Irrefutable proof of the existence of God

[empther]

Orangebookbag wrote:
think I’ll butt in and say I’m intrigued albeit very skeptical of the claims made by itt23r, and I wish more of the book was available for free on the internet (might help sell copies too).

Well, that’s interesting.

Since itt23r admits he’s self-publishing the book he has it on his computer and can move it around the internet easily.

YAHOO allows anybody to set up his own message board about any subject, apparently with no limit on the amount of material posted. Some of these message boards have tens of thousands of posts:

http://messages.yahoo.com/

How about it, itt23r ?

You could do it with far less time and effort than you’ve already spent on this message board.
When people see what a revolutionary theory this is and how it at long last and finally proves the existence of God, everybody will want their own printed copies to put right up there alongside the Bible. You’ll make millions, win the Nobel prize, and be remembered 'til the end of time.

We will now hear itt23r’s excuses why he can’t do this.

 

[Abba]

itt23r,

Do you cite Rudolf Steiner and credit him for calling the cosmo, nature etc… the Fifth Gospel? He presented five lectures in 1913 under the title The Fifth Gospel to the Anthroposophic Society.



“Rudolf Joseph Lorenz Steiner[1] (25 or 27 February 1861[2] in Murakirály, Kingdom of Hungary, Austrian Empire, now Donji Kraljevec, Croatia – 30 March 1925 in Dornach, Switzerland) was an Austrian philosopher, social reformer, architect, and esotericist.[3][4] He gained initial recognition as a literary critic and cultural philosopher. At the beginning of the 20th century, he founded a spiritual movement, Anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy growing out of European transcendentalism and with links to Theosophy.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

The Fifth Gospel by Rudolf Steiner:

The eternal Akasha Chronicle, the “Memory of the Universe” is the source of what in these lectures is exposed as it confirms and extends knowledge, while the content of the four Gospels of the New Testament. These lectures were given (in 1913) for an exclusive audience membersAnthroposophical Society.But it is expressed in the first, that the content of this “Fifth Gospel” is of particular importance for the present time, so it is justified and even necessary to give must be considered widespread, making it known to mankind in general. In this Gospel, Rudolf Steiner also called THE GOSPEL OF KNOWLEDGE. All text is based on shorthand notes that were later given to advertising without prior review by the author. Five Lectures on the subject, which we insert in this issue two and three will come in the next.

revistabiosofia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=45

 

[empther]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

The Fifth Gospel by Rudolf Steiner:

It’s easy to come up with a new theory which you don’t have to prove. Many have done it. They’re dishonest.

When Bishop Sheen was studying in England around 1920, some British philosopher wrote a bestselling book called “God and Time” or something like that. He claimed that God was an evolving God who grew greater with time. The King of England gave him a medal for writing this nonsense.

Bishop Sheen went to see this guy and pointed our that God would not be God if he were not infinite and you can’t go from finite to infinite so he was always infinite etc etc.
The philosopher said, “I never thought of it that way.”

Sheen asked him if he’d ever read the works of Thomas Acquias.

The man answered, “No, and I don’t think I will. You become known in this world not through truth but through novelty, and my theory is novel.”
:banghead::bigyikes::slapfight:

 

[Abba]

What’s going on? Have sales gone up on account of this thread? Are you packing and shipping or are you sweating this one out? I am waiting.

While you prepare your response, could you also prepare a definition for ‘Jesus’ and the cosmic Christ? I think we are using the same words for different things. Is it like Steiner? I noticed he was doing some calculations of his own. Did you ever belong to the Anthroposophical Society?

I thank you in advance for your response.

Peace,

Abba

 

[itt23r]

To Abba;

Sorry for the delay but yes I do other things besides post. Actually I was saying a rosary in a chair after dinner and I dozed off for a while As for the Anthroposophical Society I’m not familar with it. Nor am I familiar with Rudolph Steiner. Are you? Is he solid or is he a heretic?

I am familiar with another book named The Gospel of Creation though, But it too is from 100 years ago and I have not read it either.

