’

      So, what if the reign of God (or Kingdom of God) is eternal… as in already present? Do you accept such teachings of Jesus or do you reject them in advance in favor of some teachings ABOUT Jesus that someone else provided to you?

      Perhaps you do not even know all of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps you have fixated on a few teachings and paused to “digest” those for a while. If so, perfect!

      Now, if we have been exposed to the idea or teaching of an eternal heavenly reign of God that is claimed to be even already happening now, then perhaps one might simply recognize it in their direct experience or perhaps one might instead at least accept it as a complex idea or intellectual concept or poetic metaphor that is hypothetically possible or valuable. Or, perhaps one would reject it as “too occult” or “too Christian” or whatever.

      Again, thank you for your interest. When one is on a quest for peace, that implies that one does not experience it already. A quest involves a lack of immediate recognition, right?

      Recognize the distinction between the intellectual belief in a possible future peace and a demonstration of inner peace or coherence- like the difference between trying to handle the juggling of four balls already up in the air and… holding a closed container full of those four balls, then perhaps setting down the container or simply pouring out all of the balls. Let them fall. The balls will not bring you peace. Juggling will not bring you stillness or salvation.

      The one who knows salvation can either let all of the balls fall or juggle them for a while. Moments of juggling do not change the eternity of heavenly salvation.

      Some people juggle concepts and words as they claim that they are doing it in order to attain an eventual heavenly peace that they claim they do not currently recognize or experience. What might they experience if they stopped denying the present eternity of heavenly peace and the present eternity of the Reign of God Almighty?

      If these words are too frightening for you, forget them. If they are too Christian for you, that is an entirely valid reason to reject them. Maybe they are just too complex for someone so righteous as you and so close to God.

      However, if you claim that God is only external to you, you exclude God. When you are silent, maybe you would recognize the heart of God beating within your own direct sensory experience.

      Who makes that heart beat? Who formed it? Who formed the experience that is manifesting right now?

      When the sounds of speaking are present, who created that voice and gave that voice whatever authority it has? Whose authority is demonstrated and proclaimed in the sounds you hear and the sounds you make? Whose glory is evident in the beating of every heart? Whose glory is evident in every word? Who created words?

      Have we noticed that one yet? Do we recognized the activity of God right now even in this very moment? Have we rejected the possibility that an eternal God is here now already? If so, by whose authority would we tell such a joke?

      God does not suffer when a branch of the tree of God claims “I am not a branch of a tree. No, I am on a quest for peace to become a branch of a tree. When I finally become a branch of a tree, then I will have peace and salvation and righteousness.” God is the one who causes the branch to grow and causes the branch to make whatever claims that God makes through that branching of God.

  11. dunawords Says:

    JR, good luck to you… this spiritualist idea is new to me… I’ll look into it, so as to understand it… but from what I’ve read so far it is very very near to the idea that a person does not just know God but becomes God…

    That explains a lot of actually… your sense of few boundaries…

    But it does not compute with the first sin of Adam of Eve, and it negates the necessity of The Ten Commandments or any other commandment for that matter… And pretty much the entire book of Revelation… but it wouldn’t be the first time a belief system took some very wild ideas: The original book of mormon was supposedly written on golden plates in hieroglyphics, translated by throwing rocks into a hat, then the golden plates are ascended into heaven by an angel… and people believed that… even after they slaughtered a caravan approaching their establishment they believed, after Joeseph Smith said Polygamy was lawful and began marrying pre-teens they still had a following…

    Muslims will look you into the eye and say they are a religion of peace and love, but they leave out the little note that it is only about peace and love for other muslims… and such courtesies do not apply to “infidels”

    I am not a Christian, a servant of God, a subject of God, because I have been fed these lines since childhood, I am a Christian by choice. And after taking some time to understand some of the other world religions to percieve the differences between them and Christianity I am still a Christian, Servant of God…

    Because even if I am still blind and cannot see the elephant for myself, I know it is an elephant and so the other blind men’s explanations of what it is sounds just as ridiculous as if I could see an elephant with my own eyes.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Arthur,

      Jesus did not claim to become God. Jesus recognized the abiding of God within already as the same “activity” of abiding in God.

