Conference hydra::dejavu

    RE. 0
    
    
    I agree that the first century church was much different than the
    20th century church and much of the difference is no doubt the
    infiltration of paganism, Gnosticism, etc. into it. The Lord spoke of 
    this in Matthew 13:24-43. 
    
    
    But I'll register my objections to Spencer's assessment.
    
    1) His example is a bad one. The concept of original sin is a biblical
    truth. Perhaps some have mis-used the original sin truth for their
    own personal gain, but nevertheless it can be shown from the Word that 
    it is a truth. To rationalize that some may never sin is to
    misunderstand or ignore what the biblical definition of sin is.
    
    2) By excluding as truth anything other than what Jesus spoke directly
    to His disciples, Spencer leads me to believe that he may not accept
    the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. Of course you didn't
    type in Spencer's entire book, so that may not be an accurate
    deduction. But if it is ;=) , I disagree with his conclusions. The
    Lord used the Apostle paul in a great way to establish the early
    church and particularly the churches among the Gentiles. Of course
    what Jesus spoke to His disciples, I'll agree, is truth. But to
    see the matter of the church, one must read what the first century
    Apostles had to say about it.
    
    
    I'm curious what Spencer proposes to do about the church's situation?
                                     
    Regards,
    Ace                                                            
    

    
    The article doesn't leave a lot else to discuss then.
    
    Paul V

    Re above:
    
    Here we run into a touchy area.  Is this a "fringe DEJAVU" issue,
    a RELIGION issue, or a CHRISTIAN issue?  In another note in this
    Conference, some members observed that this was beginning to take
    on the tone of a different conference.
    
    I'm not one to try to stifle free speech.  I wonder, though, if
    this particular Conference _is_ indeed the place to argue doctrine.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    	What is the proper protocol for agreeing or disagreeing in this 
    conference? 
    
    Not meaning to rain on anyone's parade.
    
    Regards,
    Ace

	Some reasons why I think this topic can be discussed in this
	forum:

	.  There is much focus by the Christian community on the
	   so-called "New Age Movement" and the different areas/
	   subjects/activity included in "NAM".  Most contributors
	   to this conference would be considered "new agers"
	   (whether you consider yourself that or not :-), which
	   I don't, by the way).

        .  There is a possibility that a lot of stuff was edited
	   out of Church/historical documentation of the events
	   leading up to and including the life of Jesus.  I feel
	   strongly that if Jesus were in the world today, he would
	   probably not be recognized or accepted by those with a
	   "fundamentalist" view.  I also feel that he was schooled
	   in the Ancient Mysteries and probably dealt and was
	   proficient at many of the things we are trying our best
	   to sort out in this conference.

	Just my view - and I don't mind this discussion being opened
        up here.

        Carole


         

    Carole,
    
       Why do feel that Jesus "was schooled in the ancient mysteries" ?
     As you can tell from my personal name, I happen to love Him dearly
     and am curious to hear how you feel about this.    
    
    Thanks,    
    
    Gil.

    Re .7:
    
    The belief that Jesus was schooled in the ancient mysteries comes
    from several things in the gospels.  For one thing, his association
    with John the Baptizer, who was an Essene.  Another is the similarity
    of Jesus' teachings with Essene teachings.  A third (although weak)
    reason is that Jesus is not heard of in the NT between the time
    when he was 12 in the temple and when he started his ministry.
    
    I would point out that some of the ancient mystery traditions are
    based in Jewish (later Christian) mysticism.  Much of this teaching
    is firmly based on Biblical teachings (or, perhaps, the Bible was
    based on the Jewish mystical teachings).  I don't think Jesus would
    have any problem following it or with anyone else following it.
    
    I also have to agree with those who don't want to see doctrine debated
    in this conference.  There are other conferences such as Religion,
    Christian, and Philosophy that are more appropriate for this
    discussion.
    
    Elizabeth

    (Note-some of Elizabeth's points [.8] I've also made.)
    
    
    Hello Gil,

    I respect and understand your expression of love.  In many ways, I
    wish we could go back in time and experience the days when Jesus
    lived so that we could put things more in the context of the social
    and political structures that existed then.  I know I would be one
    of the multitude listening to what he had to say with wonder, for I
    believe his was a most important ministry.  I also feel that if he
    were here today and doing this work, he would probably be labeled a 
    radical, a disrupter, possibly a new-ager, and perhaps be accused
    of creating a cult.

    I am not a scholar of the Bible nor of historical writings of the
    times (if only I could add another 24 hours to each day :-)), but
    I have been exposed to different viewpoints.  Some of these include
    that Jesus was an Essene and that this group was involved in the
    study of the mysteries; that Mary and Joseph were also Essenes; that
    the years of Jesus life not mentioned in the Bible were spent in
    travel and study of the mysteries; that Mary was prepared, along with
    others, for the possibility of being chosen to bring Jesus into the
    world; that Jesus was a medium and during his three-year ministry
    was overshadowed by the Christ Spirit.

    When Jesus appeared to the apostles after the resurrection, they saw
    him in physical form and he supposedly ate food.  I have been told
    (have not seen this or read this for myself) that there have been
    cases of spirit manifestation that have been so strong that the 
    spirit looks like a physical body, and one case where the spirit
    has actually ingested food.  The apostles didn't always have their
    act together and often missed what Jesus was trying to get through
    to them.  Supposedly, Mary Magdalene was one of the few who under-
    stood what Jesus was trying to do.

    Jesus whole life experience is rich in symbolism.  He came to teach
    us many things, and I'm afraid that much of what he taught has not
    been passed along to us.  I want to be as open as I can to this lost
    material as it is found, because I feel there is quite a large gap
    in what we have been allowed to know.

    Carole

    RE: .8, .9
    
       I could, and would love to, debate this topic. However, I will
    respect the wishes of those who feel it would be out of place here.
    Should anyone wish to correspond with me on whether or not Jesus
    studied in the school of ancient mysteries, or was part of the 
    Essene community ( I don't believe either ) feel free to contact
    me through E-mail @ NRADM::BERNIER.
    
      Be warned though, I'm a christian fundamentalist new age basher.
    
      :-)
    
    Gil

    I'm certainly interested in hearing about the study of 'ancient
    mysteries.'   I'm not interested in debating the concept of 'original
    sin' and similar doctrinal issues.  Cannot the two be separated?
    
    	Bruce

    Could it be that "the second coming of Christ" is the re-discovery
    of his old teachings?
    
    Dave

    I have no problem discussing the evidence pro and con of whether
    or not Jesus was schooled in any ancient mysteries.  I do have a
    problem with debating doctrine and beliefs about Jesus, the Bible,
    the early Church, the modern Church, etc.  Clearly, there are quite
    a number of views and beliefs on these subjects, all of which we
    should all try to respect, although not necessarily follow.
    
