FURTHER DISCUSSION TEACHER OF CHRISTIAN TEACHERS CONTINUED.......

M. J. Young.......It is evident that you misunderstood my example of Mr. Obama. I did not
> mean that you must believe whatever you hear; I meant that if you think
> you know that he is President of the United States, you are mistaken--it
> is something you believe because you were told by someone, and not
> something you know.

Ozay wrote........Yes it is true what you say, I have to 'BELIEVE' if I am caught in a discussion about Obama, because the world I live in everyone has created this same belief, it is a world of creations, yet creations come from where? Answer, everything comes from the void 'NOTHING' that is the truth I KNOW, I have experienced it. But because I have to play this game of life with those who also 'BELIEVE' that Obama exists, those who cannot live outside of belief and disbelief, yet this does not mean that I cannot define the difference between "KNOWING" Obama exists, and merely having a 'BELIEF' given by others that he exists, I have the ability to be able to define with high reasoning between what "I CAN KNOW AS TRUTH AND WHAT i CANNOT KNOW AS TRUTH" and I have to ACCEPT what I can "KNOW" and what I 'CANNOT KNOW' and I will say an evolved soul will not accept any 'belief' over "knowing truth" where his life does not depend on it and those of his fellow human beings, an evolved soul will leave belief and have nothing, if that is what it leaves him with, and he will then see that "NOTHING IS THE TRUTH" AND THIS NOTHING HE CAN SAY HE "KNOWS" We have a soap series in England and people talk about the last episode and all the characters in that soap, though I can talk about that soap as if it is real, with others 'BELIEF' it does not mean that it has any reality to a seeker of truth, as I AM, therefore it has no meaning to me in any way about truth, yet my old sister in law she was not the sharpest tool in the tool set, she would talk about Eastenders as if East enders were actually happening in life, as if it were a truth and not just a belief, she would spend every day in front of the TV getting lost in this illusion and even bringing this illusion to life in her own life as a form of belief, by talking about it as if it were real, of course we are not ignorant we listen patiently, but I tell you an evolved soul has the ability to define what is "truth" and what is and 'belief' cannot be accepted as truth, though a whole screen play in life can be created from a common illusion that everyone shares who watches Eastenders and Coronation Street and Obama.
But yet if some one like Jesus says: Come listen to this truth, and here is the way you can find that truth, and "KNOW" and it is inside, because prayer and meditation are inside and in there you will find this and you will find that, then If I follow the way and I find what he has pointed out is true then I can say "TRULY I KNOW" If I cannot identify it in myself then I cannot know. If some one says 'BELIEVE ME' only, then I cannot "KNOW" anything. AND I SAY WHAT WORTH IS BELIEF?
In a court of law a criminal is given a trial and evidence is used for his case and against his case, if the evidence weighs against his case then he will be found guilty, and if the sentence is death by electric chair then the judge will convict him, the jury 'BELIEVES' he is guilty, and he is sentenced to death. Now it has been found that in some of these convictions new evidence comes up and then it is 'BELIEVED' that the convict is innocent, but it is TOO LATE, he has already been sent to the electric chair and EXECUTED, that is the problem of belief and not "KNOWING" if the jury were witnesses directly to the crime then they would 'KNOW' but if not, then they can only 'believe', which leaves in question the whole foundation of trial by jury and the death sentence, in this situation there is too much at stake, his life, as there is too much at stake when one believes there is a heaven in the sky and not in the self. But so that society can stay safe we have to lock him away until we can hopefully "KNOW" for sure that he is safe to let out on the street, but in any situation like this nothing can be called "KNOWING" only evidence can say guilt or not guilty, all this is only outside of the self that you cannot "KNOW", what we have been discussing is that which can be found in all selves as Jesus found and as Jesus taught we can find in ourselves therefore this we can "KNOW" HOLY SPIRIT.
Still though I paint this out to you in simplistic words you still are blocked, that block is because belief stands in the way. And it is I who understands you, but you cannot understand me because of the block of your ego mind identity and intelligence, therefore your motivation for this discourse comes from the wrong place, it is rather to protect than to "KNOW", the truth threatens everything you 'BELIEVE' and everything you 'THINK' you are and have been in your life, all your values everything, but I tell you this will make you firmer in faith if you could only let go and ask instead of tell, your arrogance your vanity all stand in the way of this small task, your pride in what you 'BELIEVE' THIS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL THIS BLINDNESS OF HUMANITY, my church I offer to you is not the church of Peter that is dyeing a death, but my Church is the Church of G O D and my path was the path of JUDAS, THOMAS, JOHN, MARY AND SIMON PETER, remember my PATH.


M. J. Young.......My point was that most of the things most people
> would say they know are really beliefs, information they have accepted
> as if it were knowledge based on evidence and their trust of those who
> told them. Thus belief and knowledge are so nearly the same thing that
> the words are almost interchangeable.

