I work with a very nice girl who happens to be a very devout Jehovah's Witness. I love learning about other's religious beliefs, and have talked to her quite a bit about what her religion encompases. She gave me a small book the other day from her church called "What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?" which I have just started reading tonight. I came to the chapter called "What Really Happens at Death", which has puzzled me greatly. I grew up Lutheran, and have always held my own set of beliefs regarding what happens to one after death. This book, however, differs greatly from my own views. I am fully set in my faith, and am not interested in changing my religious views. I am curious though, as to how relevent this books ideas are to the acutal scripture itself.

Here are a few passages from the book that explain what happens at death, in their perspective.

"What happens at death is no mystery to Jehovah, the Creator of the brain. He knows the truth, and in his Word the Bible, he explains the condition of the dead. Its clear teaching is this: When a person dies, he ceases to exist. Death is the opposite of life. The dead do not see or hear or think. Not even one part of us survives the death of the body. We do not possess an immortal soul or spirit."

"After Solomon observes that the living know that they will die, he wrote: 'As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.' He then enlarged on that basic truth by saying that the dead can neither love nor hate and that 'there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in [the grave].' (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10) Similarly, Psalm 146:4 says that when a man dies, 'his thoughts do perish.' We are mortal and do not survive the life we enjoy as the flame of a candle. When the flame is put out, it does not go anywhere. It is simply gone.

Now, I was always under the impression that the Bible taught us that only by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior that we will be brought into eternal life (the kingdom of heaven, sit on the right hand of God, etc).

I would like some feed back for and against what this books is saying to better understand this topic. I also have a page titled "What Jesus Said About Death", using the death of Lazarus as an example. If you would like me to post that for further examination, I would be more than happy to.

I can't help you when it comes to how it goes against or with the scriptures ( maybe jack or xtreem? ) but I agree 100% with the whole ceasing to exist thing after death.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

I can't help you when it comes to how it goes against or with the scriptures ( maybe jack or xtreem? ) but I agree 100% with the whole ceasing to exist thing after death.

From what I have gain from my conversations with my co-worker is that her religion teachs this because they believe that humans were not intended to go to heaven. Humans were meant to live on earth forever... So, they believe that some day, God will come to the earth and once again, the world will become a paradise...Also, that dead loved ones will be restored to life with the prospect of never dying.

This is where our beliefs differ then. Doesn't that seem like a cop-out? Waiting for a loving father figure to come make everything better instead of taking the initiative yourself.

The only way this world will be an Eden is if we make it one.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

This is where our beliefs differ then. Doesn't that seem like a cop-out? Waiting for a loving father figure to come make everything better instead of taking the initiative yourself.

The only way this world will be an Eden is if we make it one.

I agree with you there... That view didn't make much sense to me. But, we can not make Eden ourselves (according to this book), because we can not rule ourselves.. Only God can rule us in a way that would promote "paradise".

From what the Jehovas, are exclaiming, about death, I belive that 100 percent. When we are dead there is no more. We do not goto heaven, we do not goto hell. We are dead, we know nothing we have no afterlife.

My religion teaches that Reality is heaven, Because of the minds capabilitys.

Such as the Gods minds, they have the power to make reality heaven or hell.

And from the texts Ive read, Jesus's Eternal life, that opens the kingdom of heaven, Or opens the consciousness of the human mind, Is the elixer he was using, along with the rest of the Gods. ORMUs elements, food of the gods, philosophers stones, ect. And from what Ive read these are very powerfull elements if used right. But the downfall not everybody can use them.

And not everybody knows what the hell jesus was refering to with his eternal life, But with advances in technology and medicine, scientist have rediscoverd the truth behind the bible, and what the Gods, including jesus were using to achieve there goals.

quote:Originally posted by bangbangsilverhammer:

Humans were meant to live on earth forever... So, they believe that some day, God will come to the earth and once again, the world will become a paradise...Also, that dead loved ones will be restored to life with the prospect of never dying.

they believe that not god, but jesus, his son, and the 144 000, humans that lived on earth and were resurrected to live in heaven, are going to destory the wicked, restore the earth and resurrect people to a resurrection of judgement, or life, depending if they were good or not. Then the ones who pass get to live perfectly on earth, like in the garden of eden, cept wiht no sin. (i think if anyone sins in teh new world, they will be automatically put to death, so the garden of eden thing doesn't come up again.)