    Elizabeth

    
    re: .1     Ace,
    
    RE .12
    
     Mary,              
    
       You wrote to Ace :
    
>    Very early in the formation of the Catholic (universal) church,
>    the heads of the Church decided, based upon their personal beliefs,
>    which writings would be included in the New Testament.  The materials
>    they rejected, called the Apocryphal texts, include some of the
>    most metaphysical teachings of Jesus.  Furthermore, they revised
>    the texts of the Gospels that they did include, in some cases heavily,
>    both deleting sections and adding material that was not originally
>    there.
    
    I've heard people say this for years but no one has ever been able
    to tell me just what was changed or deleted, or even why they were.
    Anyone here got the answers ? 
    
    
>    An important thing to note is that if you want to believe that the
>    modifications don't matter because they come from God, then how
>    can you explain the contradictions between the various versions?
>    Who was God telling the real, final truth to?
 
      What contradictions ? I own several translations and have yet
    to see any major discrepencies. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
    I am open to hearing more.
    
>    BTW, one of the additions made to original text was the concept
>    o "Original Sin," which did not exist in any of Jesus' teachings.
 
           So it seems. If you mean original sin in the sense that the
    Roman Catholic church teaches, I'd be inclined to agree. However,
    there are scriptures in the bible that refer to man having a sinful
    nature, a part of us that wants/likes to sin. I don't know that
    Jesus himself spoke of sin nsture, but other parts of the bible
    do.
       
    Also, where does/did the bible mention reincarnation ?
    
    Gil
    

    Re: All
    My intent with this topic was certainly not to start a debate over
    doctrines.  My intent was stated by reply .11.  Rightfully, this topic 
    would be more appropriate for RELIGION.  However, from my observation, 
    most of the people there are quite comfortable with their current
    system of belief...they are happy where they are, and the things that
    many of the people in DEJAVU are seeking, they are contented with the 
    idea that "we are not meant to know these things".  That's fine...
    however, I have noticed that many of the people in DEJAVU are not 
    satisfied with that reasoning, are searching, seeking, for
    understanding and enlightenment, and are willing to have an open mind 
    about new ideas. I really think that if I had entered this note in
    RELIGION, I would have encountered an incredible amount of hostility...
    I think the tone of H. Spencer's article is slightly hostile toward 
    fundamentalist Christians, and the fundamentalist Christians in
    RELIGION might have thought that by my posting the note I was too,
    and taken out their indignation on me...and I don't need it.  If you
    will give me a chance to develop this a little, you will see why I believe
    it has a place in DEJAVU.  Finally, I don't want you to think I
    just made a blanket statement about the noters in RELIGION...I just
    made a statement of observation on my part.
    
    Sit back, let me give you a little bit more, and let's not get into
    a position of "I'm right", "no, I'm right", "no, you're both wrong,
    I'm right"...I don't think any of us have time for such idle
    speculation.  I almost set this topic for no replies, for I didn't
    intend for it to be a debate forum, but a learning forum.  I wouldn't
    waste you people's time on something that I didn't think worthwhile
    for you to read.
    
    Re: .1
    
    Quote an article in the Atlantic Monthly, December 1986
    "Who Do Men Say That I Am" by Cullen Murphy 
    
    The Gospel accounts, of course, offer clues about Jesus, but the
    Gospels are highly imperfect historical documents.  They did not
    take final shape until the late first century.  The earliest surviving
    manuscript fragment, the so-called Rylands papyrus, which contains
    a few words from the Gospel according to St. John, was produced
    as many as 5 generations after the death of Jesus.  The Gospels
    almost certainly were not by any of the twelve apostles, and may or may
    not have been written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
    who may or may not have been alive at the time of Jesus, *and who
    may or may not represent composites of many individual chroniclers*.
    (My emphasis  DW)
    
    What does Spencer propose to do about the state of the Church? He
    spent a good deal of his life expanding the work and scope of the
    Rosicrucian Order, whom he claims teaches to accepted members the
    mystical content and aspect of Christ's teachings, and other great
    Masters.
    
    Carole, thanks for your comments. You're interpreting my motives
    correctly.
    
    Now, here's a bit more.  Let's ask questions and try to understand
    this, not debate.  This is not one of the topics where "the ensueing
    debate would be interesting".
    
