Comment

Comment by LadyRed on October 16, 2012 at 9:29am

I have had two experiences with ghost in my life the first and best one was with the ghost known as Alice Flagg  The ghost of the Hermitage in South Carolina 

She showed up after about a half hour of being at the grave and she was like a foggy apparition but you could tell it was a woman in old time clothing with hair up in a bun we had 5 other witnesses there wanting to see her too the older male went to touch her he brushed his hand to her face and she in return did the same it was great ! and after that we use to take her flowers to the grave after that when we would have our circles and or talk about her my daughters at the time were very young and would find white sashes out in our yard Alice was known to have worn her engagement ring hidden on a white sash around her neck also she would tug sometimes at our cloak bottoms and try to say hello   Alice Flagg

Comment by Nil timere, Nec Timere. on January 11, 2012 at 11:33pm

always wondered if the afterlife was a dark evil place...or would it be just trapped intelligent energy on the earth's magnetic grid?

Comment by Michael Vara on November 22, 2011 at 5:32pm

Group owner, please remain active and invite others , add content or I will have to remove it

Comment by Nil timere, Nec Timere. on May 31, 2011 at 1:07am

hey guys, i found something awesome in my paranormal group on facebook. "Property of mike o'hare>http://zenith57g.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-illusion-of-death/ Talks about how we never die! :)

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 24, 2011 at 8:09am

Again, your reply is based on the version you quote. There is no way I can aseenle all of the current versions to see how each ttranslation was interpreted. So in essence, we will agree to dissagree, because to continue this debate is pointless. You are challenging me with your beliefs. I am merely stated conclusions from the data. I could just as easily say your beliefs are groundless, because you have no proof of demons. And written word is certainly not proof. So as I said before you unleashed your diatribe, this discourse was simply a basless arguyment.

Belief, while I believe is a requirement, has a very limited aspect in research. My point of view (in here) is from a scientific research point of view, and yours is from a religious point of view. Apples and oranges. Yours is based on folklore, dogma and belief, mine is based on Data. This is not to say you are right and I am wrong, or vice versa; it is to say that I reperesent the findings of research, while you rely soley on belief. While you are satisfied with your beliefs, I am looking for all the information, regardless of my beliefs. Show me tangible proof of demons, and I will change my mind. Until then I await evidence of such. Do I believe they exist? Sure. Can I prove it? No. I am about finding proof. The discussion of beliefs are for another person.

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 19, 2011 at 3:31pm

One must be prolific in their understanding of the Bible to know this. For one who preaches from it as you seem to like doing, you should pay more attention to its contents.

The word "ghost" is only used in the Bible a handful of times in the following passages: Is. 29:14; Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49; and Luke 24:37-39. Two of the references involve seeing Jesus walking on the water through a storm. The disciples believed they were seeing a ghost rather than Jesus actually walking on the water. The last reference was when the disciples saw Jesus after the resurrection. They thought he was ghost, but he let them touch him, and then he ate with them

The most direct reference to a ghost in the Bible refers to the "spirit" of the prophet Samuel. King Saul wanted advice from Samuel's spirit, so he went to a medium and asked her to "Bring up Samuel." Saul knew it was Samuel when the woman described him. Samuel asked Saul why he "disturbed" him by "bringing him up" and then prophesied that Saul and his sons would die the next day. The prophecy came true.

The prophet Isaiah gives some insight into why the Bible does not want us seeking the counsel of ghosts. In Isaiah 8:19, the Bible points out that God's people should be inquiring of God when they have questions. The Bible asks, "Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" Saul consulted the dead (the prophet Samuel) for advice about his situation, and he was dead the next day. According to I Chron. 10:13-14, Saul's decision to consult a ghost was one of the reasons that Saul died

On the other hand, the Bible is very clear about mediums.
The Bible speaks strongly against using mediums and spiritists to contact ghosts (consult the dead). The Bible calls it "destable" for a person to be a medium or spiritist who consults the dead. See Deut. 18:9-12. The penalty in the Bible for being a medium or spiritist was being put to death by stoning. See Lev. 20:27. The penalty for consulting a medium or spiritist was to be cut off from God's people. See Lev. 20:6.

I also know the history of the documents that were collected that make up the Bible. Also something you should research.

The belief that the Bible was written by forty writers all inspired by God and has remained unchanged for thousands of years is quite misleading. The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution, and some that are even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles. So has the bible always been as it is now? That would of course depend on which bible you are referring to.. Throughout history, there have been literally thousands of translations. I have ten different versions at home myself.