      If you are most open to words historically attributed to Jesus, then notice the exact language that the various translators use. Generally, the translators are quite consistent.

      I am not familiar with your use of the label spiritualist. However, I directly recognize what is being referenced in the sayings of Jesus and the various others who say that God is like a vine that is already inside of all of the branches of a vine. For me, all of the metaphors and parables attributed to Jesus are consistent in their message or spirit or essence. Most of them are easily documented as thousands of years older then the time period of the historical character Jesus, whether he borrowed them directly from Isaiah or whether the various prophets of mysticism simply used similar metaphors spontaneously.

      As for negating the ten commandments, if one recognizes the reality referenced by the first commandment, then, as Jesus said, perhaps all of the others are rather incidental. The recognition of the reign of God has even been called “the fulfillment of the Law of the Hebrews, not the negation of the Law of the Hebrews.”

      However, if one is experiencing the basic confusion that Adam and Eve developed, then a multitude of regulations may be relevant to gradually redirect one to see the reality of shame for what it is, which is an innocent mistake, which is also translated “sin” or “original sin” or “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Whenever there is no direct recognition of the operating of the Holy Spirit, that is the “fallen state.” When a nation is “fallen” or “spiritually dead” or “possessed by an evil spirit of rebelliousness and divisiveness,” then a multitude of regulations may be relevant.

      As an analogy, when I was four years old, I was not allowed to drive a car, right? I was not allowed to go up on the roof. I was not allowed to go swimming by myself or go in to the woods hunting by myself.

      As I matured, I developed discernment and discretion and discrimination. That did not make me an expert at driving or hunting, but my maturity allowed for me to develop experience gradually and train to become competent to drive without supervision or to safely go out in to the woods alone. I was ready for responsibilities that would be beyond the maturity of a child.

      So, for a child, a fitting prohibition would be “no hunting.” It is dangerous not only to the child but also to other hunters for a child to be out with a real bow and arrow shooting lethal weapons without discipline and experience (like it is a crime to drive while drunk from alcohol because a speeding car can kill dozens of people).

      In the ancient times of the Hebrews, there were many murders of travelers between centers of population. The Hebrews were only instructed to cease from murder because they were already murderous. The murders was creating political tensions that might result in neighboring groups coming over to the camps of the Hebrews and killing or imprisoning the entire community because some of them were resorting to ambushing travelers to kill them and steal from them.

      In the story of Moses, the Hebrew children had been targeted by the Egyptian rulers with a reprisal killing of infants. Consider what activities the Hebrews might have been doing to generate such a political intervention from the Egyptians. While the historical records of the Hebrews may or may not record the details of what the Hebrews were accused by the Egyptian authorities of doing, the specifics are not important. Note however that in the story of Jesus (if we presume that Jesus and Moses lived a long time apart), there were records of another similar political intervention targeting Hebrew infants.

      So, because of the violence of the Hebrews, Moses rebuked them and issued them a commandment to stop their murderous activities. A court system (the “Sanhedrin?”) was developed to authorize the killing of humans only after “due process.” Murderous Hebrews would actually be accused and tried for unauthorized killings. As you may also know, the Hebrews had rules for killing people for a long list of criminal misconduct.

      How does the rule “thou shalt not kill” fit with the various rules to kill people for adultery and thievery and so on? Ask any Jew! “Thou shalt not kill” is a totally negligent translation of the original Hebrew instruction against unwarranted murder. Unwarranted means that no warrant was issued by a court officer, like if no death sentence had been issued or like when no war has been declared by Congress or no authorization of violence through an executive order by the authorized agent of a dictatorship (a branch of the Pope’s Holy Roman Empire).