As for my calling my book the fifth Gospel I was reminded by a priest over dinner last night that the book of Isaiah has often been referred to as the fifth Gospel. And I certainly don’t want to step on Isaiah’s toes so maybe I should be referring to Creation as the 6th Gospel. Huh?

As for the concept of the Cosmic Christ I have heard a little about it and there may be some elements to be found in my book but I’m really not well versed in it at all. My book is largely just my attempt at trying to relate to the best of my ability what I am seeing when I look at a mathematical formula which i believe was written by Christ. I do draw alot on past learning and experience but for the most part I have tried to be as objective as possible. Not trying to warp it into anyone’s particular prejudices. And the fact that I do not have a doctorate in either theology or science may actually be a benefit for writing this book. As for me I personally see it as God giving to children what he has hidden from the learned and the wise.

Peace.

 

[itt23r]

To Abba;

One more thing on Steiner. It might be interesting now for me to go back and read what he had to say and see if there are any similarities. It is possible that he may have come to the same conclusions I have without the benefits of the math. I really don’t think the math is necessary to see this gospel but I do think it helps.

 

[Abba]

the Gospel Paul is referring to in Colossians that is preached to all the creatures is most definitely the one that is interwoven into all Creation. Did the 4 evangelists preach to all God’s creatures? I don’t think so. It is just as it says in the Psalms: “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firment declares His handiwork.” this is one and the same Gospel that Paul is referring to. A fifth Gospel which corroborates the other four in every detail. So no it is not a new or a strange Gospel either

As for my authorship for much of the book I consider myself just a translator.

There is nothing original here. I do not see why the Word needs you as His “Translator”.

You would have problems with a publisher since you do not give credit to Joseph Waggoner nor Rudolf Steiner. But, you never read their work nor ever heard of them.



Waggoner was born in Baraboo, Wisconsin on January 12, 1855, to Joseph Harvey and Maryetta Hall Waggoner. He was the sixth of ten children.

His father had joined the Advent group in 1852, which would later become the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Soon thereafter he became a leading preacher and writer, and remained active until his death in 1889. He was on the committee that adopted the official name, Seventh-day Adventist that is still in use today.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellet_J._Waggoner

The Gospel in Creation
By E.J. Waggoner

CREATION, THE MEASURE OF GOD’S POWER: But what is the measure of the power of God? Wherein is
it seen in a tangible form? Read Romans 1:20, where we are told that ever since the creation of the world, the
invisible things of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made. It is in creation, therefore, that the power of God is to be seen by everybody. But the power of God
in the line of salvation is the gospel. Therefore the works of creation teach the gospel. This is declared in Psalm
19, where we read, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork. Day unto
day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; without these
their voice is heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”
I have given the rendering of the margin, as conforming more closely to the original. The idea is, that no
matter what language a people speak, all can understand the language of the heavens. Their message can be
read much more easily than if they uttered an audible sound; for all people on earth cannot understand the same
articulate speech, but all who have reason can read the simple language of the works of God.
storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/eBooks/THE_GOSPEL_IN_CREATION.pdf

Notice the name of the website…

 

[itt23r]

To Abba;

I haven’t fully digested what you’ve cited but my initial reaction is that I think he put it very well.

 

[itt23r]

To Abba;

Romans is indeed another location where the Bible discusses this gospel. And having further digested this citation let me thank you again for posting it. You’ve gotten me intrigued to read more and I may also have to give him credit in the next edition. What is your attitude towards it?

 

[itt23r]

I also need to make an announcement

The Archdiocese has gotten back to me and has acknowledged that after further research they did find that they did indeed write that accolade. Just as I’d said. They also told me that it is correct for me to say that it was issued from the Chancery Office. However they are still insisting that I remove it from the website. Apparently those at the Archdiocese who’ve not read the book and are not willing to read it are afraid of the controversy. And they are the ones that are winning the day. I am still in communication with them on this matter but they do not seem as though they are going to budge on it, I may end up therefore having to remove it from the website afterall even though they did say what I’ve claimed. Just thought you’d all like to know.

