Hypothetically, the Phoenix Journals could be inauthentic, but this possibility is eliminated upon reading them. Since you are basically saying the same thing about the Bible and also declaring your book to be literal, I think my rational faith will have more appeal than an ancient book; you are the only one still arguing against the material that I present Humbly and in TRUTH. In fact, Phoenix Journals have the best explanation of all Biblical material, but how would you know if you condemn without knowledge?
The scribe Dharma and messengers Hatonn/Aton (who travels with Christ 'irrefutably') and crew scribed the message for our time; it is about being responsible enough to learn the truth about man and God. Since the Journals are more mysterious, it is well worth your "time"; please be aware that all that I am is a point of view.
Here is a small part of what Phoenix Journals say about "other speakers".
Search Phoenix Journals for "other speakers" --in quotes--here:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/site_search.html
Dude, you could just meditate or read some of the poems of Tagore and come to the truth about God; if I choose to read Journals, who are you to say it is not authentic for me¿¿¿ You do not bother to read much of anything or even to cite an example where these writings are not authentic
The fact that you can read, and the fact that you may be reading something if you are, isn't the thing that determines that what you are reading is authentic. Obviously, the fact that you can read is authentic, and the fact that you are reading, if you are, is authentic, and even the fact that somebody put together the materials that you are reading, and the fact that you may actually be able to hold the materials, themselves, in your hands may be authentic. That's not the thing that isn't authentic.
What is or may be non-authentic are some of the things that someone (you) might say about the materials that you are reading.
If you would start with some explanation of who or what your God is, and then if you explain that your God is described by some writings from India or something, that's okay. It is even authentic. But here is your problem.
You take the Christ, Who is explained by the Bible, and Who someone would have to dream up on his own if he didn't have a copy of the Bible, and then you apply to the Christ all kinds of stuff that the Bible says is absolutely NOT what the Christ is about, and then you go around claiming that you have found the truth about the Christ.
Meanwhile, a bunch of people who don't know that you are not talking about the Christ of the Bible, start thinking that, hey, maybe I missed something in the Bible. Later, they find out that their discussion with you is about a totally different God, and they wonder why they ever even listened to anything you had to say in the first place. But of course, they know the answer. It is because they believe in the Christ of the Bible.
The fact that you are not straight forward with the fact that you are not talking about the Christ of the Bible, makes almost everything you say to be NOT authentic.
Then you come along and say that your info IS about the Christ of the Bible, and that the Bible doesn't have much if any truth about the Christ. So, you attempt to nullify the Bible but keep the Christ, when all along there wouldn't have been any Christ if the Bible hadn't spoken about Him in the first place. People can become very retarded. But you are pushing the limit.
