2000 - WEEK 5 Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11365 From: Christopher Wynter Subject: Re: The Greatest Name *** Can someone please help me understand who they think this Jesus Christ person is? *** From the records, no one of this name ever existed. *** The plaque placed above Yes-ua ben Miriam on the cross did not give him the surname Christ .. *** but was a mocking reference to his "station in life (or death)" *** Jesus THE Christ I can accept, with some misgivings .. as an ideology or a metaphor ** but its origin is a corruption of the original through the translations of one man according to the prerequisites of Roman Doctrine. *** but the appearance of "something" which is seen as Jesus Christ is merely the resultant homogenous collective thought-form resulting from all who have projected their thoughts feelings, hopes and fears in the search for a saviour outside of self *** and it is through these idealogies of those kept in ignorance that the illusion has been created and is perpetuated *** Now, if that power of the collective prayer was turned to something useful, who knows what might eventuate in another 2000 years. *** The greatest name is the name of "God" spoken on the breath .. it is soundless .. written in the Hebrew as YHWH translated as I AM and a name which cannot be pronounced by desire, or from thought but is the spontaneous expression of the breath of someone fully immersed within their own Divine Essence .. *** and when it is uttered even once .. the transformational power is overwhelming Christopher Wynter Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11366 From: Rick Audette Subject: Re: Ripe Harvest: Wheat vs Tares< I have something to say Deborah, Be patient with us. A very important lesson is being taught, on Oneness. This lesson cannot just be given out. It must be learned by "hands on experience". Stick around and see. It is just as important as all the other stuff, maybe more. Meanwhile, if this chapter is not one you need to cover, check out ALL the archives. There's enough there to keep you, until we get back to daily stuff more like what you hoped to find. Rick -- ICQ 19753992 visit my web pages at http://www.ont.com/users/rea1/ have you read "The Immortal" http://www.freeread.com I'm only in it for the thrill Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11367 From: "Judy Reese" Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Christopher: Hi..I think you missed the point..that was beeing explained by JJ.. Maybe can help to clarify from my perspective what JJ so eloqunetly bestowed here. He was not replacing the Ancient of Days [JJ's words] or your words[YHWH] with Jesus Christ. Actually..he was referring more the name CHRIST where Jesus was just the first name of the man Jesus. He was giving us the name that the Father of All gave to US..and to Jesu and to all who honour the Father and unite in a common purpose of brotherhood to their fellowman. To me it is like a knightdom or crown of honour. So, this is also the AOD's name and YHWH's name..too Not that AOD-YHWH is not known by other names... Judes Christopher: "Can someone please help me understand who they think this Jesus Christ person is?" Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11368 From: Rick Audette Subject: Re: answer to JJ's question of the day "several things, first Yes, Rick, you have a beautiful daughter, she looks just like you. It's easy to tell where she gets her grace. Is our welcome letter going out automatically now?" Thanks to those that have complimented Rachel. I'm copying them all to show her. Twelve year old girls often need that kind of boost. Yes, the welcome letter now gets sent to all new subscribers. Spiritweb puts my address on them, so replies automatically come to me. I have told Susan that I would forward them to her, unless they are only asking for help on specific things from me, such as the one I got today asking how to post to the list and I pointed out that she may have been typing Keys-"one" instead of keys-"L" (an easy mistake to make since in some fonts they look the same and people have often done the same with my e-mail address). I think the new welcome letter will be very helpful to our new members and I'm glad our welcome committee and Spiritweb came up with the idea. Rick -- ICQ 19753992 visit my web pages at http://www.ont.com/users/rea1/ have you read "The Immortal" http://www.freeread.com I'm only in it for the thrill Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11369 From: Deborah Matthies Subject: Re: Sorry ..that you were offended Judes, I believe You have taken what I was trying to say without success (apparently) the wrong way. When I wrote that post the name on the post was Glenys. I am not all that familiar with the in's and out's of this list. Sorry . And I said I did try to withdraw my membership but kept getting the postings anyway. I did re-read my post and did not see the contempt you felt. I was just saying how i felt and how the hostility of some of the posts saddened me. If I sounded angry I did not mean it to sound that way. Plese have as much patience with me as you do with sterling and I will do the same. I was not offended by your post or glenys as a matter of fact it inspired me to stay , So thank you for that. Deborah Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11370 From: Deborah Matthies Subject: Re: Ripe Harvest: Wheat vs Tares< I have something to say Glenys, Thank you for you patience and kind words. When i read your post one wheat vs Tares It did inspire me to stay. So Thank you again Love, Deborah Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/711371 From: J J Dewey Subject: Moving Ahead Thank you Sterling for you generous response. I felt like there was still a chance of communion with you. However, many want us to proceed with the teachings. I will try and answer your questions as time permits, but cannot do so al at once. Some of your questions may be answered in that in The Gods of The Bible that I sent you. You might want to read the rest of that and get back to me. In the meantime the class material on the search for truth is reaching a phase that may be helpful for seekers. In Friendship, JJ Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11372 From: Rick Audette Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Sterling, JJ has taught us about baptism. Check out Samu's sight and use the new search feature. Might try that with some of those other terms too. Rick -- ICQ 19753992 visit my web pages at http://www.ont.com/users/rea1/ have you read "The Immortal" http://www.freeread.com I'm only in it for the thrill Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11373 From: Diane Linen Subject: Rachel Yes, Rachel is quite beautiful Rick. It's easy to see that she is wise and a wonderful Keyster too. Diane Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-30/11374 From: Rick Audette Subject: Re: The Greatest Name "Actually..he was referring more the name CHRIST" No, actually the full name was being explained, Judes. Christ means anointed Jesus comes from Joshua which comes from two Hebrew words Yehovah (God) and yasha (Save or deliver, help, rescue) "As we stated before this name means "anointed to deliver." the name in question being Jesus Christ. Odd that Christopher should ask who This person is, since Christopher means "to carry Christ". Maybe he will meet Jesus Christ, next time he (CW) shaves. Rick -- ICQ 19753992 visit my web pages at http://www.ont.com/users/rea1/ have you read "The Immortal" http://www.freeread.com I'm only in it for the thrill Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11375 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: The Greatest Name susan carter wrote: "He drew a circle that shut me out... Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the will to win; We drew a circle that took him in! by Edwin Markham" Susan, That makes all my quotes pale into insignificance. Thanks so much for sharing it. Love Glenys PS Deborah - I'm pleased you've decided to stick around. We're not such a bad bunch and once in a while we even say something useful :-) (But don't hold your breath :-))) Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11376 From: Diana Brown Subject: More Information I would like to know if there is a way I can find out if JJ has any more books or anything else regarding The Immortal. I have sort of lost track of the teaching on this message board and (if any one can) have someone update me as to which lesson we are covering. I have browsed through the archives and have found several lessons that i couldn't follow. Also, I noticed that someone mentioned a gathering in June...Please send info on this as well. Love and prayers Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11377 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Latest list Rick writes: "The Molecule starts here. The conductor shouts. All aboard the Peace Train. And the Band played on." Oh, WOW. This has got to be the train I was waiting for in a dream I had years ago. I was waiting in the station and going to meet my earth Mom who passed over in 1967. I have been looking forward, ever since, to boarding that train. Dancing to the Band Marylin Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11378 From: "susan carter" Subject: Re:OT More Information I answered her privately. Susan Diana Brown wrote: "I would like to know if there is a way I can find out if JJ has any more books or anything else regarding The Immortal." Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11379 From: "susan carter" Subject: [Fwd What Do Christians Feel?} OT HUMOR A friend from David's Outcasts has a good sense of humor: David's Outcasts - http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts/ "Craig Tholson wrote: " If all of the writings of the world were destroyed, then what would we know of Christ? This question is paramount to anyone who wants to know who/what Christ is. Tell me what you would know about him without our propaganda." I guess it's time for us to fess up. Please fill in the questionnaire below and let's get this belief-thing straightened out NOW: GOD'S TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE God would like to thank you for your belief and patronage. In order to better serve your needs, He asks that you take a few moments to answer the following questions. 1. How did you find out about your deity? _ Newspaper _ Bible _ Torah _ Television _ Book of Mormon _ Divine Inspiration _ Dead Sea Scrolls _ My Mama Done Told Me _ Near Death Experience _ Near Life Experience _ National Public Radio _ Tabloid _ Burning Shrubbery _ Other (specify): ________________ 2. Which model deity did you acquire? _ Jehovah _ Jesus _ Krishna _ Father, Son & Holy Ghost [Trinity Pak] _ Zeus and entourage [Olympus Pak] _ Odin and entourage [Valhalla Pak] _ Allah _ Satan _ Gala/Mother Earth/Mother Nature _ God 1.0a (Helry Thunderer) _ God 1.0b (Cosmic Muffin) _ None of the above, I was taken in by a false god 3. Did your God come to you undamaged, with all parts in good working order and with no obvious breakage or missing attributes? _ Yes _ No If no, please describe the problems you initially encountered here. Please indicate all that apply: _ Not eternal _ Finite in space/Does not occupy or inhabit the entire cosmos _ Not omniscient _ Not omnipotent _ Not infinitely plastic (Incapable of being all things to all creations) _ Permits sex outside of marriage _ Prohibits sex outside of marriage _ Makes mistakes _ Makes or permits bad things to happen to good people _ Makes or permits bad things to happen to bad people _ Looks after life other than that on Earth _ When beseeched, He doesn't stay beseeched _ Requires burnt offerings _ Requires virgin sacrifices 4. What factors were relevant in your decision to acquire a deity? Please check all that apply. _ Indoctrinated by parents _ Needed a reason to live _ Indoctrinated by society _ Needed focus in whom to despise _ Imaginary friend grew up _ Hate to think for myself _ Wanted to meet girls/boys _ Fear of death _ Wanted to bleep off parents _ Needed a day away from work _ Desperate need for certainty _ Like organ music _ Need to feel morally superior _ Thought Jerry Falwell was cool _ Shit was falling out of the sky _ My shrubbery caught fire and told me to do it 5. Have you ever worshipped a deity before? If so, which false god were you fooled by? Please check all that apply-. _ Baal _ The Almighty Dollar _ Left Wing Liberalism _ The Radical right _ Amon Ra _ Beelzebub _ Bill Gates _ Barney The Big Purple Dinosaur _ The Great Spirit _ The Great Pumpkin _ The Sun _ The Moon _ Cindy Crawford _ Elvis _ A burning shrub _ Other: _____________ 6. Are you currently using any other source of inspiration in addition to God? Please check all that apply. _ Tarot _ Astrology _ Television _ Fortune cookies _ Ann Landers _ Psychic Friends Network _ Dianetics _ Palmistry _ Playboy and/or Playgirl _ Self-help books _ Sex, drugs and rock & roll _ Biorhythms _ Alcohol _ Bill Clinton _Tea Leaves _ ESP _ Amway _ CompuServe _ Mantras _ Jimmy Swaggert _ Crystals (not included Crystal Gayle) _ Human sacrifice _ Pyramids _ Wandering around a desert _ Insurance policies _ Burning shrubbery _ Barney T.B.P.D. _ Barney Fife _ Other. -________ _ None 7. God employs a limited degree of Divine intervention to preserve a balanced level of felt presence and blind faith. Which would you prefer (circle one). a. More Divine intervention b. Less Divine intervention c. Current level of Divine intervention is just right d. Don't know...what's Divine intervention? 8. God also attempts to maintain a balanced level of disasters and miracles. Please rate on a scale of 1 - 5 his handling of the following (1=unsatisfactory, 5=excellent) a. Disasters: 1 2 3 4 5 food 1 2 3 4 5 famine 1 2 3 4 5 earthquake 1 2 3 4 5 war 1 2 3 4 5 pestilence 1 2 3 4 5 plague 1 2 3 4 5 Spam 1 2 3 4 5 AOLers b. Miracles: 1 2 3 4 5 rescues 1 2 3 4 5 spontaneous remissions 1 2 3 4 5 stars hovering over jerkwater towns 1 2 3 4 5 crying statues 1 2 3 4 5 water changing to wine 1 2 3 4 5 walking on water 1 2 3 4 5 getting any sex whatsoever 9. From time to time God makes available the names and addresses of His followers and devotees to selected divine personages who provide quality services and perform intercessions in His behalf. Are you interested in a compilation of listed offerings? _ Yes, please deluge me with religious zealots for the benefit of my own mortal soul _ No, I do not wish to be inundated by religious fanatics clamoring for my money 10. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improving the quality of God's service? (Attach an additional sheet if necessary): I didn't write this. It came to me in a morning vision while I was awake from the Angel Email. --David Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11380 From: "Jina Bostick" Subject: Re: More Information Yes, Diana, you mirrored my sentiments exactly regarding the gathering in June. Soon I will have to give my job a date as to when I expect to take my vacation, and I would love to be at the gathering. But either I came in too late and it had already been discussed, or perhaps just not finalized yet. Can anybody give us an actual date for the gathering and a place? Need to know, like, yesterday, so I can tell my boss tomorrow or Wednesday when I plan on taking my vacation. Oh, also, kids OK? Sunshine Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11381 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Accuser Glenys Lowery wrote: "It's funny how two people can read the same thing and get a different message or tone. All I perceived in JJ's last message was a deep sadness at the way Sterling has not only rejected his teachings (which isn't so bad in itself) but concluded that JJ is an agent of Satan. I think JJ has been extraordinarily patient given extreme and relentless provocation. So have we for that matter." So true. I just thought the tone and wording was more defensive then I have ever seen him. Usually he throws humor in there, but what I got from that last one was more like "No, that's you." than anything else. I agree he and the rest of us have been quite patient. And I don't mean to diminish that. Perhaps I've just seen enough such nonsense for now. I've even tried not to start any! :) Travis Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11382 From: Paul Yu Subject: Re: Paul - Re Freedom is divine (was: Accuser) Dearest Dehara, You are such a joy, Dehara! The free spirit you are brings joy to those around you undoubtedly. You are like thee kite turned bird filled wit freedom of spirit ready to soar. The wings of the special energy that you have on your sides are taking you where you are destined to go. I'll see you around. Paul Yu Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11383 From: Blayne Subject: Re: Bearing record JJ wrote: "Let me again quote the criteria for deciding which side a disciple is on: "But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. "And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me." Ether 4:11" JJ, I came across this in your exchange with Sterling, I have largely stayed out of that exchange for brevity etc. But this bothered me, and If I haven't used up the possibility of receiving an answer would you please respond? The scriptures you quote above speak of "the manifestations of the spirit, and he shall know and bear record" I ask, what is it you bear record of? Since you set this as a criteria for knowing which side a disciple is on? Unless I have missed it I don't recall you bearing record of anything, but rather put stuff forward either as fiction or ?. Thanks for your response in advance. Love Blayne PS I would prefer JJ to answer this one if the rest of you don't mind. Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11384 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: The Bread of Life Could we perhaps just be disagreeing on how Jesus is the door or the path? It seems many on the list feel that he's not being so literal. For example, the scripture you quote: "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." (John 12:46.) It only says we must believe in him. There are many ways to believe in something. Perhaps it was meant to be symbolic as many things in the Bible are said to be. Granted, you had a lot of others in there. And I simply don't feel it's worth the effort to go into all of them. It is useful to see how you think though. I would also like to mention that I don't feel anyone here "marginalizes" Jesus Christ. I for one give him full honor for his accomplishments. But I don't feel a need to "worship" him in the classical sense. My form of worship is more in my actions day to day than in bowing and praying. And I most certainly do not claim christhood. I don't know about the rest of the list, but *I* am not qualified for that job. I think there is really little we disagree about Sterling, it's just that the real disagreement is on basic principles. Thus the conflict seems big. From what I can tell there are probably about 4 principles we disagree on. The rest is just an effect. Peace, Travis Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11385 From: DeHara Subject: Becoming . . . T O D A Y JoyFull Greetings of Peace, *It is impossible for me to describe the beauty of the earth. It is a breathtaking, awe-inspiring, spiritual experience to view the earth from space while traveling at twenty-five times the speed of sound. I could also look into the blackness of the vacuum of space and see billions of stars and galaxies millions of light-years away. The universe is so vast as to be impossible to comprehend. But I did comprehend the hand of God in all things. I felt His presence throughout my seven days in space. I know that we are His children, wherever we live on earth, without regard to our nationality or the color of our skin. Most important, I know that God lives and is the Creator of us all.* -- Jake Garn, Astronaut on space shuttle Discovery, April 1985 Becoming . . . T O D A Y *** When I got mad and hit my child, "For his own good", I reconciled; And then I realized my plight... Today I taught my child to fight. *** When interrupted by the phone, I said, "Tell them I'm not at home"; And then I thought, and had to sigh... Today I taught my child to lie. *** I told the tax man what I made, Forgetting cash that I was paid; And then I blushed at this sad feat... Today I taught my child to cheat. *** I smugly copied a cassette, To keep me free of one more debt; But now the bells of shame must peal... Today I taught my child to steal. *** Today I cursed another race, Oh God protect what I debase; For now, I fear it is to late... Today I taught my child to hate. *** By my example children learn, That I must lead in life's sojourn; In such a way that they are led... By what is done, not what is said. *** Today I gave my child his due, By praises for him instead of rue; And now I have begun my guide... Today I gave my child his pride. *** I now have reconciled and paid, To IRS on all I made; And now I know that this dear youth... Today has learned from me of truth. *** The alms I give are not for show, And yet, this child must surely know; That charity is worth the price... Today he saw my sacrifice. *** I clasp within a warm embrace, My neighbor of another race; The great commandment from above... Today I taught my child to love. *** Someday my child must face alone, This world of fearsome undertone; But I have blazed a sure pathway... Today I taught my child to pray. - Author Unknown - Post No. keys-l: /2000-051-31/11386 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Bearing record Blayne wrote: "PS I would prefer JJ to answer this one if the rest of you don't mind." ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the laugh this morning Blayne. I didn't have an answer anyway, but it just made me laugh. Travis Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11387 From: Blayne Subject: Re: The Greatest Name That was a good discourse JJ I liked it. I think what some of us feel here is that by separating Jesus the Man from Christ and relegating the man and his body as insignificant we are separating humanity from divinity or IOW we are separating ourselves from divinity. This violates the oneness principle. If the Body was so unimportant then why even come here what need would we have to come here? Why then did Jesus die on the cross then rise again? The Tomb was empty, this is powerful symbolism that there is something more to this then just Christ Consciousness which in it self is very important but cannot reach its full potential without a body to facilitate it. Kind of like a car is worthless unless we get in and drive it yet we could not get certain places without it or it would take us much longer. This is a simple analogy and doesn't fully express the need for a body but helps us understand. Granted the body is dead without the animation of the spirit but element (body) and spirit inseparably connected receive a fullness for joy (resurrected perfected body). Is this not the most powerful example and symbol of the oneness principle? You cannot separate Jesus the man from this ultimate example he united with the Christ ( body and spirit united) and gained power over death and to forgive sins etc. making him eligible to pay our debts so to speak. We are here to learn to preserve our individual identities and we do this through the power of the atonement wrought by Jesus Christ/Joshua what ever you prefer to call him. He saved us by example and deed you cannot separate him from the spirit or you shred the example and power, being one with all Gods then God came in the flesh literally and saved us. Yes we can take upon us his name and become like him just as he did but we could not do it without him paying our karmic debt with its assigned consequences allowing us to walk freely and choose to do as he did. Just a a prisoner cannot support himself without first being freed to work Words are just inadequate here to fully express this so please I will be projecting this in the Adamic language (from the heart) to any who would care to try to understand. Yes many mainstream mormons put to much emphasis on the body of God, where as new age and fundamentalist Christians (there's an unlikely alliance) put too much emphasis on God not having a body when they are two ends of the spectrum, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, to separate them destroys the spectrum completely and damns us (stops progress) Hope this helps. Love Blayne Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11388 From: DeHara Subject: Re My super model angel . . .the 21st Century JoyFull Greetings, Rick, you are blessed . . . What a "beauty" your daughter is. And what a wonderful role model for the children of the 21st Century. , , to be . . . A true reflection of what is . . . an ambassador of the Christ within. And to think, the keysters' and all other young are the benefitof her co-creater, Y O U, Many more blessings . . . um, Dreams . . . becoming Reality. Rick, 200+keysters & Rachel, 1 of 12 out of 200+ in the world, The number 22 has the ability to open doors to our consciousness. There's a wonderful process floating around. "Affirmations & Numerology." One of the many tools to help find what holds us back. Remember the 11:11 stargate opening and the flood of new energy that came in? This works on the same principle. Anyone interested please let me know. [*-^] Love, Light & Gratitude, Dehara " . . . 200 plus students, she was one of 12 that was selected as the cream of the crop and is invited to fly to New York, next April, to be in an international competition, seen by top agency reps. Needless to say, the only way she can pull it off is to find sponsors to help cover the fee. Well, anyway, this proud poppa just had to show off his baby to all his friends, so have a look and when she's a big name, you can say, I remember when she was just a baby Keyster :) good looks, must run in the family, Rick" Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11389 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: Bearing record Travis Tabbal wrote: "Thanks for the laugh this morning Blayne. I didn't have an answer anyway, but it just made me laugh." "Me too, Travis :-)" As Blayne would prefer JJ answers this I'm reposting an email JJ wrote just a month or so ago when Blayne asked a similar question. There were other emails along the same topic about the same time if newer members wish to look at the archives, particularly regarding JJ's use of fact and fiction. I think Blayne's question has been answered before. Love Glenys I was forwarded a comment from Blayne that I believe I should respond to: "I am really curios if anyone can show me anything new in JJ's teaching? Mostly Joseph Smith with some new age blended in for terms and things from a few other areas. Anyways that's my take." JJ Well Blayne, I have no idea where you received this "take." As it has no foundation in my current reality. It wasn't long ago that Zia accused me of pirating many teachings from Alice A. Bailey and I challenged her to show me specific examples of anything I claimed to originate through me that really was plagiarized in any degree. So far no one has accepted this challenge. So I issue it again. I will list several teachings here that are original to the my writings and I challenge anyone out there to show where they are accurately represented in any other writings on the planet. Before I make a partial list (and I say partial because I do not have time to reread the archives) let me make this statement. Any Spiritual teacher on the earth cannot teach without building on a foundation of past teachers. Even so with Jesus. About 90% of what he said was a quote from somewhere. Even his famous teaching about loving God and loving your neighbor were quotes from the Old Testament. Then too, much of the sermon on the Mount was said earlier by the Buddha. If you therefore judge Jesus with the same harshness with which you judge me then you would have to reject the Master himself. That said, I will herewith present a number of teachings that have been presented through me (with glory to God) that to the best of my knowledge is found in no book. That does not mean that they are not in any book for I have not read every book in the world, but I suspect that most of these teachings are presented no where else. (1) Let us start with Project Peace and Goodwill. This is the first concrete plan for world peace that goes beyond sending good vibes and outlines a plan for disarmament that does not include unilateral disarmament first from the good guys. Instead it outlines a plan for the major nations to lay down their arms all at the same time. I do not think you will find this idea anywhere else and certainly not in the writings of Joseph Smith or Alice A. Bailey. (2) The Molecular Relationship reveals the principles behind the next great evolutionary step for mankind. The idea of a human molecule and what will make it work as presented in my writings is taught no where else on the planet that I know about. (3) Several concepts in the Molecular Business are not taught anywhere that I know about. The principle of choosing leadership from the bottom up rather than the top down is practiced in no business that I know about. Neither does any current business have a uniformity of wages. Some religious orders have a forced equality, but this idea could work entirely through free will. (4) Molecular Politics changes the power of the representative to a manager and gives the power of the vote to the people while working within the presently designed Constitution and governing system. This idea is presented no where else that I know about. There are several new concepts presented in the book, The Immortal. The first is the first key itself, which is only the first of thirty-six keys to be revealed. (5) The first key is not Decision. Decision is the first key word. The first key is that power within you which gives you power to make a decision. This is the essence of what you are and has been revealed no where else that I know of. (6) The illusion of I AM contrasted with I AM BECOMING is taught no where else I know of. To say this is no different than Joseph Smith's statement about eternal progression is a stretch. If Joseph's teachings are so similar to mine on this then why do none of the 8 million Mormons or their offshoots get it? They all teach of God as the Great IAM, just like everyone else. (7) The fact that the sub universe (quarks and below) to this one is built on the number six and the Universe beyond this one will be built on the number eight. I don't think you'll find that anywhere else. (8) The idea that the whole universe is created from an interplay of male-female energy. (9) The idea that the essence of God is Purpose and even Love come from this. (10) The intuitive Principle as taught in the book has been used with variations in the past, but the manner of questioning and revealing answers is a different twist from anything I have heard about. (11) The fact hat the lives higher than human are less progressed within their sphere than the human and the lives in the microcosmic world is much higher than human within their sphere. (12) In the archives are also many original teachings. The teachings there about the beast, the mark of the beast, the number of the beast and the interpretation of Revelation 13 as a whole is unlike anything else published that I know of. Nothing