Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Will Emaus

The Beatles, Conspiracy and the Supernatural

Recommended Posts

Interesting point, Will. It makes me ponder on what free will is and whether anyone then could have been acing on free will from Pilate to Peter everyone seemed to in a way have avoided a free will because of their natures so I suppose that may be something to do with what the crucifixion was about, setting people free?

That's true John, I think it speaks quite a bit towards what is perceived as the power of temptation. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.

Temptation to sin is met with the resistance of free will, temptation to create is embraced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point, Will. It makes me ponder on what free will is and whether anyone then could have been acing on free will from Pilate to Peter everyone seemed to in a way have avoided a free will because of their natures so I suppose that may be something to do with what the crucifixion was about, setting people free?

That's true John, I think it speaks quite a bit towards what is perceived as the power of temptation. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.

Temptation to sin is met with the resistance of free will, temptation to create is embraced...

Will, I'm not clear about what you mean with the last sentence. Could you elaborate please?

''Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an* order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.''

*Do you mean : in

On an other matter, derived from discussions elsewhere, Do you see an incompatibility with stating one is a Christian and a rejection of even part of the New Testament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point, Will. It makes me ponder on what free will is and whether anyone then could have been acing on free will from Pilate to Peter everyone seemed to in a way have avoided a free will because of their natures so I suppose that may be something to do with what the crucifixion was about, setting people free?

That's true John, I think it speaks quite a bit towards what is perceived as the power of temptation. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.

Temptation to sin is met with the resistance of free will, temptation to create is embraced...

Will, I'm not clear about what you mean with the last sentence. Could you elaborate please?

''Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an* order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.''

*Do you mean : in

On an other matter, derived from discussions elsewhere, Do you see an incompatibility with stating one is a Christian and a rejection of even part of the New Testament?

John,

When one is confronted with the urge to steal a piece of candy, they filter that urge through their own sense of right and wrong. When confronted with an urge to respond to a statement with a funny one-liner or to create a work of art or music or a particular lyric, the same person is simply grateful for the inspiration or possibly refers to it as a muse.

The problem is, it's possibly the same internal agent at work as the one telling you to steal the piece of candy. This is how I believe you achieve certain synchronicities in music in which the artist has no awareness of how they are contributing to a spiritual objective. Embracing "random", which Dylan and the Beatles were doing (derived in part from the Beats and Joyce), is intentionally opening the door for this. I question just how the Beatles could have achieved the complexity of the Sgt. Pepper cover while seemingly having lacked the capacity to make a deeper movie than Magical Mystery Tour only 6 months later...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfKr1fhvr7Q&feature=player_embedded

This particular clue illustrates, the 2007 Paul McCartney song Gratitude states in reverse I was Willie Campbell and Who is this now? The problem is that the name William Campbell was invented on the campus of the University of Michigan by Fred LaBour in October of 1969 for his article in the Michigan Daily. He has stated repeatedly that he didn't derive the name from any Beatles related information, he simply made the name up.

So, to insert a name into a song as if it's a Paul is dead clue using a name that was absolutely fictional and had nothing to do with the Beatles isn't particularly clever or smart; it basically suggests that a number of the Paul clues were being placed intentionally. However there are also a myriad of clues like the mirrored drum in Sgt. Pepper that states IOneI X He Die, that are taken to be Paul clues but almost certainly could not have been intended by the band.

As far as Peter, I meant an. The interplay between angels and demons suggests that if Jesus were simply peering into a crystal ball by stating that Peter would deny Jesus three times, that demons would then assert their will to prevent Peter from being given the opportunity to deny in order to discredit Christ. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that in fact Jesus proclamation wasn't a matter of seeing into the future but rather His ability to see the condition of Peter's heart that he would deny given the opportunity, and then an order to place Peter in the position to deny three times.

In other words, either angels or demons (or both) had to manipulate those around Peter to make it happen and were in fact being told by Jesus to do so.

The third one is tough, I hate to come off like I have all of the answers because I'm really just trying to define what I believe is a system at work and I've been working on a book on all of this for awhile now; I personally think that Scripture is a work of faith and maybe it would be different if God and Jesus dictated everything in the Bible Themselves; but no I don't think if you reject some of the words and interpretations of men that you can't call yourself a Christian.