Jehovahs witnesses dont look at one scricputure of the bible and make believes on that, they look at the whole bible.

there is no biblical reason for the usual christian belief in either an immortal soul nor heaven/hell (in the traditional sense).

this part of JW teaching (note the stress ) is biblically very solid (probably because it stems not from them originally but ,if i recall aright , from the anabaptists via the millerites).

the belief in an 'eternal soul' came into christianity a long time after jesus and never did quite achieve universal acceptance.

That sounds exactly backwards form what I have read in the bible. From what I understood from Revalations 144,000 will be called to heaven, then 7 years after that the final battle happens and whoever else gets into heaven goes at the final judement. At least that's what I got out of it.

The johos are a little irritating to listen to because there is no interpretation in their teachings, they quote bible verses and that's about it. The problem with the johos though is that they have altered parts of the bible to conform to their teachings. Parts have been added, parts have been taken out, parts have been altered. That's why they believe how they believe.

quote:The problem with the johos though is that they have altered parts of the bible to conform to their teachings. Parts have been added, parts have been taken out, parts have been altered. That's why they believe how they believe.

which of course no other church or denomination would ever do [/sarcasm].

quote:Originally posted by Zombie Killer:

That sounds exactly backwards form what I have read in the bible. From what I understood from Revalations 144,000 will be called to heaven, then 7 years after that the final battle happens and whoever else gets into heaven goes at the final judement. At least that's what I got out of it.

144k Jews will be left here to witness during the tribulation. Would you just sit down and READ revelations for once?

i dont think so. first, the 144k wont be just jews, show me in the bible where it says jews, and second, i think their going to be co-rulers with christ in heaven, ruling over the humans AFTER the tribulation.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with the johos though is that they have altered parts of the bible to conform to their teachings. Parts have been added, parts have been taken out, parts have been altered. That's why they believe how they believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how so? of course every translation is going to be a little different. if anything, ther joho's bible (the new world tanslation) is more accurate than KJ, etc. because it uses Jehovahs name, instead of omitting it and replacing it with lord, god, father, etc. and most KJ versions actually say jehovah in psalms 83:18. even though they never say it anywhere else.

[This message has been edited by john_deer (edited 08-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

how so? of course every translation is going to be a little different. if anything, ther joho's bible (the new world tanslation) is more accurate than KJ, etc. because it uses Jehovahs name, instead of omitting it and replacing it with lord, god, father, etc. and most KJ versions actually say jehovah in psalms 83:18. even though they never say it anywhere else.



quote:

/SLAP!!!!!

"JEHOVAH" IS NOT GOD'S FUCKING NAME! it is a distortion of the hebrew term YHWH(it doesnt quite work in english) which is the LORD's name. i can never wrap my head around how "jehovah" became the name of god since YHWH is normally never said but instead replaced with "lord". its too sacred to be said i believe. man it should be mandatory for people to take a religion course before posting answers in this forum. oh and btw, if you want a good version of the bible, the septuegent is apparantly where its at.

quote:Originally posted by spyxero:

/SLAP!!!!!

"JEHOVAH" IS NOT GOD'S FUCKING NAME! it is a distortion of the hebrew term YHWH(it doesnt quite work in english) which is the LORD's name. i can never wrap my head around how "jehovah" became the name of god since YHWH is normally never said but instead replaced with "lord". its too sacred to be said i believe. man it should be mandatory for people to take a religion course before posting answers in this forum. oh and btw, if you want a good version of the bible, the septuegent is apparantly where its at.

YHWH of course, if God's correct name. It is against jewish tradition to say God's name in "vain". Vain, being in everyday, normal circumstances.. Not necessarily negative.