    From BROTHER OF THE THIRD DEGREE, by Will Garver, published in 1897
    
    "Now, my dear brother, I will explain some of the symbols; but remember
    that some symbols have more meaning than can be given in the largest
    book, and these symbols have many keys and therefore many meanings." 
      As she spoke, she led me to the white pyramid connected with the
    black cube by the slender thread of green.
      "Recall the words of the orator, and the meaning of this symbol
    will be plain", she said, as I gazed in silence at this truly marvelous
    work. "The white pyramid symbolizes the higher self, the spirit
    of the pilgrimage; the black cube symbolizes the lower man or the
    celestial being after it is lost in matter.  The being has sunk
    so low that nothing but a thread connects it with the higher self,
    and the passions and desires that arise from matter, and which are
    symbolized by the red demon, would sever even this frail connection
    and destroy the soul.  The white figure symbolizes the spirit in
    the form which it takes when in matter, and it is fighting and striving
    to preserve the connection, although by doing so it perpetuates
    its pain. But rather than again return and commence a new pilgrimage,
    the spirit hangs on to its degraded vehicle until the last hour,
    hoping that by doing so it may at last bring it back to the path
    from which it has wandered.  For know you, that the being once
    conjoined with spirit on this pilgrimage has a will of its own, a will
    which the spirit cannot overcome unless the will permits.  The spirit
    is all-powerful on its own plane, but becomes conditioned, as it
    were, when in matter.  The contest seems unequal; the white man
    has no weapons except the power of persuasion, to which passion
    will not listen, and the cruel sword of the dwarf falls relentlessly
    upon his bleeding arm, which would soon give way, but that the pain
    heals it as fast as it is cut away.  See the agony written on his
    countenance! Many men thus allow passion and desire to torture their
    higher natures until at last the demon conqures, the thread is severed,
    and the soul is lost.
    **********************************************************************
    Near by rested a large black cube, and as we came to it she said,
    "This you no doubt understand, but it has many meanings; let me
    explain:
      This black cube symbolizes the four elements or principles which
    make the lower man; that is, earth, water, fire, and air, or the
    essences which these words symbolize.
      She pressed a spring, and the ends and sides of the cube unfolded
    on the floor and formed a cross, four squares high and three squares
    broad.
      "You see", she said, "that by counting the center twice there
    are seven squares, which symbolize the seven principles which make
    the complete man...likewise man with arms extended makes a square
    of four equal measures, the four which make his height being equal
    to the four which make his width, and four times four equal sixteen,
    a perfect square, and the fourth power of the duad, two.  Such is
    mystic mathematics.
      We closed the cross into its cubic shape and approached the other
    wonderous symbol. For a moment she stood by in silence; then in
    a deep, solemn and soul-stirring voice, said:
      "This explains the mystery of Christ, the meaning of the Crucifixion
    and the mystery of pain.  The black cross, as just explained,
    represents man's lower nature, this body, a tomb for the spirit
    and an instrument for its torture.  Nailed upon or fastened to this
    cross, or form of flesh, is the Divine Man, Christos, the Son of
    God. The serpent encircled around is the serpent of desire and passion,
    lust, avarice, and hate, and its life depends upon the blood which
    issues from those bleeding wounds.  How truly this symbolizes the
    life of all men on earth; it is a universal symbol, and applicable
    to all men, for every man who feeds his lusts and passions or yields
    to his lower nature, crucifies the Christ within him. Every evil
    act we do, every impure thought we think, every evil aspiration
    or desire, tortures the divine man within ourselves, and feeds this
    horrid monster of desire with fresh blood, which represents the
    life of Christ, drawn with acutest pain.
      She paused, and I thought-how beautiful, yet how pathetic, this
    interpretation of Christ, how much misunderstood this wonderful
    allegory, teaching a universal truth.
      "Iole", I said, "I see that you give an allegorical interpretation
    to the story of Christ; do you believe that a historical Christ
    existed?"
      "That a character existed around whose life the Christ-story was
    builded, I have no doubt; but the Universal Christ, the divine in
    man, has always existed and has never died. All ancient Scriptures
    have an esoteric meaning, and under the forms of allegories and
    symbols the great truths of universe and man, the macrocosm and
    the microcosm, are veiled; but veiled so lightly that all who seek
    can find their meanings. Paradoxically, the most deeply hidden is
    the most open; but the blind pass by and will not see.  The universe
    is built upon simplicity, but superficial and selfish minds know
    not the meaning of this word.  Men seeking for a mystery overlook
    this truth; relying solely on the intellect, they scorn to see
    philosophy in the simple parables of every-day events.  But Jesus
    thus taught, for parables were his constant method, and his philosophy
    of human life, thus dimly veiled, was told to his disciples. St.
    Paul, his eminent successor, taught in like manner, and still later,
    Origen and Clement of Alexandrea. All the gnostics and Neoplatonic
    Christians taught the same, and down to the time of Constantine
    the esoteric meaning of the Scriptures was acknowledged".
    
    Will Garver, 1897               

    On Jesus and mystery schools,
    
    It seems readily apparent that for some 200 years before Jesus the Jews
    were undergoing a process of Hellenization. Some sources I have
    indicate that just about everyone had missionaries or spiritual
    representatives in and around Jerusalem many years before Christ,
    including the Buddhists.
    
    Thus in the religious melting pot of Jerusalem it is not suprising
    that someone would come up with something different, something better
    for the time.
    
    And, I think, we continue onward today with New Age Christians.
    The wheel turns... Never returning to the same exact spot but cyclic
    none the less. 

    Re: .15, Bernier
    
    The decrepencies in the Bible are as major as you are willing to argue
    over a small nit.  In other words, they can get quite large in a heated
    discussion.
    
    Presently there is a discussion in Religion about the Bible, including
    the topics Reincarnation and "lost works", which I believe is where
    some points in this discussion should reside.

    Dave

    
    Just so there are no secrets - see IOSG::CHRISTIAN note #318 for
    the invitation to participate in DEJAVU and subsequent comments.
    
    I would like to propose we move this discussion to RELIGION.  I
    would certainly like to discuss this topic, however do not feel
    that DEJAVU is the proper place (and I don't actively participate 
    in CHRISTIAN for various reasons).
                 
    What say you all?
    
    Cindy
                                    

    Gee, I'd kind of like to see the topic stay here as long as we can
    agree to limit the discussion to the metaphysical aspects of Jesus.
    I was raised a fundamentalist and got my fill of having my doctrine
    dictated to me.  Now I'm an adult and I decide for myself what I will 
    believe in.  I am very open to a discussion of this type here rather 
    in another file.  In another file people might not respond too well to 
    quotes from an Edgar Cayce book about Jesus or channeled infomation like
    Seth or Lazarus.  I'm not saying that these alternate sources are always 
    valid but I do feel that they are worth listening to.  I don't know if
    they would be heard or taken seriously in another file.  I say this
    without having read any of the other files mentioned.
    
    Mike

    
    Add topic #319 to the IOSG::CHRISTIAN list where this topic is also
    being discussed.

    	I don't mind this discussion being here.  The *real* teachings
    	of Jesus interest me tremendously, so any and all information
    	shared will be welcomed by me.  On the other hand, I will not 
    	get into any religious debates about *anything*.  If I wanted
    	the various church's points of view on this or any subject I'd
    	participate in RELIGION.
    
    	We discuss/share the teachings of Lazaris, Seth, Peck, ECKANKAR, 
    	Ramtha, and many others.  Therefore, the true teachings of Jesus 
    	should also be discussed, but with some cautionary words first:
    
    	In another note (I forget which, maybe one of Lorenzo's?) there 
    	were many (including me) who stated that they had had to shed the 
    	traditional fundamental "Christian" robes because of the stifling 
    	atmosphere of the church in order to save their sanity and find 
    	their own answers on their own path.
    
    	There may be are some terminology mind-blocks involved here,
    	at least for me, but when I hear the words "Jesus" or "disciples"
    	or "God" referred to as a "He" or "church," I tend to tune out
    	the discussion for fear of getting back into what I left in
    	order to find my own truths.  It was a long road, my friends, 
    	for many of us, and it involved pain, confusion, and for me,
    	years of emotional isolation.
     
	So by all means, let's discuss this great teacher, but let's
    	also be aware of the sensitivites of other members' past
    	experiences.

        					Carla

       P.S.  I have a feeling this is one of the most sensitive topics
    	     in this conference...
            

I do object to this subject being here.  It should be moved over to RELIGION.
This sort of topic, regardless of how careful someone is, ALWAYS turns into
a rathole (one aspect is talked about, then some other idea is mentioned
which then starts an argument as to relevance etc etc etc ad nauseam).  If it
does not, then this would be the one and only conference where it did not.
Since there is an appropriate conference for this topic, that is the best
place for it to be.

-Joe

    
      I feel a little out of sorts here in this conference. Many of
    the activities and topics that are discussed here are very strange
    to me, while others I believe to evil ( forbidden in Old Testament ).
      
     Still, *this* topic has a common ground with my fundamentalist
    born again christian beliefs. I could rant and rave at people for
    their differing beliefs ( as, regretably, I have done in the past ).
    but that would do no good to anyone.
    