Men also dictated which books went in and which ones didn't, and given that their interpretations of scripture allowed for atrocities to occur during their watch I can't see how their choices could be regarded as infallible.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point, Will. It makes me ponder on what free will is and whether anyone then could have been acing on free will from Pilate to Peter everyone seemed to in a way have avoided a free will because of their natures so I suppose that may be something to do with what the crucifixion was about, setting people free?

That's true John, I think it speaks quite a bit towards what is perceived as the power of temptation. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.

Temptation to sin is met with the resistance of free will, temptation to create is embraced...

Will, I'm not clear about what you mean with the last sentence. Could you elaborate please?

''Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was essentially an* order to put Peter in the position of denying three times; obviously He was pretty confident as to what the outcome of that would be.''

*Do you mean : in

On an other matter, derived from discussions elsewhere, Do you see an incompatibility with stating one is a Christian and a rejection of even part of the New Testament?

John,

When one is confronted with the urge to steal a piece of candy, they filter that urge through their own sense of right and wrong. When confronted with an urge to respond to a statement with a funny one-liner or to create a work of art or music or a particular lyric, the same person is simply grateful for the inspiration or possibly refers to it as a muse.

The problem is, it's possibly the same internal agent at work as the one telling you to steal the piece of candy. This is how I believe you achieve certain synchronicities in music in which the artist has no awareness of how they are contributing to a spiritual objective. Embracing "random", which Dylan and the Beatles were doing (derived in part from the Beats and Joyce), is intentionally opening the door for this. I question just how the Beatles could have achieved the complexity of the Sgt. Pepper cover while seemingly having lacked the capacity to make a deeper movie than Magical Mystery Tour only 6 months later...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfKr1fhvr7Q&feature=player_embedded

This particular clue illustrates, the 2007 Paul McCartney song Gratitude states in reverse I was Willie Campbell and Who is this now? The problem is that the name William Campbell was invented on the campus of the University of Michigan by Fred LaBour in October of 1969 for his article in the Michigan Daily. He has stated repeatedly that he didn't derive the name from any Beatles related information, he simply made the name up.

So, to insert a name into a song as if it's a Paul is dead clue using a name that was absolutely fictional and had nothing to do with the Beatles isn't particularly clever or smart; it basically suggests that a number of the Paul clues were being placed intentionally. However there are also a myriad of clues like the mirrored drum in Sgt. Pepper that states IOneI X He Die, that are taken to be Paul clues but almost certainly could not have been intended by the band.

As far as Peter, I meant an. The interplay between angels and demons suggests that if Jesus were simply peering into a crystal ball by stating that Peter would deny Jesus three times, that demons would then assert their will to prevent Peter from being given the opportunity to deny in order to discredit Christ. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that in fact Jesus proclamation wasn't a matter of seeing into the future but rather His ability to see the condition of Peter's heart that he would deny given the opportunity, and then an order to place Peter in the position to deny three times.

In other words, either angels or demons (or both) had to manipulate those around Peter to make it happen and were in fact being told by Jesus to do so.

The third one is tough, I hate to come off like I have all of the answers because I'm really just trying to define what I believe is a system at work and I've been working on a book on all of this for awhile now; I personally think that Scripture is a work of faith and maybe it would be different if God and Jesus dictated everything in the Bible Themselves; but no I don't think if you reject some of the words and interpretations of men that you can't call yourself a Christian.

Men also dictated which books went in and which ones didn't, and given that their interpretations of scripture allowed for atrocities to occur during their watch I can't see how their choices could be regarded as infallible.

What do you think?

Will, I suspect you'd have to be stoned or drop some acid to 'get' M.M.T. . Afa complexity goes, a collage is very different from a series of composed stills in a long animation set to music. HELP is also rather crude yet in some ways innovative.

Re ''Muse''. What do you think about Dr Janovs ''Imprints''. If you haven't read it it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy in a library.

I guess ditto the teachings of Buddha such as taught by SN Goenka.

There is also an interesting book which eludes me as to name and author as I lent and lost a partially read copy about a look at ancient greek writings as a style analysis that seems to indicate an evolution of mind from being left centric which treats the right side as an ''other'' towards an integration of left-right thus a growth of consciousness that embraces that which previously could be taken as ''muse''.

The next bit has so many presuppositions that strike me as a train of thought that makes a whole that is only so within itself.