Most folks believe the Bible as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent offering. The religious term "canon" refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster. An example being New Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation. Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions. Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants, are Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.

The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch.

There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

What we know as the "canonized" bible was not assembled in anything like its present form until the 3rd century by a council of bishops (although it was still debated for centuries after). They chose which books should be included in the bible, which books were inspired by God, by vote, just as we might vote on a law. (Can you imagine that some books missed out on being The Word of God by one vote?) Were they any more qualified to judge which books were divine than anyone living today? Is their judgement and knowledge any better than ours? And what ever happened to the Gospels according to Thomas, Jade, James, Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of the Preaching of Peter, of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Ignatius, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Marcion? They were all not considered inspired (or inspired enough). They did not get voted in. There were also the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and many others. If the bishops at the Council of Laodicea in 365 had voted differently, millions of Christians would have believed differently. The vote of the one is the belief of all the others.

What we have come to know as the bible was not in a solid form until the Gutenberg printing press was invented in the 15th century. Before that, the bible was copied by hand, onto scrolls and parchments, which could be easily altered to fit the needs of those in power. It was malleable, easily altered-- no one could hinder the early Church from adding or subtracting verses at their will. No one will ever know just how much of the biblical text was altered, deleted, and rewritten while it was in handwritten form.

The simple truth is, the Christian canon was not completed before the death of the last apostle. The New Testament did not exist in the time of the apostles. It did not exist in the time of the Apostolic Fathers. It was not in existence in the middle of the second century. There was no New Testament in the time of Papias. Dr. Samuel Davidson, the highest Christian authority on the canon, says: "Papias (150 A.D.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn, of a New Testament canon." Justin Martyr knew nothing of a New Testament canon. I quote again from Dr. Davidson: "Justin Martyr's canon (150 A-D.), so far as divine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament."

For nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, the Old Testament-- the Old Testament alone constituted the Christian canon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were considered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical. To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books.

At the close of the second century the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. "It is a matter of necessity," says Irenaeus, " that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority."  In connection with this work Irenaeus made a collection of books for use in the church. His collection comprised the following: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation, twenty books in all.

 

In the work of establishing the Roman Catholic church and the New Testament canon Irenaeus was succeeded, early in the third century, by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. They adopted the list of books made by him. The books adopted by these Fathers were selected from a large number of Christian writings then extant-- forty or more gospels, nearly as many Acts of Apostles, a score of Revelations, and a hundred epistles. Each church had one or more books which were used in that church. No divine authority, however, was ascribed to any of them. Why did the Fathers choose these particular books? Above all, why did they choose four gospels instead of one? We never see four biographies of Washington, of Cromwell, or of Napoleon, bound in one volume; yet here we have four different biographies of Jesus in one book. Irenaeus says it is because "there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds." Instead of this artificial reason he could have given a natural, a rational, and a truthful reason. While primitive Christians, as we have seen, were divided into many sects, the principal sects may be grouped into three divisions:

1) The Petrine churches, comprising the church of Rome and other churches which recognized Peter as the chief of the apostles and the visible head of the church on earth;

2) The Pauline sects, which accepted Paul as the true exponent of Christianity;

3) The Johannine or Eastern churches, which regarded John as their founder. A collection of books to be acceptable to all of these churches must contain the favorite books of each.

The First Gospel, written about the time this church union movement was inaugurated, was adopted by the Petrine churches. The Second Gospel was also highly valued by the church of Rome. The Third Gospel, a revised and enlarged edition of the Pauline Gospel of Marcion, had become the standard authority of Pauline Christians. The Fourth Gospel, which had superseded other and older gospels, was generally read in the Johannine churches. The Acts of the Apostles, written for the purpose of healing the dissensions that had arisen between the followers of Peter and Paul, was acceptable to both Petrines and Paulines. The Epistles of Paul were of course received by the Pauline churches, while the First Epistle of John was generally received by the Eastern churches. The collection would not be complete without a Revelation, and the Revelation of John was selected.

 

The work instituted by Irenaeus was successful. The three divisions of Christendom were united, and the Catholic church was established. But this cementing, although it held for centuries, did not last, as was hoped, for all time. The seams gave way, the divisions separated, and to-day stand out as distinctly as they did in the second century; the Roman Catholic church representing the Petrine, the Greek church the Johannine, and the Protestant churches to a great extent the Pauline Christians of that early age. But while the church separated, each retained all of the sixty-six canonical books, save Revelation, which for a time was rejected by the Greek church. I could go on for pages on this. The Bible may be the words of God, but it was men with motives that assembled it. That is an undeniable fact. We can and will certainly dissagree, as I deal in facts and data, and you deal in beliefs. I do research, and I have no idea what you do. But thats ok, it takes all kinds to make up the word. And My priest shall remain anon, since that madame, is none of your business. :-)

Am I a sinner? yes, and so are you. I have my religious beliefs to council that. But belief and research, are by definition, two seperate things. And as for my mrtal soul, Jesus himself was quite clear on the requirements. The way to the father is only through him.