I love to hear about others beliefs, but I was looking for more evidence from the Bible itself to prove and/or counter the Jehovah's Witnesses argument.

quote:YHWH of course, if God's correct name

uhm no, even that isn't an historical fact. it's the accepted spelling.

strangely enough john_deer who is one of the more uninformed members of this forum has raised a valid point.

the New World Translation is in places (note stress!) far more accurate than some modern translations.

when the commitee of NON scholars ,who wrote the New World Bible, were considering which way to translate things, they did consult some of the more accurate sources.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 08-11-2005).]

ps. according to my tranny friend, the 144k are trannys....

and she can back this up with a shed load of scripture.

which just goes to show...

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

i dont think so. first, the 144k wont be just jews, show me in the bible where it says jews, and second, i think their going to be co-rulers with christ in heaven, ruling over the humans AFTER the tribulation.



Revelations says it's 12k from every tribe of Israel = 144k. If you take it literally, then it implies they are jewish.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

uhm no, even that isn't an historical fact. it's the accepted spelling.

It's only in the original language the Bible was written in..

Also, it's hard to talk about historical FACT when you're talking about religion.

Just about every church follower, or witness, just states qoutes from the bible, Look at all the churches that make all this money and they dont even know the details of the bible. Or what the gods used.

quote:Originally posted by bangbangsilverhammer:

It's only in the original language the Bible was written in..



nope, in fact even that too is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

ps. according to my tranny friend, the 144k are trannys....

and she can back this up with a shed load of scripture.

which just goes to show...

haha, id like to see some proof to haul that bullshit around.

(you are talking about transexuals right?)

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Revelations says it's 12k from every tribe of Israel = 144k. If you take it literally, then it implies they are jewish.

Keep in mind that all modern jews come from 2 of those 12 tribes. The other 10 tribes were taken as slaves from northern israel by someone or other. These 10 are known as the "lost tribes" of israel. That's why those 144k cannot be regarded as only jews. There is an x factor there. Perhaps 24k will be jews, but if you really look at the bible, it seems unlikely that they will be jews, since God does not seem to favor the jews over the christians at this point. They will most likely be people who descend from those tribes, but are not currently members of the jewish faith.

As far as the joho translation of the bible goes, I dont have a whole lot of examples on how it's wrong, but I know it is from one single example. During the parts of the bible which explain Jesus's crucifixion, the johos have changed the word "cross" and made it into "torture stake" and "crucifixion" into "torture". If you had gone perhaps 1000 years in any direction from the point where jesus was crucified, you might have found people being tortured on stakes, however during roman times, especially in the first century, you would have found people being tortured and crucified on WOODEN CROSSES. Jesus was not tortured to death on the top of a pole.

As far as the jehova thing goes, I dont think so. First of all it sounds too much like jenova from FFVII, which creeps me out. Second of all, if God really wanted to be called jehova, then why does he shy away from it whenever he can. In no decent translation of the new testiment can the word "jehova" be found. And you can't tell me that it's difficult to translate the word there because the new testiment was written in GREEK, a phonetic language, which unlike hebrew, does have consonants as well as vowels. Not to mention that he tells Moses to refer to him as "I am". If God really wanted to be called "jehova", would not he have told the great prophet to refer to him as such?

^^^^^ I dont see how you are saying that 10 tribes were slaves...

And why would a militant country like Israel at that time give equal rights to SLAVES?

quote:During the parts of the bible which explain Jesus's crucifixion, the johos have changed the word "cross" and made it into "torture stake" and "crucifixion" into "torture". If you had gone perhaps 1000 years in any direction from the point where jesus was crucified, you might have found people being tortured on stakes, however during roman times, especially in the first century, you would have found people being tortured and crucified on WOODEN CROSSES. Jesus was not tortured to death on the top of a pole.

actually the Koine translates assomething like 'a lump of wood'. the Joho's use of the word 'torture' is probably incorrect...at least in the sense we understand it.

much has been written on possible roman cruxificion methods. scholarly consensus tends towards either the simple stake or the X shaped cross.

infact the one method that it almost certainly wasn't, is the typical "Christian".

my personal gut feeling when i reviewed all the evidence i could was that is was likely to have been a T cross. inwhich case translating it as cross or stake would be allowable.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 08-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

haha, id like to see some proof to haul that bullshit around.