       In one of the afore-mentioned IOSG::CHRISTIAN topics I stated
    that I strongly disagreed with the main text of the base note. I
    still do. However, I will talk about Jesus with anyone who will
    listen - even ( gasp ) dreaded new agers :-).
    
      So, whether this topic is here or in RAJA::RELIGION I would like
    to continue discussing my beloved saviour, Jesus. Talking about
    Jesus is a great way to learn to love each other as He loves us.
    I don't think that my views toward occult or New Age practices will
    change but it would be great to be able to deeply love you all.
     
     Gil. 
    
    

    
    
    Note .0 was posted in DEJAVU, so I responded in DEJAVU. AS I asked
    before, what is the proper protocol for agreeing or disagreeing
    with the contents of a note posted in this conference?
    
    
    Regards,
    Ace
    

    Re.24
    
    Gil, I am both amazed and impressed with your response.  You (and
    your fundamentalist beliefs) are certainly welcome here, and I speak
    for the majority of the participants (OK everyone??).  It takes a lot 
    of courage to 'attach' a label to one's beliefs, and even more to
    admit that you are a New Age basher in a conference where this sort
    of thing is talked about quite openly.
    
    If you are willing to listen to what others have to say (as in a
    2-way conversation), then that's fine.  If you are hear to preach,
    then please leave, as that is not what this conference is about.
    
    I suspect I will not change my mind about fundamentalism either, 
    overall, however your response alone has made me rethink a few of 
    the more negative stereotypes (gained as a direct result of 
    participating in CHRISTIAN because before that I never knew what 
    fundamentalism really was, to be honest, because to base friendships
    and other things on what a person's religious beliefs are is a very
    foreign concept to me and I don't understand that....yet).
    
    Re.25
                                                                   
    Ace, Again speaking for the majority of the conference members here,
    the correct protocol for disagreeing with what someone has entered
    here is simply to say "I disagree" and state your reasons why. 
    Using a few examples from CHRISTIAN - direct attacks on a person's
    character for their beliefs such as calling people 'cold as stones',
    'liars', 'Pharisees and scribes' and so on will NOT be tolerated
    here.  The general tone of this conference is one where everybody,
    while they don't all agree, place respect for others before anything
    else and if you plan on 'preaching' and attacking people directly (as 
    mentioned above), then please leave.  If not, then you are welcome
    to stay.
    
    To all:
    
    It would also be helpful if you could also explain the frame of
    reference you are coming from (moderate fundamentalist, ultra left
    wing liberal, etc.).  It helps to know, because then your reply
    will be understood a bit more by all.  I'm not really one for labels,
    but since I'm proposing this, I'll start by saying that I'm a liberal
    Christian and a conservative New Age type....with the caveat that
    no two people are alike and that nothing be automatically assumed 
    about anyone else by such labels unless clarification is requested 
    (for example, if you want to know what *MY* definition for 
    conservative 'New Age type' is, then please ask and I'll be happy 
    to tell you).
         
    Oh yes, one more thing - topics are *DISCUSSED* here.  They are
    not usually *DEFENDED* or even *HOTLY DEBATED*.  Nobody claims
    to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, because
    if we did then we wouldn't be here (living on Earth in human form).
    
    So, Gil and Ace, if you want to be our resident fundamentalists,
    then by all means jump in.  We're in search of the truth here, and
    to not listen to what you have to say from your fundamentalist
    perspective (which is quite legit as you are certainly entitled to
    your beliefs even though they differ from the norm here) would cut 
    off one perpective that nobody else may have thought of.
    
    Let the positive discussions begin.
    
    Cindy

 I have to agree that this note in my opinion does not belong in this file.
I think horse theory bares out my opinion .If one person says you look like
a horse you might entertain the idea for a minute and then forget it. If two
do, it might cause concern.If three or more, buy yourself a saddle.
 I have a possible solution. The people involved in the discussions in
this note could write a reply to this note, pointing to a created note in a 
more appropriate file.The discussion could then continue in the other file.
 If you feel this note should continue to grow here then feel free to 
disagree,but I would like to understand why you think it is appropriate.



           Thanks George D.

 

 

    Re: .24 Gil.
    
    In regards to topics of this conference being "evil" and taught
    against in the Old Testement, I would like to ask you when was the
    last time you ate pork chops? ;-)
    
    
>>      So, whether this topic is here or in RAJA::RELIGION I would like
>>    to continue discussing my beloved saviour, Jesus. Talking about
>>    Jesus is a great way to learn to love each other as He loves us.
>>    I don't think that my views toward occult or New Age practices will
>>    change but it would be great to be able to deeply love you all.
                 ---------------------------------------------------
    
    One of the big concepts in New Age is to give love to people without
    reason.  We are quite willing to express our love to you even though
    you do not agree with our beliefs.  You are a living being, that
    is the only prerequisite for our love and understanding.  We can
    disagree without being disagreeable.
    
    Our beliefs are closer than you realize, if you only take the time
    to listen!
    
    .25 Cindy,
    
    I agree.
    
    Dave

    
    George,
    
    My opinion - this conference is about paranormal experiences and
    the like.  Certainly there was definitely *something* about this
    fellow named Jesus who (according to historical records) went through
    an experience that would fit into the paranormal realm (that being
    crucified and being brought back to life, among other things.
    He, like Lao-Tsu, Lazaris and others, have/had a lot of good things 
    to say....but unfortunately this gets buried in the dogma and rhetoric 
    all too often. If we can avoid the preaching dogma (as I referred to 
    in note 26) then it might be worthwhile to discuss such things here 
    with those in the know.        
    
    As for debating doctrine or discussing the finer points of the Bible
    and Christianity, I would not like to see that happen here as there
    are already conferences set up for that (CHRISTIAN, RELIGION, BUDDHISM,
    etc.), and would certainly support the 'pointer to another conference'
    suggestion.
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy

    Done.

    
    
    Sorry to see it go, however I'll follow it to RELIGION!
    
    Carole
    

    Look for it as a further reply to note 142.
    
    It's a fresh wind that blows against the empire...  (Paul Kantner)
    
    DW

    All,
    
    Any participation I have concerning this particular topic, I will
    continue primarily in RELIGION since DW has posted the base note
    there. That seems to be the request of most repliers to this note.
    
    As to not offend the minority, who wished to continue some discussion
    here, I would gladly engage in continued "friendly" ;^) relevant
    conversation here as well.
    
    
    Regards,
    Ace
    
    

    RE ".28     " Pork chops "
    
      Better watch out , you are awfully close to bringing up a point
    of dogma :-).
    
      Actually, the Old Testament dietary laws are very healthy ! 
    
    Gil

    Re .34 (Gil):
    
    >Actually, the Old Testament dietary laws are very healthy ! 
      