 

[Whadyamean]

I also need to make an announcement

The Archdiocese has gotten back to me and has acknowledged that after further research they did find that they did indeed write that accolade. Just as I’d said. They also told me that it is correct for me to say that it was issued from the Chancery Office. However they are still insisting that I remove it from the website. Apparently those at the Archdiocese who’ve not read the book and are not willing to read it are afraid of the controversy. And they are the ones that are winning the day. I am still in communication with them on this matter but they do not seem as though they are going to budge on it, I may end up therefore having to remove it from the website afterall even though they did say what I’ve claimed. Just thought you’d all like to know.

That is all well and good. However, are you doing a re-edit on your book for grammar and usage?

 

[itt23r]

yes i know thre are some grammatical and usage errors in my posts but the book has been editted several times for those errors… We may not have gotten them all but we’ve tried.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well again the 2/3rds Rule doesn’t prove anything but i think the fact that Mary’s choice is the only reliance the timeline has in a human factor says a great deal…

Hmm… I hope this is a typo when you say that “the 2/3rds Rule doesn’t prove anything”.

In either case, I can agree with the rest of it. If in the content of the book you can satisfy other people’s curiosity about the question of determinism, then that would be one less question to worry about.

Judging by this list you are going to be tied up for a while and Dostoevsky is a tough act for me to try to nudge into.

Well, it shouldn’t be if this book is exactly what you say it is.

As a side note, I just love studying Dostoevsky’s works. What a mind! And a Catholic no less (after he was an atheist and agnostic)! In the Brothers, he has the absolute best argument against the existence of God I’ve ever seen. I can’t get enough of his literature.

The best I can say is my “Intro” will take you a couple of hours tops to read and digest and help you decide better if “the tome” is worth reading.

That sounds like the better thing to do here. But there is still no promises that I will enjoy or even agree with the contents of the intro. Just throwing that out there. In other words, this isn’t a win; this is an acceptance to play the game.

Remember, you are placing it on the same level as the Gospels. And as such, I will remain a skeptic about it until I see what up wit dis. Haha…

As to the second paragraph take a look at the table of contents and you will see that a large portion of the book is made up of appendices. and the 1st three chapters and chapter 5 are really just a rehash of where science and theology stand right now in their positions.

Ahh… It is still super long in comparison to the Gospels. Is it easy to read just like the Bible? That’s what I’m worried about.

Let’s grant that your work is what you say it is. Can children read it and understand the message of the Logos just like they would understand Peter’s fear at the stormy sea? Although Scripture cannot be easily understood at all levels (I should know), its most basic message can be understood even by young and undeveloped minds.

And as I was explaining to ABBA the Gospel of Creation absolutely IS on the same level as all the other four gospels. However my book IS NOT that Gospel. It is merely a book about that Gospel, a book trying to present to the public some of the wonders contained in that Gospel which can be found throughout the created universe. And my book certainly has no business on the same ambo with Sacred Scripture anymore than any other book written about the Gospels

Other than the fact that I don’t know what “ambo” means, I am pretty confused here. It’s on the same level as the Gospels, but not THAT Gospel, but ABOUT that Gospel? Shirley, there is an easier way to say what you said.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by itt23r forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I also need to make an announcement

*The Archdiocese has gotten back to me and has acknowledged that after further research they did find that they did indeed write that accolade. Just as I’d said. They also told me that it is correct for me to say that it was issued from the Chancery Office. However they are still insisting that I remove it from the website. Apparently those at the Archdiocese who’ve not read the book and are not willing to read it are afraid of the controversy. And they are the ones that are winning the day. I am still in communication with them on this matter but they do not seem as though they are going to budge on it, I may end up therefore having to remove it from the website afterall even though they did say what I’ve claimed. Just thought you’d all like to know. *

Anybody who still believes this charlatan at this point is an idiot!

thegospelofcreation.com/accolades.php

 

[empther]

Quote:

Orangebookbag wrote:
think I’ll butt in and say I’m intrigued albeit very skeptical of the claims made by itt23r, and I wish more of the book was available for free on the internet (might help sell copies too).