 

So please spare me the sermon. I understand totally where you are coming from, and that is fine. I am coming from the realm of science with my work. And as stated, It has not made my beliefs weaker, it has made them stronger. As for your determination of a "real EVP" how exactly would you determine what a "real EVP" was without the sophisticated instrumentation required to eliminate all the man made causes for it, before jumping to the "D" conclusion? Just curious. Madam, there is one more point i wish to make. It isn't the person that is right or wrong in research, its the methodology and accuracy of the data, as well as the accuracy of the analysis. We may bothe be correct, but only one of us will be able to prove that, scientifically. And if God didn't want me to search for the truth, he wouldn't have given me a brain. Its what i do with that truth that determines where i go.

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 18, 2011 at 8:29am

Well there is no hot seat really, we are exchanging ideas....but your reply is based on personal interpretation of the perceived evidence, which is a rather vague assumption based on your beliefs, which may, or may not be accurate. Not all spirits in the Bible were demons. Let me remind you that there were concersations with the prophets, and with loved ones whom had passed over also recorded. And while we are warned not to seek council with the dead (Because God wanted us to seek council from only him) the bible id full of conversations with the dead, or with Jesus even, after he passed on and returned in spirit form. So while the bible is a fantastic religious reference and guide for living, it is filled with alterior motives designed by its writers and editors to make points relavant to their motives.

What I am talking about here is firm data, measurable, documentable, analyzable. But my experience does not reflect your findings. Most of the time, evps captured (and by the way, we don't ask wquestions, or seek them. We run equipment and monitor it. We do little to interact, other than fascilitate the capture of evidence) reflect historical refernces to former occupants of the site, discovered after the fact by historical research. I am not saying you are wrong; I am saying I am not wrong. You could very well be encountering what you say. Without instrumentation and additional data, there is no basis for debate.

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 16, 2011 at 12:04am

I know Kathy, but as you very well know, there are no simple answers. There are numerous papers on my site that outlines in lay terms the process by which my conclusions were made, and some of the history of how those conclusions were shaped by the work I, and others, including independant researchers and scientists have duplicated. Paranormal events affect the environment in many measurable ways. These effects are congruent with wormhole activity. Suffice it to say, that it requires much more space than is available here. I posted the link to the information. Instead of reproducing the records from the research here, it is much easier to go there and read it. After all, it has been there for a long time now.

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 15, 2011 at 9:37pm

We come from two different worlds Kathy, as reflected by your statemant, what do you think you know, and is my mind made up.

I make conclusions based on data. The data comes from experiments designed to support a hypothesis. If the data does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is modified, or scrapped. Eventually, you end up with a theory. Something that leaves predictable outcomes. There isn't enough room here to tell you what you ask. I have an entire website dedicated to the 35 years of research I have conducted. I would offer to you to browse through it, and see what is there. I don't claim to know anything, what I claim is that I follow where the data leads, and remain objective and open minded in the journey. My mind is never made up. The data, determines the path.

www.spinvestigations.org  A good place to start is on the research page and the experiments page, but the entire site is filled with information

Comment by David M. Rountree on April 15, 2011 at 8:05pm

I keep my beliefs and my work seperate. My goals in my work are public, my goals in my belief is private. The end result for me is to define, document, and study. In many cases Folklore IS based on Myths, legends, tales etc. Consequently, whe  you ask someone to define "spirit" or "Ghost" you get a variety of answers because the word covers a very broad term of percieved activity. Consequently, the deffinition is way too broad.

Nothing may be new under the sun, but much has been forgotten. And while this cliche' is meant to be a comfort to the masses, it isn't exactly true. But this is a point of debate I have no desire to get into, as it is simply a matter of perspective. Example of which, technology. Cloning, organ growing, and space travel. But it boils doen to this for me. I don't understand something, I seek to understand it, and I seek to understand in terms that can be held up to scietific standards. And I have made several important discoveries based on that methodology. So I continue it, while others dance around with meters and make declarations based on little meaningful data. Again, its a matter of perspective. It is one thing to believe. It is quite another to know. ;-)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page