      Back to something less political like diet, consider people who say that “thou shalt not kill” is a vegetarian proverb, that is also ridiculous. Obviously, the Hebrews ate fish and lamb and so on. I could quote you New Testament passages specifically referring to vegetarianism as being for people who are “weak.”

      Literal interpretations tend to be what I would call “insane.” Even vegetarians kill plants. Isn’t that killing, too?

      The Hebrews were murderous (at least at some point in their history), as well as developing a bunch of other cultural trends of behavior that did not promote the sustainability of the community or society. Their society was in crisis.

      There has never been a conflict between the commandments. There have been negligent translations and insane literal interpretations. Hebrew scripture famously says “there is a time to kill and a time to heal, and a time for war and a time for peace.” There was no prohibition against killing, but only against murder.

      One who recognizes the operating of the Holy Spirit may not require threats of punishment in regard to ambushing and murdering traveling civilians. The first commandment does not negate the others. The first commandment is first because the others are less important practically and functionally.

      Jesus famously added that the prohibition against murder is not just a warning about the outward behavior, but the spirit that is behind the spirit that would result in someone ever manifesting that behavior. My short paraphrasing is “Rage is sin. Contempt is sin.” Here is a longer quotation:

      Matthew 5: 17-

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


      21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.


      27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


      33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

      An Eye for an Eye

      38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

      43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborh and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies (i) and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      As for polygamy, it has been common among Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and many other groups throughout human history, including today in some places. If you have contempt for such patterns, then you have contempt and should avoid such activities yourself and those who practice them. Be responsible for your own animosity if you are terrified or disgusted by something- anything.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      All of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, even Baha’i) are religions of grace as in inner peace. All of them (at least in Orthodox forms) recognize the book of Ecclesiastes and the passages about a time for war and a time for peace (as in “domestic tranquility” politically).

      If you were an Orthodox practitioner of any of those religions, you would know that already. Many people who may call themselves Christians (or Muslims etc) may not be Orthodox, again, even if they call themselves Orthodox.

      A child who is a member of a denomination called “Orthodox” is certainly a member of that congregation. That is not what I am referencing. I am talking not about labels of Orthodoxy, but about spirit of Orthodoxy, as in the Holy Spirit.

      There are also groups like the Quakers or Amish who may specifically reject biblical Christianity in favor of political passivism. However, that is just a practical matter. Quakers refrain from participating in wars so as to devote their lives to inner peace, kind of like an old monk who would not be much use as a soldier anyway.

      A mature Orthodox person would not make any spiritual argument with a Quaker. Christians may go to war against Christians or anyone else. Mormons may argue amongst themselves and the same for Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. I have attended lots of Quaker meetings and one of the most memorable meetings featured a rather heated argument between two really old people (with many other people taking sides) who had been attending for decades- and they were not even married to each other. 😉

      The issue was compliance with IRS tax regulations, in particular funding the support of international military tyranny. One man said “my wife and I have not paid any federal income taxes for decades.” Another woman said “I have been paying taxes for decades and I am shocked that you got away with it while I have been struggling with my finances. What about roads? What about public education?” She was really outraged.

      So, all of those Quakers demonstrated a spirit of animosity- toward each other or toward some idea. The tax protesters had a spirit of animosity toward their government (and the IRS) as well as a spirit of guilt. They were ashamed of participating in the ongoing Holy Roman Empire of global tyranny. Living in the US and even being employees of the government, they were of course benefiting from and participating in that system. They participated with a spirit of animosity and shame, which is not the inner peace of the spirit of Orthodoxy. One with inner peace can act without animosity, perhaps even participating in wars more or less directly, such as by paying taxes that fund the building of the technology that is used to decimate Hiroshima or Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center building or Baghdad.

      Anyway, you may say that you are a servant of God all you like, but I have been inviting you to demonstrate some indication of direct recognition of God. You have not done so yet, but recognizing the activity of the Holy Spirit may not require any linguistic testimony or “proof.” Again, thank you for your interest.

