Re: Anyone know anything about jesus being in indian with monks

I am sorry I haven't seen your response earlier! You raise a lot of interesting points.

While contemplating truth of ANY kind, I always keep a little reserve as to the possibility of there being some sort of an error or manipulation. Just like you implied - there is a devil out there and he's keeping busy :-)

But, illusions are not limited to any particular group of people or events. This means that in essence no one is immune to being misguided. That includes you, or me, or Edgar Cayce ...

In that spirit, I'll insert my answers to your comments.

> I understand where you're coming from, but after over 15 years of being a new age > teacher I learned that this was all error.

Almost all new age teachers I've seen, read or met with were less knowledgeable then me, and I don't consider myself an expert in anything really. I have strong opinions and will try to prove them all the time, but only because I am constantly looking for truth. So I can easily understand how you may have felt disapointed after some new discoveries...

> Before you discount what I'm saying please take a moment to pray and read. Since
> I've given myself to Jesus and believed and lived the bible as the true word of
> God, my life has been indescribably better and rich!

Few things come to mind here - first that I've seen many people say very similar thing - "Since I've (insert anything here, like "become gay", or "went to jail")" which in a way points to very high probability of being misguided or being blinded by an illusion. I remember a woman telling me how her life turned around and changed for so much better since she became gay. This shows that "truth" can be very individualistic, while being percieved as "universal". Being gay would not make me happy in any way - for instance.
Second thing is that you say - "since i've given myself to Jesus". I believe that you are feeling better and richer and so on. But even your use of the phrase "giving oneself to Jesus" just doesn't ring "universal" truth. It is a vague statement. You may live your life according to His words, or apply His truths and so on... and that's what I do too.

> Consider that the test for a true prophet that God gave the Jewish people was that
> the prophet had to be correct 100% of the time. That leaves Cayce out. The bible
> says that satan comes as an angel of light. Cayce was deceived. How can his pretty
> accurate prophecies be explained?

It's more important to explain his errors. First - he NEVER made an error when it came to another person's health. Never, out of some 10,000 readings (there was always a follow-up, plus all readings are still available at the ARE institute). He only made errors when it came to predicting the future, and he himself declared such business dubious - free will is unpredictable. Also, he did say that certain outside conditions could influence his readings negatively - like doing them after a heavy meal (as most blood would then concentrate in his belly rather the his brain), or doing too many readings without enough rest (which he did often).

> Demons are old beings that have plenty of knowledge. They can know things about a
> persons ill health because they are helping to create it. They can know things
> about a persons past because they were there. They can know things about herbs and
> medicine because they have learned over time just like we do.

This makes perfect sense, and I agree.

> Also, consider that there is actually no way to know if he was right 99.9% of the
> time. Did they follow up with every person he had a reading for? Did every single
> person get that 100% healing? Did he find the true root cause for each person?

Yes to all of the above (except for those that contacted his too late into their illnes - and that was mentioned in readings)!

> Boy, I can't tell you how many readings I had.

You probably never had a reading by Edgar Cayce though as he died in 1944. I don't know of anyone else who's even nearly as accurate as him.

> None of Edgar Cayce 's practices helped me when I applied them to the issues they
> were meant for. Even as a new ager, I gave up on his recommendations. Not that he
> didn't have some knowledge mixed in there, but it wasn't perfect.

You do know that his recomendations were personally tailored (e.g. one person may be given atomidine for problems with thyroid, while another shouldn't even touch that as a remedy for the same problem!)! Plus, if you got those recomendations from some book, keep in mind that I found that authors were mostly inaccurate in their quoting his remedies; e.g. they would recomend one thing for a certain ailment, when another one was recomended much more frequently! I read many MANY Cayce's readings and can personally attest to that (I've also read numerous books which quote Cayce including books on healing - about 30-40 books just on his readings).

> It's satan's goal to deceive believers and even unbelievers to keep them from
> finding the truth.

We both agree on this one - now it's just a matter of finding the truth (or recognising the deceptions) :-)

> Anyone who says that the bible should be edited is not speaking from God but the
> devil.

This is pretty harsh, but I'll skip that part. Let's stick to one simple question that begs to be answered: how can you be sure that your statement is true!?
I don't say that Bible should edited, but I do think it is highly likely, if not even certain, that Bible WAS edited (to deceive us)!
A book written when there were no printing presses? imagine if everyone was perfectly honest, with perfectly good intentions, never making a single mistake in transcribing it? Imagine what were the chances of someone deciding to change a thing here or there? God doesn't interfere in anything here on earth; he let's anyone exersise their free will. You and I can ask HIM for help for ourselves, but we cannot really stop through prayer the war in Iraq tomorrow as that's a matter of free will of more then just two individuals. Same with transcribing and editing the Bible.
God knows I'd love the Bible to be as pure as it was on day one. But I am afraid that likelihood of that is almost nil. And I would be happy to be proven wrong.

> As for the bible, there is significant evidence on many levels that proves it's
> from God 100%. For example, there is a ton of archeological evidence that the bible
> that we have today is very accurate. Also, there are many, many ancient manuscripts
> that have been found and when you compare them with what we have today, the only
> differences for the most part are with insignificant words that don't change
> meaning.

This "evidence" would have to be some sort of "word-for-word" copy of the original text. I am not aware of such a thing. Please point me to it if it exists. Sort of like Cayce's readings which were transcribed word for word by his secretary in shorthand and then kept in their original form until today. And if there ever is a doubt as to what was written, it is always noted as such (and we are given possible solutions).

> There are also thousands of prophecies in the bible that came to pass. If you
> believe in prophecy, the book proves itself and it's validity by these alone.

Well, this is a tough thing to argue; but if you read Jesus' prophecies, they were exact and happened literally. When you read Bible prophecies like "a seven headed beast will rise from the ocean" then you know it never hapenned nor will it happen - unless I really do see some day some seven headed creature rising from some ocean (and likelyhood of that is nil). People then explain that Bible shouldn't be taken literaly. But that leaves room for manipulation - it's like prophecies by Nostradamus which are so vague that they are meaningless.


> In conclusion, Edgar Casey was a deceived false prophet who let the devil into his
> life. He didn't realize that he was being used.

Notice the almost dogmatic tone in your response. Would devil lead Cayce to give cure to all of his patients without ever killing a single one? That's a decent devil in that case :-) and would lead me to believe that devil's taken some serious therapy! If only that were the case though...


> The test for truth is still this - does it agree with the bible?

This is plain and simply wrong. The Bible itself says that you can see the real prophet by the fruits of his labor as you can recognize the tree by the fruit it bears (actually it was Jesus himself who said that!).
Therefore the test for truth is NOT whether something agrees with the Bible, but rather whether something bears fruit - i.e. - whether it results in what was predicted.

> Jesus did not teach or believe anything but pure bible - pure Word of God.

I don't think so, as he never really quoted the Bible (not to mention that most of it was not even written during his time!). He DID teach love of God, and faith - that I agree with. Maybe we just disagree in semantics here...

> The teachings and beliefs that He would have supposedly learned in India contradict
> what Jesus would have known through the Old testament and through the handed down
> oral teachings of Judaism.

I don't remember any place in Bible where people are told not to meditate for instance (which was his reason for going to India!). Unless there is such a quote of Jesus in the Bible (like "though shall not meditate), you're simply wrong on this account.

> I pray for you to find the truth, to be born again into God's family, and to enjoy
> the great peace, love and blessing that flows from a life of drawing close to God
> in truth.

Thank you, I wish and pray for the same for you! Tweet