Ozay wrote.......Then we come back to where we started this discourse, we spoke in the beginning of subjective and objective truth, and what I said was that nothing can be OBJECTIVE truth, because everything is filtered through our senses and sense perception, and all this is filtered and interpreted by the mind, the mind has been proven over and over as a subjective device, for instance the cat brought up in an environment where it is only given horizontal lines for his visual perception, after a certain time of this the cat was introduced to the 'real' world, the cat could see very little only those horizontal lines. Then there those experiments of hypnosis where people can see and feel non existent things through the power of belief, people could be made to feel pain where there was nothing that could cause pain, people could with stand pain as if it did not exist. SO YOU SEE THE TRUTH IS EVERYTHING I THINK I AM CANNOT BE REALITY, AND THAT IS A TRUTH I CAN KNOW. And another truth I can know is that the power of my belief can make all kinds of miracles happen, and that the power of this unchecked belief can cause all kinds of demonic things to happen also, as which has been happening throughout human history especially during the time of Christianity.


>
M. J. Young....... It is also clear that you do not understand what Descartes meant.

Ozay wrote.......Well I never read Descartes I only used one sentence and that was "I think and therefore I am" which I went into detail explaining to you the untruth and the truth, but still though a child could understand you do not....ego identity is a block, discredit the truth I speak or me in any way and the ego wins back its self esteem, that is the name of your game and you cannot see it.

>
M. J. Young....... You wrote, "My aim is to debate and for you to come to the truth, and
> the way I do this debate is to way lay your demons by pointing them out,
> therefore what I do is reveal the truth, that is NOT ARGUMENT,"

Ozay wrote.......No it is not an argument from this end, from your end that is about your ability or inability to control your lower nature.


M. J. Young.......Ah, but truth is always argument: it is argument from reality. This
> again demonstrates my point, that you do not understand the words I am
> using. Debate is a synonym for argument, except that technically
> "debate" means "an exchange of arguments".

Ozay wrote.......Now for me the definition of the word : "ARGUMENT" is some thing more closer to quarrelsome where it is a matter of who has the loudest mouth and who can dominate who and control, this is a common understanding, however I have just checked Oxford dictionary and it states that it can be understood as: Logical reasoning. Which to me is fine, so we have pinpointed where we have misunderstood, and on that point we both stand corrected, more so me for not checking what else it could of meant, thank you for that pointer. And now it is good that you do not argue with me but rather reason and come to good discussion here where we both use control over the lower nature that is the ego, otherwise it is the argument of lower nature which was my understanding of argument where there is no self control or self discipline.


>
M. J. Young....... You asked, "Jesus was the Son of God how long after his death was
> everything written down? quite some time I gather."
>
> I suppose that depends on what you mean by "quite some time".
>
> We have good evidence that Matthew's Gospel was written less than twenty
> years after Jesus' death.

Ozay wrote.......Now if some one were to ask you to write down points of this discussion in 20 years time how accurate do you think you would be? Often when there is some one who is quoting directly to a secratary even here the secretary will make mistakes, and that the person is actually there those mistakes can be put correct when the secretary reads what she has written to the original source, but when it is written 20 years after, how accurate do you think it can be? I don't think you have a valid point at all, if anything your point backs my point, that is misinterpretation, and I have recognised some of those in the Bible.


>
M. J. Young....... We have good evidence that Matthew relied on Mark's Gospel in writing
> his own, and that he also relied on a collection of other documents we
> have called "Q", short accounts of individual stories and teachings of
> Jesus that were preserved by the believing community.

Ozay wrote.......So you would rather rely on this, that is fine because as I said there is enough information in the Bible to help you find the "TRUTH" but you have to go there yourself to "KNOW" Simple how many more times do I need to say this, what is blocking you from hearing? Though they listen they cannot hear me..........Remember? But I also tell you that there are errors and you will "KNOW" these errors as I do when you have made that journey yourself, and you will also understand why those errors were put there as I know, and as Jesus himself would know if he were here reading the Bible himself and all those who quoted him, it is common that what is said now and then past on will not be what was meant to be conveyed, after 20 years, waww! that is worse than I thought, you are intelligent and you cannot see this why? and what blocks you? Do I need to tell you again?


>
M. J. Young....... It is also clear that Matthew and Mark were both eyewitnesses of Jesus'
> life. The same is true of James, Peter, and Jude--and while John's
> works may have been written more than half a century after Jesus' death,
> they were written by the same John who sat beside Jesus at the dinner
> table that last night, who stood at the foot of the cross as He died,
> and who visited his empty tomb as one of the first to have done so. As
> to Paul, he only met Jesus once, and that perhaps as much as a decade
> after Jesus had died (although probably not so late as that).