    Yep.  That's why they were promulgated, I think.  It's easier to
    say something like "this flesh is unclean" rather than "you'd better
    cook this very thoroughly or you'll get trichinosis."  It's more
    understandable.
    
    Remember the median educational level of those being addressed.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

 RE.29 

   Cindy I agree with you.I hope the discussion will continue here without
the dogma.I will probably read some of the continuation of this note in the
other notes file and hope others will peek back at the notes continuation in
this file.But lets let the emphasis of each be different. 


                      George D.

       I agree with many of the things Cindy said except that I wish
    to let it be known that I have NO spokesperson...i.e., do NOT feel
    free to speak for me.  I will speak for myself if I wish to speak.
       The "rest" has already been decided.
      
    Frederick
    

    The note was move to Religion but it deserves a topic for itself
    there. I took the liberty of starting a new topic for that there.
    The topic is called "The (New) Meaning of Christianity". The node
    is RAJA::RELIGION .

    Re .39 (Henry), .earlier:
    
      >Does anyone object to a continued discussion of 'ex-doctrine',
      >such as any info on lost books, scrolls, disregarded teachings,
      >etc.? I think some valuable insight could be gained...
      >Such a discussion could be quite prone to the rat-hole effect,
      >I guess. An alert could be maintained.
       
    In order:
    
    1) I have no objections to the concept of nondoctrinaire aspects;
    my concern is that anything of that ilk generally attracts a lot
    of chaff.  As a hypothetical example: suppose someone forges a
    document, Xeroxes it, and claims that the copy is "evidence" of
    a lost writing.  The "Lost Book" thus created could gain a lot of
    currency [in more than one sense of the word ;-)].  It might be
    cited as "proof" of some point or other.  So anything of that sort
    may require a lot of cross-substantiation to gain credibility here.
    
    2) There are books, such as a few mentioned above that speak of
    the "lost years" of Jesus.  I doubt anything can be proven, one
    way or the other, about the authenticity of their contents.
    
    3) Yes, this is a ripe subject to generate ratholes.
    
    Outside of that, lay on!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I came in here this morning to delete the base note, hoping everyone
    had had time to see my pointer to RELIGION.  Based on the last few
    replies, I'm going to go ahead and leave 592 in DEJAVU, in the hopes
    that the hoped-for non-doctrinaire discussion will take place. 
    
    I didn't think that something that is common theological knowledge
    (though apparently not in some quarters) would cause such a fuss.
    Perhaps it was the semi-hostile tone of H. Spencer's article. I
    apologise if brought discord to this place of peace.
    
    Doug Wetherington

    
    Re.past note
    
    Frederick and all,
         
    On speaking for the conference - sorry about being so presumptuous.  
    Of course you are right.
    
    Home, in spite of *my* ego.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Doug,
 
    Your basenote *did not* (in my opinion) cause any discord
    in this file.  I thought it had the potential to open up an area of
    discussion that has been turning around in my mind for a long time,
    and was *very appropriate in this forum*.  And I'm sorry to say that 
    it won't be the same discussing it in RELIGION.  The context is so 
    very different than DEJAVU, and I quite frankly won't feel as
    comfortable bringing up some theories in that forum.

    Carole
    

    

    
    
    RE: .42
    
    Thank you Cindy!
    
    Carole
    

RE: .42
    
    Actually, I think you did fine.
    
    Sometimes the word "consensus" is used to mean "unanimous opinion"
    but that is not the original sense of the word.
    
    I think Cindy was expressing something very close to the group
    consensus.  The points she makes are very close to what I would
    judge to be the group "average" opinion or the typical opinion of
    the group.  This does not mean that she was/is speaking for any
    individual or even that the group consensus is that the issues
    expressed are settled.
    
    We frequently talk about how this conference "feels" different from
    others, and that feel is a result of a group culture which has
    developed.  Sometimes things are said with an assumption of that
    culture, which would be hard for a newcomer to understand.  By
    expressing an approximation to the consensus (despite the fact that
    expressing a consensus for a group like this is "like nailing Jello
    to a tree") Cindy clarified some issues.  While she could have
    expressed herself slightly better -- so as not to imply that she
    was speaking for individuals or for the group (as opposed to speaking
    about the group) -- she performed a service and improved the clarity
    of the communication.
    
    Bravo.
    
    					Topher
    

    re: .43
    
    	I, for one, would be interested in hearing your theories,
    	but I have no intention of going into RELIGION to hear a
    	*condensed* or less than fully expressed opinion.
    
    	But I guess if I snooze, I lose!!!
    
    					Carla
    

    Well, Carole, Carla, Doug, if we want to discuss it then lets...
    One of the great things about DEJAVU is that theoretical imaginings
    abound.   
    Mary

    Re: .43
    
    I have left the base note in DEJAVU in the hopes that we can talk
    about the aspects of this subject in a more (groan, I hate using
    these words because they are have such different meanings for different
    people) spiritual, metaphysical sense here, and those who wish to
    assail the "heresy" against their beliefs can go on to RELIGION
    and leave us here to examine the mystical side of Christianity,
    without having to butt idealogical heads.  BTW, "heresy" is my word,
    no-one has openly accused me of this; in DEJAVU, anyway.
    
    One aspect of DEJAVU is that I can talk about my "guide" without
    fear of ridicule, or having to go into a lot of explanation.  Since
    I went against the advice of my guide in the first place back in
    566, and this whole deal came about because I ignored the intuitive
    feeling to leave this alone and went ahead and did it anyway, I
    cannot in good concience do any more at this point than answer
    questions from you...I'm not really going to offer any more than
    I already have.  The quote I put in my "Clarification" reply, would
    be interesting to put to Lazirus (sp? sorry), or any other guides
    anyone might have access to.  I propose we stop talking about whether
    or not this might become a rat hole, and proceed with some discussion
    about anything any of us might know about the mystical side of
    Christianity, or any reaction anyone had to the quote from "Brother
    of the Third Degree" I entered in the "Clarification" reply.
    
    Carole, it is my sincere hope that the discussion will continue
    here.  However, I will delete this note if any disharmony begins
    to manifest itself...this is too good a thing we have going here
    to bring dogma into it.   
    
    Doug

    Doug my friend, if the moderators feel that your note is out of
    line they will let you know so don't worry about deleting it...
    
    I would very much like to see some reference or listing of the things
    that Jesus *actually did* say, (if possible... may be easier said
    than done).  It is my understanding that the magical system of 
    Quabbalism is based on teachings of the Essenne.  Is this correct?
    Mary

    
    Onward and upward....
    
    I'm in the process of reading "The Lost Years Of Jesus", by E.Prophet.
    I purchased this book due to one of the references in "Out On A
    Limb", by Shirley MacLaine that the story of Jesus' life sort of
    ends around age 12 (or so), and then picks up again in his early
    30's.
    