there is derived from Joseph Smith or Alice A. Bailey. (13) The idea that there is no such thing as perfection, but only relative perfection, even with God. (14) The interpretation that the Sign of the Son of man is the atomic bomb along with an explanation why. (15) The explanation of how one has the Father's name in his forehead verses the mark of the Beast in the forehead. (16) The Oneness Principle explained and demonstrated through the list. (17) My explanation of what a principle is vs data and the revelation of many principles. (18) The key words and principles of the passing age and the coming age. (19) The idea that an initiate is "one who initiates." (20) The idea of quantum consciousness (21) The concept that the Masters walk through walls by stilling their vibration rather than speeding it up. (22) The two paths - Least resistance and most resistance. (23) Correlating our physical blind spot to our physical one. (24) Sex in relation to knowing God. (25) The fact that negative feelings have a positive use. (26) The fact that humanoids are the soul life and creative force of the universe which corresponds in the macrocosm to the soul in man. (27) The idea that man will eventually move stars systems and change the shape of the whole universe. (28) Explanation of Black Holes. (29) The concept that one plus one equals one. (30) The real meaning behind the name of Jesus Christ. (31) Explaining the principle of the gathering as the principle behind all evolution of all life. (32) Numerous original parables. (33) The New Jerusalem meditation creating a portal allowing many students to journey to the heavenly realm. (By the way this will be continued when the time is right). To the best of my knowledge none of these teachings (any many others I have presented) are not found in any book. It is possible that you may find several someplace, but I did not get them by reading or studying someone else's material. To those of you who think I am just sitting here at my computer and copying material out of some nebulous book I hereby issue a challenge. You be the teacher and teach us just one principle or parable equal to the least of those mentioned above that is not already thoroughly covered in the teachings of the world. If you cannot do this, then how can you maintain that your criticism of me is just? Many of the teachings I have presented has been received through he oneness principle or revelation of some kind and this is the reason that they register so strongly with the souls of many who are searching with sincere hearts. Blayne asks me if I believe that which I teach. The answer, as most of you know without asking, is definitely yes. I either believe, know or understand from experience all that I teach save certain parts of the Book, The Immortal, that are fictionalized to make an interesting story. But then the book itself states this to be the case. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him. - Gospel of Thomas Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11390 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Well, it's true - we see different things on this list according to our own paradigms because I was astonished to think that any of us could give the impression that we saw the death of Jesus as 'insignificant'! As far as I'm concerned, Jesus overcoming physical death was an extremely significant gift to humanity and an important part of his ministry. We did discuss it on list about a year or so ago. Here's one link can find. Perhaps other Keysters know of others. Overcoming Physical Death http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ298.html Love Glenys Blayne wrote: "That was a good discourse JJ I liked it. I think what some of us feel here is that by separating Jesus the Man from Christ and relegating the man and his body as insignificant we are separating humanity from divinity or IOW we are separating ourselves from divinity. This violates the oneness principle. If the Body was so unimportant then why even come here what need would we have to come here?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him. - Gospel of Thomas Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11391 From: "D.O.O.R" Subject: Monism In his book, World of Oneness, now unfortunately out of print, American philosopher Byram Campbell defines the Monist: "The term MONISM usually implies that there is a single principle back of the universe or that all complexities can be reduced to a single explanation; that ultimate truth is in the nature of the one...a monist either denies the existence of values which conflict with the one of his choice or else belittles them or ignores them.....Because of his mental and emotional limitations, he cannot deal in, evaluate or even tolerate conflicting conceptions. He is incapable of giving balanced judgments. He does not understand true unity and believes that unity can be achieved only when everyone agrees; and, of course, they must agree with him. We shall also apply the term monist to the believer in collectivistic concepts, for these are based on oneness, as will be shown......." Published in the Spotlight, Jan 3 & 10, 2000, page 6 Thought to share the above with you, as in my observations, some articles posted on this list come from an undeniable Monistic basis. In ones quest for understanding God, be ever cautious of Monism, as it very well could be mans excuse of thinking and preaching he understands God, thus negating the eternal law of agency of our neighbor. May the Light of eternal physics stimulate our thoughts towards a Godly nature......Pablo "Don't Assert yourself. Keep yourself out of the way, be a perfect hypocrite, and your life will be a successful life." Osho Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11392 From: J J Dewey Subject: Bearing Record Blayne Writes: "First he quotes me: Let me again quote the criteria for deciding which side a disciple is on: "But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. "And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me." Ether 4:11" "JJ, I came across this in your exchange with Sterling, I have largely stayed out of that exchange for brevity etc. But this bothered me, and If I haven't used up the possibility of receiving an answer would you please respond? The scriptures you quote above speak of "the manifestations of the spirit ,and he shall know and bear record" "I ask, what is it you bear record of? Since you set this as a criteria for knowing which side a disciple is on? Unless I have missed it I don't recall you bearing record of anything, but rather put stuff forward either as fiction or ?. Thanks for your response in advance." JJ Despite the fact that over 80% of my writings available to readers are presented as "non fiction" teachings Blayne keeps bringing up the fictionalized part of my book. And I notice on Sterling's forum (someone sent me his post) that he is still calling it a deception and manipulation. Since you have definitely made up your mind that I am a deceiver the question is why you are here? Is it as a watcher of iniquity? Here is what the Book of Mormon says about such a practice: "For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off; "And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." II Nephi 27:31-32 Here we are told that they who scorn and "all that watch for iniquity" are to be cut off. Therefore, if any are here to watch for iniquity they are here for the wrong reason. The true spiritual teachers do not watch for iniquity for it is impossible to see light and truth by looking in the direction of darkness. If one watches for iniquity they will see iniquity. Did not the Jewish leaders see that which they were looking for in Jesus? They were looking for darkness in the greatest light that ever walked the planet and that is exactly what they saw and thus accused him of healing by the power of Satan. Look at Joseph Smith, for example. Did he look for iniquity in others, or was the problem in that day that others were always looking for iniquity in him? If we be watchers of light and truth and promoters of light and truth then "in the light we shall see light." Iniquity shall reveal itself without having to look for it. Did Joseph go to other groups to watch for their errors and iniquities? Did Jesus or any great teachers? Joseph did go to the Masons, but not to see what was wrong but to see what he could learn from them and he incorporated some of their teachings with his own. Even though the Masons had much error he still looked for light rather than darkness. It seems to really bother a very small handful that part of the Immortal is fiction, as if honestly stating that the story in my book is a combination of fiction is some great lie. I have already covered this in detail, but let me say one additional thing. As it states in the book the Brotherhood of Light have worked through disciples in recent times and the work has not succeeded. Why? Because we live in a totally different age than in times past, even much different than early Mormonism. For instance when my great great great grandfather Wilford Woodruff went into a town as a missionary he merely rented a hall and put a post up somewhere that there was to be a meeting. With this small amount of advertising sometimes half the town turned out. Why was this? Because in those days there was no TV, Internet, night shifts, VCR's, MTV etc. When strangers came to town to present something new it was a bog deal and often it was the only entertainment available. One time when Wilford went into a tavern the crown forced him to preach whether he wanted to or not. That's how thirsty they were to be entertained. Things are different now and even the Brotherhood is somewhat beside themselves as to the best ways to reach the lights. No longer can a teacher just wander into town and with a simple free ad get hundreds of the people to eagerly turn out and listen. If a person has what he considers as light he has much difficulty in getting an audience. I know Sterling has been at it for a number of years, I think eight or more, and all he has is a handful who will listen, not as many as early missionaries roused in one day. I also know that the group that Craig was associated with have struggled for many years to get listeners and still only have a handful who believe. This lack of interest is not the fault of teachers such as Sterling. but this is just the way it is. All teachers true and false good and bad have much difficulty in getting an audience because there are so many sources of entertainment that seem to be more interesting than just reading or hearing lectures. Because of the struggles that disciples are having in this age it was given to me to write the Immortal series which shall consist of twelve books. This direction was confirmed to me by the Spirit of God through the soul. Thus by combining truth with fiction I can present the teachings in such a way that not only normal seekers will enjoy but many who are not actively seeking will also enjoy and in the process perhaps become interested in the search for truth. I have found this to be very successful for many people who have read the Immortal (who I thought would totally reject it because the teachings differ from their own) have loved the book. My mother for instance, is a stanch Mormon and thinks I am deceived. But she read the book and is now a fan. She keeps asking me when the next book is coming out. Now she's still a s standard Mormon, but a part of her has been stimulated that was lacking before. You therefore ask what I bear record of? I bear record that The writing of the Immortal as fiction in order to reach the hearts of the people was inspired by God. That is the reason that many people can read a book which is labeled as fiction and yet receive a witness through the Spirit that truth is there and that they should seek more. You would be amazed At all the letters I get from readers who tell me that they were touched by the Spirit of God as the read the book. Many have said something like this: "I don't care if you say that it is fiction. I felt the Spirit of God while reading it." I think others on this list also are willing to testify to you Blayne that they also felt the Spirit of truth while reading it. Because of the weaknesses of the human condition I am sure I have made some mistakes in the many writings I have posted and if a person "watches" enough he may find something. But apart from human error I do testify my teachings are true. The Molecular Relationship was given to me as a revelation from God and if you read it and ask God in the name of Christ if it is true according to my weakness you shall receive, providing you ask as a little child with a sincere heart. What greater witness is there than from God? Verily, you can receive such a witness of the direction of the teachings I present and of the work of which we are engaged. Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. II Nephi 32:2-3 I have spoken many of these "words of Christ" freely to the group my friend. Can you not see them and feel them? Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11393 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Hostile Witness? As far as I can see, Blayne is the equivalent of a hostile witness in legal proceedings so all of his questions and comments will be influenced by his pre-existing views. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to these views, just that we should be aware of here he is coming from as it is clear to me that his contributions to the list will be with the objective of setting traps for JJ and others given his beliefs about us. Here are some of the comments he has made in the last few days to another list: With respect to JJ's teachings: 'I on the other hand saw their manipulation right off the bat and was even chastised by Sterling for calling them on it'. He talks of the 'deception' of JJ's teachings and ' as I correctly perceived from the heart their foundation was based on lies and manipulation right from the get go'. Blayne's belief isn't just confined to JJ as he says: 'But I already knew Keys was a deception Sterling didn't' and 'It is important in our quest for exposing falsehood we not loose credibility by going to the other extreme Which I think even Sterling has done now to some degree even though he has clearly seen JJ and his movement for what it is'. At least Sterling openly told us what he thought of us. Therefore, I think we can justifiably hope that we don't spend too much time on people who have already decided we are in error and instead be allowed to get on with JJ's teachings. His time and energy should be devoted to furthering his 'movement'. LOL Love Glenys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him. - Gospel of Thomas Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11394 From: "Judy Reese" Subject: Welcome, Deborah! Great..Deborah: I am so glad that you did understand the confusion I had about your post. I want you to know that I reread it and realized that you were not angry..but were saying that you were staying. I THOUGHT that you were saying you had unsubscribed and were angry that the messages were stll coming to you! And that my message was an example of why you were unsubscribing..Whew! so glad this got straightened out. I must say..that yesterday was very INTENSE for me..as the tension of waiting for JJ's reply to Sterling was very paramount to me on many levels. I am very new too , Deb, and I understand now..more how the "beloved" have patience for what is unfolding here and confidence in JJ's abilities as a master teacher. Wow..what a letter....I want you to know, JJ, that I went into [what I call] the "light" state of consciousness from that post and have not come out of it yet. You are definitely in the RIGHT place, Deborah, and if participating in a grand unfoldment of very high consciousness is what you want..you will definitely find it here. Love to you and all: Judes Deborah: "Judes, I believe You have taken what I was trying to say without success (apparently) the wrong way. When I wrote that post the name on the post was Glenys. I am not all that familiar with the ins and out's of this list. Sorry . And I said I did try to withdraw my membership but kept getting the postings anyway. I did re-read my post and did not see the contempt you felt. I was just saying how i felt and how the hostility of some of the posts saddened me." Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11395 From: "Judy Reese" Subject: Samu's URL Rick: Could you post the URL for Samu's site? .Think I had it but cannot find it now. Thanks Judes Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11396 From: Blayne Subject: Re: The Greatest Name OK I read the archive and JJ's premise is the Jesus did not really die, technically that's right he did not because the spirit was outside the body and the life force of the body gone from it, but we all do that. We all know its not the end when we die the physical death. This does not deal with the issue I raise. The resurrection is about the physical body and raising it again otherwise there is no need for a resurrection. If the ascended masters need no body why then did Jesus go to the trouble of raising the body and showing himself to many and inviting them to touch him etc. Also keeping the saying of Jesus so you won't die refers to spiritual death to raise the physical body one must use the power of the atonement. Else why bother with the physical body at all. Scripture also says in the resurrection not one hair shall be lost the body will be restored ot its perfect frame etc. Why so much emphasis on this physical body? The Man Jesus was more then just another man as so many seem to place him. And why the emphasis on ascended masters not needing a body if Jesus was one of the greatest and needed his? Glenys Lowery wrote: "Well, it's true - we see different things on this list according to our own paradigms because I was astonished to think that any of us could give the impression that we saw the death of Jesus as 'insignificant'!" (snip) ******************************** Only dead fish go with the flow! Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11397 From: "* Zia" Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Greetings of Peace to All, I noticed Sterling writing 'we're on a roll here' or words to that effect which I read last night, in great relief. Christopher, I am with you on this one, the Greatest Name is God although perhaps the truly greatest of all is 'No Name' that encompasses all that is, the reflection of God, oneness. So much insight has occurred in the last twenty four hours that I am stunned. It is not like me to share details of my personal life, my past, but JJ's post on the Greatest Name draws this out of me. And even more so, my response to beautiful Xavier, and the questions asked by myself at the end of that post regarding the GWB... these were profoundly answered as well, and I am today in profound awe. I became pregnant to a man that had wanted a wife and child, and to continue his spiritual growth in the direction we were both proceeding. I was shown a vision that within two weeks this man would completely change his mind, no longer wanting a wife or a child. This came to pass, and the man said he would go with me to have an abortion. I chose to thus make the decision on my own as to what I would do. I went into meditation and asked God what to do. While in that state sitting on my bed... someone/thing took hold of my hand, the energy was so incredible my hand and arm shook uncontrollably. I opened my eyes to check it out not leaving that state. I just knew that this child I would have and love, and I would do it myself without any knowledge or need to the father that had already made his decision. When this child was delivered in the hospital, the 'authorities' wanted to know who the father was. Even a dear friend of long acquaintance offered to be the father on the birth certificate. I said no. While carrying this child I also had a vision of him, around 11 - 12 years of age, his golden hair, intense eyes and knew I would name him James Christopher...(the closest I could get to Jesus Christ) JC for short. I came out laughing... This caused great consternation in my best friend of my life, a Catholic - sacrilege. So my son took my maiden name as his surname. And the documents asked for the father's name. I put 'God'. The official birth certificate came back with the father's name as 'Unknown'. I looked at that for some time, and laughed and laughed, for God is unknown here. A few years later in an intense three day meditation with a particular crystal, a magnificent being over 3 days spoke with me regarding my life. He told me I was to take the name Zia. To put no other name with it. I was shown how this name was mine. I argued (because I thought it was very new age... and ridiculous I loved my own name). When putting on my license the police came to my home and said they could not issue it with only one name. I had been shown in meditation two hours earlier that if a computer could not handle it have it recorded as Zia Zia with an annotation that it is only one name. This the police went and did, and all was well, the licence and everything about me contains one name. I assure you this was a challenge in my life. In CAiro I was faced with officials at the airport pointing guns at me, and asking why I only had one name!! JJ's splendid post on the Greatest Name, fired all the memories in me, for I had come to the understanding that Christ was indeed Jesus' Father's name, and that we all carry that name... our true Father's name, and perhaps on earth we should carry the mother's name as part of the surname... for God is our Father. Such as Sai Baba, meaning mother father. Satya meaning 'truth' mother father, is a great name. When I understood this I said to myself I am Zia Christ, thus shocking my dear Catholic friend but again, into horror!! Obviously this was not to be shared! In India children are often named after the great spiritual Gods and this is quite normal. Yet I was not given the name of Christ by the great being I met with... it was to have 'no name' with Zia. For the greatest God of all, we know not his name, and the best we do to describe it... is oneness. I assure you there was such a humbling in carrying this single name. The ridicule... Xavier's questions are but so mild in comparison on this subject. The reason for sharing this, is this. I have discovered that 'real empowerment' does not come from someone telling you something, nor in actual fact your own 'putting the pieces of the puzzle' together. I have discovered for me, that empowerment, a true release and acceptance of truth within myself, comes from receiving 'confirmation' from another. Another has in some means arrived at the same understanding. And from quite a different perspective. This JJ has done for me through this splendid post, the Greatest Name. I can only thank you JJ, for I had recently made the decision to become a leader. Something I was loathe to do. And it seems all that stopped me is unraveling with that decision, perfectionist, my name - who I am, and obviously perhaps more to come. So the power in Jesus Christ's name, indeed had a powerful effect upon my life. It is a power to unlock the mysteries hidden within us. For that I am truly grateful. And Sterling I am also grateful to you, and most of all to JJ, who loved you enough to hold in there and keep striving for your understanding. Celebrating the Joy of Life, ZIA Christopher: "Can someone please help me understand who they think this Jesus Christ person is?" Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11398 From: "* Zia" Subject: Re: The Bread of Life Greetings of Peace to All, Oh Rick you made my day!! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa: "My mail box is getting stretch marks and needs a break. My other projects are getting a layer of dust on them. I've got time for the class I helped create and I've got time to help all who write me, but these endless debates are wearing thin and I don't read or write as fast as you seem to. Thanks for letting me share," Rick I have to agree, and now I am getting emails off-line that want to compete in quantity with online... and wow if I don't respond now... there are only so many hours available, and me too.. my fingers only go so fast... fast yes... but. How did JJ manage to read it all, and also do his lengthy replies, and keep his business going... ahhh there are great thank yous in line for Artie... she must be an incredible trojan!!! Thank you Artie... my husband knows about the 'support' angle. He said one day 'there should be more than just me hearing this'... his support is untiring and so forgiving, and I see that in you!!! With such love to you Artie... Celebrating the Joy of Life, ZIA Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11399 From: "* Zia* Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Greetings of Peace to All, Ah Rick, interesting that Christopher means 'to carry Christ' could that also be interpreted to mean 'to embody Christ'? to embody that consciousness, that being, the totality of Christ's consciousness? The mind of God? Celebrating the Joy of Life, ZIA "Odd that Christopher should ask who This person is, since Christopher means "to carry Christ". Maybe he will meet Jesus Christ, next time he (CW) shaves. Rick" Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11400 From: "* Zia" Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Greetings of Peace to All, Blayne I really enjoyed your perceptions today. This sentence of yours says it all very simply: ..'Consciousness which in it self is very important but cannot reach its full potential without a body to facilitate it.' I too have asked the same questions, and this is where I see 'the Blood of Christ' being important. NOt the Jesus the Christ blood taken from his body as such... but that the Christ in us, changing our blood, thus giving this magnificent creation called the body 'immortal life' and that is not so much just this level of physicality, but the FREEDOM to move in to all levels of consciousness through the various bodies. The physical contains them all. Thus immortalizing our ability on all levels of consciousness. You almost say this in your post. The tomb was important, the walking through the wall was important, demonstrating the other levels of reality (consciousness) and the re-physicalizing of the body so that one could put their hands into his wounds and feel the body... he could rematerialize physically from the other levels. Without a body, one who has not incarnated on earth cannot manifest a body here except through the birthing process and governed by those laws, but rather only borrow one! I agree, Jesus' demonstration provides the necessary example and hope and faith for us to do the same... imagine the great being in coming here, and forgetting through the birthing process, and needing to remember how to 'immortalize' the body, much of the purpose in being here... that also then serves others through its demonstration. I loved Paul Yu's comments in one of his posts... that having arrived at the destination we are then free to go in any direction, any place, any where.... it is true freedom of decision, unlimited in all levels of consciousness, and thus we too will gain the profound ability to return here to assist with that hand up!! Thank you Blayne, hope I have not offended in answering your lovely post. Celebrating the Joy of Life, ZIA Blayne: "That was a good discourse JJ I liked it. I think what some of us feel here is that by separating Jesus the Man from Christ and relegating the man and his body as insignificant we are separating humanity from divinity or IOW we are separating ourselves from divinity. This violates the oneness principle. If the Body was so unimportant then why even come here what need would we have to come here? Why then did Jesus die on the cross then rise again? The Tomb was empty, this is powerful symbolism that there is something more to this then just Christ Consciousness which in it self is very important but cannot reach its full potential without a body to facilitate it. ...snipped.... Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11401 From: "susan carter" Subject: Re: Hostile Witness? The test is how do we respond to a person openly hostile to our own beliefs? I would suggest that we never put Blayne or anyone else into a box, seal it and say that is what HE IS. Perhaps he will always hold those views and be the "hostile witness" and perhaps he will someday change his thoughts. I like to hold open that possibility for everyone as long as possible (I guess that is why it took me 15 years to get divorced when I saw the pattern after 3 weeks. LOL) So I would hesitate to label Blayne as anything, just Blayne. At least he is being a gentleman and not making inflammatory remarks on this list per his agreement with JJ. I want to stay open to where he or anyone else is at in the moment and allow for any change/growth/decision. I don't expect everyone to agree on anything except one thing right now: we are here to learn: that is our motive and that is our right. TO LESSONS!! Hear Hear! Susan PS Thanks Blayne for sparking such a great post by JJ! Glenys Lowery wrote: "As far as I can see, Blayne is the equivalent of a hostile witness in legal proceedings so all of his questions and comments will be influenced by his pre-existing views. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to these views, just that we should be aware ..." Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11402 From: Rick Audette Subject: Keysters JJ said, "By the way, has anyone noticed that presidential candidate Alan Keyes has stolen our name. People who support him for president are now called Keysters. Let's sue! (LOL)" I first suggested the name Keysters on November 14 ,1998, when the list was only about two weeks old. When Samu used the name on our photo album, after some discussion which followed, the name stuck. Amazing, what you can find when you browse the archives. We have a history already. Rick Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11403 From: Blayne Subject: Re: Bearing Record JJ I asked a simple question. I said you offer your things as fiction and?. IOW I don't know what else. You assume I am looking for iniquity when I sincerely want to know what you bear record of since you posted the scriptures on bearing record as a criteria to prove what side a disciple is on. I am not looking for iniquity but if something stands out to me that bothers me am I to keep quiet about it? So now we know that you bear record that your book of fiction was inspired by God. Ok anything else you bear record of? I just want to know. That's all. We agreed to treat each other as friends that's what I am doing. Love Blayne J J Dewey wrote: "Blayne Writes: "First he quotes me: "Let me again quote the criteria for deciding which side a disciple is on: "But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good. "And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me." Ether 4:11" "JJ, I came across this in your exchange with Sterling, I have largely stayed out of that exchange for brevity etc. But this bothered me, and" Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11404 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: Hostile Witness? I agree, Susan. It is true that we can hope that 'someday he will change his thoughts' and view us more kindly. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for Blayne to think the same about us seeing he thinks we are being deceived. My purpose for sending the email is that I think it's useful for us to know where someone is coming from, if only to help us determine where to put our efforts. There is no point putting a lot of effort into someone who is convinced we are apostates at the expense of the majority who want to press on with the lessons. So we are in agreement, I think. Onward and upward! :-) Love Glenys susan carter wrote: "The test is how do we respond to a person openly hostile to our own beliefs? I would suggest that we never put Blayne or anyone else into a box, seal it and say that is what HE IS. Perhaps he will always hold those views and be the "hostile witness" and perhaps he will someday change his thoughts. I like to hold open that possibility for everyone as long as possible (I guess that is why it took me 15 years to get divorced when I saw the pattern after 3 weeks. LOL) So I would hesitate to label Blayne as anything, just Blayne. At least he is being a gentleman and not making inflammatory remarks on this list per his agreement with JJ. I want to stay open to where he or anyone else is at in the moment and allow for any change/growth/decision. I don't expect everyone to agree on anything except one thing right now: we are here to learn: that is our motive and that is our right. TO LESSONS!! Hear Hear! Susan -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him. - Gospel of Thomas Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11405 From: "John Wayne Kline" Subject: (OT) Message from the Missouri Ozark Country As I read the posts on the list, it often brings a little Ozark Wisdom to Mind! Now these folks might not be the most educated folks in the world today, but they have a lot Common Sense, and a even Keener, sense of People. So here is your Ozark Questionnaire! Which Tator are you?? Some people never seem motivated to participate, but are content to watch others do. They are called "Speck Tators." Some people never do anything to help, but are gifted at finding fault with the way others do things. They're called "Comment Tators." Some are always looking to cause problems and really get under your skin. They are called "Aggie Tators." There are those who are always saying they will, but somehow, they never get around to doing. We call them "Hezzie Tators." Some people put on a front and act like someone else. They're called "Emma Tators." Then, there are those who walk what they talk. They're always prepared to stop what they're doing to lend a hand to others and bring real sunshine into the lives of others. You can call them "Sweet Tators." Your Friend, John Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11406 From: Blayne Subject: Re: Hostile Witness? Thank you Judge LOL! I made no bones about what I felt this was based on its tactics and manipulations etc., in my early posts, so don't pat yourself on the back to hard and think you exposed some big secret remember you were there trying to defend? I agreed to treat JJ as a friend and have done so since. That doesn't mean I hang on his every word, I don't post stuff like what you posted because it will inflame, which is your intent in posting it not mine or I would have posted it here. But I am sorry that since I don't feel the same as you that you seek to chastise my every word. I don't fall all over every word out of JJ's mouth as so many of you do I call them as I see them I have been nice about it. But you and others read all kinds of things into it. Did it ever occur to you that there are others on the list who don't post but appreciate things brought up by me? Isn't it kind of arrogant to think every one out the 200 just feel like the 4 or 5 of you that post all the time? Well news flash there is and some of them have emailed me privately to say they are glad I bring up issues because they don't want to deal with the yapping dogs who bark every time anyone says anything that might be perceived as less then praise for JJ's latest discourse. Glenys Lowery wrote: "As far as I can see, Blayne is the equivalent of a hostile witness in legal proceedings so all of his questions and comments will be influenced by his pre-existing views." Perhaps you should try some glasses for that near sightedness? LOL! "I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to these views," Then why do you chastise my every word? "just that we should be aware of here he is coming from as it is clear to me that his contributions to the list will be with the objective of setting traps for JJ and others given his beliefs about us." That's it judge anything I say before I say it try to attach your own prejudice to it to discredit it but I haven't even said it yet...gee that's objective. The tactic is to discredit the messenger before he gives his message so no one will listen to him when he does. Media and Politicians do it all the time. "Here are some of the comments he has made in the last few days to another list:" So are these meant to inflame? I see no other reason to post them here that's why didn't post them here. Why don't you tell us where you got them and why you went to the trouble of getting them and posting them to try and discredit me and anything I might say in the future? (snipped for brevity) "Blayne's belief isn't just confined to JJ as he says: 'But I already knew Keys was a deception Sterling didn't' and" Which I pointed out right from the start the tactics used etc. So why do you feel the need to bring this all up again? "'It is important in our quest for exposing falsehood we not loose credibility by going to the other extreme Which I think even Sterling has done now to some degree even though he has clearly seen JJ and his movement for what it is'. At least Sterling openly told us what he thought of us." Such a short memory since you were one of the main opponents of me when I first came here what is it I have hidden? By the way that statement is out of context and was not aimed at keys directly but at falsehood in general. I was referring to that page on new age teaching that Sterling felt exposed new age teaching in JJ's teachings that I felt was not a fair portrayal. "Therefore, I think we can justifiably hope that we don't spend too much time on people who have already decided we are in error and instead be allowed to get on with JJ's teachings. His time and energy should be devoted to furthering his 'movement'. LOL" Justifiable based on what your personal prejudice of my motives? At least I have the decency to not send inflammatory posts to the list but since you are judge jury and executioner in your own mind to me you feel the need to chastise my every word. Love Blayne ******************************** Only dead fish go with the flow! Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11407 From: "Xavier Dolleans" Subject: OT Re: Accuser * Zia wrote: "Xavier: (yes, if I was a demon, I would push such ideas in peoples minds, to make them useless in the fight. BTW, in WWII, you would have argued that Hitler was not to be opposed and fought? We would be into the third Reich now;-)) LOL" "Zia: "Are you telling me Xavier you now see me as a demon, because I am pushing demonic ideas into people's minds???" No Zia, what I was saying is that channeled teachings are very much in tune with demons interests, namely to lead us astray from true teachings. Of course you're no demon lol;-?) or a very nice one hahahha "Ahhh beloved Xavier... and the danger of assumptions I am certain you must know... when you assume... you make an bleep out of you and me??? ass u me .... Well first of all I probably would not have argued!! LOL however I am not certain what I would have done or thought... I find speculating troublesome... easy in retrospect. Thank you for aligning me so beautifully with Hitler. Now wouldn't that be great if you could blame me for Hitler and third Reich??? Really." aligning you? hey answer my point, that would be better. You were arguing that the adversary doesn't exist, or that we don't need to fight him, whatever, same thing. In WWII this would lead to blank blindness. Hitler would be no adversary of mankind, ever, in the mind of someone that sticks to the beliefs you are stating. Actually, people have had to learn to stand up and fight for the light, for the good, otherwize the dark lodge would have won Yes there is a fight between the light and the dark, usually it takes place in the mental and astral planes, but at certain times, called "terror", it takes place on the physical plane. WWII was one of these terrors. This takes us very far from your new age shiny view, which sounds good maybe, yet reality teaches otherwize. BTW, what about the fourth ray of "harmony through conflict"? It says "conflict", not I don't know what mild word. "I can only love you Xavier, not convince you. I find it interesting to think about Hitler and the Heirarchy. The GWB does not operate through control, so how did they manage to get the war and Hitler stopped... by counter espionage... giving important ones in important places ideas of how to counter-act Hitler?? I am curious.. all without free will being impacted? I guess when we ask God to help us 'stop another' will we be given the details of how to do that?? Have you ever wondered how the GWB bring in God's plan? I guess by being incarnated themselves. Is this how overshadowing got developed? I am curious as you can see, but perhaps not about the same things as you Xavier?" I am always curious at what are the real points you wish to make, you like so much to say one thing in order to mean another one;-) Try and be direct, it won't hurt;-) Another fear of conflict? of light? As for the GWB and free will and WWII..well...you're asking me? You're assuming I'm a messenger of it? Lol well aspirants are said to be the ones upon which the honor of the GWB rests;-) btw that "love" word in your mouth is wearying me finally. what's the purpose of it? Some teacher said that when you love, you don't say it. I say it at times because I feel it. But it may come from guilt or fear in fact. Let's try and be clear, sincere, and unaggressive, this would be good to begin with. Seems I can't tap into the answers I read to your questions. They're available for sure, many of them in Bailey's material. I'd say that the nations fought Hitler, using controlling means, but the GWB didn't infringe free will, because masters are above personal karma. Men fought, the hierarchy provided a support that didn't need to be physical. As for a true disciple of the GWB, I wonder if he could murder someone of even infringe his free will in order to save more. A side point : A A Bailey says that the aim of the dark lodge was to attack the soul, not the forms. The forms can be reborn. But an attack towards the soul is a more serious matter. Zia: "In battle we can only kill or be killed, whether by words or by the sword, the tool makes little difference. Is this what Jesus truly demonstrated???" "Yes, kill the delusions;-)) Kill the old that has to leave for the new to be born." "I guess that no teacher was ever so sharp at killing illusions than Jesus(with Christ inside) was;-)" "So do we kill delusions or do they dissolve in the light of truth?" The ego resists truth and light. Matter resists spirit. I said "kill" because you said it, but in fact forms do pass, yet they resist. Forms die, but they don't wish to! They have inertia. The bringer of light will shake the old structures that resist life. To people living of these structures, his action will seem like killing life. Because such a guy doesn't see the true life. What is real is indestructible, because it is formless. New forms carry much life; like babies. "Pride does indeed goeth before a fall!! Pride of being right (and locked in time), or pride of being Christ?? (being immortal life)!!!" "It goes along ;-))" "Indeed you put the finger on the very spot, it seems to me." "Do you see how pride can lead to your conclusions?" "No, tell me... what are my conclusions based on pride? That through CHRIST consciousness one can gain immortal life?? That the personality pride and need to be right will lock that personality into time... you have explained to me often that I build a resentment in you like you feel towards your mother... I truly feel that whatever beliefs you feel regarding your mother, you look through when you look at me.. and thus you do not see me, you do not hear me, you hear and see your mother, and lock into a battle with her that has been going on for a long time." I don't see my mother here lol ;-) I have mentioned my mother with you but not in these terms, I think. Yes I see, in terms of polarities. Male castrative woman;-) lol you mentioned it;-) About (lol) pride. To think that reality is in your mind, isn't it the apex of pride? To think that there is no evil, everything is good and better, isn't it an easy pathway for pride, because it won't make you ever examinate your ego, "dark side" and stuff? BTw, if there is no evil (even relatively), there is no wrong either, there are no polarities at all...everything is. Or rather, is not. It is the best possible story for the ego. No need to ever change, or accept his weaknesses, (i'm sure you'd say it has none?), or be confronted to its limitations. There are none, whatever is an obstacle to ego's power dream is labeled as illusion. Great ride;-) You can't ever be wrong Zia;-) Nothing even ever IS;-) You can't ever be bad either, you can't be illusioned, what can you be BTW? "christ, love, etc.." sweet candies. What about Bardon's exercise "the psychic mirror" : "write down the list of all the uglinesses of your nature" Zia would answer "belief in ugliness is a delusion" yeah, sure;-) Everything is in the mind and we're floating around in space, with Paul Yu somewhere lol;-) Chris? No, he's in his cells lol;-) These are *relative* values, no one asks you to think that they are absolute. But you need relativity in order to evolve. Otherwize, what are you doing in a universe of polarities? Sight seeing? Zia: "There is perhaps no need to paint Christ a particular way, in doing that we open the door to conflict of perceptions. I do not pretend to be able to paint Christ a particular way at all," Yes??? at all? then it is completely void of (intellectual) meaning. Well, why not, you can experience something without labeling it. Yet the argument with Sterling is about labels. These do have importance too;-) Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11408 From: Clive Culbertson Subject: Re: Stirling Dear Stirling, I'm from Northern Ireland and I've had 45 years of listening to pulpit pounding, narrow minded, bigoted Right Men.(You know the kind, I'm right and everyone else is wrong).Know what? They get right up my nose over here and you do the same from over there. Do us all a favour, go start your own list and at least you can preach your own brand of bigotry to people who want to hear it. I for one hope you get off our list immediately, and let us get on with the task at hand, the study of JJ Dewey's books and other writings. I have learned much since being on this list and hope to learn more. Clive. ps, people like you were one of the reasons I got out of Mormonism in 75. Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11409 From: "Jennifer Hampson" Subject: The Law (for Parents) I didn't write this (but I wish I did!). Not sure of the source. IT SHALL BE DONE Laws of Forbidden Places Of the beasts of the field, and of the fishes of the sea, and of all foods that are acceptable in my sight you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the hoofed animals, broiled or ground into burgers, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cloven-hoofed animal, plain or with cheese, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cereal grains, of the corn and of the wheat and of the oats, and of all the cereals that are of bright color and unknown provenance you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the juices and other beverages, yes, even of those in sippy-cups, you may drink, but not in the living room, neither may you carry such therein. Indeed, when you reach the place where the living room carpet begins, of any food or beverage there you may not eat, neither may you drink. But if you are sick, and are lying down and watching something, then may you eat in the living room. Laws When at Table And if you are seated in your high chair, or in a chair such as a greater person might use, keep your legs and feet below you as they were. Neither raise up your knees, nor place your feet upon the table, for that is an abomination to me. Yes, even when you have an interesting bandage to show, your feet upon the table are an abomination, and worthy of rebuke. Drink your milk as it is given you, neither use on it any utensils, nor fork, nor knife, nor spoon, for that is not what they are for; if you will dip your blocks in the milk, and lick it off, you will be sent away. And if you try to deceive by moving the potatoes or peas around with a fork, that it may appear that you have eaten what you have not, you will fall into iniquity. And I will know, and you shall have no dessert. On Screaming Do not scream for it is as if you scream all the time. If you are given a plate on which two foods you do not wish to touch each other are touching each other, your voice rises up even unto the ceiling, while you point to the offense with the finger of your right hand, but I say to you, scream not, only remonstrate gently with the server, that the server may correct the fault. Likewise if you receive a portion of fish from which every piece of herbal seasoning has not been scraped off, and the herbal seasoning is loathsome to you and steeped in vileness, again I say, refrain from screaming. Though the vileness overwhelm you, and cause you to faint unto death, make not that sound from within your throat, neither cover you face, nor press your fingers to your nose. For even I have made the fish as it should be; behold, I eat it myself, yet do not die. Concerning Face and Hands Cast your countenance upward to the light, and lift your eyes to the hills, that I may more easily wash you off. For the stains are upon you; even unto the very back of your head, there is rice thereon. And in the breast pocket of your garment, and upon the tie of your shoe, rice and other fragments are distributed in manner wondrous to see. Only hold yourself still; hold still, I say. Give each finger in its turn for my examination thereof, and also each thumb. Lo, how iniquitous they appear. What I do is as it must be, and you shall not go hence until I have done. Various Other Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances Bite not, lest you be cast into quiet time. Neither drink of your own bath water, nor of the bath water of any kind; nor rub your feet on bread, even if it be in the package; nor rub yourself against cars, nor against any building, nor eat sand. Leave the cat alone, for what has the cat done, that you should so afflict it with tape? And hum not the humming in your nose as I read, neither shall you stand between the light and the book. Indeed, you will drive me to madness. Nor forget what I said about the tape. Amen. Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11410 From: "D.O.O.R" Subject: OT: DNA testing of the Egyptian Pharoah's / Biblical Patriarchs clip....... What separates this identification of the Patriarchs from others is the potential for immediate verification from science. DNA testing of the 18th Dynasty royals will confirm the unexpected relationships delineated here. For example, Prime Minister Yuya (Biblical Joseph) is considered by archaeologists to have been a commoner, however DNA results will show that he was actually the son of Pharaoh Amenhotep II and the half-brother of Pharaoh Thutmose IV. It is recommended that the reader visit the following Internet sites, which will provide background regarding DNA testing of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty Pharaohs.... An abstract of an article by Scott Woodward, who leads the DNA testing effort at Brigham Young University, can be found at: [go to the link below for the BYU link] We might wish to hide from the true identities of the Patriarchs. We have built up idealistic and comforting images of them that will be painful when shattered. Yes, there will be a deep sorrow when we realize how wrong we have been about the founders of our great faiths, and how much senseless agony has been inflicted over the centuries as a result. Yet, how can we not be satisfied to know the origins of our physical and spiritual heritage, regardless of how unpleasant it might be at first? The institutions of earth will be sorely shaken, but how can true believers not be glad for the consciousness of our common genesis to be at last reawakened? End of Clip........ For the full article check out: http://www.dnafoundation.com/cpope/cp00pre.htm Hope you like this new information......Pablo "Don't Assert yourself. Keep yourself out of the way, be a perfect hypocrite, and your life will be a successful life." Osho Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11411 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: Hostile Witness? Blayne wrote: "Thank you Judge LOL! I made no bones about whatt I felt this was based on it tactics and manipulations etc., in my early posts, so don't pat yourself on the back to hard and think you exposed some big secret remember you were there trying to defend?" Once again, a highly emotive and exaggerated response from you, Blayne. I wasn't patting myself on the back or seeking to expose you. As you rightly pointed out, you made you views known to us very early on so there was nothing to expose. I just thought it was useful to note that your views hadn't changed as I understand the email I quoted from was very recent. Therefore, why spend a lot of time trying to convince you otherwise when there were many on the list who just wanted to get on with the teachings. My intent was not to inflame and, in fact, I affirmed that you had every right to your views - in that email and in a subsequent one. "I agreed to treat JJ as a friend and have done so since." Lucky JJ! LOL One of our difficulties may be that we have different ideas of what friendship entails. To me, friendship includes being accepting of and pleasant to the friend both to their face and behind their back. I know this isn't everyone's view so maybe I have 'judged' you on criteria that differs from your own values. "But I am sorry that since I don't feel the same as you that you seek to chastise my every word." That is not true. Once again your irrational exaggerations do you a disservice and undermine your credibility. "I don't fall all over every word out of JJ's mouth as so many of you do I call them as I see them I have been nice about it. But you and others read all kinds of things into it. Did it ever occur to you that there are others on the list who don't post but appreciate things brought up by me? Isn't it kind of arrogant to think every one out the 200 just feel like the 4 or 5 of you that post all the time? Well news flash there is and some of them have emailed me privately to say they are glad I bring up issues because they don't want to deal with the yapping dogs who bark every time anyone says anything that might be perceived as less then praise for JJ's latest discourse." I've never said or even thought everyone agrees with the few who post. Who's the judge now? LOL "Glenys Lowery wrote: As far as I can see, Blayne is the equivalent of a hostile witness in legal proceedings so all of his questions and comments will be influenced by his pre-existing views. Perhaps you should try some glasses for that near sightedness? LOL!" Are you saying am I a hostile witness, too? I don't know what you mean, Blayne, but I'll attempt to answer you if you clarify the comment a bit for me. "I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to these views, Then why do you chastise my every word?" I don't. That's simply not true. I've commented on a few emails of yours, had some off list discussions which bore no fruit (except for your advice on getting Mormon publications which was very helpful) and stopped any comment on your stuff. Your exaggerations border on untruths, Blayne. "just that we should be aware of here he is coming from as it is clear to me that his contributions to the list will be with the objective of setting traps for JJ and others given his beliefs about us." "That's it judge anything I say before I say it try to attach your own prejudice to it to discredit it but I haven't even said it yet...gee that's objective. the tactic is to discredit the messenger before he gives his message so no one will listen to him when he does. Media and Politicians do it all the time." OK. If your thoughts about us have changed and you are not emailing the list with the view that JJ is a deceiver and we are apostates in the back of your mind, I apologize for being incorrect. It is true we should see every post from anyone as being from a fresh approach but it's human nature not to once we get to know a little about the poster's views and opinions. I do tend to use someone's past posts as a reference point when considering their present post. If that's not a valid way of helping to determine my truth as I see it, I'm happy to be corrected. The way I see it, life would be chaotic if we didn't have the past as a reference point. That's one of the reasons why we chose to learn in the time/space continuum. "Here are some of the comments he has made in the last few days to another list:" "So are these meant to inflame? I see no other reason to post them here that's why didn't post them here. Why don't you tell us where you got them and why you went to the trouble of getting them and posting them to try and discredit me and anything I might say in the future?" I've explained why I posted them and I didn't go to any trouble to get them. They were sent to me unsolicited. And why do you see it as discrediting you anyway? Aren't your comments the truth as you see it? And don't you wish to stand by your truth? If anyone is to be discredited here, it's me for posting them because you see my intentions as being sinister. Are you saying that you have one persona for one list and another persona for another list? What does that say to you, Blayne? 'It is important in our quest for exposing falsehood we not loose credibility by going to the other extreme Which I think even Sterling has done now to some degree even though he has clearly seen JJ and his movement for what it is'. At least Sterling openly told us what he thought of us. "Such a short memory since you were one of the main opponents of me when I first came here what is it I have hidden? By the way that statement is out of context and was not aimed at keys directly but at falsehood in general. I was referring to that page on new age teaching that Sterling felt exposed new age teaching in JJ's teachings that I felt was not a fair portrayal." Who's got the short memory? I supported you when hardly anyone was willing to stick their necks out for you. Even you mentioned this support in your first paragraph (I think; I couldn't quite understand your comment there). And sorry if I took a comment out of context. I never saw any reference to the new age page you mentioned in your email. "Therefore, I think we can justifiably hope that we don't spend too much time on people who have already decided we are in error and instead be allowed to get on with JJ's teachings. His time and energy should be devoted to furthering his 'movement'. LOL" "Justifiable based on what your personal prejudice of my motives? At least I have the decency to not send inflammatory posts to the list but since you are judge jury and executioner in your own mind to me you feel the need to chastise my every word." I'm genuinely sorry if my post offended you. I never thought you would be offended by my reporting your comments because you obviously believe them to be true or else you wouldn't have said them. And as you've said, your views are not new to us. You can take offence at my conclusions but that's about all, I would have thought. At least, they were honest conclusions that I am willing to be upfront about but if they're wrong and you don't feel that we are deceived, manipulated etc and your questions aren't put forward with that in mind, just tell me and I will apologize some more ? Love Glenys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him. - Gospel of Thomas Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11412 From: Paul Yu Subject: Re: The Greatest Name Christopher wrote: "Can someone please help me understand who they think this Jesus Christ person is?" Hi Christopher and everyone, Jesus and the Christ were two entities. Jesus was a person like any other born of a father and a mother. The Christ was the name of an office in a special mission in the divine plan centered on love. It was to be ushered in by the preceding mission of the Buddha centered on knowledge. The name singled out of the person to hold the title of the Christ was maitreya. Jesus provided a physical body for Maitreya the Christ to materialize his revelation of the gospel of love. Willing to collaborate with the Christ, his master, Jesus was submitted to the will of the Christ, who in turn was submitted to the will of the Father. All the work done in connection with the plan was attributed to the Christ. As two entities playing two different roles Jesus and the Christ are not to be regarded as one being and the name of Jesus and the name of the Christ are not to be used interchangeably. Just as Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph so the Christ was the Son incarnate of the Father. Jesus the Christ was then the son of man and the Son of God. The Father's love for all was manifested in the consciousness which was embodied in the Christ. It is equally embodied in each and everyone of us as well. The mission of the Christ was and is to make this truth known to us so that we may become aware that we are Son incarnate in exactly the same way as the Christ. The atoms of the body of Jesus were altered to atoms of higher frequency so as to match the newly elevated consciousness he reached due to his surrendering of his life in compliance with the will of the Christ and ultimately with the will of the Father. The result of this transformation was demonstrated by the resurrection. The resurrected body of Jesus was a spiritualized body no longer corruptible. Although the Christ did not die when Jesus died he did receive fuller life from the Father as his reward for doing the will of the Father by loving unto death all his brothers and sisters without exception. As the being called the Christ is a native son of planet earth, his most celebrated advancement and achievement among all earthlings have earned him the greatest name in this planet. Paul Yu SpiritualityABC SpiritualityESOTERIC http://onelist.com Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11413 From: Clive Culbertson Subject: Re: Blayne Dear Blayne, please read the post I sent which began Dear Sterling , change that to Dear Blayne and get off our list. There are lots of other lists out there where you Right Men can bear your testimonies to each other. Me, I've heard people like you and Sterling all my life. Give us all a break!!!!!!!!!!! Other members of the list, please forgive me for being a little testy today. I'm working 18 hours a day at the moment and don't have the time to wade through the many posts which have little or nothing to do with the writings of JJ Dewey. Clive. Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11414 From: "Xavier Dolleans" Subject: Re: Accuser Glenys Lowery writes: "Zia, Why am I not offended by Xavier... because I love him, I choose to see the beauty in him, I choose to strive to understand his heart and his soul, and see clearly what is his obstacle to seeing me in the same light. It has nothing to do with thousands of words quoted from a book, or a channeled being through whatever method chosen, nor terminologies in which misunderstanding can so easily occur." "It has to do with the willingness to choose love." "See comment above. Xavier can choose love and still disagree with you." Indeed she may be right. Ain't it a two way thing? She sure can lead me to some light also. I'm always bent on showing her the light (and the darkness of her viewpoints lol) but her attitude also carries good things for me to emulate. Maybe that when I accept to see the positive side of her attitude, will things be easier. (yes Zia, I'm thinking about my mother lol) Post No. keys-l: /2000-02-01/11415 From: "* Zia" Subject: Re: Bearing Record Greetings of Peace to All, Another insightful post JJ, thank you for sharing your feelings about Blayne. I found the references to looking for 'iniquities' very thought provoking, since that was the role I was cast into in a sense when asked by a friend to 'check out the keys list'. It has become very apparent to me that 'Discernment in Oneness' is extremely relevant and needs vigilance. As we unite in oneness, we will feel the thoughts within the group circulating. When we have those that are seeking for iniquities it appears it creates this profoundly as an energy in the group as well. Discernment, about the validity of posts, actions on the parts of others on the list, becomes critical. That we check out who's or where the energy is coming from that we are choosing to respond with is vital. I get a sense from JJ that what occurs here and is being directed towards him, that this is not his creation what so ever. I would offer the following suggestions for consideration. In writing your books, starting with the Immortal, I see JJ you wanted the 'truth' to be an individual recognition and decision. I am also aware that when we make decisions, and have within us consciously or subconsciously (unaware of) fears and specific beliefs, these will also become a part of the manifestation of our decision, with the potential to create chaos, or at the least inconvenience. When you talked previously about your decision to make the book fiction, you indicated something along the lines of not wanting the truth to be rejected when there were aspects in the book I might define as 'artistic/creative exaggeration' for effect. I felt there was a fear of the 10% fiction causing a rejection of the book if classified as non-fiction. Perhaps some of us on the list have been reacting to this fear inherent in your decision, that the 90% non-fiction would not stand, fearing the 10% fiction if discovered would cause the truth to be ignored. I would also respectfully venture that within your belief system structure, when you find a 10% discrepancy in someone's work, that you may use this to discredit a whole great work. One of the philosophies I feel inherent in your discernment. I felt this so apparent in your immediate responses on Annalee Skarrin, posting a response that was extremely detrimental in its judgment of her, and I know nothing of her, and then backtracking slightly in the harshness of what had been put out. I believe your response on her, were indicative of your own fear of being viewed the same way, and thus beings so careful yourself of how you categorize your material. When there is underlying and often hidden fears/beliefs governing 'decision' it manifests that fear or belief thus still corrupting the desired reception. I hope you will not feel I am finding fault with you, I am simply striving to understand what draws such continual conflict on the same theme, for this is inherent within the archives as well. And also gave me this feeling about you, and brought me here with someone else's desire to have you 'checked out'. (as if I were capable of that!!) It did however color my perception, and I remember my reaction when I first left the list, because I felt you were not straight with us on the list, giving a picture of Philo, channeling whoever and whatever and highly questionable in that, yet you were also receiving information for which from my perspective took you a long time to declare your source of information etc. I felt a hidden double standard, an unwillingness to put it forward and be judged the same as Philo. I had told Xavier and John Kosior by my definition of channeling (by whatever method) that you were certainly receiving your information from elsewhere and I could not understand why you did not declare this. It felt deceptive. My perception of course. So JJ I must apologize to you, for it was not my true and personal intent to look for 'iniquities' although it may have appeared thus, but rather to strive to understand where you were coming from, and why you did not identify the Holy Spirit, Christ, your Soul, God, the actual source for your revelations, until just recently. It is my sincere perception that this has caused much of the conflict, because of the conflict within the original decision, and the potential of a fearful foundation affecting its manifestation. And I must agree, perhaps the greater number of people that have read the book may not have knowing much of its source declared. In light of my questions yesterday in response to Xavier and Hitler, and the GWB ability to change the course of destiny without imposing into free will, I certainly understand your comments in 'Bearing Record' here. We would have had to make prior agreement to 'uphold the plan' as we are given for it to indeed occur while in the physical. Also reading the comments of Lord Maitreya in regard to Krishnamurti, and understanding that they would allow his onward and upward progress because of free will, and thus with the perhaps devastating effects to their (GWB) plans for our evolution and learning to be presented by a World Teacher. Understanding this plan of the GWB and its potential for all of humanity obviously seems important, and the sacrifice of one's forward progress for a time, for the turning around and extending a lifting hand, becomes paramount as well. You have provided much thought provoking material in my desire to take on a role of leadership, being true to who and what I am. This is perhaps what I have gained the most from you, and for that I am indeed grateful. I also feel a deep sense of responsibility in you for Sterling and Blayne, their involvement in Mormonism, and your desire to 'set the record straight'. I too see a great value in these gentlemen. I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me if I have offended you, and I must also admit I get very uncomfortable around hidden or repressed beliefs and fears, and seem to rock and roll a bit so these can be exposed. I have a deep love and respect for what you are striving to do, and for the 'greater effect' created simply by us all being a working group together. Celebrating the Joy of Life, ZIA Post No. keys-l: /2000-01-31/11416 From: "Sterling D. Allan" Subject: Blavatsky (J.J.'s authority) -- champion of Paganism Posted to http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Blavatsky.htm Having been deeply impressed with J.J.'s post yesterday about "The Greatest Name -- Jesus Christ," and what it means to take upon us the name of Christ, when it was pointed out this morning that I should refer to his previous posts which addressed my questions about Baptism and other gospel matters, I did as suggested and did a search on "baptism" at the J.J. Dewey archive. The first document I read was http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ635.html I had just skimmed this post when it first came out, for it came the day my son was born and obviously I was busy with other tasks. My first impulse was the same as the previous time I read this post, and that was to shout that J.J. was taking D&C 22 out of context, for the revelation was given in answer to the question as to why someone already baptized into another Christian church would need to be baptized into the newly formed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But instead of reacting, I just kept reading to see if maybe there might be something to what J.J. was saying. I wanted to hear him out before drawing conclusions. I must say that in doing so with that and the post following it and part way into the third that I was becoming quite impressed, so much so that I began revising my Dewey index page on my website to once again show an overall favorable bias toward him. I was beginning to think that perhaps others were right who were saying I just need to shut up and just listen so that I can glean the whole paradigm and hence make the shift without clinging to my current paradigm when things seem out of line. In the midst of this process, there was one quote he made in the third document http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ637.html that struck me as being very far out of line with the truth. He is talking about the blood of Christ shed in Gethsemane, and he quotes one of his heroes, Helen Blavatsky, who he ranks alongside Joseph Smith. In the writings of H P Blavatsky who had direct contact with the Brotherhood we read: "They make it clear that he would rather have lived to continue what he considered his mission, and that he died because he could not help it, and only when betrayed. Before, when threatened with violence, he had made himself invisible by employing the mesmeric power over the bystanders, claimed by every Eastern adept, and escaped. When, finally, he saw that his time had come, he succumbed to the inevitable. A major red flag went up for me on this one. Jesus crucifixion was not a derailment of his mission, it was the pinnacle of his mission; and he knew it. Take this verse, for example, in which resurrected Jesus says, "Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you--that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--" (3 Ne. 27:13,14; also John 12:32.) But still wanting to give J.J. (and Blavatsky?) the benefit of the doubt, I thought I would try to find that quote by Blavatsky and read a little more of its context. I went to www.blavatsky.net and finally found a search feature of some of her articles. A phrase from that quote did not produce any results, so I tried, "Jesus Christ," which of course produced a large number of results. I clicked one one and began to read, curious to see how Blavatsky reads, having never read anything other than a quote here and there. What I found was a person who was much more favorable toward paganism than toward Christianity, and who claimed that Christianity basically plagiarized various legends and rituals of paganism, the latter being the preferable. Another document I looked at methodically redefines the word "Christ" so as to say that "Jesus the Christ" in reference to Jesus of Nazareth merely means, "Jesus a good man." Below I cite for you several excerpts from Blavatsky. Judge for yourself, based on her own words. As for me, I must say that I am not impressed in the slightest that J.J. considers Blavatsky to be one of the most enlightened teachers of our age. That he considers her to be "in direct contact with the brotherhood of light" makes me wonder just which brotherhood he is talking about. I don't think it is the one that has anything to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and Sterling). Blavatsky openly derides that God (as you will see below). Bear in mind as you read this that Blavatsky is considered the founder of the New Age movement, which imported Eastern religion (at least a resemblance of it) to the West. My conclusion on this matter is that Blavatsky fits the scriptural definition of anti-Christ to a tee. She is a voice for Satan, who seeks to usurp the kingdom of our God and of his Christ. The Doctrine and Covenents states, "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil." J.J. derides Blayne for "watching for iniquity," ever on the lookout for something out of line. This raises an interesting question, for one of the identifying characteristics of a Saint is his vigilance in watching for the snares of the enemy of all righteousness. Just where do we draw the line between being nitpicky versus exposing an enemy of truth? I think the phenomenon of which J.J. speaks is a true phenomenon, that there is such a thing as nipping at the heels of the servants of God, which thing is very displeasing to God. But I know from my experience in the Mormon church the "doctrine" of never evil speaking of the Lord's anointed can be taken in the far extreme so that Satan sets up camp while no one was watching. There has to be vigilance, but that vigilance needs to be applied only in extreme cases. I believe this J.J. Dewey movement is a prime example of an extreme case. I believe that the information I share below, for example, is completely relevant and helps in our deciding which camp we will belong to. THE ROOTS OF RITUALISM IN CHURCH AND MASONRY http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/RootsOfRitualismInChurchAndMasonry.htm Blavatsky answers the charge against Theosophists having "infidelity" by basically saying, "how can there be infidelity when we don't profess anything but the doctrine of: 'believe whatever you want'"? THEOSOPHISTS are very often, and very unjustly too, accused of infidelity and even of Atheism. This is a grave error, especially with regard to the latter charge. In a large society, composed of so many races and nationalities, in an association wherein every man and woman is left to believe in whatever he or she likes, and to follow or not to follow-- just as they please--the religion they were born and brought up in, there is but little room left for Atheism. As for "infidelity," it becomes a misnomer and a fallacy. To show how absurd is the charge, in any case, it is sufficient to ask our traducers to point out to us, in the whole civilized world, that person who is not regarded as an "infidel" by some other person belonging to some different creed. Whether one moves in highly respectable and orthodox circles, or in a so-called heterodox "society," it is all the same. It is a mutual accusation, tacitly, if not openly, expressed; a kind of a mental game at shuttlecock and battledore flung reciprocally, and in polite silence, at each other's heads. In sober reality, then, no theosophist any more than a non-theosophist can be an infidel; while, on the other hand, there is no human being living who is not an infidel in the opinion of some sectarian or other. As to the charge of Atheism, it is quite another question. In the following passage, Blavatsky responds to the charge that Theosophists are atheists by saying that they believe in many Gods, such as those spirits who set aside incarnating so that they might work with the human family in their progression. {Again, who is it that does not get a body, but those who along with Satan rebelled against God before the world was created}. They don't worship these, as the implication is "why worship them when we all are gods and a part of the gods"? What is Atheism, we ask, first of all? Is it disbelief in and denial of the existence of a God, or Gods, or simply the refusal to accept a personal deity on the somewhat gushy definition of R. Hall, who explains Atheism as "a ferocious system" because, "it