Ozay wrote.......You cannot prove anything is the "TRUTH" in any of these writings a theory will be thought out then an experiment will be carried out, then theory is either accepted or not, if accepted then it needs to be carried out again and if proven true again we can conclude the theory is acceptable because significant evidence was given, as an individual who can only go inside yourself then it is you who proves to you or disproves to you or just calls the experiment a failure and try again, in this idea, few except the Saints have actually recreated the experiment, but if the Saints information is written down still you cannot know yourself for sure until you yourself carry out that experiment and then come to know, until you can identify it in yourself, and not through brain washing into 'BELIEVING' you are born again, or you have seen the light, psychologists will tell you that much of this phenomena is an ordinary euphoric state brought on by certain actions that are not conducive to truly "KNOWING" through direct experience what god is and what Jesus and all the apostles were trying to convey yes many Saints came from this religion, but there are few or none today and you are not one of those Saints, you are a scholar, nothing else. I have been there and I "KNOW" that is that, take it or leave it at your own peril waste your life forever in argument and only coming to 'BELIEF' or get out and do it.



TM. J. Young.......To clarify the confusion, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth
> centuries, educated people wanted to believe that God would never work
> miracles or tamper with the natural order. They therefore argued that
> the accounts of the miraculous in the Bible must be false. How, though,
> could they be false if they were written by eyewitnesses? The answer
> given was that they were not; they were written a few hundred years
> later by people who wanted these miraculous stories that had grown up as
> a mythology around their teacher to be true. At that time, the earliest
> copies of the New Testament came from the fifth century, and we were not
> so scientifically capable at that point to be certain they were as old
> as that. So intelligent educated men asserted without evidence that the
> books of the Bible were all written later by people who pretended to be
> the original authors, with only a few of the letters excepted.


Ozay wrote.....That makes the source of the Bible even more suspect, yet I can tell you that when you do it correctly just like those Saints I do know that miracles happen I have identified those miracles myself, so on the back of those miracles you know there is some thing exceptional about the way Jesus has proclaimed this path and this means there is enough good information left for those Saints to grasp the meaning of it all, but for many that is not so.


>M. J. Young.......Since then we have demonstrated the early dates of the copies we had,
> found copies that are earlier, and found fragments of copies dating into
> the middle of the first century, already copies, not originals, having
> spread through the then-known world. We have demonstrated that writers
> in the second century were already quoting the books of the New
> Testament as materials that had been established as given, and some of
> those writers knew the authors of those works (Polycarp knew John;
> Clement of Rome knew both Peter and Paul).


Ozay wrote.......As I say, actually I think that is good if it is original, yet it does not take anything from my argument, that you cannot "KNOW" anything until you have gone there.


>
M. J. Young....... So the claim that the New Testament books are written late and therefore
> unreliable is a lie promulgated by men who wanted an excuse to
> disbelieve what it said.
> If you have any inclination toward scholarship, I recommend the works of
> Bruce Metzger and F. F. Bruce in this regard; they are regarded as the
> soundest men in the field. You can get a sort of Cliff Notes version in
> the books by Lee Strobel; I think The Case for Faith is the one that
> focuses most on these issues, but it's been a while since I read them.

Ozay wrote.......They sound interesting books and I hope people can find the true path through them, but I give little time these days to reading, I would rather give that time to prayer and meditation, it is so beautiful and peaceful there, though maybe who knows I may think about that one day.

>
M. J. Young....... Finally, you wrote, "You do not have concern for me, at all points in
> this discussion your concern has been mostly based of your need to
> consolidate your identity and how you identify as a scholar this has
> been the main focus of your discussion, that concern from you for me is
> an empty suggestion,"If that is so, then there is no need for you to reply. I only write
> because you write to me; I only wrote because you contacted me. I have
> given you what I understand to be truth, and you have no use for my
> knowledge. You have denied that I know any truth and attempted to
> persuade me to abandon the truth that I know for some experience you
> believe and trust that you have had. I will not, and nothing you say
> will change my belief that the Bible is the guide to all truth, and not
> a primer to be abandoned as long as we live in this world.

Ozay wrote.......Again I will ask the question you refuse to answer and in this refusal you give the answer: WHAT IS THE GREATER TRUTH......BELIEF OF TRUTH?.......OR.......KNOWING TRUTH? A non answer speak volumes. It is you who has denied "KNOWING" TRUTH no me because you do not talk from anything other than 'BELIEF' surely that is what we have been discussing all through our discourses, that point has been made clear by your self and your stand on BELIEF of TRUTH and me and my stand on KNOWING of TRUTH.
And again you have created an image of me so that you can justify everything you say, how common this human trait is, I say again I am here to consolidate Jesus's teaching, I am here to make your faith stronger, but what I say is you do not understand it as it is meant to be understood, and there are oter things you do not understand how it is, and because you do not ask but rather tell, we have not even hit on the surface of this that would make you a better human being and pass on a truly faultless truth.

>
> --M. J. Young.......