''What do you think?'' I think you see it as a war.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, I suspect you'd have to be stoned or drop some acid to 'get' M.M.T. . Afa complexity goes, a collage is very different from a series of composed stills in a long animation set to music. HELP is also rather crude yet in some ways innovative.

Re ''Muse''. What do you think about Dr Janovs ''Imprints''. If you haven't read it it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy in a library.

I guess ditto the teachings of Buddha such as taught by SN Goenka.

There is also an interesting book which eludes me as to name and author as I lent and lost a partially read copy about a look at ancient greek writings as a style analysis that seems to indicate an evolution of mind from being left centric which treats the right side as an ''other'' towards an integration of left-right thus a growth of consciousness that embraces that which previously could be taken as ''muse''.

The next bit has so many presuppositions that strike me as a train of thought that makes a whole that is only so within itself.

''What do you think?'' I think you see it as a war.

What do you think?

Yeah you're right John, I think I see it as a war too.

I happened to read a bit of Janov while researching John Lennon, and I think this illustrates the issue.

So John's impression while in Janov's care is God is a concept by which we measure our pain. God was written to renounce any belief outside of himself, except when you turn the song around backwards it immediately says The devil is in me.

John Lennon and George Martin created backwards lyrics in Rock for the song Rain, but in this case either he intended to renounce God while acknowledging Satan or he missed this entirely.

There is faith-based psychotherapy as well as what Janov believes; the question is how do you reconcile the coordination of what happens on the outside with what happens on the inside? If you told Jonah that he really was making up God's pursuit of him, he would possibly agree with the assessment of his mind but then point out that what was happening on the outside was quite real and that there were witnesses as well.

I don't question Manson's psychosis, I question how his followers happened to pick out Sharon Tate and Rosemary LaBianca at random coupled with Manson's psychosis, i.e. the condition is being used to achieve a spiritual purpose.

Mark David Chapman just so happened to try and commit suicide on June 20th 1977, 9 years to the day after John Lennon laid down the tracks to Revolution Number 9. That doesn't mean that I believe that his Lila and Dobar demons were real, I would bet they were quite made up, but was he being manipulated nonetheless?

I think he was, yes...standing in front of the Dakota ruminating about The Beatles and Manson and Rosemary's Baby is one thing; Mia Farrow happening to walk past you while you are ruminating is another...

Edited by Will Emaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how privy one can be to the full story of Johns time with Janov. I haven't followed that matter for a long time. I do know that within the P.S. groupings there is a serious research element that takes personal privacy very seriously. I think one can see the experience in a number of songs that followed.

Well as in John 1:18 (correct me if I'm wrong) it is clearly stated that whosoever CHOOSES to believe.. will... and when asked the location of heaven told it is in your heart. There are so many millions of examples of people who have chosen to believe and in doing so testify to a definite change. I reckon this is really practical advice and yes a faith based psychotherapy.

''the question is how do you reconcile the coordination of what happens on the outside with what happens on the inside?'' - I dont think allegories are best examples as they are open to many interpretations each one to whoever as valid as that to another. The answer lies in the Total Consciousness(hence the referral to the greek bit), The Conscious and the Un Conscious. It has an interface. The subconscious and the conscious continually shifts territory within the mind-body phenomena. The conscious isn't conscious of the unconscious because it looks outside for reasons for being. (hence the Goenka bit).

I'll have to think about the rest. At the moment it strikes me a too esoteric. Who was he being manipulated by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how privy one can be to the full story of Johns time with Janov. I haven't followed that matter for a long time. I do know that within the P.S. groupings there is a serious research element that takes personal privacy very seriously. I think one can see the experience in a number of songs that followed.

Well as in John 1:18 (correct me if I'm wrong) it is clearly stated that whosoever CHOOSES to believe.. will... and when asked the location of heaven told it is in your heart. There are so many millions of examples of people who have chosen to believe and in doing so testify to a definite change. I reckon this is really practical advice and yes a faith based psychotherapy.

''the question is how do you reconcile the coordination of what happens on the outside with what happens on the inside?'' - I dont think allegories are best examples as they are open to many interpretations each one to whoever as valid as that to another. The answer lies in the Total Consciousness(hence the referral to the greek bit), The Conscious and the Un Conscious. It has an interface. The subconscious and the conscious continually shifts territory within the mind-body phenomena. The conscious isn't conscious of the unconscious because it looks outside for reasons for being. (hence the Goenka bit).

I'll have to think about the rest. At the moment it strikes me a too esoteric. Who was he being manipulated by?

John, the early working title to Tomorrow Never Knows was Mark I. The early portion of the book of Mark was very devoted to Jesus' encounters with demons.

When Jesus later stated Get Thee Behind Me Satan to Peter, He was acknowledging a spirit presence within Peter and in fact was addressing the spirit directly. Are we then to assume that Jesus had no awareness of left/right brain phenomena or dissociative issues relating to ego state?

Janov not only fails to identify where in the mind temptation occurs, he seemingly considers it an either/or proposition, as if "both" couldn't be an option. How would an Object of Wrath and Destruction get built, other than an implicit command over psychology and cause and effect?

Total consciousness could account for Don Henley having Revolution Number 9 buried on the fringe of his conscious mind while writing Hotel California; but how could it account for John Lennon being mentioned backwards in a song whose LP is released on the eventual date of his death, when also most likely that release date was determined by someone else?

There are multiple unrelated consciousness' involved over a period of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

December 8th 1969 - Nixon holds a press conference detailing plans to withdraw from Vietnam.

922 days later Watergate happens.

May 14th 1961 - The first freedom riders embark.

922 days later JFK is assassinated. 922 days beyond this will be June 1st 1966 (6/66)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, is 1964 being a leap year of consequence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, is 1964 being a leap year of consequence?

I'm not sure John, I'm still trying to unravel this. I had a discussion yesterday in which someone asked me whether Romans 9:22 + James 1:13 might = (1035) JFK's presidency and it almost did, off by 1 day at 1036 days so I did the math on some other dates.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of everything needing to add up to the beast/apocalypse but I thought the numbers were interesting nonetheless. As soon as I saw that 922 added to a December 8th was June 17th including a leap year I knew Watergate had to be involved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I don't know that much about calendar types. I know there are different ones. Different ones are progressions of others and different people use different ones. Do you think it needs explaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I don't know that much about calendar types. I know there are different ones. Different ones are progressions of others and different people use different ones. Do you think it needs explaining?

John, you're losing me man. Are my numbers off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying, Will. I was just pondering the Bible being written at a time of one calendar system and then there was a change (Pope Gregory III think) and then there are different calendars in use today by various people like the Chinese, the Jewish etc. And then dates are represented differently in different countries like 11/22/63 is 23/11/63 in Australia except that the 23 in the us can be 22nd or the 24th elsewhere on the Globe. So is there something supernatural about the numbers themselves, which of course brings in the matter on numeral bases. I think I'm trying to understand where the supernatural is.

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying, Will. I was just pondering the Bible being written at a time of one calendar system and then there was a change (Pope Gregory III think) and then there are different calendars in use today by various people like the Chinese, the Jewish etc. And then dates are represented differently in different countries like 11/22/63 is 23/11/63 in Australia except that the 23 in the us can be 22nd or the 24th elewhere on the Globe. So is there something supernatural about the numbers themselves, which of course brings in the matter on numeral bases. I think I'm trying to understand where the supernatural is.

edit typos

Oh OK John I got it, I was double checking the arithmetic just in case ;)

I regard Judas as a Romans 9:22 Object of Wrath and Destruction. When James 1:13 is added to this principle it dictates that demons have to implement the principle of Romans 9:22 because God cannot have anything to do with sin.

What this means is that Satan had awareness of Jesus' fate before the crucifixion not just because of prophecy, but because he had a role in causing it. This is why precognition is not a fairy tale but a real phenomenon within Christianity if you believe in that.

I think this case is straight Christianity, but the dark side of Christianity because God doesn't seem to be directly involved. If Satan was given the authority to cause an assassination as part of an attempt to bring down the United States, you would expect a signature or a bread crumb trail.

November 22nd 1963 being 922 days away from 6/66 is such a signature imho. As is Nixon's declaration of withdrawal happening 922 days before Watergate. I think it's a signature stating that the principles of Romans 9:22 are at play and who (demons) are manipulating these events to happen when they do.

I think it's a bread crumb trail; I've taken John Lennon as being the key piece to this but it goes beyond just the Beatles. So consider demons communicating as if they were military intelligence intentionally planting clues; they would presumably synchronize events to be understood by a particular audience, I assume the United States because it's easy for me but also because they seem to be the Country targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×