    Haven't spent much time reading the book, and if it is false then
    I would certainly like to hear the reasons why it is false.  The
    book traces his path from where he was born to the East where he
    spent much of his time learning from the mystics there and was referred
    to as St. Issa.                        
    
    On the other hand, if Jesus didn't make this trip, then what was
    he doing between the ages of 12 and 30-something?
    
    Anyone know anything else about this?  
    
    Cindy
                                                     

    
    	RE: .50
    
    	Ms. Prophet used to write channelled books, but "The Lost Years
    Of Jesus" seems to be quite different, in that it was written in
    a more "scholarly" mode.      She says she has found
    a manuscript in India or Tibet, which recorded the history of
    "Issa" who was also known as "Jesus".   In fact this book seems
    to be quite well researched.   She gave her manuscript over to 
    some fine Biblical scholars for accuracy checking.   I still
    haven't finished it, but so far it has been good reading.
    She has a sequel to this book, called "The Lost Teachings Of Jesus",
    in which she speculates that since Jesus was literate, that he 
    may have left behind some writings.   (On flipping through it,
    I noticed a discussion that he might have been the author of the 
    book of "Hebrews" .)
    
    	I tend to give such researched books a higher value than
    totally channelled books which purport to tell us about the
    childhood of Jesus, such as the final portions of "The Urantia
    Book".
    
    	Book recommendations:
    		Two books by Morton Smith relate to this topic:
    	"Jesus The Magician",   and
    	"The Secret Gospel"
    
    		Alan.

    re .50:  (Cindy)
    
    Just because the years between ages 12 and 30+ are missing from
    the Biblical text, doesn't mean that the story about his trip to
    the far east are true.  He could have spent those years helping
    Joseph in the carpentry shop and/or reading sacred texts.  There
    are many other possibilities.  Assuming it is true is quite a jump
    to a conclusion.  On the other hand, I haven't seen it proven false
    either.
    
    As far as Mary's Essene question goes, the Essenes did practice
    a form of Quaballah, but Quaballism is much older than the Essenes.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re.52 - Elizabeth                    
    
    Yes - I realize that, and was hoping to hear if anyone else had
    heard of a different scenerio than the one portrayed by E.Prophet
    in the book and could point me in the direction of some other writings.
    
    I'm not really out to prove to myself or anyone else one way or the 
    other if her writings are absolutely true or absolutely false.  What 
    I am looking for are other points from which to view this topic from.  
    By reading all that I can read on this subject, it is my hope to 
    figure out the most plausible explanation for the years not accounted 
    for in the Bible.  This may also lead to some explanation as to
    why certain books of the Bible have been edited out over the years.  
               
    If, in fact, Jesus *did* spend the time there, then this brings
    a whole new to light to the true meaning of Christianity - that
    there is a direct tie between the Eastern religions on a much 
    grander scale than is believed to be the case today.  I'm in the
    process of reading (in my spare time...) the book by Hans Kung and
    others entitled "Christianity and Paths to Dialogue with Hunduism,
    Buddhism and Islam", and it is quite fascinating.
           
    Cindy (in_search_of_the_common_thread)

    I also posted this in RELIGION, but I thought people here would
    also be interested.  (read the RELIGION topic to get my comments
    on it.)
    
    Excerpt from GODBODY:  Copyright 1986, The Estate of Theodore Sturgeon.

We are using a modern-English Bible, and many of our hymns are new or have
been rearranged.  There will certainly be further changes.  Whether we like
that or not, we can regard the idea soberly because they have not happened
yet.  We know there have been changes, too, but it seems a little harder to
understand that changes in Christian worship did not begin twenty years
ago, or fifty, or at the moment Martin Luther nailed his manuscript to a
church door hundreds or years ago.  The real changes began with the death
of the last of the disciples --the men who actually talked with Jesus and
were taught by him.

We liked to lull ourselves with the idea that changes are all to the
good--that what we have is an improvement on what we had.  Well, in some
ways that is so.  For all their quarrels and disagreements, the Christian
churches have millions of supporters and own billions of dollars worth of
real property.  If that is an improvement over what the Apostles had, then
sobeit.

But is it an improvement in Christianity, as Christ saw it and taught it?

What was the early worship like?

There is one really fascinating way to find out.  All through church
history you can find references to councils, call for the purpose of
setting forth church doctrine and church practices.  In announcing that
thus-and-so should henceforth be done, and they also announced what should
_not_ be done.

And that is the important point.  You do not forbid something unless people
are doing it.

Through a study of what these councils have forbidden, we know what
Christians were doing at the time.  Where Christianity was changed, it was
changed gradually, and this kind of study show us step by step how these
changes were brought about --and why.  You see, what I am getting to is not
what changes have been made, but what Christianity was before it was
changed.

Let me tell you know, without documenting all the steps with dates and
place--but mind you, that can be done-- just what the worship of God
through Christ was as it was left to us by Jesus of Nazareth and his
disciples.

There was no house of worship.  Sometimes by choice, often to hide from
persecution, the worshipers met at some quiet, secret place.

There was no officiating priest.

There were no distinctions as to race or age, wealth or poverty or sex.
The greatest appeal of Christianity, as a matter of fact, was to the
masses, the slaves, and women, all of whom were accepted equally.  It is
interesting to note here that in our church, ordination of women has
occurred only within the past fifteen years, and less than half of one
percent of our ministers are women.

There was the "kiss of peace."  On gathering, each person embraced every
other.

There was a feast --it was called _Agape_.  It was a real meal.

Afterward, the people sat together in an aura of love and replenishment,
and waited theolepsy --a word which means "seized of God."  You have heard
of --laughed at --people who "speak in tongues," who work themselves up
into religious frenzies, who fall into fits or wild dances.  This seems far
removed from our decent modern practices --yet it was precisely this which
the apostolic Church courted and welcomed.  It is said over and over in
Scripture and in commentaries that this was a real and definite experience,
and that once a person had experienced it, he was forever changed.  Even to
be in the presence of this experience, when it happened to another person,
is said to have been an unforgettable adventure, and one which would seek
out again for the rest of one's life.  It is this which enables the
Christians in the Roman era to march into the arena smiling and singing and
thanking God as they were stabbed and burned and torn to pieces by wild
animals. . .  A fascinating aside of this, -- the word "think."  These
people could do what they did, not through sheer courage, but because they
were "thinking God" -reliving the theoleptic experience. . .

With this picture in mind of an early Christian worship service, watch what
happened:

First the Eucharist --the bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood of
Christ --was introduced into the Agape, the love feast.  Then came the
ruling that an Agape could not be held unless a bishop were present to
bless the food.  Next came the the order that the bishop were present to
apart and standing --above --the celebrants.  Then is was ordained that
instead of kissing another, everyone had to kiss the priest, and later
still, and piece of wood which was handed around and passed to him.  Then
the kiss was abolished altogether, and in 363 the Council of Laodicea
forbade the celebration of the Agape inside the churches, at which point it
was forever separated from the Eucharist.  Finally it disappeared
altogether.  One writer has remarked that champangne at a wedding, and port
wine at a funeral, are all that is left of fundamental Christian worship!