Well, that’s interesting.

Since itt23r admits he’s self-publishing the book he has it on his computer and can move it around the internet easily.

YAHOO allows anybody to set up his own message board about any subject, apparently with no limit on the amount of material posted. Some of these message boards have tens of thousands of posts:

http://messages.yahoo.com/

How about it, itt23r ?

You could do it with far less time and effort than you’ve already spent on this message board.
When people see what a revolutionary theory this is and how it at long last and finally proves the existence of God, everybody will want their own printed copies to put right up there alongside the Bible. You’ll make millions, win the Nobel prize, and be remembered 'til the end of time.

We will now hear itt23r’s excuses why he can’t do this.

Earth calling itt23r. What are your excuses?

 

[Abba]

itt23r,

It seems to me that you did some calculation that coincide and look pretty. Of course, you would describe it as mathematical elegance. The problem I see with all this is that you decided to create a platform to present your findings that would give it grandiose value as you think it deserves.

So you grabbed here and there and created your platform. It includes:

1. The Gospel of Creation
2. The Fifth Gospel.
3. You as the ‘Translator’ of the Word.
4. You have been commissioned by God to spread this Gospel.

The first two claims we have accounted for and as for the third, I suppose you just decided to flip Waggoner’s statement (in brown ink above) regarding how no translator is needed. Why not give yourself the title of Translator?!? The more, the bigger, the better. Coincidentally, a follower of Steiner also claimed to have been commissioned by God to spread a Gospel - Samael Aun Weor.

Given all that you have demonstrated on this thread, I am concern with what you would claim later on as your book becomes known. Will you call your self a Prophet? How many souls will you mislead?

I think that it would just be more practical and honest to present your mathematical theory for what it is and with an appropriate corresponding title. If it coincides it will get attention you do not have to offend Catholics to sell your book. I don’t think you want to give people like empther and me a heart attack? Negative advertisement does work - as Rudolf Steiner notes in the introduction of his Fifth Gospel:

PRIMERA CONFERENCIA

Creo que, con respecto al tiempo en que vivimos, es de peculiar importancia el tema sobre el cual voy a hablar en este ciclo de conferencias. Ante todo, deseo poner en claro que el haber elegido semejante tema no se debe, en absoluto, al afán de producir sensación, ni cosa parecida. Pues espero poder mostrar que, en un sentido de singular importancia para el tiempo presente, se justifica hablar de un quinto Evangelio, y que para lo que ello significa, la denominación “El Quinto Evange*lio”, es, efectivamente, la más apropiada.

Google translation will give you the idea:

"I think with time we live in, is of peculiar importance to the topic which I will discuss in this lecture series. Before anything, I want to make it clear that having chosen such a subject should not be at all, the desire to produce sensation, or anything like that. Well I hope to show that, in a sense of singular importance for the present time, it is justified to speak of a fifth Gospel, and that what this means, the name “The Fifth Gospel,” is indeed the most appropriate. " Rudolf Steiner.

But, you shouldn’ t have to stoop so low to sell your mathematical calculation.

Peace,

Abba

 

[itt23r]

To GreggAlvarez

Hmm… I hope this is a typo when you say that “the 2/3rds Rule doesn’t prove anything”…

No typo here. The 2/3rds Rule provide us an empirical proof of the existence of God. And despite what they may seem to claim all empirical proofs are actually theories that can one day be proven false. No matter how much data can be collected to support the theory all you need is one data point to the contrary and the whole thing falls. This is probably why the Church hasn’t put a lot of effort into finding empircal proofs. To put it more into her words, “No one can prove the existence of God, but you can know with absolute certainty that He exists.” An empircal “proof” like that proposed by the 2/3rds Rule can lead you to God, but only God can get you through the final step.