  12. dunawords Says:

    “Render that which is Caesar’s to Caesar”

    The Quaker that didn’t pay taxes was wrong… he broke the common law of the land and God’s commandments…

    You quote the Bible but imply that Jesus was a mere man with a better ‘revelation’

    Could you explain John 3:16?

    And you are also mistaken on the commandments… all other commandments do not fall under “thou shalt not kill”

    all other commandments fall under “Love your Lord God with all your heart, mind, and spirit” and “Love your Neighbor as yourself”

    “on these hang all the law and the prophets”

    The commandments are guidelines but the real sin is neglecting GOD’S authority OVER us. Similarly with Adam and Eve… you talk about having God within us… Adam and Eve had God WITH them, they would walk together, physically talk together, so long as they maintained their submission under God’s authority… when they ate the fruit under the pretense that it would make them ‘like gods’ the sin was not just dis-obedience but ultimately it was the negating of God’s authority over them.

    Consider the passages you quoted concerning the commandments; Jesus was taking the complexity of law out of it… and focusing on a person’s motives and thoughts… because that is where sin originates.. a person will assume superiority over God’s laws in his heart to himself prior to any actions that will require the rationalizing and complicating the law with compromises.

    The literal definition of the word Antichrist is “In place of Christ”

    by the definition of the word, the Antichrist is not any one person but rather an idea or set of ideas that replaces Jesus Christ, (unless of course you deny that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed The Christ)

    Saying that Jesus was just another prophet with the revelation of God within him is doing just that…

    I can honestly say Revelation confuses me and I don’t know if the Antichrist will ever be embodied by one person… maybe… Jesus warns of impersonators claiming to be Christ…

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      So, there are many uses of any word. Antichrist might refer to someone who misrepresents the teachings of the most famous Jew in the world. On the other extreme, “Antichrist” might refer to anyone who asserts that they are an independent being, as would be a normal stage of human language development. However, when someone who is spiritually alseep or spiritually dead asserts their ego as the source of their activities, that is the denial of the Holy Spirit. Until someone is familiar with the particular use of the term Holy Spirit that I am presenting here, it would be extremely unusual for someone to say “it is not I alone, but some universal consciousness acting through me and as me.” However, the English words Holy Spirit are obviously trivial, given that Jesus would never have spoken English because English did not exist thousands of years ago.

      One who is sincere can research the origin of the Aramaic and Hebrew terms that have been translated as “Holy Spirit.” There are Sanskrit terms like Brahman that reference the same distinction in language.

      Those who deny Christ and blaspheme against the Holy Spirit would not recognize the spirit of Christ in Jesus or anyone else. They do not have the eyes to see (as in the spiritual perceptiveness to recognize issues of spiritual understanding). They are stuck in the “babble” of particular words and languages, which is an instance of the core idolatry warned about in the first commandment.

  13. jrfibonacci Says:

    First, regarding this:

    “you are also mistaken on the commandments… all other commandments do not fall under “thou shalt not kill”

    all other commandments fall under “Love your Lord God with all your heart, mind, and spirit” and “Love your Neighbor as yourself”

    Yours was an ironic comment. I quoted the same commandment that you are quoting, including many verses that led up to that quotation, then you accuse me of making a mistake. Perhaps you did not read the entirety of what I copied and pasted.

    You accused me of asserting that all the other commandments fall under “thou shalt not murder [or, “kill” as you quoted the common but erroneous translation].” I invite you to specify any instance of such an assertion or to admit that your accusation was mistaken.

  14. jrfibonacci Says:

    Sir, your comments are full of sincere presumptions that happen to be completely erroneous- and in one case at least you admit your ignorance. In regard to the word anti-christ, perhaps you are not yet familiar with this verse:

    Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
    antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. …
    // – 18k

    As for the word Christ, the actual word as you use it is only a few hundred years old (see citation below). There have been many “anointed kings” (AKA Christs) in the Hebrew tradition who have been labeled with the title Massioch and Messiah rather than Christos or Christ, which are translations from the Hebrew. It is not common for Jews to reference King David or King Solomon as David (the) Christ or Solomon (the) Christ, but that would be the same translation from Hebrew as when the Nazarene named Joshua or Yeshua is referenced through the Greek or Latin path to English as “Jesus (the) Christ.”