leaves nothing above (?) us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness" (!) If the former, then most of our members--the hosts in India, Burmah, and elsewhere--would demur, as they believe in Gods and supernal beings, and are in great awe of some of them. Nor would a number of Western Theosophists fail to confess their full belief in Spirits, whether spatial or planetary, ghosts or angels. Many of us accept the existence of high and low Intelligences, and of Beings as great as any "personal" God. This is no occult secret. What we confessed to in the November LUCIFER (editorial), we reiterate again. Most of us believe in the survival of the Spiritual Ego, in Planetary Spirits and Nirmanakayas, those great Adepts of the past ages, who, renouncing their right to Nirvana, remain in our spheres of being, not as "spirits" but as complete spiritual human Beings. Save their corporeal, visible envelope, which they leave behind, they remain as they were, in order to help poor humanity, as far as can be done without sinning against Karmic law. This is the "Great Renunciation," indeed; an incessant, conscious self-sacrifice throughout ?ons and ages till that day when the eyes of blind mankind will open and, instead of the few, all will see the universal truth. These Beings, may well be regarded as God and Gods--if they would but allow the fire in our hearts, at the thought of that purest of all sacrifices, to be fanned into the flame of adoration, or the smallest altar in their honour. But they will not. Verily, "the secret heart is fair Devotion's (only) temple," and any other, in this case, would be no better than profane ostentation. In this next passage, Blavatsky defends theosophy's worshipping of spirits by claiming that Christianity, specifically the Roman Catholic brand, is nothing but a warmed-over plagiarist recast of pagan ritual. Shall we then be regarded as atheists, only because while believing in Spiritual Hosts--those beings who have to be worshipped in their collectivity as a personal God--we reject them absolutely as representing the ONE Unknown? and because we affirm that the eternal Principle, the ALL in ALL, or the Absoluteness of the Totality, cannot be expressed by limited words, nor be symbolized by anything with conditioned and qualificative attributes? Shall we, more over, permit to pass without protest the charge against us of idolatry--by the Roman Catholics, of all men? They, whose religion is as pagan as any other of the solar and element worshippers; whose creed was framed out for them, cut and dry, ages before the year I of Christian era; and whose dogmas and rites are the same as those of every idolatrous nation--if any such nation still exists in spirit anywhere at this day. Over the whole face of the earth, from the North to the South Pole, from the frozen gulfs of Northland to the torrid plains of Southern India, from Central America to Greece and Chaldea, the Solar Fire, as the symbol of divine Creative Power, of Life and Love, was worshipped. The union of the Sun (male element)with Earth and the Water (matter, the female element) was celebrated in the temples of the whole Universe. If Pagans had a feast commemorative of this union--which they celebrated nine months ere the Winter Solstice, when Isis was said to have conceived--so have the Roman Catholic Christians. The great and holy day of the Annunciation, the day on which the Virgin Mary "found favour with(her) God" and conceived "the Son of the Highest," is kept by Christians nine months before Christmas. Hence, the worship of the Fire, lights and lamps in the churches. Why? Because Vulcan, the fire-God, married Venus, the daughter of the Sea; that the Magi watched over the sacred fire in the East, and the Virgin-Vestals in the West. The Sun was the "Father"; Nature, the eternal Virgin Mother: Osiris and Isis, Spirit-Matter, the latter worshipped under each of its three states by Pagan and Christian. Hence the Virgins--even in Japan--clothed with star-spangled blue, standing on the lunar crescent, as symbolical of female Nature (in her three elements of Air, Water, Earth); Fire or the male Sun, fecundating her yearly with his radiant beams (the "cloven tongues like as of fire" of the Holy Ghost). In this next quote, Blavatsky suggests that the story (implied myth) of Mary's conception by God was borrowed from a pagan legend that existed long before the time that Christianity began. She does not give breath to the possibility that the arcane was foreshadowing the divine. In Kalevala the oldest epic Poem of the Finns, of the pre-Christian antiquity of which there remains no doubt in the minds of scholars, we read of the gods of Finland, the gods of air and water, of fire and the forest, of Heaven and the Earth. In the superb translation by J. M. Crawford, in Rune L (Vol. II) the reader will find the whole legend of the Virgin Mary in Mariatta child of beauty, Virgin-Mother of the Northland. . . Ukko, the great Spirit, whose abode is in Y?m?la, the sky or Heaven, chooses the Virgin Mariatta as his vehicle to incarnate through her in a Man-God. She becomes pregnant by plucking and eating a red berry (marja), when, repudiated by her parents, she gives birth to a "Son immortal," in the manger of a stable. Then the "Holy Babe" disappears, and Mariatta is in search of him. She asks a star, "the guiding star of Northland," where her "holy baby lies hidden," but the star answers her angrily:-- If I knew, I would not tell thee; 'Tis thy child that me created, In the cold to shine for ever. . . . and tells the Virgin nothing. Nor will the golden moon help her, because, Mariatta's babe having created her, left her in the great sky:-- Here to wander in the darkness, All alone at eve to wander, Shining for the good of others. . . . It is only the "Silver Sun" who, taking pity upon the Virgin-Mother, tells her:-- Yonder is thy golden infant, There thy holy babe lies sleeping, Hidden to his belt in water, Hidden in the reeds and rushes. She takes the holy baby home, and while the mother calls him "Flower," Others named him Son of Sorrow. Is this a post-Christian legend? Not at all; for, as said, it is essentially pagan in origin and recognized as pre-Christian. Hence, with such data in hand in literature, the ever-recurring taunts of idolatry and atheism, of infidelity and paganism, ought to cease. In this next passage from Blavatsky, she contrasts the heathen/pagan gods with the God of the Bible and gives preference to the pagan version. Such being the common origin, we have but to contrast the two deities--the god of the Gentiles and the god of the Jews--on their own revealed WORD; and judging them on their respective definitions of themselves, conclude intuitively which is the nearest to the grandest ideal. We quote Colonel Ingersoll, who brings Jehovah and Brahma parallel with each other. The former, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews:-- Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Contrast this with the words put by the Hindu into the mouth of Brahm: "I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am the reward of all worshippers." Compare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with suns. . . . The "first" is the god who haunted Calvin's fancy, when he added to his doctrine of predestination that of Hell being paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. The beliefs and dogmas of our churches are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the benighted Heathen. Blavatsky does not take into consideration two very significant factors. (1) The Jews received a lower law because of their refusal to accept a higher. The harshness of language in the OT is not a function of God's harshness but of their hardheartedness -- it is what they wanted and is what they got. (2) The apostasy of Christianity from its more pure origin, as illustrated in Calvin's doctrines cited above. In this next quote, Blavatsky says that Christianity sprung from (copied) paganism: Christian nations celebrate their Easter, for the same reason, on the first Sunday that follows the full moon, at the Vernal Equinox. With the festivals of the Pagans, the canonicals of their priests and Hierophants were copied by Christendom. Will this be denied? In his "Life of Constantine" Eusebius confesses thus saying, perhaps, the only truth he ever uttered in his life-- that "in order to render Christianity more attractive to the Gentiles, the priests (of Christ) adopted the exterior vestments and ornaments used in the pagan cult." He might have added "their rituals" and dogmas also. Here are some more statements by Blavatsky in this piece: "Church Ritualism was, and is, exoteric paganism, pure and simple--remodelled, we do not say reformed." "Ancient and modern Freemasonry are an obligatory study with every Eastern Occultist." [a term of endearment for Blavatsky, I should note] Now quoting from http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/EsotericCharacterOfTheGospels.htm Which is a reprint from the magazine, LUCIFER, November, December, 1887 February, 1888 "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus All this is evidence that the terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chr?st and Chr?stians 22 were directly borrowed from the Temple terminology of the Pagans, and meant the same thing. (Chr?stos). Hence this term was applied to every Disciple recognised by a Master, as also to every good man. Now Chrestos, as already said, is a term applied in various senses. It qualifies both Deity and Man. It is used in the former sense in the Gospels, and in Luke (vi., 35), where it means "kind," and "merciful." , in I Peter (ii., 3), where it is said, "Kind is the Lord," . On the other hand, it is explained by Clemens Alexandrinus as simply meaning a good man; i.e., "All who believe in Chr?st (a good man) both are, and are called Chr?stians, that is good men." (Strom. lib. ii.) and for the punch line Thus Jesus, whether of Nazareth or L?d,25 was a Chr?stos, as undeniably as that he never was entitled to the appellation of Christos, during his life-time and before his last trial. It may have been as Higgins thinks, who surmises that the first name of Jesus was, perhaps, the second , and the third . "The word was in use before the H (cap. eta) was in the language." But Taylor (in his answer to Pye Smith, p. 113) is quoted saying "The complimentary epithet Chrest . . . . signified nothing more than a good man." There is still another and far more weighty proof that the name Christos is pre-Christian. The evidence for it is found in the prophecy of the Erythrean Sybil. We read in it . Read esoterically, this string of meaningless detached nouns, which has no sense to the profane, contains a real prophecy--only not referring to Jesus--and a verse from the mystic catechism of the Initiate. The prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit of Truth (Christos), after which advent--that has once more nought to do with Jesus--will begin the Golden Age; the verse refers to the necessity before reaching that blessed condition of inner (or subjective) theophany and theopneusty, to pass through the crucifixion of flesh or matter. Read exoterically, the words "Iesous Chreistos theou yios soter stauros," meaning literally "Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Saviour, Cross," are most excellent handles to hang a Christian prophecy on, but they are pagan, not Christian. Having had my fill of this filth, I thought I would look toward the end of the document to see if there was anything there even more plainly anti-Jesus Christ the Savior. At the conclusion of attempting to debunk the authors of the four gospels, Blavatsky writes, No wonder that the very meaning of the terms Chrestos and Christos, and the bearing of both on "Jesus of Nazareth," a name coined out of Joshua the Nazar, has now become a dead letter for all with the exception of non-Christian Occultists. In other words, according to Blavatsky, the Biblical account concerning Jesus is bogus, and only the mystical, paganistic occultists have any sort of clue as what "Christ" means. In contrast to Blavatsky (and J.J.) I would like to cite two key prophecies from the Book of Mormon regarding the first and second comings of Messiah. As you read these, ask yourself if there is any question as to whether or not Jesus is Messiah, not just one of many, but THE Messiah in an ultra-special sense. II Nephi 25: 17 And the Lord will set his hand again the second time to restore his people from their lost and fallen state. Wherefore, he will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the children of men.18 Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and unto the convincing of them that they need not look forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any come, save it should be a false Messiah which should deceive the people; for there is save one Messiah spoken of by the prophets, and that Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews. 19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err. And as the Lord God liveth that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, and gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, if they would cast their eyes unto the serpent which he did raise up before them, and also gave him power that he should smite the rock and the water should come forth; yea, behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved." And pertaining to the second advent of Messiah: II Nephi 6: 13 Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah. 14 And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again the second time to recover them; wherefore, he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory, unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in him; and none will he destroy that believe in him. 15 And they that believe not in him shall be destroyed, both by fire, and by tempest, and by earthquakes, and by bloodsheds, and by pestilence, and by famine. And they shall know that the Lord is God, the Holy One of Israel. 16 For shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered? 17 But thus saith the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for the Mighty God shall deliver his covenant people. For thus saith the Lord: I will contend with them that contendeth with thee-- 18 And I will feed them that oppress thee, with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." At first glance, these two very similarly worded prophecies might seem to be in contradiction, as one states that we are not to look for another Messiah to come, for Jesus Christ is the one. That passage is speaking to the Jews. The other one states that the people of the Lord are they who wait for him, for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah. That one is speaking to the latter-day Gentiles who are preoccupied with the first coming and are not preparing for the second, and are in fact going to reject Messiah as the Jews did because of their blindness. These prophecies very clearly point at the Messiah as being an individual, not a broad-spectrum application to all who come to a certain level of spiritual advancement. Here is another quote, this one from a LUCIFER editorial called "Stray Thoughts on Death and Satan" http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/StrayThoughtsOnDeathAndSatan.htm . . . the good and the pure strive to reach Nipang (nirvana or that state of absolute existence and absolute consciousness--which, in the world of finite perceptions, is non-existence and non- consciousness) This sure sounds to me like "outer darkness" described with a Satanic positive twist to make it sound desirable. Here is another statement from this same discourse: Satan is merely a type, not a real