(you are talking about transexuals right?)



yes i am.

the evidence she quotes for it is tied into an extremely kabbalistic/vedic (just don't ask) view of scripture, and to be frank way beyond my understanding.

personally i remain unconvinced (to put it mildly).

however as she reads both hebrew and sanskrit i'm guessing she is capable of making a good case.



although she recently called me in to give her some understanding on the Gospel of Thomas and i must say there is quite a lot in that to support her theory.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 08-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



yes i am.

the evidence she quotes for it is tied into an extremely kabbalistic/vedic (just don't ask) view of scripture, and to be frank way beyond my understanding.

personally i remain unconvinced (to put it mildly).

however as she reads both hebrew and sanskrit i'm guessing she is capable of making a good case.



although she recently called me in to give her some understanding on the Gospel of Thomas and i must say there is quite a lot in that to support her theory.



Jews (excluding christians) dont believe the Bible. Therefore they cant count Revelation as valid. You cant tie Jewish manuscripts and the Bible together like that.

Also, the Gospel of Thomas wasnt discerned to be authentic (either it contradicted the know authentic NT books or it couldnt be determined that it was indeed divinely inspired), therefore you can hardly tie it to Revelation as well.

quote:Also, the Gospel of Thomas wasnt discerned to be authentic (either it contradicted the know authentic NT books or it couldnt be determined that it was indeed divinely inspired

which tells us all just how much you don't know about the history of the cannon.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

which tells us all just how much you don't know about the history of the cannon.



Well then enlighten me about the canon

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well then enlighten me about the canon

oh dear a typo...how clever of you to spot it. it obviously invalidates any argument i could present.[/sarcasm]

quote:Originally posted by spyxero:

/SLAP!!!!!

"JEHOVAH" IS NOT GOD'S FUCKING NAME! it is a distortion of the hebrew term YHWH(it doesnt quite work in english) which is the LORD's name.

It is from the hebrew term YHWH, or JHVH. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gram´ma, “letter”). YHWH or JHVH are translated from this. I'd write what it looks liek in hebrew but totse won't let me: ???? (thats what it looks like) This term means "he causes to become" a fitting name for god. Hebrew scohlars translate/pronouce teh term "yahweh" whereas others, including jehovahs witnesses and other schorlars pronouce it as jehovah. (Im not sure but i think JWs can use the term yahweh aswell, just jehovah is more common.) The constanents are known to the english language btu where are the vowels? (try saying YHWH its very difficult :P) Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium*C.E. (ask lost cause on this one, i think he knows alot abotu hebrew)So because the hebrew term YHWH or JHVH didn't have vowels until late 500's CE. Long before that Jews used YHWH.

At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name.Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. But the hebrew sciptures say nothing to not say gods name. Even god himself said that his name would have to be preached. Exodus 9:16 "But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."

Others say that the name was stop being used so as to protect the name, from non-jews.

Fill in teh missing vowels you get yahweh and jehovah.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

oh dear a typo...how clever of you to spot it. it obviously invalidates any argument i could present.[/sarcasm]



No, but you could have at least posted your info in the time between my post and yours.

as to the cross thing, I think he died on a stake/pole. the main reason, those who belive he did on a cross are either uneducated or have doubts, those who think the stake dont have any doubts. and they all can't be uneducated.

“Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers.”—The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda

xylon, the greek word meaning timber. (timber, wood, pole etc.) Acts 5:30: "The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a [xylon]."

Someone above mention that the Septuagint Version of the bible is good. In the Greek Septuagint Version the term for timber here is xylon. Again, not a cross but a simple straight beam.

Some say that the early christians used an X to represent christ after his death. an x meaning a cross. Rather, it stands for the name “Christ,” it being the first (Greek) letter of the name “Christ,” written “X” and pronounced “ch” or “K.” Thus “X” is an abbreviation, not a symbol.

Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Nicodemus state that Jesus died on a cross doesn't prove anything. Both the accounts turned out to be forgeries.

The very fact that the cross is one of the most common of all pagan religious symbols. the cross was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honor by the Buddhists of the East; and what is still more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects of worship in the idol temples of Anáhuac. show me a american/spanish without a cross on a necklace, it because it was used in worship with their god. and it slowly moved in to christendom.

Ask any acient greek language guy, jesus died on a xylon according the to greek scriptures, which means stake/pole etc.

Except your forgetting that Romans crucified people with a pole/steak yes, but it wasnt like tying someone to a pole perpendicular to the ground. They tied the cross beam (timber) to either a pole or a tree and then nailed or tied the person to the cross beam.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Except your forgetting that Romans crucified people with a pole/steak yes, but it wasnt like tying someone to a pole perpendicular to the ground. They tied the cross beam (timber) to either a pole or a tree and then nailed or tied the person to the cross beam.

Ding Ding Ding, show him what he's won!!!

In golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, they had several large poles jutting out from the ground. The condemned was forced to carry their cross beam through crowds, where they were spat at and called names and such. They were then nailed and/or tied to this cross beam which was then hoisted up and nailed to the pole jutting out from the ground. A nail was placed in their feet then.

This process would set the person in a state where if they let themselves hang, they would not be able to breathe properly. They would soon die. However, if the person stood up on the nail in their feet they could breathe, however the horrifying pain of doing so would eventually force them to slump back down. Eventually the person would then die.

If Jesus had been crucified on a "torture stake", then they would have had to hang his arms above his head and foregone the nail through the feet, as this would just not function the same way as a traditional crucifixion. It might translate as stake, but it never worked that way.

The reason why the people who believe in the torture stake are so dead set on it is because that's what their religion teaches, and you're not supposed to criticise your religion if you're a jehovas witness. Ever.

Ahh... dedicated torture servers ^^^^

quote:(ask lost cause on this one, i think he knows alot abotu hebrew

uhm yes she does ...although more about judiasm than hebrew if i recall.

regular religion can be boring, catholacism(sp?) and all the others get tiresome, I'm impressed how open we are here to them, try discussing religion with outher people outside of totse and the internet, other people get offened or get offensive, many catholics that I know of are not open minded, religion is dangerous! we, or they, fight and kill over it, isn't that mainly what WWII was about, I've also notice why eternal life in heaven is so appealing, many people are afraid of dieing, non-exsistant, gone. Life after death can make living easier, for some, others have come to peace with death and non-exsistance. religion is crazy. "I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose freewill" Rush - Freewill, of course I alwasy slept during church so I don't know what it's like...

Over the years I've had several friends who were JW. Among other things they don't call where they worship a church, they call it the "Hall". They don't recite the pledge of alliegence (but our school made them stand for it) and they don't celebrate holidays or birthdays.

One of them died and I went to their funeral. They gave me a few tracts/pamplets to read. And strangely the funeral was video tapped.

Anyway my JW friends and I agreed to never discuss religion and we got along great.

quote:Originally posted by HomerJay603:

The condemned was forced to carry their cross beam through crowds, where they were spat at and called names and such. They were then nailed and/or tied to this cross beam which was then hoisted up and nailed to the pole jutting out from the ground. A nail was placed in their feet then.

This process would set the person in a state where if they let themselves hang, they would not be able to breathe properly. They would soon die. However, if the person stood up on the nail in their feet they could breathe, however the horrifying pain of doing so would eventually force them to slump back down. Eventually the person would then die.

If Jesus had been crucified on a "torture stake", then they would have had to hang his arms above his head and foregone the nail through the feet, as this would just not function the same way as a traditional crucifixion.'

the cross beam would bge to much weight for the person to carry, even drag all the way to golgotha. especially for someone like jesus was a beaten for hours, took no sedative, whipped, probably starved, and made fun of. the stake however is only 100 lbs, so it would be reasonable for someone to carry this. although it would be hard after a whooping.

and he WAS nailed to the stake, feet and hands, through the ankles and the wrists, damn that would hurt!

well, the greek word xylon, i mentioned in an eariler post, is a synomym to stau·ros. Stau·ros´ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a “cross” made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade

Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary under “Cross,” page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.”