    “Christ” further designates a role or function or even a character or a quality of spirit. If you assert that you do not have “Christ” within you, then you deny that role or spirit as your own, though one could claim or perform many other roles, like Jesus might also be called “brother” by his sibling(s) or “Master” by his Disciples or “the Accused” by the Roman Civil Government officials.


    title given to Jesus of Nazareth, O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos “the anointed” (translation of Heb. mashiah; see messiah), from khriein “to rub, anoint.” The L. term drove out O.E. hæland “healer” as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title,
    treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before.

  15. jrfibonacci Says:

    You asked about John 3:16. Let’s look at a translation directly from Aramaic to English, which was first done in 2007:

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

    For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.

    So, consider that this statement has to do with recognizing the persona or ego and it’s vain idolatry over things like particular words. The one who trusts in the ego and it’s presumptuous vanities and “literal interpretations” will naturally experience “being lost” as in confusion.

    The ego is mortal. God is not. God recognizes that all linguistic labeling is ultimately arbitrary and relative, like saying “the back of my right hand as distinct from the front of my right hand.” In language, there is a meaningful and useful distinction between the front and the back, but where is the actual boundary?

    Look at your fight hand. Is there a boundary between the back and the front except in language?

    There is no actual boundary. Language creates a verbal boundary or categorical distinction which never was an actual boundary.

    The front of the hand and the back of the hand are always intrinsically united or indivisible. They are just linguistic distinctions.

    All of the branches of the tree of God are always intrinsically united or indivisible. The branches can be given various names like “third floor” and “fifth floor.” Those sound like two entirely independent things, but they are just distinct, not independent.

    So we could say “third floor OF THE BUILDING” and “fifth floor OF THE BUILDING” and this phrasing would include the practical linguistic distinction and yet also specify the underlying unity of the building itself. God has spiritual discernment to know that the third floor and the fifth floor are just categories in language and nothing more.

    So, God can say “the branch of God named the prophet Jesus” and “the branch of God named the prophet Mohammed.” However, God knows the unity without saying anything, so God could also recognize “Jesus” and “Mohammed” as INHERENTLY branches of the same unity, so it might be rare for God to actually go to all that detail. However, in many cases throughout human history, there are records of God doing exactly that, and here is obviously another such instance.

  16. dunawords Says:

    I recognized your compromising quote of the first commandment… you conveniently left out the second commandment and then continued to the written laws… Understandably, the passage creates a very real division between God and man; doesn’t really fit with where you want to stand as part of God.

    And you you did not explain John 3:16 but utilized the English languages incapacity to translate Hebrew and Greek to rationalize the context to represent your presumptions.

    “For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life”

    With your quoted text from your favored version of translation, there is a division between God and man, a Son to mediate that division, and the need for man to trust in that mediator.

    Your rationalizing of the verse confused me… who is the mediator?

  17. jrfibonacci Says:

    Arthur, you may know of the scripture indicating that “if something troubles you, turn away from it.” You are subject to confusion and obsession. You want others to explain to you, but then argue. Do you seek clarity and direct knowledge or just to argue?

    You know that you do not have clarity through direct experience. If you reject a particular presentation as unclear or frightening, so be it. If you wish to explore a particular process or discipline, so be it.

    Let those who have the eyes to see be witness to their own clear perceiving. Let those who stumble over words and labels be clear at least that they stumble over words and labels.

    You may wish to review some of my other posts. Generally, my most recent posts might be presumed to be the most “accessible” in their wording.

  18. dunawords Says:

    I like to say I seek clarity… but my wife will tell you I can argue with a wall…

    we have differing beliefs on the relationship between God and man… agree to disagree

  19. livvy1234 Says:

    Always enjoy your blogs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: