Monday, December 5, 2011

Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity

Heliocentricity, besides being proven false by experience and multiple experiments, is full of the most fantastical improbabilities and theoretical leaps that most people are willing to make simply because the pseudo-scientific establishment told them so. Here are some questions and answers to help clear up the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric world-views:

Why does the Earth seem motionless?

GC: Because it is motionless.

HC: It only seems motionless because it's spinning at a perfectly uniform speed with no acceleration or deceleration ever and the atmosphere is magically velcroed to it. Actually the Earth is spinning on it's axis at 1,000 mph, rotating around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the Milky Way at 500,000 mph and shooting through the known Universe at 67,000,000 mph. We don't feel even the slightest bit of this motion because all the centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces somehow perfectly cancel out.

"Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity." -Allen Daves

Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size?

GC: Because they are the same size.

HC: They only appear to be the same size because of an incredibly perfect parallax perspective from Earth. Actually the Sun is 1.392x10^6 km in diameter and 1.496x10^8 km from Earth. The Moon is 3474 km in diameter and 384,403 km from the Earth. And these just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size.

Why do the Sun, Moon, and Stars all appear to revolve around a stationary Earth?

GC: Because they do.

HC: The Moon does revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and all the stars only seem to revolve around the Earth because the Earth itself is spinning beneath your feet!

"Whilst we sit drinking our cup of tea or coffee the world is supposedly rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator, whizzing around the Sun at 66,500 mph, hurtling towards Lyra at 20,000 mph, revolving around the centre of the 'Milky Way' at 500,000 mph and merrily moving at God knows what velocity as a consequence of the 'Big Bong.' And not even a hint of a ripple on the surface of our tea, yet tap the table lightly with your finger and ... !" -Neville T. Jones

"If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad." -Allen Daves

Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?

GC: Because it doesn't rotate.

HC: Both the Moon and the Earth are actually rotating but they are doing so in such a way that from our perspective it seems that neither are. The Earth is spinning East to West at 1,000 mph while orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph. The Moon is spinning West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting the Earth at 2,288 mph. These motions/speeds perfectly cancel out so that the Moon always only shows us one side.

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?

GC: Because they are.

HC: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many "light-years" away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

Why can't I simply hover in a helicopter and wait for the Earth's rotation to bring my destination to me?

GC: Because the Earth doesn't rotate.

HC: Because the Earth's atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and rotates along with it.

If the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and constantly rotates from West to East along with it, 1) how is it that clouds, wind and weather patterns often travel in opposing directions simultaneously? 2) why don't East to West traveling planes or projectiles encounter increased resistance? 3) why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin? 4) If gravitational force is so great to pull the atmosphere together with the Earth then how come little birds and bugs are able to fly?

GC: All these questions are moot and irrelevant in the geocentric view.

HC: All of these questions are difficult and my pseudo-scientific heliocentric answers will be implausible and like grasping at straws.

"If the atmosphere rushes forward from west to east continually, we are again obliged to conclude that whatever floats or is suspended in it, at any altitude, must of necessity partake of its eastward motion. A piece of cork, or any other body floating in still water, will be motionless, but let the water be put in motion, in any direction whatever, and the floating bodies will move with it, in the same direction and with the same velocity. Let the experiment be tried in every possible way, and these results will invariable follow. Hence if the earth's atmosphere is in constant motion from west to east, all the different strata which are known to exist in it, and all the various kinds of clouds and vapours which float in it must of mechanical necessity move rapidly eastwards. But what is the fact? If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together. Some of those who have ascended in balloons for scientific purposes have recorded that as they have rapidly passed through the atmosphere, they have gone though strata differing in temperature, in density, and in hygrometric, magnetic, electric, and other conditions. These changes have been noticed both in ascending and descending, and in going for miles together at the same altitude." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

How do Heliocentricist's account for the Allais effect, and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?

GC: Yeah, good question.

HC: (silence)

"I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven 'science.' My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes." -Jolly Roger


Eric Dubay said...

Here are a few more interesting quotes from Geocentricists:

"Centrifugal Force (CF): the apparent force that is felt by an object moving in a curved path that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation. If the Earth were rotating the CF would cause people, objects and valuable commodities to weigh less at the equator than at more northern or southern lines of latitude. The equation for Centrifugal Force is: CF = (mass x velocity squared) over radius. That means that one could transport cargo ships full of valuable commodities from the equator where it would weigh less and then proceed to sell them up north or south for a higher price. Opponents admit that there is a weight difference but only 0.9%. That means that multimillion dollar commodity shipments would be missing thousands of tons... but they are NOT!!" -Pawel Kolasa

"The 'quasars' are what led people like Hawking to notice that the Earth was in the center of the universe. Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of Geocentrism, and his equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so." -Robert Sungenis

"Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Geocentrism are the 'conspiracy theories'... There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Geocentrists 'quack conspiracy theorists' are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just 'playing stupid,' hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff. Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, 'Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts.' You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies. What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true (it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even 'snicker' about it to each other but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts. Even more sad are all the others out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer-reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital 'I' that argument really is." -Allen Daves

Anonymous said...

I thought of this great example last time i saw your post on geocentricism. Here is why the Earth is not spinning... If the current accepted theory that the Earth spins is true, than the area of Earth's equator would spin around the speed of 1000 m/ph west to east to complete a 24 hour day. Where i am located, it would spin around 850 m/ph. Now if the Earth is spinning 850 m/ph, then you simply have to to divide that speed by 60(minutes in an hour) to find out how fast you have to move to beat the Earth's motion like a huge treadmeel. One would have to be moving more than 850 m/ph to even go in the direction of west. That would mean that its physically impossible to walk west, bike west, drive west!!! Yet we can, with no resistance in that direction. CASE CLOSED, the EARTH DOES NOT SPIN...HC(0),GC(1)...Some good topics for your site are Education Sytems(look up the term sudbury school, its very cool), you could talk about the new bill being passed(s.1867)Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial, you could talk about DMT(dimenthentrypnol), Shamanism…Peace-AG

nvra75 said...

the still photos make me think we are in a "worm hole".

what is in the center of the concentric circle of stars from the cameras viewpoint?

Anonymous said...

Good post Eric.what do you think of the corlois effect and it being " evidence" of earth rotating? What would it's place be in relation to a geocentric model?

Corlois effect is the direction water will form into a vortex when you flush a stoilet, sink, etc..counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere WITHOUT intentionally influencing the direction of the flow.


Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anonymous, the Coriolis effect just like Foucault's pendulum can be equally explained by the rotating firmament or a rotating Earth. Regardless whether it is the Earth that is rotating or the aether that is rotating, the same effect would be noticed. No experiment however has ever shown the Earth to be moving, but the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac, and Kantor experiments all proved the existence and motion of the aether.

For more on this I came across a great PDF today I've been reading:

Galileo vs. The Geocentric Theory of the Universe

Jesse L Zesbaugh said...

Interesting, I'm not expert in this. But there are some social implications worth mentioning.

The accepted theories of space seem to support the idea of human insagnifigance. In the material sense.

An occult perspective might suggest that, each person is the static center of their own universe, because there needs to be a mind to perceive it. He or she is at the center of perception always.

The middle may be here or it may be there, but if a fellow is denied the knowledge that he is also undeniably a and the "center". That is a way of consciously or unconsciously claiming power over them.

If we look at the "evolution" or concept of the evolution of the sun, there are always people who undeniably know what it is, usually it coincides with the latest science, in ancient times it was god, in the 1800s, it was burning gas, the the 1900s, it was nuclear, I believe, now I belive it works by fusion. What shall it be next? Always it is the most powerful thing man can conceive of. Many will always be certain of that.

There are even those dumb enough to say when it will burn out, based on their "measurements".

The sun will always be what it is, and that is likely beyond our terrestrial perception at this time. We don't have great tools to measure it.

As to the workings of the rotation or non rotation of the earth, it's the same presumptuous certanty. Subject to the same "evolution" as the sun.

My take.

Good stuff, thanks for the read.

Eric Dubay said...

Here's another quote confirming the irrelevance of Foucault's pendulum and the Coriolis effect to determining geo or heliocentricity:

"Since Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect are closely related, they can be considered together. Foucault’s pendulum, which was constructed in Paris in 1851, was a pendulum consisting of a 200 foot long flexible wire on which a heavy iron weight was suspended so as to be free to oscillate in any direction. It was found that the oscillating pendulum never retraced its path but at each swing apparently deviated: if the experiment is conducted in the northern hemisphere it deviates to the right, and in the southern hemisphere it will deviate to the left. The so-called “Coriolis effect” is similar: a shell from a long range gun, aimed at a target to the south of it, will land to the right of the target in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Although the apparently obvious conclusion to be drawn from these two experiments is that the earth is rotating anticlockwise when observed from a fixed point above the North Pole, on further examination the obviousness is seen to be an illusion. It is at first not easy to grasp the fact that Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect only demonstrate relative motion and do not demonstrate which, if either, of the two objects is at rest, but careful thought will show it to be true. All that the experiments show is that there are forces which act on bodies in motion relative to each other, and that either the earth is rotating, or the inertial field of the “rest of the universe” is rotating round the earth, or some combination of these movements is occurring. Certainly a rotating earth would account for the phenomenon equally well (in this case the fixed stars would be preventing the ether from going round the earth at the same speed as the latter rotated), but it does not account for it better. The phenomenon cannot therefore logically be used to prove any one of the alternatives." -N. Martin Gwynne

Trying to use Foucault's pendulum as proof for heliocentricity really backfired when Maurice Allais repeatedly observed pendulums slowing their motion during eclipses! This implies that either the "rotating Earth" decelerates during eclipses or the firmament does. NASA doesn't want to concede the implications so they continue to remain silent on the issue:

Foucault Pendulum Eclipsed by Allais Effect

Anonymous said...

So what's the purpose of this lie they tell us?

Anthony said...

For what its worth, I know several physicists that believe in an aether, i.e., that empty space is not empty. This idea of an aether was in Cauchy's work, and Lord Kelvin's. Why do you think Einstein won a Nobel prize? Because he was able to come up with a logical explaination against such a concept.

What I am struggling with the most is how can it be that such a vast and immortal conspiracy can be envisioned and implemented by ordinary men.

Eric Dubay said...

So what's the purpose of this lie they tell us?

To make you believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and Aliens, and to make you not believe in God, purposeful creation, and astrology:

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these dark philosophers (Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Einstein) have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.

"The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations." -Morris Kline

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, the entirety of astrology, a science of consciousness coveted and used obsessively by the elite, is made null and void. If the Earth is the center of the Universe and all the planets (ancient gods) revolve around us, then birth charts, alignments, and astrology are measurable, calculable, repeatable, and thus scientifically verifiable. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then astrology disappears into the realms of pseudo-science believed by our ignorant ancestors.

Eric Dubay said...

For what its worth, I know several physicists that believe in an aether, i.e., that empty space is not empty.

Yes, all knowledgeable & honest physicists know this. The aether has been proven to exist in multiple experiments, and true vacuums don't exist anywhere in outerspace or laboratories. The aetheric medium is always everywhere.

This idea of an aether was in Cauchy's work, and Lord Kelvin's. Why do you think Einstein won a Nobel prize? Because he was able to come up with a logical explaination against such a concept.

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to call the Special Theory of Relativity "logical" though. LOL. As the Robert Sungenis quote stated: "As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiments, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so."

What I am struggling with the most is how can it be that such a vast and immortal conspiracy can be envisioned and implemented by ordinary men.

I know what you mean, but throughout recorded history, rich, powerful men conspiring in secret to advanced shared agendas is the rule, not the exception. Have a look at the plethora of other intricate and vast conspiracies I've exposed here on and I think you'll agree that big lies and conspiracies are the norm; truth, honesty and accountability are not. Peace

krcummings said...


Salama said...

And beside convincing Man of his Insignificance, we can add another reason for the Deceive. Putting "the Sun at the Center" is a (Sun-Worship,Druids,Kabbalah)belief!

(Thomas Paine’s Origin of Free-Masonry)

Anonymous said...

Umm, Planes traveling East to West DO counter resistance...take any round trip and the Westbound leg is almost always longer than the Eastbound return flight....

Eric Dubay said...

"Almost always?" That doesn't sound like consistent, scientifically verifiable resistance. How much more resistance are you claiming West bound planes encounter than East bound?

Anonymous said...

The Moonwalker's album, Blood on the Dance Floor, does the Moontalker on 9/11:

Anonymous said...

Antikytheria Mechanism ~ Ancient Clockwork Computer to Predict...

Eric Dubay said...

For all the geocentric deniers, research George Airy. He was convinced of Heliocentricism too and designed an experiment to prove it! Instead, however, he proved Geocentricism and the establishment deemed it "Airy's Failure." Let's hear you NASA-indoctrinated heliocentrists explain the results of Airy's experiment using the moving Earth model:

Airy's Experiment

Airy's Failure Reconsidered

Anonymous said...

If the moon and sun are the same physical size, then from our perspective they would only look the same size in the sky if they are equal distance from us.

So if they are the same size and equally distant from the earth -- how can an eclipse happen? Why don't the moon and sun collide with each other instead?

Salama said...

Not Equal Distances.
The Moon is in the First Orbit. The Sun is in the Fourth.
But they aren't as far as NASA wants us to believe.

Eric Dubay said...

There are quite a few theories about the size of the Sun and the Moon all with their points of evidence and points of contention. The least plausible theory I've heard is the reigning heliocentric theory that the Sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away than the Moon so that's why they serendipitously appear the same size. Other models like Salama referenced have the Moon slightly in front of the Sun, and others still suggest that the Sun and Moon aren't densely physical, just luminous discs that can pass through one another.

This universe was intelligently created with purpose and order, and NASA/Copernican nihilistic Big Bang cosmology attempts to hide this obvious fact. There are two huge lights that circle around us in perfectly synchronized opposing cycles. They appear exactly the same size and stay in the sky for exactly the same length of time. Human sleep and reproduction cycles are intimately connected to one, and all growth and physical life depends on the other. We live in a ying yang universe of perfect order and balance between good and evil, male and female, inhale and exhale, birth and death, sleep and awake, night and day, and Sun and Moon.

NASA claims with no experimentally verifiable evidence that both the Earth and Moon spin in opposite directions at just the right speed so we only see one side of the Moon and never feel any of the movement. They say the Sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away than the Moon, and just coincidentally appear the same size from our faulty perspective. Not only that but they regularly cross one another showing us their balanced orbits, but that's just coincidence too. It appears that all the celestial bodies revolve around us and multiple experiments have proven just that, but people would still rather believe NASA because they can't/don't want to believe how badly they've been lied to.

Anonymous said...

I’m not trying to argue one way or the other, but have rudimentary knowledge of physics and astronomy and have been taught the earth is in motion. I am not adverse to changing my opinion. The wormhole idea is intriguing, for example. But for now, if the earth is NOT in motion, how to answer these questions. And my assumption here is it’s admitted the Earth isn’t moving, but the rest of the objects in the universe, and therefore our solar system, are:

Question 1--If the Earth isn't moving in an orbit around the sun, why does Mars appear to have a retrograde orbit some of the time? I believe this should be a well-known phenomenon to not have to further explain. Are we to believe that Mars speeds up and slows down?
Question 2--If a moving Earth would pull people right off the surface due to the speed scientists claim it is travelling at through the universe, why then would the Martian Landers through the decades, Viking's 1 & 2, and the Spirit & Opportunity rovers, not fly off the surface of Mars?
Question 3—If an atmosphere can only be explained to exist on a body in motion as being “magically velcroed,” how do we explain atmosphere’s on other planets and moons. Venus has a very thick atmosphere and Mars has a thin atmosphere. Saturn’s moon Titan has an atmosphere. All these bodies are in motion.
Comment 1—From a previous comment left on 126 by Anonymous: “Here is why the Earth is not spinning... If the current accepted theory that the Earth spins is true, than the area of Earth's equator would spin around the speed of 1000 m/ph west to east to complete a 24 hour day. Where i am located, it would spin around 850 m/ph. Now if the Earth is spinning 850 m/ph, then you simply have to to divide that speed by 60(minutes in an hour) to find out how fast you have to move to beat the Earth's motion like a huge treadmeel. One would have to be moving more than 850 m/ph to even go in the direction of west. That would mean that its physically impossible to walk west, bike west, drive west!!! Yet we can, with no resistance in that direction. CASE CLOSED, the EARTH DOES NOT SPIN”
Ok, well, have you noticed on an airplane you are able to get up and walk to the aft of the plane to go to the bathroom? Yet the plane’s thrust is in the opposite direction. Shouldn’t this be impossible? The same is true of any moving object—a boat, a train, a bus.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the questions Anonymous.

1) The motion of other celestial bodies, retrograde or not, does not and cannot prove the motion or lack of motion of Earth. Ptolemy's epicycles account for retrograde motion just as well as Kepler's ellipses. The planets have long been known as "wandering stars" due to their motion across the celestial sphere, going in all directions at varying velocities, unlike all the other "fixed stars" which follow perfect fixed circular orbits:

Retrograde Epicyclic Motion

2) Because the Viking missions were faked on Earth and we've never actually been to Mars:

Mars Faker

3) We have never been to the Moon or Mars and all NASA images/video of the planets is CGI computer-graphic imaging. NASA is the biggest and most successful propaganda machine in the world.

The Moon Landing Hoax

As for the "magic velcro," it is quite magical as it is apparently able to make the entire atmosphere spin perfectly along with Earth so no one in all of history has ever felt the slightest bit of motion, disturbance, or air resistance. Not only that but the magic also allows for clouds, wind and weather patterns to casually flow in every direction at varying velocities, often in opposite directions at different altitudes simultaneously! The magic velcro, which heliocentrists claim is some perfect amalgamation of gravity and centrifugal force, is strong enough to drag miles of Earth's atmosphere along with it, but too weak to prevent little bugs, birds, clouds and planes from easily traveling in any direction without a smidgen of added resistance. Also the world is supposedly spinning at 1,038 mph at the equator, about 900-700 mph at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where apparently the stagnant atmosphere never moves and completely escapes the grips of the magic velcro. This means that at all latitudes, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are quite lofty assumptions that heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up. Hence why it is very "magical thinking" they're using to bolster this implausible moving Earth/atmosphere theory.

Susumu said...

Why when I fly to Okinawa from Phoenix it takes 16 hours to get there and 18 hours to get back. Because in the plane going there the earth is rotating towards me and when I am going back my direction of flight is the same as the Earth rotation

Eric Dubay said...

In the other post Ben said the reason why you can't hover in a helicopter waiting for your destination to arrive, the reason we feel no constant wind or motion, and the reason there is no difference in resistence/acceleration for East-West flying planes and proectiles is because the atmosphere moves precisely along with the Earth.

In this post Susumu and Anonymous are claiming that East-West flying planes DO encounter resistance. So, heliocentrists, which is it? You can't have it both ways. And if there is measurable resistance please show me proof of this.

Susumu said...

Not sure, all I know is the difference in the passage of time and also flying the same route. All though time is relative right? LOL! Wonder if SR71 Pilots saw a preception diffrence in round trips

Anonymous said...

I would venture to say that the fact that it's 2012 and it's still an issue whether the Earth is moving/rotating or not clearly proves that the Geocentric Model is correct.
Think about all the missions, manned and unmanned, all the satellites, and all the spacecrafts that NASA and other space agencies have but into space and even outer space and yet you will not find one decent experiment from space proving that the Earth moves. Not even one single video either. The pathetic animation from Galileo supposedly showing the Earth rotating is a joke. Satellites and Space stations shooting video don't count because they are themselves rotating around the Earth. Search in vain, you will find nothing, nada, zilch, a big fat zero.

Ben said...

Anon: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

It is doubtful that NASA would waste budget attempting to prove something that mainstream science has considered proven for decades. You don't have to prove what's already been proven.

Of course, that's not to say they aren't incorrect, but their actions in this case are nonetheless perfectly in line with what you would expect.

Strangelove said...

Great blog friend!

More on our geocentric universe here:

Anonymous said...

Maybe this has already been explained but I missed it.
What accounts for the seasons, and the shortened/lengthened days?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey there, it's the same thing that accounts for them now. The sun. The seasons and length of days are exactly the same whether it's the Earth rotating around the sun or the sun rotating around the Earth.

Renee' said...

I've been studying geocentricity a lot, substituting my favorite subject -Jesse James- to search out proof. I believe geocentricity is true, but in order to share this with my friends, I also decided to study a little bit of heliocentricity. I went to a heliocentric website and found that many of them believe that not only is the sun the center, but in the center of the sun walks around the other part of each of us, and we must learn to "connect with them". I thought that would be interesting to share.

Salama said...

I don't think those are Heliocentrists per se, but more likely "spiritualists" who believe in the existence of "other self".. which in my opinion is a false interpretation of the real Djinn(s) in Islam (i.e. evil fiery creatures that help Satan\Shaitan to seduce\temp humans, and every one of us has a one of them.)

btw, those are the real power behind most of the "weird ET\non-human phenomena"

Al said...

"NASA claims with no experimentally verifiable evidence that both the Earth and Moon spin in opposite directions at just the right speed so we only see one side of the Moon and never feel any of the movement."

I don't even think this excuse makes sense. If you visualize it, you still should be able to see that although you from your vantage point would see the same side or perspective of the moon, the person 1000km (for example) to your left and right wouldn't. They would consistently see a completely different side.

Correct me if I am wrong here. As I am doing a back of the envelope visualization.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Al, you're right, I was coincidentally just talking with my fiance about this last night. Even if they were spinning in perfect opposition, different people at different times and different places on Earth should all be seeing different parts of the moon, but no matter where or when, we all always only see the same side. Excuse disproven! :)

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. If you hover in a helicopter you spin with the earth. But if you shoot a bullet a real long distance, it moves to the side of the target. I'm lost

Life Tinkerer said...

Wow you just really opened my mind to some crazy new theory that is beginning to make sense. As an inventor, I have a strong imagination capable of picturing motion of objects and with each new paragraph I attempted to piece together a mental working model of the information I was presented with. I could imagine most and had a fairly working model inside my head, however I did come upon some anomalies I could not fit into my mental model. A Google search of the Geocentric visual model cleared up some of my confusion, except one.

If the earth does not rotate nor orbits the sun, how do we account for the seasons and the meridian location of the sun in the sky?

This would make it seem like the weather would be consistently the same no matter which day of the year in any given point on earth, minus the variation of local weather and atmosphere movement, right?

The only answer would be that the entire universe has this 23deg wobble that is associated with Earths axis-tilt, to account for the seasons?

Thank you so much for this enlightening article. I was initially captured by researching that the Moon landings were fake and filmed in a studio - the visible puppet wires were a dead give away. Then the simple fact (though completely oblivious to it previously, even as simple as it really seems) that the top atmosphere is over 2500 degrees (it makes sense if you really understand solar radiation), then it would seem impossible to leave earths atmosphere, period. I just simply never entertained the presented facts intellectually and assumed empty space was cold and this was how the temperatures were balanced. I continued reading about Geocentricism and fell DEEP into the rabbit hole you presented.

Life Tinkerer said...

Eric Dubay I also had that quick idea but it cannot be. What accounts for the seasons is the fact that the earth is tilted 23 degrees facing one direction, and as it rotates on its axis, it wobbles. You can imagine this as when you spin a spindle on a table, when it starts slowing down, the top center starts to wobble until it completely loses speed and falls on its side. You will also notice this on a standing globe, where it is off center.

Anyway, the earth wobbles along this path around the sun, changing the position of the sun in the sky (direct exposure to sun in same region), thus we get seasons.

Hopefully my College Geology class did not fail me here...heh

Life Tinkerer said...

4 questions Eric...

1. Could "Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect" be explained with earths magnetic field?

2.Is the Magnetic Field real and is it present do to possible Earth's rotation, the inner Core's rotation or it is just there?

3. They teach that earth's magnetic field protects us from solar radiation, is it true? or is it the atmosphere that protects? or both since the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere glued to earth?

4. According to Heliocentric model, the Sun is NOT the center of the universe, but the center of our solar system, correct? Apparently the largest black hole is the center of the Universe?
Your quote ""The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe" threw up some flags for me.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Life Tinkerer, thanks for the great questions and comments. Whether it's the sun moving around us or us around the sun, seasons are explained the same way, namely the sun's travel from tropic to tropic each 6 month solstice cycle. I'm not familiar with the magnetic field so I can't really say much about those questions. As for the 4th question, yes, the name is quite deceiving because even people who believe in heliocentricism say the sun is not the center of anything, rather that everything is relative and the sun is only "relatively" central, but it revolves around the galaxy and the galaxy revolves around some mysterious blackhole, but they've never found the edges of the universe so they couldn't say where the "center" is. This differs greatly from Geocentrisism which says the Earth is the unmoving center of the universe and everything else in existence revolves around Earth. Heliocentricism should be called Acentricism.

Life Tinkerer said...

I think I found some holes that we need to work out. I would like if we both could do some research on the Magnetic field and how it could possibly fit into the Geocentric model of the Universe. You seem like an individual who strives on 100% facts and I think the Magnetic Field either needs to be refuted or found a home within the Geocentric model. I will try to do some research and lets continue this great conversation!

I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it is simply the Sun's rotation around the Earth that would account for the Seasons. As I thought and this websites says -, the seasons are due to the angle the sun hits the earth as it wobbles across the sky according to the Heliocentric model. In the Geocentric model the earth must tilt or the sun must move via the Meridian to account for the sun appearing lower and higher in the sky according to the season. If neither moved at all, the Sun would ALWAYS appear at the same height during the peak time of each day. That is, it would ALWAYS hit the equator all year long, and we would have no seasons.

It then must be that the Earth does in fact rotate/spin in one place, and wobbles, or the entire Universe also wobbles accordingly. I hope I've explained it effectively. Thank you and I look forward to learning more!

Life Tinkerer said...

It could also be that the entire Universe as a cohesive unit does not wobble, but parts of it do and not wobble along this path. It could even be that the entire Universe is completely flat with no wobble, except the Sun. The point is that the earth or the Sun must change their angle in order to account for the different lengths in day and the position of the Sun in the sky during the peak hour of the day.

Just imagine, if earth did not move and the Sun went perfectly around the equator - the Sun would ALWAYS hit the earth in the same point (center/equator), with the same amount of energy. Thus the weather would always be the hottest at the equator, cooling as you moved to the poles.

Lol you can tell I'm really into this... 8)

Eric Dubay said...

I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it is simply the Sun's rotation around the Earth that would account for the Seasons. Just imagine, if earth did not move and the Sun went perfectly around the equator - the Sun would ALWAYS hit the earth in the same point

Seasons are accounted for exactly the same way regardless of helio or geocentric... the sun doesn't stay perfectly along the equator all 12 months of the year, it cycles from the Tropic of Cancer at the Summer Solstice in June, slowly down to the Tropic of Capricorn at the Winter Solstice in December. This fact doesn't change regardless of whether it's the Sun revolving around us or us around the Sun. Glad to hear you're interested in this fascinating topic... keep me updated with your developments! Peace

Life Tinkerer said...

Eric it seems with what you are describing, we would have 2 seasons, summer and winter. Would you say only the Sun or the entire Universe travels at this orbit (according to you)?

Eric Dubay said...

There aren't 4 seasons everywhere, but I just mentioned the solstices, and of course there are the Vernal and Autumnal equinoxes too. The weather corresponding to these astronomical positions has to factor in wind/tidal patterns and topology too. Where I was born in Maine there are 4 clearly different "seasons." Where I live now in Thailand it's just hot and sunny all year-round; there are no seasons. Tropical/equatorial "seasons" are nothing like non-tropical/equatorial seasons.

Ivan said...

Hi , Eric I wonder how do you explain retrograde motion and parallax with geocentrism? Also the phases of venus that Galileo observed?

Salama said...

Regarding the Retro-grade motion & Parallax, the Answer is in something called The Tusi Couple & the effect of temperature (through the seasons) on our observations of the stars!

The planet in its orbit moves around a center of a "little circle".. I recommend the work of 15th century Astronomer Ibn Al-Shater.

The difference of temperature affects the angle of light that comes from the stars, so we see the star in a different position.

Anonymous said...

Hi. I have just started looking into this and one thing that sticks with me is this little experiment:
Take 2 balls, one earth and the other sun.

O -o
Sun Earth

The dash on the left of 'earth' is where you are on our planet in relation to the sun at time stamp 12 o'clock noon let us say. So, the earth spins once in @ 24 hour period correct? And it also revolves around the sun @365 days for one year.
Okay, now let's move earth 6 months into the future at the same 24 hour time stamp of our location and here is what it ends up being, give or take a small fraction due to what we know the earth does through the seasons:

-o O
Earth Sun

You will now notice that the 12 noon is facing completely away from the sun!!! This is what is taught today folks and does not work if you simply use your clock and move earth around the sun.

Again, I am new in looking into this, so anything I may be missing please feel free to reply. Thanks!

Tony said...

Hi Guys have a look at this site!

Jayson Lafe DuVal said...

love your article, very thought provoking. here's my question. Don't satellites like Voyager show us that the Earth is moving around the sun and not the other way around?

Sceptic said...

Einstien was not born into a rich or privileged background, and leant his trade whilst working, what part of the 'league of rich and powerful men' planned this? What of his countless other scientific discoveries which have proved useful in hundreds of fields - are they false as well? The theory of relativity was applied to the universe and theoretically explains, and predicts the behaviour of celestial bodies. There were shortcomings, but they have been subsequently built on and extended. The idea that mathematics, studied by thousands of dedicated individuals is in fact a complex trick played on the masses is laughable - do you think that this group of men really plan way beyond their lifetimes on a plot so ridiculously high profile and risky for the sake of monetary gain?

Anonymous said...

Eric question, I'm sure your more then familiar with the celestial battle between "marduk" and "Tiamat" so how after such a force would we be at rest? since we are this significant fraction but yet so small how is it that all of this energy would be centered around us or focused on us. I completely agree its an eye opening and hopeful way to look at life saying "yup I'm at the center
of it all, we are the most important things here we are that unique" but with that still so many unanswered questions please get back to me I'm really curious what you think

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Matthew, to me stories of Marduk and Tiamat are just that, stories of supposed celestial events that happened thousands of years ago. Unfortunately such things have no scientific bearing on the helio/geocentric debate. Check out these videos, they may help:

Geocentric Truth Part 1

Geocentric Truth Part 2

Richard Paulson said...

Foucault's Pendulum: don't even look at it. It is not a proof, just an effort at mind control, to cast one into a trance - hypnosis. "Believe, believe, just believe" because we have no proof.

Eric Dubay said...

You're right about Foucalt's Pendulum Richard, and Jason, NASA admits using Geocentric calculations when launching rockets/satellites. Check out this footage, it's not proof either way (because it could be moving at perfect constant velocity), but it sure doesn't appear to be moving:

The Earth From Space

Bio said...

Hi Eric,

How about this guy saying Aether exists. Please kindly help

Eric Dubay said...

Great clip, see, Greg Braden knows what's up! :) The aether actually exists while relativity is just a theory.

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric. It has been months since I last glanced at this blog. I don't accept however anything as evidence from outer space, because there is no proof that man has been in outer space. The proof that people accept is photos and films and statements. And if such proof is numerous, then it seems to hold weight in peoples minds and means that it must be so. But such proof is as solid evidence as a Star Trek film. For also there are photos and films and statements in the Star Trek "universe". Accordingly then, there is solid evidence that everything in Star Trek is real; if that is, you think of these things as evidence.

Space travel is really absurd. For admittedly, a rocket must go at least 7.9 kilometres per second to enter into space. If you really think about how fast that is, how can it be believed?

Well then, what about satellite technology? All alleged satellite technology is ground based or can be more easily produced on Earth without the need to go into space. It is thus only reasonable to believe that man or anything man made, has been to about 62 miles above Earth's surface (the Karman Line) or thereabouts. For it is admitted that aeroplanes cannot fly above that height without falling back to Earth. For the atmosphere is too thin to keep an aeroplane up. True space must be only a few miles higher than that. The idea of rockets in space is really a joke. The simple reasoning is that a fish needs water to propel itself, a bird needs atmosphere to beat its wings against, and solid matter is needed for us to have locomotion on Earth. So a rocket cannot act upon nothing, and cannot move in space. And without atmosphere everything man makes falls back to Earth.

Images, films, theories, and statements prove nothing, and have no merit in a world of liars. Supposed scientific statements are meaningless. My basic observation of the sky can prove that all the lights we see in the sky above (Sun, Moon and stars) are only thousands of miles high. The Sun and Moon are a great deal smaller than Earth, and the stars are so much smaller. The stars can be deduced to be only a few miles in diameter at most. The 8 planets are also stars with the exception that they wander beneath the fixed stars.

Telescopes cannot even resolve images of the stars as more than points of light (although so-called scientists tell us they can see into infinity), and yet they are only thousands of miles high. And there is no evidence that a telescope is able to "see" anything further than a few thousand miles away. Lights that cannot be seen without being magnified are deemed as further away, rather than as obviously only smaller lights. For the fixed stars are evidently all at the same height.

There is also no solid evidence in fact, that there are more than 20,000 stars! I'd like someone to count them and see, without referring to alleged images of stars/galaxies and supposed scientific numbers. What is called astronomy thus, is all a joke. All that people argue so much about can be easily disproved with the most basic observations and simple logical deductions. You don't even need to be a mathematician - it is that easy and obvious. It is only the abundance of lies (if not unwillingness) that prevents one from seeing this. The key to overcoming them is to not believe man, but to seek God. But this attitude of seeking only for God, seems to be an increasingly rare thing.

Eric Dubay said...

Awesome comment Richard, I totally agree with every point you made. Very few people are able to see through this deception, I'm glad to hear from folks like yourself who can see the forest for the trees. Please keep posted in the coming few months I'm about to finish and release my 4th book which will be all about these subjects we're discussing here. I think you're gonna love it :) Peace

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your wholehearted agreement with the points I made. You are right that very few people are able to see through the lies concerning the heavens. And, it is true that the whole point of making the heavens appear as if they are infinite is to deny the obvious existence of God.

I am convinced that the universe is a sphere and that the sphere of the Earth is at the centre of that sphere. The heavens surrounding the Earth are a good deal larger than Earth, but not so much larger as to make the Earth tiny by comparison. The heavens are simply the skies of the Earth, and Earth is not something in those skies (obviously). The lights above were made to shine upon Earth and are placed only so far up as is necessary for them to serve their purpose.

I was glad too, to find someone like yourself who can see the truths of a geocentric universe, the importance of which has more to do with knowing God than simply knowing facts concerning the creation. I couldn't then ignore reading some of your other writings which have now stirred in me the desire to share the following - which is on a different note. For, I felt that I couldn't be silent about your denial of the Bible as the Word of God. Surely you have dismissed the Bible as the Word of God, but that is not the same as disproving it. (By the “Bible” I mean the only correct translation which is the Authorized King James – but that is too much to go into now.)

I noted that your views of the Bible were completely coloured by the extreme perversions of it, and by the lies made against it from wicked men. The global conspiracy which you have worked so hard to expose is actually all about denying the truth of the Bible. It isn't that the Bible is in any way a part of the global conspiracy itself. Also, the Bible is in no way mythological, nor is it "mostly allegorical". There is no evil in it, and all of it can be understood as a perfectly working whole, without a single lie. It is true however, that the Bible has been absolutely twisted and misrepresented; and most abominably, even by those that claim to believe in it.

God inspired men to write the Bible, and the devil inspires men to deny it. But each one has to find the truth for himself. Since Jesus Christ is central to the Bible, one has to judge firstly who Jesus Christ really is. But I see that you have not judged Jesus Christ according to his own words. For I know certainly, that anyone who is an honest seeker could not possibly deny him if he really listens to his words – simply because Jesus spoke the words of God or what God would speak. For if one honestly seeks to judge who Jesus Christ is by his words, how can he not see that Jesus Christ is God? Because his words and character were so unique, and his claim upon man so great, a decision as to who he is must be made. For my reason convinces me and logic shows me, that no one can make up the words of Jesus Christ, no liar and no inventor, without actually being God himself. No one could have just imagined his character or devised such words without being God himself – the Creator of all things. And thus logically, Jesus Christ cannot be lying and therefore he must be God. Thus it is a purely logical decision to believe that Jesus Christ is God.

I write this to ask you to only open your heart to the possibility and begin by reading the Gospel of John (in the King James) and you will/ought to see what I mean. It is impossible for anyone to make up Jesus Christ as if he is not really God, because no one who is a liar can at the same time speak so nobly, so truly, so righteously, so wisely, and so uniquely, and claim to be God without actually being God. God speaks the words that only God can speak. If you are able to fault his words; or if you are able to see that there is someone greater than he as a revelation of God to man, then you are logical to not believe in him. But unless you have done that, you are not being logical in your belief against the testimony of the Bible. You are only dismissing it.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, thanks for another great comment. Maybe you can help me with a couple things. I have increasingly noticed things in the Bible which are undeniably historical such as the existence of giants which have been confirmed by hundreds of skeletal discoveries and the reality of an ancient deluge which destroyed most of humanity. But then there's also many elements which to my sensibilities must be symbolic/allegorical. For example, a talking serpent? A staff turning into a snake? A virgin birth in a manger? From my research, the idea of a staff turning into a snake comes from Kundalini Yoga, thousands of years before Christianity, the Kundalini serpent is coiled around your spine which is often depicted as a staff. Or Christ being born in a manger with three magi following a star in the East. The 3 stars of Orion's Belt have long been called the 3 Magi, and Sirius is the star in the East. On Dec. 25th, the 3 Magi and Sirius line up perfectly pointing towards where the Sun/Son will rise that morning. He's in a "manger" with all the animals because the Zodiac is full of animals, and it's a "Virgin" birth because it happens in the constellation Virgo. His 12 "disc"iples are the 12 signs of the Zodiac. Jesus feeds them with 2 fish, the Pope's hat looks like a fish-head, and people put "Jesus" Fish on their cars because Jesus marked the beginning of the age of Pisces, represented by 2 fish. How could you literally feed hundreds/thousands of people with 2 fish? How can snakes literally talk? How can a wooden staff literally turn into a snake? How can virgins literally give birth? These and many other stories seem quite obviously symbolic and not literal to me, how do you explain these as literal? Thanks! Peace

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for your honest questions.

You asked basically, how it is possible for you/anyone within reason, to believe the Bible as literal, considering the miraculous nature of some unusual happenings recorded therein. You asked specifically how it is possible for a serpent to talk; and for a staff to turn into a snake; and for a virgin to give birth. Believing these things and many other such things in the Bible as literal events are only perceived difficulties due to the fact that in our modern times people have been brought up or indoctrinated by “science” falsely so called. People are taught in modern times that everything happens by chance, and given time the “miraculous” occurs (i.e. evolution). Thus our continued existence and all life and design are perceived also as just a continual stroke of good “luck” (LOL). Regarding faith in “luck”, there are also explanations for its supposed occurrence. For example, put some seeds into good ground/soil, add some water and let the sun shine upon it etc, and it is now “explainable” how/why plants grow. But all such explanations of anything we know fall short of really explaining anything – nothing has really been explained to the fullest degree and leaves us with a mystery, always. And even from the “scientists” own point of view, there are things that go “against the known laws of physics/nature” and that have them baffled; such as for example, the reality of lightning. Lightning seems also to be an “impossible” occurrence from a “scientific” viewpoint. For, scientists are still (after 250 years) trying to figure out “how”.

The fact then is that it is not unreasonable or illogical to believe that the things you mentioned in the Bible can happen. They are not even the least bit implausible, except if you delete the existence of an all powerful God from your thinking. But without God, then even the idea of a flower growing, or of a human being born at all, or any design whatsoever in all of creation is a laughable and preposterous idea. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever then, in believing in a miracle then there is in believing that the grass can grow. For God is able to turn a staff into a snake. And a spirit is able to enter into a body and to speak – even through a beast (for even the devil is capable of some things). And God is able to be born through a virgin by entering into a human body with his Spirit, just as he is able to form you and I. For all design needs to be and has to be explained by the existence of an all powerful Creator.

In fact, if God exists (which he clearly does), then it would be only expected for him to do (on occasion at least) unusual and “miraculous” things (i.e. intervening in nature with his power). Thus God can easily feed thousands with a few fish or with a few loaves. They did not remain just a few fish and a few loaves, because he multiplied them (and so they appeared miraculously) as they were passed on. In fact, God has still been feeding thousands miraculously, with fish from heaven even in modern times! Look up on the Web: “Honduras’ miraculous rain of fish” and you will see what I mean. He visits Honduras with thunder and lightning and with food on a yearly basis. The Bible says that when God speaks in the heavens there is thunder and lightning. Literally the thunder is the sound of his voice and the lightning is sparks coming from his mouth. The Bible says he is continually speaking to the clouds and commanding the rain etc. You can’t see him but he is there (being a Spirit).

[Since this message is becoming too long, I am going to add a couple more posts to finish it.]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

Thus the whole account in Genesis of creation is literal and so is almost everything in the Bible except where it is indicating or is obviously telling us that it is speaking symbolically. This is not to say that even in the things that are literal there cannot be found prophetic/symbolic messages. But that is secondary and one cannot properly see those things unless he first accepts the Bible as the literal Word of God. Using symbols can be a way of speaking, but they are not a means to saying something completely different to what is clearly being said. God is not trying to mislead us or confuse us with the Bible.

God has given us the Bible to make it possible/easy for us to understand the truth. If we cannot trust it, then confusion must reign – for then we have no groundwork for our logic or for our understanding. Without a true foundation we can imagine any logical system of our own, which is not based in reality. God knows this and so it is logical for him to give us one book we can completely trust. For, he does not want to keep us in the dark regarding who he is.

Satan has kept mankind in the dark, and desperately works to maintain his position in heaven as ruling over the world system. His days are numbered, though. For, God has only allowed him so that people could choose whom they will serve. People have to be revealed for who they are – good or bad, and then God will judge the world in perfect justice. Because the Bible is a true record, there has been always the attempt to destroy the knowledge of it and of who it really is that dwells in the heavens above us. Satan has always used the name of some other false god in the heavens, telling people to bow down to him/it/her, although it is himself in disguise seeking worship – seeking (so foolishly), in fact, to replace God. They do worship or bow down to him, and thus you have him ruling over the world system.

Satan has used a counterfeit of Christianity, or a fake Church as a kind of throne to rule over the world, and to keep everyone ignorant of who God really is.

One can see this in studying history. Note particularly that in 1611, when the Bible was fully and properly translated, the “Copernican Revolution” was also taking place. The Bible had been forbidden to the masses, and corrupt leaders twisted the truth for their own gain. Also, multitudes of innocent people, who fought for us to have the Bible, were oppressed and slaughtered lest they should achieve their purpose in making the Bible available to us all.

In the early 17th century we see the arrival of the Copernican Revolution. This is just a little too suspicious, to say the least! In fact, in 1610 Galileo allegedly makes a discovery confirming that the universe is heliocentric, and in 1611 Galileo’s discoveries are allegedly “confirmed”. This happens the same year in which the Bible is for the first time, perfectly translated and published (being 1611)!

So it figures: because now the Bible is freed from its prison and published for all to read, so that we might all discover who it is that actually dwells in the heavens; namely, the LORD God, out of sheer desperation, there also has to be an actual change in the very concept of the heavens to make the Bible sound implausible. Following this, there also has to be an exaltation of false science in every department so as to make the Bible appear to be “unscientific” and incredible in people’s minds. Satan will go to any extent and so will his true followers to blind people to the knowledge that the LORD God has as his habitation the skies above us.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

This has always been the case. Satan has always sought to populate the skies with all kinds of false gods, only to disguise himself in them and to seek adulation or worship through those false names. But when the Bible was translated and printed (giving people the opportunity not to be so ignorant), he had to change his tune somewhat. He comes up with the false god of “science” and yet without letting go of his new costume design in “Santa Claus”. You see, of course, not everyone is actually or really willing to worship Satan. But if you misspell it a little, people are not likely to suspect that they are doing so. Santa = Satan.

You also said that from your research the idea of a staff turning into a snake comes thousands of years before Christianity. But the Bible began to be written well over a thousand years before Christianity or a few centuries after the flood. (The world is only about 6,000 years old - according to the Bible.) Christianity or what is more properly called "the Way" is a fulfilment or the ultimate goal of the Old Testament – "Christianity" is only a part of the New Testament. Can you prove that a writer of the Bible took an idea out of Kundalini Yoga? That would not be possible, and it is impossible to prove how old many ancient writings really are. Moreover, people calling the 3 stars of Orion’s Belt the 3 Magi are only taking words out of the Bible, not the other way around. Besides, the Bible does not say there were only 3 wise men. The 25th of December is not stated in the Bible as being the birthday of Jesus Christ, and is actually a total counterfeit and a pagan day used by Sun worshippers. I don’t know what you mean he is in a manger with all the animals because the zodiac is full of animals. How does this mean he was not born in a manger? But people can take an image of Christ’s birth and then fill the sky full of animals if they want to – it is just imagination, and so I say the same regarding what you said about him being born in the constellation of Virgo. This is just an imagination taken out of the Bible, and it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t born of a virgin. The number of the twelve apostles can be associated, using one’s imagination, with the twelve signs of the zodiac, but it is again just an imagination; for equally the number of the apostles might not be associated. The Pope is a counterfeit representing Satan rather than Christ (the idea of “popes” is actually against the teaching of the Bible) – so what he wears means nothing with regard to the Bible. And just because Jesus happens to feed people beginning with 2 fish and because people put a fish symbol on their cars (which practice is also not found in the Bible), it doesn’t mean that Jesus marks an alleged beginning of the “age of Pisces”. Christians might do things like putting a fish symbol on their cars, but that doesn’t mean they are following Jesus or the Bible in doing that.

Occult symbols that might seem to someone to have links with the Bible are a result of Satan continuously counterfeiting everything, including and most especially counterfeiting what people regard as Christian – to lead even alleged “Bible believers” into believing things that are opposed to the Bible. The associations you mentioned are not from sources connected with the Bible. There is no reason to trust them. How do you know those sources (in your research) are telling you the truth? All those symbols you mentioned are used to blind people whether they are Christians or non-Christians.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, thanks for the great response. Very interesting about the timing of the King James Bible and Galileo's "discoveries." I also liked and agree with the idea that if God exists, miracles most certainly exist, and they're not even that miraculous either, because it's just the Creator Creating. I'm reading the Bible now, Genesis and Exodus were great, as a long-time vegetarian, Leviticus is making my stomach turn reading all these ridiculous sacrifice commandments, pouring blood over altars etc. Is the Old Testament God who's obsessed with having people sacrifice (kill) things for Him, the same God as the New Testament? Jesus isn't into having people sacrifice stuff for him... isn't he God too? How many Gods are there in this monotheistic religion? I'm intrigued but quite confused... the same state I've found myself in regarding Christianity since childhood. Peace!

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

I must say "Wow". Thanks for your great response too, and I am amazed at how fast you're reading through the Bible (the Authorized King James, I presume) – there isn't any other, because you can't have different versions of the truth; for if you change the words you change the meaning – something the devil has abundantly done in subsequently "providing" many assorted variety of "Bible's" and filling them with erroneous "commentaries". He couldn't ultimately prevent or stop its publication, but now that it is available, he is ever denying and twisting its words with "different versions", etc.

I believe I can answer your questions and a lot more – so I hope this helps. I actually have to tell you a lot more to even properly explain so as to make enough sense in answering your present questions – which are big questions to answer. So if you are happy with the posts being done here, on this topic, I will send it in several posts. I am actually very happy to share – especially since it seems that very few people seem really desirous to know the truth. But you're obviously a thinker, and are willing to seek and find out all the truth. Whatever you heard about Christianity from a child – I am sure you had enough reason to be confused about it. For a completely false Christianity is presented to the world.

I can understand from your perspective of vegetarianism how the animal sacrifices with all the "bloodiness" might seem as an unnecessary "waste of life". Some people (like you perhaps?) think of animals much the same way as they might think of people. But animals are not personalities and are not spirit beings (according to the Bible). Some of the higher animals have emotions or are able to give emotional responses, and may even seem to be human at times; but according to the Bible a human being is infinitely more important and valuable. God doesn't hate animals, but he doesn't love them like humans. He is good to all and gives life to animals, but they eventually return to dust. There is no injustice in this, because they are not personalities. However, the Bible defines human beings as basically, both spirit and flesh. (This is a most important distinction and a key to really understanding the Bible’s message.) Your flesh is not the real you (being made of dust/just a meat body), but your spirit is the real you, because a spirit is a personality and continues to exist without a body (i.e. when the body perishes). Your flesh and my flesh are bound to do the wrong thing (or act imperfectly) without the Spirit of God enabling, because it has been affected by an evil world – the spirit of the devil infiltrating everything. But our spirits are the offspring of God, and have no fault in them (provided our preference remains for light rather than for darkness).

According to the Bible, it is not evil for us to eat meat. Eating meat however, wasn't a part of God’s original creation (not God's original or preferred plan) and there will be a day when this will cease and there will be peace even in the animal kingdom. (This is glimpsed in Isaiah 11:6-9) Eating meat was allowed only after sin affected the creation and God's original design. It is clear also in the Bible that God hates cruelty, even to animals. (Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.")

The ridiculousness you mentioned is not actually ridiculous at all if you understand what the sacrifices were all about. Please keep in mind that you are reading about God's dealings with humanity over thousands of years. So God's dealings with man differ over time and there is a progression or plan in unveiling himself.

The basic reason for the animal sacrifices can only be understood through knowing what the nature of God really is.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

The Bible says that God is a Spirit and that this Spirit is love. You’ll notice that in the Bible, God declares himself as "I", but he also says on occasion, when referring to himself, "Us" or "Our" or “We”. Now, how can he be both, “I” and “We”? The Bible says that these three: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are one. In other words, three distinct persons are also one and the same person. It sounds impossible, but this is impossible only from our perspective. This reality however is a description of love itself.

Let me illustrate what I mean. No matter how much a person loves someone, he cannot actually say, for example, to his partner/wife, that he and she are the same person, can he? There is a joining with that person, but no matter how close that union, there is still a definite distinctness and he remains himself, and she remains herself. But God is ultimate reality, and although he made us in his image, with the same attribute of himself within us – being love, only God is actually love itself. Now, love, for it to be love, cannot be merely "single". Thus you have three distinct persons, which also are yet one and the same person. For in the very definition of God you have a loving relationship. This however, is more than just one loving another and the other reciprocating, as we understand it. It is the Father giving himself to the Son and the Son immediately giving himself back to the Father and thus forming by a pure and holy union of love so incomprehensible to us, a perfect oneness of personality, so as to be regarded as one person. Thus there also emanates from this infinitely pure and holy, fiery union, another: "the Holy Ghost" – a spectre (as it were) of beauty incomprehensible, being the oneness of both the Father and the Son. He is thus only one God and one person – there is then only one Spirit of God.

Now, this love is primarily an emotional nature, not an intellectual one. (Love after all is an emotion/emotional.) As perfect and infinite as the mind and thinking capacity and logic of God must be, he does not and cannot operate purely on an intellectual level. The philosopher Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am", but he might have equally said, "I feel, therefore I am". Emotions can control our logic regardless of the fact that we try to be purely logical. For example, I know things for certainty logically speaking, but if something is troubling me emotionally, I find myself needing an emotional fix to grasp what I already intellectually accept; otherwise I am not always satisfied. My logic tells me there is no mistake, but if troubled, I cannot bring myself to feeling it is the truth, regardless. Well, that is exactly how it is with God, particularly if the emotions are hurt or in a confused and disturbed state. God himself can be hurt, and emotionally in pain, because although he is perfect in every way, he is not a robot. God can feel in a manner of speaking, “torn apart” by human behaviour.

Now with that explained and as a basis, I can tell you why he needed blood sacrifices. God created humanity on the face of the Earth, specifically for the purpose of sharing himself and his life, and for a loving fellowship/friendship as a Father to us. But Satan was allowed to enter into the picture to be the father of evil people, who would, having freedom of will, prefer their own selfishness over loving God in return. This is an infinitely horrible choice – which I will never understand, seeing that God freely offers himself and everything he has to man.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

But not all make this choice of hating God deliberately. As the world goes on and those that hate God deliberately side with the devil, it affects us all. Those who choose deliberately to do evil, sin with their spirits, and are thus spiritually the children of the devil (according to the Bible). But since we all live in bodies of flesh, easily capable of doing wrong, it becomes impossible for us not to be affected by the lies and evil that surrounds us all. The brain of the flesh is like a computer – it responds to the world around it which is affected by sin, and takes it all in. Our flesh is thus weakened, for it learns lies and wrongdoing, and then it cannot act perfectly. And if we are surrounded by evil, we might even become a part of that which we would otherwise despise. We simply do not have the strength to resist evil at all times, or to behave as perfectly as God. This however is not the same as deliberately sinning. There is therefore an infinite distinction between someone stumbling and doing the wrong thing, but not really wanting to, and someone choosing to delight in evil. To the one that unknowingly or unwillingly stumbles against the laws of God, God provides forgiveness. But to the one that delights to do evil, there is only condemnation from God.

God chose to show himself to a certain people – "Israel", that they should be a light to the rest of the world. They however, disobeyed and failed that plan that God had for them because they were not faithful to him. Therefore you see great judgements against them (in the Old Testament) and terrible things that God had to do because of the greatness of evil. God however, overlooked the transgressions of many other nations because he had not come near to them – he destroyed some for the greatness of their evil, but just winked/turned a blind eye at others and left them alone, because they were doing the best they knew. For, people are judged according to the light that is given to them, not according to their ignorance. That is why it seems (in reading the Bible) that God lacks mercy at times and why he is very compassionate at other times. He actually has no mercy for the one that seeing the light prefers the darkness – because although that person fully understands it is wrong, he just doesn't care – he is never sorry (See John 3:19). But God does not bring this ultimate judgement against anyone till the last day – at the end of the world. (See John 12:46-48) (God will then make a new world.)

God is infinitely compassionate to the one however, who feeling overcome, does not know how to do what is good and finds himself doing wrong, although he wants to do what is good. But the issue is this. Sin, whether only in the flesh of truly good people or, whether in truly evil people, has the same emotional effect upon God. Sin still affects God and hurts him in a way that neither you nor I can possibly comprehend – seeing that we are not infinitely sensitive or perceptive. (Our bodies are too weak to really take in everything.) God however, is an infinitely emotional being, absolutely alive to everything, and in also being absolutely pure and righteous, he therefore cannot tolerate what is wrong in any way whatsoever. This inability to tolerate evil, is what you might call "the weakness of God" – the weakness of love. But it is a wonderful weakness – I mean, who wants an unfeeling God? That weakness is mentioned in the First Letter to the Corinthians in the New Testament.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 4

The affect of man’s sin on the emotions of God, renders him in fact, emotionally incapable of dealing with man purely on an intellectual level – "rationally". This does not mean that God has ever or can ever act without justice or without reason. But therefore in order not to destroy man along with the evil that he sees is in his flesh, he needs something that will represent the innocence of man to him so that he can forgive man (what you might call an "emotional fix"). In order not to treat a merely stumbling human as if he were as guilty as the devil, God must have a representation of man's innocence put before him/before his eyes. This is an "atonement" for people’s transgressions – something that is, that subdues God’s wrath.

To illustrate what I mean, understand it from your own personal perspective. Just imagine now, for example, if someone hits you in the face. That person might actually have for some reason done the wrong thing to you without meaning to – I mean, have an excuse for his behaviour, albeit it was wrong. He might afterwards be very sorry when he comes to realize this himself. You might even realize on an intellectual level that he didn't really mean to lash out. However, you just don't feel like at that moment, smiling back and saying that you forgive him. No, you are more likely to want to punch him back – understandably. But let’s say he comes back and offers you a gift and pleads for your forgiveness. On an emotional level, you would be able to receive that and be more friendly disposed to him afterwards. The gift affects your emotions enough for you to accept what you already know in your mind; namely, that he didn't really mean to hit you. Now, we are made in the image of God. God is exactly the same! He is confronted by a myriad of people, who are constantly slapping him in the face, as it were, and then he is required to just turn around and say, based upon his ability to simply logically understand, that none of them really meant it: "Be of good cheer, all is forgiven – I am God, and of course being God, I knew none of you meant it." I think it would be ridiculous to expect him to. God does himself turn the other cheek - but he also needs something for his emotions.

If we, being in the image of God, have emotions that can be so easily stirred, what of God who can see everything, and feel everything so fully and infinitely? I think then, the Bible speaking of people giving God "gifts and sacrifices for sin" begins to make a lot of sense!
I suppose then, you might say, "Yes, but why such bloody sacrifices"? The answer to this question is most important. You will notice that God required the animals to be perfect/without blemish and innocent. That is what is most important to see. The animals had to be without blemish and had to be "dumb beasts" – purely ignorant and innocent. When they were sacrificed, it affected a temporary cure in the hurt emotions of God because of those that ignorantly disobeyed the laws of love. How so? God said that the life of the flesh is in the blood – innocent blood then reminded and spoke to God, (speaking in a figurative sense), that those sinning people are just like ignorant animals, who although doing things that appear to be deserving of death, can be excused, and who do not in fact deserve to die.

God saw the innocence of people in the innocent blood of animals. The sacrifices were symbolic of those people preferring death to sin – symbolic that is, of preferring love/God to their own lives, and the blood of them symbolized the innocence of the people. The people were not able to show that love to God in their own flesh, but in offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, they were in effect offering up their own lives in a symbolic sense.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 5

In the slain animals, the emotions of God were so affected and God could "see" or be reminded of the people's innocence – the sight of innocent blood "took away" the guiltiness of men before his eyes – the sight of that blood subdued his wrath. The blood of innocent animals affected God emotionally, and cried out to him of man's innocence, in spite of man's evil actions. Thus, when God's anger would burn hot and he would feel furious against the evil that surrounded him, (in the people he had devoted himself to), he commanded them to offer up sacrifices to "fix him" emotionally, lest he should break out against them and do them harm. Love is patient and gentle, but it isn't an iron metal of coldness that cannot be provoked – most especially not! God can take "a lot of crap", but he is still an emotional being – a fiery one, and in order to be just, he had to provide a means for himself where he could act justly toward those that could not themselves treat him the way they should (because of their ignorance and flesh-weakness).

Thus the God of the Old Testament and New Testament are the same. It is just that there is a lot of dealing with evil and judgements against particularly Israel, in the Old Testament, that appear quite frightful at times. If you can see the context and the reasons as to why God dealt so harshly with some people, you wouldn't wonder at all. God destroys the wicked in order to save the righteous from them. But he also can appear slow at doing this, and people say, "Why doesn't God bring justice against evil and for the suffering?" Well, he has, he does, and he ultimately will.

Psalm 86:15 "But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and
gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth."

Psalm 103:8 "The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and
plenteous in mercy."

Psalm 76:7-9 "Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry? Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was still, when God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. Selah."

But once you get into the New Testament, you see a fullness of revelation come in Jesus Christ, which is previously not made fully known. All the animal blood sacrifices that were offered for one nation – Israel, being necessary because God was close to them in their midst, and because they failed to honour him, end with Jesus Christ. The reason they had to be offered continually, is because being only animals, they could not represent the innocence of man fully. So when man ignorantly sinned there had to be another offering, time and time again. But that was just for one nation because as I said, God was close to them – a nation that had made a binding agreement with God, but had not kept it.

But it was God's plan the whole time to make himself known to all nations, not to just one nation. And when Israel failed to be the light God had intended for them to be (to point all other nations to God), he came himself – as the Son of God, born of a virgin (his flesh begotten of the Father), for the astonishing purpose of being slain like those animals, in order to effect in God an emotional cure eternally – never again to have his wrath stirred up against merely ignorant people, who did not know what they were doing. This "emotional cure" would actually prevent God from going "into a rage" (as one might put it) through being "torn apart" with infinite pain, and enable him to have that emotional peace necessary to make a distinction between the truly good and the truly evil - to not in fury cast away the unmeaning sinner, along with the deliberate sinner, and to make the unmeaning sinner appear without sin in his eyes.

[Conclusion in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 6

Thus, by the atonement of Jesus Christ (by him sacrificing his life or offering himself up to God on our behalf), God could continue to be just toward all people and not cast away the stumbling person (who has corruption only in his flesh) along with the wicked who are evil spirits.

How necessary this is for God, to have his Son offer up himself to him, to atone for mankind, after having put up with sin for thousands of years! There is then also no more need for animal sacrifices, because those sacrifices only foreshadowed what he would ultimately do for man – for all nations. He would never then feel anger toward ignorant man again, but only be forever disposed to be favourable to mankind (in spite of still being continually sinned against), because Jesus Christ came in the flesh to perfectly represent the flesh of mankind to God – to represent mankind as perfect to God the Father. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to be born and perfectly obey his Father in the flesh, on our behalf, because our flesh was too weak and corrupted to properly obey God the Father. His life was thus an offering to God, which fully pleased and satisfied the Father for our sakes. It is so that God, in gazing upon Jesus Christ would also acknowledge and accept us into his eternal kingdom with joy, and say to us, "You are my son/daughter, in whom I am well pleased; I find no fault in you."
With this gracious disposition made possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ – God's Son, God could freely give his Holy Spirit to us, to enable us also to walk before him righteously, and no longer be bound by sin/what causes us to stumble from his moral law/his ways. Therefore Jesus Christ is also the Saviour from sin – enabling us by his Spirit to do what is right. He gives his Spirit freely to all who call upon him in faith – to all that seek him. As it is written,

Acts 17:24-28 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples
made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath,
and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

This is not the fullest explanation but I think it answers your present questions. God bless!

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks again for your great, thorough responses! You've left me pretty well speechless as I can certainly understand and appreciate the perspective you've presented. I will continue reading the Bible cover to cover and finally figure out what I think of the source. One of the many books of the Bible that didn't make the final cut was "The Essene Gospel of Peace" which is a treatise by Jesus that has long resonated with me beyond anything I've ever read in the actual Bible. Have you ever read this? Jesus explains what true Baptism means here: water-fasting and water-enemas. Dunking your head underwater 3 times is surely a simplistic misinterpretation of what Jesus actually meant about being born again by water:

The Essene Gospel of Peace

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

Thank you for your comment and appreciation. I am glad that you are going to read the Bible from cover to cover. I have not read the book of Essene before. So I followed your link and had a look at it. Once again I find I need to speak at length because you have made a point about this book as being a gospel of Jesus. I think this might help in your undertaking to read the whole Bible and to decide what you think.

The actual Bible has stood the test of time and ridicule. Multitudes were willing to die – even for centuries, gruesome deaths for the Bible and it has survived the severest persecution. This persecution is still happening to this day. Consider that the Bible is the first book to have been printed (albeit in Latin) and it is the most published and widely read book. If that isn't a sign that it is God’s book, what is?

If a "book of the Bible" didn't make "the final cut" then it wasn't and isn't a book of the Bible. I don't look for "other gospels" because there is only one gospel. I have ascertained (as it has been made abundantly clear to me) that the 1611 Authorized King James is all the truth. So I don’t read other alleged "lost" books of the Bible because there aren't any. There are no "lost Gospels" or "lost books" of the Bible. They are all very easily refuted and shown to be lies when compared with the actual Bible. Satan just plays upon the ignorance of people who have no clue as to teachings of the real Bible and what it says. Others take the true Bible and twist its words. Still others deny that there is only one Bible and fight against the King James Bible. They won’t fight against any other translation; because of course, the devil knows they are not worth fighting against.

When you say that the “Essene Gospel” is “a treatise by Jesus”, which “Jesus” are you talking about? There can only be one Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other than the one revealed in the actual Bible. And since you haven’t yet accepted that he was born of a virgin as clearly stated in the Bible, then the one who you are calling Jesus is not Jesus. Thus your present image of Jesus wherever you got it from, is something completely alien to the true – no resemblance whatsoever.

I went to the link you gave me and read some of the alleged “Essene Gospel” and I can tell you right away, that the words are purely the words of Satan and are infinitely removed from the mind and words of the Lord Jesus Christ! I am not saying that a man didn’t write it, but the words are Satan’s.

It’s a dangerous book. It has the same feel as the satanic book of Mormon. If you want to know what I think – well I know, it is clearly a satanic book. I could probably spend a long time showing how it constantly contradicts the Bible and Jesus’ own words, but just a brief glance will prove that anyhow. But besides that, as I said, God only gave us one book (or collection of books in two parts) the Old and New Testaments. They flow as a perfect, harmonious and united whole. They are complete. And God would not seek to confuse anybody with anything else.

Just to show briefly and conclusively that this book is just Satan speaking and doing an extremely bad job posing as Jesus, because it doesn't even slightly sound like Jesus, I quote (Satan):

“For your Mother bore you, keeps life within you. She has given you her body, and none but she heals you. Happy is he who loves his Mother and lies quietly in her bosom. For your Mother loves you, even when you turn away from her.”

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

Well this is ridiculous. There is no mention of “Mother Earth” in the Bible, and how can one personify a piece of God’s creation (the ground and mere dust) to the extent of saying that she loves you? So thus it would have you believe that Earth itself is a god or a part of God. Cleverly in a way it wants you to worship not only the ground you walk on, but also your own body – your flesh, as if that is a life source! This alone absolutely contradicts a fundamental concept of the Bible, in the idea of, “Do good to your body and she will love you and be whole for you”. The Bible says our bodies are sinful, and will soon perish. Observation proves that also.

Satan is a subtle beast/dragon – a smooth talker and an ear tickler, (and he has thousands of years of experience at lying and deception) but sometimes like in this book, he just blatantly contradicts the Bible. He always seeks by smooth talking, subtlety, and spectacular lying, inroads into people’s lives any way he can get it. For his words carry his spirit – for words are spirit – and just intellectually fighting against them is not enough. Even Jesus Christ when Satan slithered around him, quoting Scriptures out of context, had to fight him and only got rid of him in the end by quoting the Scripture back to him in proper context. This is why it is important that we listen only to the spirit of God’s word, the Holy Scripture. For in them is eternal life; in them we receive life and God’s words are health to all our flesh. The implication however that we only have to do certain things to be healthy is a trick of Satan, and he is really saying that you can save yourself. But there is no other Saviour but Jesus – God himself. The Bible says that.

The Bible makes it clear that there is no source of life in anything but God. Our bodies are not a part of God and the Earth is not a part of God – it is only dust and it has no spirit. You won’t find the ground talking to you. But God is a Spirit and he speaks.

It is evident from reading the Bible, that God ultimately wants health and life for us, but there are circumstances in people’s lives that do not always make this possible and eventually we all die anyway. If God wanted our bodies to live forever, he would not have forbidden Adam and Eve or us, from eating of the tree of life. But because Satan has corrupted our flesh, the flesh must be ultimately destroyed or completely changed (i.e. made incorruptible in the resurrection). After that we will be allowed to eat of the tree of life, because our bodies will be worth preserving forever.

Understanding that our flesh is corrupted by sin, means understanding that it is God’s mercy toward us to physically die, and for us not to have our present bodies forever. The alleged “Essene Gospel” also subtly denies this fundamental Bible truth in saying basically: “Your flesh is okay and of Mother Earth, love/worship her/yourself, and she will love you/you will be healthy”.

God in the Bible promises us new and glorified bodies, if we follow after love. No amount of any other kind of law keeping will keep our bodies from sickness anyway. Healthy eating is good for us, but we do not have the tree of life in our midst. Can anyone by eating well keep himself from growing old – then how can simply eating well or keeping certain rules guarantee health/life?

Can the Earth or the ground which God cursed in the Bible be a “Mother God”? Clearly, the Essene Gospel is just written to deceive those who have no knowledge of the Bible – it is far too blatant a contradiction of the Bible.

Also, Jesus commandment is basically twofold: love God, and love your neighbour. If you do that, he will give you life. All other laws are designed to burden us – to take us away from just doing these things – which of course this book is abundantly doing, even in pointing you to “the Earth” and telling you to love it, rather than just loving God and your neighbour.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

The alleged Essene Gospel is essentially nothing but a declaration of a false god – like the one Catholics worship: “Mother Mary”. If the Vatican/Catholic Church rejects it, it’s because they are already worshipping this satanic spirit, in worshipping this false god in the form of “Mother Mary” and, which is just the same “queen of heaven” that God condemned in the Bible.

The devil’s tricks are always the same and so pathetic when you clearly see the truth of the Bible. It’s sad because the Bible is the riches of truth and everyone is reading anything but – or else adding their own/Satan’s words to it! Only one voice can drown out Satan’s – God’s one book, the Bible. This Essene book pretends to be honouring to Jesus and to the Father but is utterly blaspheming God and denying them – it is an absolute mockery. For e.g. “None but she heals you” is a lie against the Bible. The Bible says that the LORD God is the healer.

And watch this next mockery, and abominable lie:

“For truly, no one can reach the Heavenly Father unless through the Earthly Mother.”

Yuck. How can anyone think that this is Jesus speaking? In the Bible Jesus says:

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

So this is a blatant contradiction of a most important truth in the Bible! It soundly denies the gospel calling itself the gospel.

This is purely a satanic book and anyone who has only a minuscule knowledge of Jesus can see that at a glance. So the only thing to do is to really get to know who Jesus really is in the actual Bible.

John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

The Bible says that the devil appears as an angel of light to deceive, and he plays on the ignorance of who Jesus is to do that.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

By the way, as if this is not enough, how can you even trust this as a source? Just look at this guy, Edmund Bordeux Szekely. I wouldn’t even glance in the direction of, let alone, trust such a claim from just one guy, especially someone who “stole” from the Vatican. So a thief is going to tell somebody that Jesus has another gospel? Allow me to LOL.

Can you imagine it? God sees “a lost gospel” in the Vatican. He chooses a thief to retrieve it. He expects people to believe just this one man’s claim: “Hey, look what I stole from the Vatican” (LOL). No, God does not choose thieves to do holy work. The Vatican wouldn’t care about it anyway, because like I said, they already exalt a false Mother God, which all Catholics accept, and they either twist or simply ignore the Bible’s words to do that. They have no need for one of Satan’s obvious pathetic comic books, made known by some shifty looking man – all to tell you what you can be told in the local health food store.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 4

Did you know that 47 of the greatest scholars ever assembled were ordained by a King to translate the King James Bible? This was only the result of centuries of fighting against the so-called “Church”. One Bible translator (William Tyndale) that helped translate the Bible years before this event was tied at a stake, but before he could be burned to death, he prayed God to “open the King of England’s eyes” for the authority to translate and publish the Bible. The executioner was so infuriated that he couldn’t wait any longer to even burn him, and so strangled him to death on the spot, and then he was burned. Some years later, the King of England did commission a once and for all time translation of the Bible (doubtless in answer to that dying man’s prayer – who voiced also the prayer of multitudes of others who were similarly murdered), which contained also much of his translation. All of the 47 scholars, who were commissioned to translate the Bible, were believers in God (honest men) and they all agreed on every single word that it was exact, before its publication. The fact that they did all agree on the exactness of every word of the translation is itself a miracle. Nothing like this has happened before or since. Such scholars of that calibre don’t even exist today. I think if God wants to share with us his words, he is going to make it abundantly clear that it is his words, or else just forget it.

Let me quote 3 paragraphs from just one source:

"Unlike folks of today, the men of King James' time were true divines and scholars. The King James Bible translators were men who regularly debated in Latin and Greek. One in particular had read the entire Bible in Hebrew by the time he was 6-years old. But even more importantly, they were godly men devoted to spiritual pursuits. They believed that they were translating the very words of God—and they took their sacred duties seriously.

William Tyndale who translated from the Textus Receptus line, was strangled and burned at the stake by the Catholic religion because of translating the Bible. Time fails me here to speak of John Rogers, Myles Coverdale and others who labored AND DIED that we might have the word of God in our hands. The Authorized Version is a Book forged in blood, sweat and tears. Treasure it.

The King James Bible translators were a collection of some of the world's best scholars. They approached this translation with the mindset that they were translating the very Word of God, not just some book. The King James Bible has been called "the monument of English prose" as well as "the only great work of art ever created by a committee."

In Conclusion:

The real Gospel of Peace is when the man who is burdened by a sense of guilt and sin, feeling unclean, unworthy, unlovable and rejected, is told that God came in his flesh to cleanse him and to tell him that he is innocent, pure and righteous and worthy through Jesus Christ. In the Gospel, he is told that God holds nothing against him and that he has been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. He is also told that God wants to impart his Holy Spirit into him in order to help him overcome all sin and to get to know God on a personal level. The broken man hearing and believing this is likely to break down and cry with relief to know he is not really a bad man in spite of his sins and that God wants him and loves him so infinitely. This is the Gospel of Peace because it brings peace to the man tormented by evil – his guilt and burdens and sense of unworthiness and his sinfulness are all washed away, and his true righteousness and worth is revealed in seeing himself in the face of Jesus Christ.

Eric Dubay said...

Wow, thanks for yet another truth bomb! I hadn't noticed those contradictions before but now they seem obvious. The health recommendations are quite good, but that could easily be the old "angel of light" disguise you mentioned. I'm more intrigued to continue reading my King James Bible now and promise to do so! God bless.

Richard Paulson said...

Thanks for your great (and very reasonable) response. I am glad you see it that way and I have been glad to share. God bless you in your endeavour to read the whole King James Bible! I pray that God will reveal to you the historical reality of it all, and reveal himself to you personally - in personal encounter (that is, in your knowing that God exists, also know for certain the nature of, or who exactly is living in our geocentric heavens). I will be interested to see your thoughts/questions or conclusions in the end. Peace!

Richard Paulson said...

Hey Eric, one more thing to mention in your quoting me/the Scripture, in saying that Satan could be transforming himself into an “angel of light”. For I see that people have no idea to what extent this is actually true. For absolutely that’s how he deceives the whole world! He makes out that he is the “Biblical” God and “the Christ”, and those that follow the devil also transform themselves as “ministers of righteousness”, claiming to be Israel (God’s chosen people), and claiming to be a Jew (one covenanted to God), and claiming to be a Christian (a follower of Christ), and claiming ultimately to be a part of God’s beautiful and holy city – Zion; claiming thus for themselves all the things that are beautiful to God and perfect in beauty (that is, in the spiritual definitions of those Bible terms); and then people look at Satan’s counterfeits of them, and they condemn/denounce the true God because of those Satanic counterfeits! Simply horrible!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey, thanks Richard. I'm still reading the Bible and been looking for good Jesus/Bible/Christian movies to watch in the evenings. We just watched a great one called "The Encounter," have you seen that one yet? We're about to watch Jesus of Nazareth and we've seen the Passion. Do you happen to have any other good recommendations? Also my fiance is quite stuck on the idea of God needing us to "believe" in him. She feels like being a good person is more important than belief, what would you say to that? Also, is it true that the Bible says if you believe in Jesus you spend eternity in heaven and if you don't you go to hell? Thanks again for the help! Peace

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

That's exciting and great to hear. I am always willing to help and you (or she) can feel free to ask me things any time. God has been gracious, in doing wondrous things in my life, and I don’t want to keep the truth of the Bible to myself! Actually, I have wondered where all the seekers of truth/God have gone! I am more than willing, I really desire to share the wonderful things of truth/God freely, and because God has shared the truth/himself freely with me. It must also be definitely his desire for me to share.

You/your fiancé have asked great questions. They are big questions and I will need to do several posts again to answer them properly.

I don't quite recall watching "The Encounter" but I remember watching “Jesus films” especially when I was first drawn to Jesus many years ago, and I think overall it helped me at the time to keep seeking him. But they all fall far short of the truth about him and don't just stick to the scripture – no film can really depict him at all. I don’t therefore have any recommendations. But I am not discouraging you to watch such films – it may be a good appetite wetter! I never saw "The Passion". I wouldn’t watch it because Mel Gibson made that film and I don’t think it could possibly be a proper depiction (given his reckoned “understanding”). Even from what I heard/saw in the past, I got bad feelings about it (but I have little recollection). There is in the end no way of really knowing Jesus Christ other than the Bible's record and through personal experience, or that is, the Spirit of God showing you based on Scripture.

About your fiancé’s feeling, I think I see where she is coming from. I don’t think she sees the relevance of God needing us to believe him because the glorious concept that God wants a relationship with her has not really entered/been realized in her mind or even really registered as real/possible. She might be/is probably thinking, that God is interested in us just being good people or doing good. It is true that he wants us to do good, but this is not essentially why he even made us – merely to serve him. I am not saying that this is not involved in the reason we exist, but it simply isn’t the essence of it. God didn’t make us to be do good robots. He has got plenty of angels to serve him just as servants. No, God made man greater than this (than angels) – he made us in his very image. He made man (including woman) specifically to have relationship with, to give all of himself and all he has freely. In order to be able to receive all of God and all that he has – ultimately absolutely everything, it requires faith or belief in him. This is why God needs us to believe in him. His desire is for us to know that he loves us. If you don’t believe him in this, it grieves him. It is not essentially about him needing something for himself or to be served, it is about him needing/wanting you – the desire and need to share himself, to pour himself into man like a river. He simply loves you and your fiancé. That is the relevance of believing him.

The Bible says in:

John 14:21-23 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

Hey, would you both like the living God to make his "abode/home with you"? That is a wonderful promise from God – there is no religion that offers anything like the true God! If all this sounds “too good to be true”, you can understand why God emphasizes in the Bible for us to only believe him.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

But I must answer this more fully:

“Also my fiancé is quite stuck on the idea of God needing us to 'believe' in him. She feels like being a good person is more important than belief, what would you say to that?”

That depends on what she means. If she means that doing good is better than just someone saying "I believe God" and then doing evil things – well yes, then it is more important. But if she means that you can be a good person without belief, then no, that is not possible. Because being a good person must involve belief. And actually, “belief” is central and foundational to being a good person. For, a person only acts according to what he believes. For example, if you believe that love is right then you will love – act lovingly, but if you don’t believe love is right, then you won’t act lovingly. So belief is the essence of your actions. Logically, you cannot really separate belief from goodness.

There are people that fool themselves because they say they believe in God, and then don’t act according to their faith, and so deny their faith by their actions. The Bible speaks of this in the epistle of James 2:14-23.

To understand the vital importance of faith to God and how necessary it is for us to believe him, I will illustrate:

How would you feel if (just hypothetically speaking) your fiancé did all kinds of fine things for you but didn't believe anything you said and thought that you are a liar (or vice versa – how would she feel if you did the same)? I think that you would probably both prefer to be believed in rather than have all those fine things being done for you. Well, God certainly prefers to be believed in than anything else.

Also imagine now from God’s perspective. Why would he need anyone/everyone trying to do good things for him, at all? God is quite capable of providing good things for himself and for others – he is all powerful. Think of a child toward a parent. The child doesn’t have to provide good things for the parent, and he is not even able to. What the parent wants and naturally expects is only for the child to trust and believe in him – that is all. This is the same with God, because we are his children. The Bible says in:

Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

This is why faith in God is essentially everything. Simple childlike belief or faith/trust in him is the only act he really requires of us. Believing in God is saying that we love him. Loving our brother is also saying that. This is what pleases him. As a result of just believing him, he PROMISES to give us his Holy Spirit into our bodies; so that we may enjoy his fellowship. And God giving us his Spirit is him sharing his life with us. And by it he strengthens us and saves us from evil, and makes us able partners with him in doing good works. Becoming a “Christian” then, is a son/daughter joining with his/her Father in what he himself does by doing like him. But this only happens by believing in him.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

If a person thinks that by just trying to do good will confirm him/her as a good person, he/she will find in experience that the opposite happens. The New Testament speaks much of this reality. For the more a person tries to "be good" (i.e. do good) the more he realizes he cannot achieve it because the flesh is unable – the flesh is not a source of goodness. But God is. Thus God essentially says (in the Bible) to only believe him. Only believe or see with the eyes of faith, Jesus Christ, who is God manifested to us. Believe the gospel and believe that he freely gives you himself and all things. Believe him to grant you the gift of his Holy Spirit, and to fill you with his Holy Spirit to enable you to do good – to obey all the law/commandments of God. Then, by only looking at Jesus, you will find yourself fulfilling God's commandments without even looking at the moral law/the 10 commandments he gave to Moses. This is the one principle for living according to God that is given in the Bible: living by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is simply a higher/truer vision than what your physical eyes can see.

For to think that you can perfectly obey God’s law without the Holy Spirit/God's help is to say you are in the place of God to provide life and power to yourself. It is an affront to God. God alone is the source of life and he is power. Without him, you can do nothing. When a person in humility recognises this fact, he is in a place to receive God into all his being – because God freely gives himself. When you receive God in this way – as a gift, and as a little child, then you are “born again”. The true meaning of this term is that you are confirmed as God’s child. This is simply you (a spirit) being made alive from the “dead” or that is to say, your spirit enters into a spiritual life where God is very real to you and you know him intimately as your heavenly Father. You are then no longer “dead” to the knowledge that God is your Father – the Father of the real you (the real you is a spirit).

God also strongly condemns the idea that we can “earn” rewards or eternal life. Eternal life is a gift to those that believe in God – because believing/trusting God that he is not a liar (and that he is good) is essentially all that God requires. God is essentially against pride and always responds to humility. If a person relies upon good works to earn favour with God, he is actually denying that eternal life and God’s love is a gift. Just think of it. Did you “earn” being born? No, life is God’s gift. Also, if you had to earn love from someone, it wouldn’t be love, would it? Some people are constantly trying to do this with God, i.e. earn rewards/favour/eternal life, by running around trying to do good things and producing nothing that has any life in it. God speaks to us as to children. Children just trust their parents naturally. That’s all that God requires. Children are not expected to earn their parents love or to do works for their parents. The parents (i.e. normal or good parents) are pleased with just being believed and in the children believing that their parents know what is good for them. It is the same with God. God wants us to believe and obey him because in those things is eternal life.

The Bible says in:

1 John 5:9-13 "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 4

A person is revealed as being worthy/deserving of eternal life, simply by believing the record that God has given of his Son. Just accepting that God has given you eternal life in Jesus Christ, God’s Son – really believing it, means that you have eternal life/will live forever. It is that simple.

No one who is a truly good person is able to, after seeing Jesus, deny/refuse to believe in him, and no one who is a truly bad person is able to really believe that God freely gives him eternal life (although he might profess that he does). Believing in the record of God’s Son is the evidence of a good conscience. It is not saying that if you believe God you can live sinfully and get away with it. That is just someone fooling himself.

These are summaries of the Bible’s teachings which are most relevant to us.

Now, to answer the last question:

“Also, is it true that the Bible says if you believe in Jesus you spend eternity in heaven and if you don't you go to hell?”

Again, it depends what you mean. Do you mean that if someone doesn’t know to believe in Jesus, that he on that basis alone must go to hell? If that is your question, then, the answer is, No, not at all, the Bible does not say this! It is true however, that “Christian evangelicals” falsely so called, all preach the lie that “if you die without believing/knowing Jesus, that he is the Son of God, you must go to hell”. To justify this idea, they must imagine that those who don’t hear about Jesus must really be bad people anyway and that God has hidden the truth about him. Or they must imagine that everyone has heard about Jesus – an obvious lie. Or again, they must imagine that God only chooses some to go to heaven and “chooses” others to be damned! (What a horrible and most anti-Bible idea!) They even twist scriptures or take them out of context to support this! And yet this makes no sense because they think all people are essentially bad, and so why would God save some and not others (or rather, in that case, why would he save anyone at all)? But the Bible does not say that we are all heading for hell until we find Jesus. It doesn't say that we all deserve hell. It doesn't even say that we all deserve to be punished at all.

Thus the answer to this question is actually in a sense, absolutely not, or a profound “No”. And it is also in another sense “Yes, of course.” But let me explain.

The Bible does say that those who believe in Jesus the Son of God, have everlasting life, and that those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ will suffer eternal punishment. But it is not talking about those who have not heard of Jesus Christ or who have not seen truly who Jesus Christ is. As I said in my previous messages to you, a person is only judged according to the light that he has. Having understood Jesus, a person cannot in good conscience, deny him/not believe in him. He who sees the light (Jesus Christ) and despises him, must be worthy of everlasting punishment; for his unbelief in him is just confirmation that he is truly wicked. For it is not because he cannot believe in him, that he does not believe in him (or that is, simply because he is not yet reasonably convinced), but it is because he refuses to believe, or does not want to believe. Thus it is because he will not turn from sin at the sight of the love of God in Christ, but hardens his heart. He prefers sin to the love that he sees in Jesus Christ. He prefers darkness to light. The unbeliever is thus worthy of hell. But this does not mean it is necessary for everyone to believe in Jesus Christ, in order for them to go to heaven, because what if they have not properly heard of him or heard of him at all? How can they then be said not to have believed in him? Logically, you can disbelieve something that you have heard/know, but you can’t disbelieve something that you have not heard/known. So those that haven’t heard or seen Jesus for who he is can’t really disbelieve in him/his identity.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 5

Preaching Jesus Christ is not and was never meant to be done as a threat! Preaching Jesus Christ is meant to be the sharing of the knowledge of God for those who want to know him. This preaching of Jesus Christ however, is a threat to those who don't want to know God, and so they resist it and bring destruction upon themselves. The best way that they have resisted it is by preaching a phony "Jesus" and a phony "gospel" that no one in his right mind would accept.

The evil people mentioned in these following Bible verses will be eternally punished. The nature of that punishment must be just – not merely “torture”, and the nature of “hell fire” must be more than we understand – it is certainly a kind of “fire”. The nature of hell and punishment is essentially humiliation, burning shame, and a bringing upon the wicked their own destruction. It is obviously very fierce punishment and eternal destruction, but it isn’t God’s delight to “torture”. I think that is very helpful to see. People are tormented in hell because of what they have done – that was their choice, not God’s.

You will notice that their punishment depends on what they have done or what they are, and not solely on what they have believed:

Revelation 21:4-8 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Revelation 22:10-19 “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 6

Quoting again from the Bible:

Luke 16:19-31 “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the
prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

Here you see a real glimpse of the justness of God’s punishment. Also read Matthew 25:31-46. The wicked don’t really get away with anything. But the righteous go to heaven – they will spend eternity in the new heaven and in the new earth.

It is the infinitely despicable and loathsome person that goes to hell. No one else qualifies for hell or is even in danger of it, and simply not knowing to believe in Jesus does not mean that person goes to hell if he dies without believing in him.

God is love (according to 1 John in the Bible), and to believe in love is to believe in God, even if you don’t know that he is that love and that love is a person. It is impossible for someone to really see who God the Father and Jesus Christ is, without believing in and loving him/them, unless that person is utterly opposed to love and to what is good, pure and just. Thus, if someone is a loving person, or does what is right, but does not know the identity of that love or that God is love, that doesn’t mean essentially that he has not believed in him, even if he is ignorant of who Jesus Christ is. But if someone sees the light of Jesus Christ and hates him, it is only because he delights to do evil. Thus such people are condemned to hell in not believing him, because they prefer darkness to light.

As it is written:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

[Conclusion in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

John 3:17-21 “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks once again Richard! :) One last nagging thing... what if I've always "believed" in Jesus' teachings and followed him in that sense. I've accepted him into my heart formally several times in Sunday school, been baptized, prayed, and have personal conversations with "God," (the infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent intelligence that created the material world) ... but ... I've always been skeptical of fantastic and unverifiable claims of miracles from one who claimed to be the Son of God. I'm working/researching to see if my skepticism can be dispelled, but wondering if it cannot, is my belief and following of Jesus' teachings enough for afterlife in heaven, or is some sort of blind faith in miracles and fantastic claims the absolute test for entry into heaven? Thanks!

Richard Paulson said...

You are welcome, Eric! In my previous post, I have shared that you needn’t fear hell or fear missing heaven. In your statement of God above, I think you missed out “the infinite love”. That’s exactly what the Sunday school teachers had no real knowledge about. In reading your words I can see that you were pushed and terrorised into “accepting Jesus” from childhood. But Jesus cannot be accepted through terrorism/emotional manipulation. Jesus cannot be pushed into being accepted. Now you are afraid that what they said to you (or whatever you heard from “Christians” or “Christianity” previously in your life) might be true. But read again what I wrote before and you will see that my message and their message to you is not the same message. I can prove from the Bible that their “gospel” is antichrist. But I am declaring to you only what is really found in the Bible – the true gospel that you have never heard before. Therefore for the first time you are really considering Jesus might be truly God (without having to be pushed into it), because for the first time someone is actually telling you the truth about him (that he is not a terrorist) and pointing you to the Bible.

Whatever you heard before from a child was essentially only terrorism. It prevented you from really accepting Jesus Christ because you were manipulated by fear to do so. They did this to you and prevented you from really hearing the truth about God in the Bible. That’s not your fault. If you died tomorrow without yet realizing that Jesus Christ is God, you will still go to heaven. I simply said that you cannot honestly deny him if you listen to his words. You will not be able to say you don’t believe in him if you judge him based upon his words. This is my original point. So seeking verification elsewhere is missing this point. Not that I think you are really missing the point about needing to find the truth in the Bible, but because you are thinking, “What if I can’t believe? Does that mean I go to hell?” Again, that is still just “them” stealing the truth from you, because they sowed panic into your life from a young age. Okay, let’s just pretend that no matter how much seeking for the truth you do in the Bible and no matter how much praying you do for God to show you, you can still never believe that Jesus is God. Okay then, well, just don’t DISBELIEVE that he is God. Jesus didn’t even say that if you don’t know, you will go to hell. My point is that can anyone really hear the words of Jesus and then say that these words are not the words of God? If you CANNOT DENY that the words of Jesus are the words of God, then you will be just fine. You are fine already. I am just making you realize that it is irrational to adopt beliefs against the God of the Bible which you CANNOT VERIFY. Just don’t swallow the poison/unbelief of others any more, who speak against what they do not know. They are unjust in doing so.

You being pushed from a child into "accepting Jesus" has ultimately even pushed you to deny that Jesus is God and to deny that the Bible is the Word of God, when you actually have no evidence to think that. I point out that it is not reasonable to hold to any views against the Bible and against Jesus Christ as God, unless you can prove the Bible to be untrue and prove that the words of Jesus are untrue. The reason you denied Jesus as God and denied the Bible as the Word of God stems from the fact that the devil was preached to you in the guise of being Jesus Christ. You weren’t really denying “Jesus” you were denying the devil in rejecting what you understood to be “Christianity” from a child. At the same time you weren’t really accepting “Jesus”, you were accepting the devil in the guise of being “Jesus Christ”. By this I do not mean that you were really accepting the devil, but you have mistakenly thought of the devil as being Jesus Christ. That was not your fault at all.

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

How can a child who is being bombarded by absolutely evil preaching (even if it is sugar coated) be expected not to believe what he is being told by elders, especially because there is an element of truth in it? It just isn’t possible.

God does not want you to be pushed into accepting Jesus as the Son of God (God in the flesh). He wants you to only seek him in the Bible and find out from the Bible and decide based upon this alone who Jesus is. There is a claim in the Bible that Jesus is God. Judge this claim. Read the four Gospels. Meditate upon Jesus’ words. Seek God and ask him to reveal to you if Jesus is God – the Son of God born of a virgin. You believe that God exists, don’t you? You said that yourself. Then why not find out who that is? Don’t dismiss the Bible’s account. Only be reasonable and read the words of Jesus to find out if he is God. Come to your decision about him by reading the words of Jesus. Even if this takes years, so what? You will not go to hell seeking to find out who Jesus is! A just person judges reasonably. Judge a person (Jesus Christ) by his words, not by the words of another. If you can fault him, then don’t believe in him. If you can’t fault him, why don’t you believe in him? This is the original point I made.

Implore God to show you. Cry out to him. The Bible says if you diligently (with perseverance) seek God he will reward you. If you want to know who he is, then seek and ask him to show you. Don’t be satisfied without an answer. Don’t be turned away just because people preached a false Jesus to you and manipulated you with the fear of hell into accepting him. The Bible says that the fearful, or that is to say, those that cause fear in people – the terrorists, will themselves be eternally punished. That was in one of the Bible verses I quoted to you, and it must certainly include Christian evangelists or evangelicals falsely so called.
I have said that it is impossible for anyone honest or reasonable not to believe that Jesus is God (or come to that conclusion) provided they read only the words of the Bible concerning him. If my claim is false you can prove this for yourself by holding to honesty and reason and reading the words of Jesus. Doubts might come, but mere doubts are not reasonable. Doubts come from an unreasonable world – the internet itself is full of lies. One has to hold to reason to judge properly. Just hold on to what is reasonable in seeking God, and just see if one day you will not find certainty. It would be great if it doesn't take “years” for you to find the certainty of the truth. But even if it does, that’s okay.

Can you really make sense of your unbelief in the miracles of Jesus as the Son of God? It doesn't make sense because you yourself admitted to me that “I also liked and agree with the idea that if God exists, miracles most certainly exist, and they're not even that miraculous either, because it's just the Creator Creating.”

I think you’re forgetting that I have already proved this in a previous post and that you responded in agreement, that the miracles of Jesus and any miracle in the Bible is not even “that miraculous either, because it’s just the Creator Creating”. God created the whole universe, so why would something/a miracle as small by comparison that you see in the Bible be too fantastic? You speak again of “fantastic and unverifiable claims of miracles from one who claimed to be the Son of God”. Why, if God exists, as you say, do claims of miracles need to be “verified”, and why is it “fantastic”? Isn’t everything in existence “fantastic”?

[Conclusion in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

Why is an unusual occurrence or something you have not seen with your own eyes less believable than common occurrences that you always witness? There is no logical reason as to why even the most amazing miracles are less believable than anything you see. It is not your logic telling you this, but it is come from all the unbelieving rubbish of people who can’t even think rationally and who denounce God because they hate him. I think this unbelief you have is a poison not born of your own thinking. There may be nothing wrong with researching to verify something, but the verification of anything in the Bible can only ultimately come from your own ability to reason – logic itself and from seeking God himself who doesn’t expect faith without reason. True faith is actually purest reason. To not believe God is totally illogical. Faith itself is a logical step to unexplored possibility. Nobody discovered anything without first stepping out in faith. Nobody said: “I have to know it first that it is real before I can discover it”.

Why did Jesus die? He died to prove the total innocence of mankind to God the Father. That is to say, Jesus died to completely justify mankind. But if any person does not want to be innocent, then it is that person’s choice and Jesus cannot prove him innocent to God. That person is then condemned by his own choice. Now, if Jesus went to the extent of dying to prove your innocence to God the Father, why would he condemn you? The Passion of his cross was to present you perfect in the eyes of God the Father. He, therefore, won’t ever condemn you unless you don’t want to be or don’t care about being completely innocent.

That is essentially all that matters. Now, if you can’t believe yet that this is true or that the God of the Bible is true, then just don’t deny him. Don’t deny that Jesus is God. This is reasonable for you to do; since that you cannot prove or haven’t proven yet that he is not God. Don’t ever say that the Bible is not completely true or that the God of the Bible is not real, or not good, or anything like that, unless you can really prove it. I believe God wants to free you from adopting the lies from people that are against God and the Bible (his Word) because of the fact that these lies began when you were very young.

May God truly bless you and may he do wonders in your life. May he reveal to you the abundance of truth, and give you the joy of knowing God as your everlasting Father, and the joy of the gospel and of him dying for you! And may you have assurance of everlasting life.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Richard, I think you nailed it. I have been emotionally and psychologically terrorized with promises of eternal hellfire if I don't believe in Jesus since a little kid, as far back as I can remember. I will not deny that Jesus is God, however, and will continue to read the Bible to gain more insight. I appreciate all your help! Peace

Richard Paulson said...

That is a great attitude, Eric! I am sure that God is pleased with your response. I assure you that the Bible does not promise eternal hell fire for those who only do not know who Jesus is. They promised you eternal hell fire because they believe in the most satanic doctrines ever conceived; namely, “original sin” and “substitution/penal substitution”. These things are not even mentioned in the Bible, yet these things are the eyeglasses with which they read the Bible.

Therefore they don’t even know what Jesus means by “believing in him”. They take one part of what he says or one part of Scripture and deny the substance of it.

Believing in Jesus does not mean only believing he is the Son of God or God manifest in the flesh. If a person does not yet know who he is, or for whatever reason never comes to know who he is before he dies, but feeds the hungry or clothes the poor, then in being loving or compassionate to the one that comes across his path in desperate need, he is essentially believing in Jesus. But if one says, ‘I believe Jesus is the Son of God’, and hardens his heart and has no compassion for the one God brings across his path, that is in desperate need, then he is not a believer in Jesus regardless of whether or not he knows who he is. Even the devils know who Jesus is, and it doesn’t save them from being evil/eternal punishment.

My wife was telling me how in Sunday school they told children that they have a “black heart”. This is child abuse, and what they say certainly is absolutely against God’s Word. They believe thus that even little children need to be saved from hell. Notice according to the following, how they denied God’s Word:

Matthew 18:1-4 "AT the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is saying here that little children are innocent and that pride/the arrogant cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. He sets up little children as being the very nature of the kingdom of heaven! Even here Jesus is not condemning. He is just saying that a person cannot enter into the righteousness and peace and joy of the kingdom of heaven without being like a child – receiving that is, freely the kingdom of God.

They also teach that unless a person is "born again" he must go to hell. That is the same as saying that unless you know God loves you, you must go to hell. Thus the doctrine of alleged “Christian organisations” is totally insane! Being born again is only realising the truth of God's love for you through the acknowledgement of the truth, and having that life of God within you. It happens in being able to believe and confess that you are justified by the blood of Jesus. It is God's gift of righteousness, peace and joy which is the kingdom of God.

The Bible promises eternal life. 1 John 2:25 says, “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life”. This is God’s promise to you. He only asks you to believe it. This is not a threat, but a message of joy – “good news”.

The cross of Christ is meant to deliver people from the fear of death.

I quote:

Hebrews 2:14-15 “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

[Continued in the next post]

Richard Paulson said...

2 Timothy 1:10 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

The only message they should have preached to you is this: “God has given you eternal life in Jesus Christ”. That’s it. That is essentially the Bible’s message.

There are warnings of hell fire in the Bible that people might know there is punishment for being an evildoer. But hell is not what God has promised.

But every alleged “Christian organization” on earth doesn’t really believe that anyone can be good. And this belief in the inherent/intrinsic evilness of man is the essence of denying that God was born of a virgin. For if God was really born of a virgin he must in that act be giving dignity, worth and purity to mankind.

The Catholics deny the virgin birth in essence/substance because they believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. But for the doctrine of the virgin birth to be effective or to have any real substance, Mary must be an ordinary and humble woman.

The Moslem's deny the virgin birth, because they think man is too sinful and unclean and that God is too proud to come in the flesh.

The falsely called Evangelicals also deny the essence/substance of the virgin birth, because they blindly still hold to the idea that all mankind is inherently evil. All alleged “Christian denominations/cults” deny the virgin birth in substance. They are all therefore antichrist in purpose. Thus, this is the reason why the whole world has been deceived by the devil. For if the alleged preachers of the Bible don’t believe the Bible, but oppose it, who then can believe?

If you think the heliocentric view is the result of a conspiracy, well, you are right. But it is a facet of the conspiracy against the Bible. By far, the greatest conspiracy of all is that which denies the gospel I am sharing with you. For, the gospel is the ultimate cure and, without it, the disease of sin must spread throughout the world.

This might be difficult to imagine since the question might be asked: “How can even staunch ‘Bible believers’ be preaching something that is not even in the Bible at all; or that even expressly denies it?” Firstly, many of them are not for real/sincere. Secondly, even if they are, what they believe comes out of centuries of abuse. Satan breathes down people’s neck with the promise of hell fire if they should deny the antichrist doctrine he feeds them. So in terror they have accepted a misrepresentation of the Bible and of who God is. Their “gospel” is insanity, and the counterfeit cross they preach is the most powerful lie/evil the world has ever known. They are too afraid to let go of it, because they are terrorised with the fear of hell, having been convinced by wicked preachers that what they hear is really God’s Word. They think it is the doctrine of Christ but it is actually the denial of Christ. So they preach this to the masses and present the devil to them as being “Jesus Christ”. Some who are disgusted by this don’t therefore follow (thankfully), but also, of course, it causes some to be antagonistic and to blaspheme against the name of the true God. Some, who thankfully, have already found Jesus in spite of this, even so, still get trapped by all the false doctrine, and so their lives become one of religious bondage/futility.

The organized churches are mostly filled with people who don’t really care and are unwilling to be corrected or to repent – they like the evil doctrines they are being told, and they think by believing them they are going to heaven. Few who are a part of these organisations are just sincerely deceived.

Ova because of this post have i said...

Wow. Because of this post I have started locking my doors at night. I may even have to break down and buy a gun. I am terrified that there are people living on this planet who think the way you folks do just to justify an equally outdated theological view. The conspiracy started thousands of years ago, but the lies can no longer hide from observation. I almost get it if you are making money spewing this silliness, you did say you were an American. ( though you don't seem to care to live here...odd.) we have terrible wars in the Middle East because two groups of people need a specific hunk of land to satisfy their "prophecies" , and you just want to fan the fires with "God is real ! Man is the center of all importance! Just as long as it's MY God, that is. " Terrible. Just terrible.

Richard Paulson said...

In response to the previous nameless post:

I quote: "Because of this post I have started locking my doors at night. I may even have to break down and buy a gun."

I wonder which one of us in this post is threatening to hurt or kill you? Or how is believing that the sun goes around the earth (as observed) rather than the earth around the sun threatening to your life? Or how is it an "outdated theological view", when it is not a theological view at all? Or even if it was, why would a simply older view make it therefore untrue?

You say you "almost get it" if one is making money doing this post. According to the evidence, NASA is obviously one organisation spreading lies to make money. Why is that better than being more concerned about spreading the truth for free? Or how have you disproved or shown any evidence at all against the article above which soundly shows the deception and silliness of the heliocentric view?

Why is it "odd" for an American to live in Thailand or to call himself an American if he comes from America?

How can you prove that the wars in the Middle East have anything really to do with people just wanting to satisfy their prophecies? It is clear that people use the name of God in vain, to justify their evil and greed, but how does that prove that God is not real?

How does the reality of God "fan the fires" of wars based on greed? How can you prove that God is not real? Or how can you prove that Eric wants to "fan the fires" of war, just because he says “God is real”?

Why is it wrong to believe that the earth was made for man and that God made the lights in the heavens to revolve around it, for people to enjoy living on earth? Why is it wrong to think that man is the centre of God's creation rather than lifeless objects; namely, the sun and stars? Or how can you prove that non-living things are more important than living things?

Or even if you could prove it (which you cannot), why then are you afraid that someone might hurt or kill you, seeing that you claim to be so worthless (that is, less valuable than non-living things)?

Also, how can you prove that it is just bias for someone to believe in his God?

You say that it is claimed that lies have been hidden from observation until now. The claim is true (and you cannot disprove that either). But for you it is not true, because obviously the lies can hide from your observation even when the truth is plainly declared and when you are confronted with plain facts and they are in front of your face.

What have you contributed in speaking at all?

It is certain that you will not be able to answer any of these questions rationally, because your foolishness is so abundant and there is no thinking existent in anything that you have said. You have just spouted off empty words and obviously don't know what you are talking about, and you have completely missed the point of this entire post.

Or, how can you prove that your mouth (figuratively speaking) is not just pouring out foolishness, according to the following proverb in the Bible?

Proverbs 15:2 "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but THE MOUTH OF FOOLS POURETH OUT FOOLISHNESS."

Eric Dubay said...

Great response Richard, I'll "amen" to that! :) Peace!

Anonymous said...

Well said Richard. Eric I have really enjoyed not only the original post but the subsequent conversations and comments. Thank you for allowing this to take place.

Eric Dubay said...

Likewise, thanks Jacqui!

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

According to a muslim scholar research, the following are what's going on:

1- The earth does not orbit anything, it is fixed, but only rotates around itself to create the day/night/The earth rotates around its axis.
2- The earth is the center of the universe
3- The earth does not orbit the sun
4- The moon orbits the earth (30 lunar days for one rotation)
5- The sun orbits the earth (365 days for one rotation)
6- The sun and moon have the same two different orbits around the earth, but at different distances and speeds.
7- The sun is self-luminating, but the moon only reflects the light.
8- The sun is slightly bigger than the moon but much smaller than the earth
9- The sun orbits the earth at an angle to the equator between the tropics, thus creating the season.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Eric for your post, very thought provoking, I feel compelled to do more research on the subject.
Richard, I read through all of your posts/replies- THANK YOU, God bless you!

Richard Paulson said...

You are welcome, Anonymous!

Anonymous said...

This is my response to a claim of how light bends with gravity :-

In 1919, Arthur Eddington observed stars seemingly occluded by the sun that would not have been visible if that gravitational field did not act on light in the way that Einstein predicted.

My response :-

Ok, Just to rephrase, We only see the light from stars occluded by the sun because the gravitational field is said to “bend it” as Einstein predicted.

Ok we have several dynamics going on here, that have not been accounted for. Velocity and direction of the light, velocity and direction of the sun plus the light emitted. And then there is Arthur Eddington he is not just sat there! Remember he must be moving also in the global world theory.

To conclude that light “bends” because of a gravitational field is a natural assumption, if taken from a observation broken up into several units at best.
Can you provide up to date observations with time lapse film ?
You have quoted data taken nearly a hundred years now 1919 ! All due respect and I seriously mean that, because I love these guys.

If you watch a time lapse film of a city at night one could easily assume that light was bending around the corners, if you didn’t know better. :-)

I have used global Earth mind sent to discount the claim of gravity because without gravity the complete theory falls apart.

I just wondered what the response would be from a flat Earth pro. And is my observation correct ?

monbiotdebunked said...

Hi Eric

I find it hard to accept the perspective argument for why half of the bottom of buildings are obscured by the horizon over bodies of water. I also have issues with Sigma Octantis vs a flat Earth. And i believe that Australia cannot be the size necessary to obtend the necessary angles for timezones to occur as they do.

Do you rule out Robert Sungenis' work vs a spherical or approximation of sphericity at the geocentric centre of the universe, and if yes, why?