This is not strictly true.  Our good friends the Quakers have something
remaining of it, when without a priest they sit at meeting and wait for the
holy urge to speak.  even that, however, is a far cry from the early
worship practiced by the people who actually knew Jesus.

You have the right to ask why --why were these changes made?  For they were
made by men, not God, out of their own inventiveness, and not by Scripture.
Most of these changes came out in the third and fourth centuries after
Christ died.  And mind you, these were not three or four modern centuries,
with widespread reading and printing and great libraries and archives to
consult:  these were primitive centuries when events of five or ten years
back must have seemed like remote myths and were subject to dilution fro
every word-of-mouth transmission.  One might say recklessly that modern
Christian worship was born, not in Galilee and on the Mount and Golgotha,
but hundred of years later by remote strangers.

Again:  why?  I will tell you why, but I will warn you that the discovery
chilled my blood.

When we take up our collection in this sanctuary, what happens?  The ushers
pass the slavers, collect them, and bring them to me.  I take them,
_turn_my_back_on_you_ , and hold them up to the altar.  Fix on that --take
a snapshot of that.  Use it as a symbol of what we do here when we practice
worship.  Let the offering represent worship.  You give of this substance
and it is collected and brought to me.  Only through me does it reach the
altar, or God.This is what a minister, pastor, priest has become --a
channel so that only through channels can the congregation reach God.

And why did these stepfathers of the early church want this?

This is the chilling answer:  so they could eliminate theolepsy --direct
contact between man and God.

And why eliminate that?

Because, my friends, this is the only way possible for the organized church
to make a buck.

I hope you'll forgive the vulgarity of this holy place, but it is the
truth.  Unless the church stamped our real religious experience, it could
not control the worldly aspects of church organization --money power,
which, as I'm sure you know, the church has sought and found for two
thousand years. . .

I must say a word about prayer here.  It is seldom, indeed, that anyone can
reach a religious rapture by praying alone.  Theolepsy seems to be a group
experience --something about the presence of a group seems to bring it
about in the God-struck individual . . .

Not ten years ago there was a sudden resurgence of "speaking in tongues" in
the Episcopal church, and it was firmly put down.  It always is --it always
will be in any church of any size.

[....]

I have dedicated the most important part of my life to the understanding of
the teachings of Jesus, and my efforts have been equally dedicated to
passing these on to others.  I have now come to a point where I feel that I
am in the wrong place.  The wrong place is a place which by its very nature
prohibits --worship.  The wrong place is a place which takes the prime
teaching of the Man of Nazareth --that he voluntarily relieved us of sin
and therefore of guilt --and has turned it into the most efficient
guilt-factory ever known on this planet.  It was Paul --who, by the way,
never knew Jesus --who put the onus on sex, not Jesus; and it was a whole
series of his successors who set up controls on the two most powerful
motivation we have --to procreate and to worship.  I want my God for my
pastor, not my bishop nor any other man.  I want to love without shame and
to worship without dilution; and feeling so, my friends, I feel myself
disqualified for this job.

In closing and farewell, let me follow precedent by giving you texts, with
chapter and verse.

Acts, 7:48-49; Howbeit, the most high dwelleth not in a temple made with
hands . . .  Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool; what house will
ye build me?  saith the Lord.  First Corinthians, 20:  Therefore glorify
God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.  You'll say that I
take that out of context, and you're right.  Matthew, 6:  5:  But thou, when
thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are . . .  standing . .
.  in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.  But thou,
when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and shut the door, pray to thy
father which is in secret, and they father will seeth in secret and shall
reward thee openly.

    RE: .54
    
    Bingo.  Hence my reason for entering this note into DEJAVU in the
    first place.  Many of you, without realizing it, are closer to being
    Christians in (spirit) than the Fundamentalists are...(*GASP*)...when
    his original teachings are considered in their pristine form.  Someone bring
    the smelling salts.
    
    There are many references to the years Christ spent in the East,
    in the book "The Mystical Life of Jesus, which I have mentioned
    before.  For the record, I gave you all the incorrect zip code for
    ordering the books I mentioned...the correct zip code for San Jose
    is 95091, not 95114.
    
    Here's a question...if the Quaballah is more ancient than the Essenes,
    could it possibly have originated in Egypt?  I have often heard
    that the survivors of the ruined continent Atlantis fled to Egypt
    and founded the civilization there, from whence came so interesting
    a religious/mystical culture (triangles, pyramids, etc.).  Could
    the Essenes have originated in Egypt?  In the "Quaballah" topic,
    I see no reference to the origin of it...it would be interesting
    to see if it came out of the East, or out of Egypt...and if the
    Essenes were mystics, and Jesus was an Essene...
    
    DW

    Re .56
    
    It is possible that some basic beliefs and rituals of the Quaballah
    originated in Egypt.  However, since much of it involves angelic
    (and sometimes demonic) lore, as it stands (and has stood for a
    long time) it is definitely of Jewish origin.  
    
    Many of the Quaballistic grimoires claim to have their origin with
    Moses or Solomon.  This is highly apocryphal.  Most religious beliefs
    like to claim they originated a long time ago and were espoused by
    whatever heros and prominant figures are in their past.  It was most
    likely written by the Jewish priests of sometime between the time of
    Solomon and the Roman occupation of Isreal. 
    
    Elizabeth

    Re .56 (DW):
    
    >...could it possibly have originated in Egypt?  I have often heard
    >that the survivors of the ruined continent Atlantis fled to Egypt
    >and founded the civilization there, from whence came so interesting
    >a religious/mystical culture (triangles, pyramids, etc.).  Could
    >the Essenes have originated in Egypt?  In the "Quaballah" topic,
    >I see no reference to the origin of it...it would be interesting
    >to see if it came out of the East, or out of Egypt...and if the
    >Essenes were mystics, and Jesus was an Essene...
    
    Well, I don't think we even have to bring Atlantis into it.  Egypt
    had an interesting relationship with the descendents of Abraham.
    Joseph (the dream-interpreter who was sold into slavery by his
    brothers) became the Pharaoh's right-hand man.  We all know about
    the business with Moses.  King Solomon was on diplomatic terms with
    Egypt.  And, to be sure, when the Holy Family fled Herod, _by commands
    through a dream sent from God_, they fled into Egypt until things
    cooled off.
    