W. E. Vine: “STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.” Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement.—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

and dont say shit like the stake wouldn't have killed him, and its not traditional. it puts much more pressure on your chest when your arms are above your head. try it now, grab on to a high bar and dont flex you arms at all, just hang, only try to hold on with your hands. i did it hurts my neck. hard to breathe. try that after a smack down, the criminal lungs are probably filled blood.

I'm not saying the stake wouldn't have killed him, I am saying that the stake would have killed him too fast. He was suffering all day, however a "torture stake" would have had him dead in under an hour. And let's see, which would have been more difficult to carry, a piece of wood that just has to be long enough to nail your arm span to (actually less to allow for the slumping forward effect) and only has to be strong enough to accomodate most of one's body weight, taking into effect the strengthening effect of the perpindicular cross, OR a piece of wood that has to be tall enough to accomodate one's entire body, with arms outstreached, plus have enough room under the ground to support the weight of the condemned. If you look at the physics of all of this, it is entirely perposterous to believe that the cross bar would weigh less than a torture stake. It is also perposterous to believe that in 1st century judea they would have used such a method of execution. Archaeology has proven that crucifixion, not torture on stake was the prefered method of execution for rebels (which jesus was considered) in those days.

I'm not saying that you're stupid, or that you're a bad person if you do believe that, I'm just saying that it's not rational, and I could never believe that.

The word is translated a beam of wood, because jesus was forced to carry his cross beam, not the entire cross he was forced to carry the - in the t. He carried one beam of his cross. As far as the synonym thing goes, you can't actually expect us to all buy that argument, can you? Those are two completely different words. Just because one is a synonym doesn't mean that it means exactly the same thing! For example, in english, the words "duel" and "fight" are considered synonyms. However, duel does not mean the same as fight. Duel is considered to be a more formal way of fighting, and certainly not every fight is a duel. Greek is a very specific language. They have many different words to describe many different things. They have 5 words for love, each captures a different concept and means a different thing. Language is not so simple that you can use such wordplay to make a point, especially not in ancient greek.

[This message has been edited by HomerJay603 (edited 08-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by bangbangsilverhammer:



Now, I was always under the impression that the Bible taught us that only by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior that we will be brought into eternal life (the kingdom of heaven, sit on the right hand of God, etc).



http://tinyurl.com/a6b2l

Google Image of ORMUS

The Names Give Some Indication, In ancient times these substances were often refereed to as, Bread of The Presence of God, The Hidden Manna, Seamen of The Gods, Chi, Shrew Bread, What Is It and more.

In more modern times they have been called, White Powder Gold, The Red Lion, The Green Dragon, The White Stone, The Elixir of Eternal Life, The Elixir of Eternal Youth, The Philosophers Stone, The Universal Cure, The Building Blocks of Life, Liquid Light and more.



USES AND EFFECTS OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Just a few of the reported uses included but not limited to;

PROVIDING THE ATTRIBUTES OF A GOD LIKE BEING. TAUGHT BY SOME RELIGIOUS TEXTS TO BE REQUIRED CONSUMPTION BEFORE ENTRY TO HEAVEN or the EQUALEVANT.

EXTENDING THE HUMAN LIFE SPAN BY HUNDREDS OF YEARS WHILE MAINTAINING THE BODY IN A STATE OF MATURE YOUTH AND VIGOR OR STRONG, HEALTHY, FRESH & HALE AS IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED.

GIVING THE CONSUMER HIGHLY ENHANCED PSI AND EXTRA SENSOR ABILITIES LIKE clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition & psychokinesis, AND MORE.

REVIVING AND RESTORING THE HUMAN BODY FROM THE EDGE OF DEATH TO A OPTIMUM STATE OF HEALTH.

ENHANCING THE INTELLIGENCE AND MENTAL CAPABILITIES. http://tinyurl.com/as77u http://tinyurl.com/ckzww