As a side note, I just love studying Dostoevsky’s works. What a mind! And a Catholic no less (after he was an atheist and agnostic)! In the Brothers, he has the absolute best argument against the existence of God I’ve ever seen. I can’t get enough of his literature…

I too have a great appreciation for Russan authors. Their language and their ethos always seems to me to translate very well into the American experience.

Remember, you are placing it on the same level as the Gospels. And as such, I will remain a skeptic about it until I see what up wit dis. Haha…

Again it is not the book 'I am putting on the same level as the Gospels it is what the book is about (Creation) that deserves that status. Take a look at another one of Abba’s latest posts. There is a quote there from an E.J. Waggoner. He apparently wrote something similar to mine about 100 years ago (though I doubt it contains anything about the 2/3rds Rule). And he gave it the same name as my book. And I think he describes this gospel beautifully

Ahh… It is still super long in comparison to the gospels. Is it easy to read just like the Bible? That’s what I’m worried about…

Probably no less easy to read than my posts. In my engineering profession I have been told that I have a knack for explaining complex problems in ways anyone can understand and I’ve tried to incoporate that into the book. There may be some chapters that are easier to read for you than others. But that is to be expected. Since this book covers so many scientific and theological disciplines it is rare to find someone who is proficient and appreciative of all of them. Again the intro should tell you everything you need to know as to whether you will enjoy reading the book.

And one more thing. Stop calling me Shirley.

 

[empther]

Putting your book online, itt23r ? What about that ?

Why not ?



:coffeeread:

 

[Abba]

Putting your book online, itt23r ? What about that ?

Why not ?



:coffeeread:

Not a chance. This thread is a gold mine.

Ranking two days ago:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,883,306 in Books

Ranking today:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,883,218 in Books

 

[itt23r]

To Abba

Since you are apparently good with explanations already given for your first two objections I will go directly to the 3rd and the objection that I call myself translator despite Waggoner’s claim that the Gospel needs no translator. And as I said before I am not trying to raise myself to a higher level by preferring that title to author. Translator is actually, I think, a much humbler title and more descripitve of what I have actually done. Stenographer is another and maybe a better choice. But I do disagree with the statement that no translator is needed. Just judging from some of the animosity I’ve seen to the notion that Creation is another gospel tells me that not everyone is receptive to it. A lot of Christians (Sola Scriptura people especially) are so wrapped up in the Bible that the idea of looking elsewhere for Christ scares them silly. so yes for some finding this new gospel and recognizing it requires some hand holding. And a translator (or guide maybe) might be what is needed.

As to the 4th objection, my belief that I’ve been commissioned to get this book out. Aren’t we all commissioned by God to do something? I’m simply doing what I believe God wants me to do. No more or less. And i’ve seen a lot of positive signs on this path that convinces me I am doing the right thing. And when I’ve done it i will be very relieved. The truth is I have been trying to pawn this job off on someone else for years but no one has stepped up to the plate to do it. The idea of being famous or even noteworthy has no appeal to me at all. In fact it turns my stomach. But what am I supposed to do? Everytime I find someone whom I think I can pass the baton they end up sitting on It. The only conclusion I can come to is like it or not this is my commission.

Now as to the suggestions that I simply give the book away. I have. Within this thread and the website are all the clues needed for anyone to write their own personal Gospel of Creation and this is ultimately the best way for anyone to fully appreciate and understand this discovery anyway. So no I am not going to just send out to the world the electronic version of the book. No one would read it for starters (I know that from experience). But beyond that I would be robbing everyone who wants to do the work for themselves of the same shock and amazement I had when I first calculated Jesus’ true birthday. That was one of my biggest surprises. But there are so many other discoveries of the same level of importance and shock value as that just mentioned that you would it would spoil it if I just told you all about it here.

All I am really saying then is you have two option. If anyone feels that the perspective of someone who’s studied this discovery for nearly 20 years has value they will buy the book (or intro) and read it. Or if they prefer they can figure it out for themselves (as I did) and really learn to appreciate it. Either way those are the only options where there is any appreciation for the book so those are the only options I’m offering.