    [Mystically, there are close connections, too: the Great god of
    Egypt, spoken of primarily by the priests, Neter Uay <my best phonetic
    representation in ASCII>, one vastly superior to the standard Egyptian
    gods, even the most powerful, such as Osiris, Re, Thoth, Isis, Hathor,
    Horus, and the like, sounds suspiciously like Yaweh, one of the
    names of the God of Abraham ("Neter" is a title, meaning "god,"
    rather than part of the actual name).  The relationship of the
    "ordinary" gods to Neter Uay is not unlike the relationship between
    God and His angels, for that matter).  It's just that we don't hear
    too much about the works of Neter Uay, since that knowledge was
    rather restricted to the priestly class.  This is analogous to the
    later JudeoChristian tradition that the True Name of God is/was
    Restricted Information.] 
    
    The Egyptian (Khemite) civilization is an old one, stretching back
    thousands of years, and Khem was considered a seat of great knowledge
    (the most educated Greeks went to Khem to study).  Their theology
    was complex, with triune and quadrune god-manifestations, and certainly
    the intellectual climate was complex enough to allow a form of
    Qabballah to have been developed there.
    
    But nobody knows for sure.  Certainly the Adam Qadmon model was
    an evolutionary development.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Here's my opinion of Jesus as an Essene (this is just my opinion
    and not necessarily that of every fundamentalist).
    
     I don't buy it. From what I've read on the Essene community Jesus
    just wouldn't fit in. The Essenes were very seperatist in their
    beliefs. They believed that all matter was evil and that everything
    spiritual was good. They had an extreme view of ritual purity and
    cleanliness, and were somewhat fanatical about the Sabbath
    observations.
    
       Jesus, on the other hand, loved people - even the worst of sinners,
    taught that material things were not as important as spiritual things
    ( but never said that either was inherently evil ). Jesus was
    periodically in conflict with Pharisees about too much ritual purity,
    and the Pharisees were not nearly as caught up in it as the Essenes.
    Jesus also healed the sick on the Sabbath which an Essene would
    never do or condone.
    
      Essenes also strictly abstained from wine and meat, Jesus drank
    wine. The only secular employment sanctioned for an Essene was to
    labor in the fields. Jesus was called the "carpenter".
    
      Finally, the Essenes held to the belief of the immortality of
    the soul without resurrection. Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
    
    Gil 

    When we started to learn about the Essenes from archeological sources
    the similarity to the teachings of Jesus was immediately apparent.
    As Gil, has pointed out, there were also differences.  The most
    important being that the Essenes believed in isolation and Jesus
    believed in teaching all Jews his beliefs.
    
    The theory was natural that Jesus had spent the lost years with
    the Essenes but had rebelled against the particular belief of isolation
    and so had gone out into the world to preach (with an immediate
    result pretty much what the Essenes would have predicted).
    
    The similarities in the form of Judiasm taught by Jesus and that
    apparently practiced by the Essenes is striking and probably too
    much to be a coincidence.  The differences are also striking, as
    Gil pointed out.  I wouldn't say that Jesus as Essene is ruled out
    (he may have been a pretty heretical Essene, after all) but it is
    a bit weak.
    
    The thing to keep in mind is that today we have two major branches
    of Judiasm (with one of them having three major and several minor
    variants) (Help me someone -- I'm drawing a blank on the term for
    the Ethiopian Jews).  At the start of the Common Era, there were
    many, many different versions of Judiasm.  I suspect that the lost
    years were spent with another, now forgotten, isolationist Jewish
    community related to but not the same as the Essenes.  Jesus' major
    disagreement would then be that a teacher should go to the Jews
    rather than having the Jews find the teacher.
    
    (I would say that the bodily ressurection is something which Jesus
    is said to have done, rather than something he is said to have taught.
    From a religious standpoint this may be a distinction without a
    difference, but from a viewpoint of trying to figure out what the
    historic figure actually taught rather than what is later followers
    taught, as we seem to be trying to do here, the distinction may
    be important).
    
    						Topher
    

    
        A quick question. Perhaps I've missed something of relevence
    to this discussion. It seems to be an accepted thing that the Essenes
    were mystics of some kind, but I have never heard why this was so.
    
       How do we know that they were mystics.
    Gil

    Gil,  just to clarify a small point... what do you define a "mystic"
    to be?
    Mary

    Gil, I will try to do some research on this this weekend and get
    back to you.
    
    For the record, I don't really like to word "mystic".  But it does
    have an interesting place here.  Back in 566, I listed several verses
    from the New Testament, which referred to the "mystery" that God
    had kept hidden "since time began" but which had been revealed to
    Christ and subsequently the apostles, to be taught and passed on
    to the world (which might have happened but for...)
    
    I found a definition of the word "mystical" in the American Heritage
    dictionary that I didn't have too much of a problem with.
    
    Mystical: Of a nature or meaning that can neither be grasped by
    the intellect (i.e. facts and figures in a textbook DW) nor perceived
    by the senses: "The mystical vision of God cannot be passed on from
    father to son" Thomas Merton.
    
    Doug

RE: .63
    
    Thats a better definition from a technical standpoint than I would
    expect from an ordinary dictionary (which, if it is doing its tries
    to encorporate popular usage into its definitions).  My only
    problem with it is that it is a negative definition -- it says what
    mystical knowledge is not and lets you infer what it is.
    
    I would say something to the effect of:
    
    Mysticism: a belief in the direct perception or revelation of the
    nature of the universe or of God(s) unmediated by the physical senses 
    the intellect.
    
    I'm afraid my reading about the Essenes was a long time ago and
    before I thought about the categorization of religions into mystical
    and intellectual.  Although I am left with a general impression
    of mysticism (most ascetics are mystics) I can't really say for
    sure.
    
    				Topher

    
    Time for my $.02's worth
    
    Mary,
    
     A few replies back you asked me what I considered a mystic to be.
    I declined to answer right away because I realized that the defintion
    that I had was no longer accurate. I would imagine incredably old
    men stooped over even older tomes of arcane writings, searching
    for some hidden ( or even forbidden ) knowledge. Hardly an accurate
    depiction of a modrn mystic.
    
     Also, some further reading on the Essenes has revealed that they
    are considered to be mystics by most historians. So, I find that
    I must concede the point that they were at least some form of mystics.
    
     And this weekend I had a dicussion with a friend from my church
    who considers himself to be a christian mystic. By this he means
    that he is seeking to know and/or experience some of the deep things
    of God. He searches the scriptures not necessarily to find some
    hidden secrets but to find where God has revealed Himself in a more
    subtle manner. 

       So now I would define that a mystic is a person who is trying
    to learn or experience the deep subtle aspects of God.
        
       I can agree that the Essenes probably did just that. They were
    great adherents to the Law of Moses and probably tried to get
    everything out of it that they could. However, I still have never
    seen any indication in the Bible, or in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the
    Essenes, or in any authoritative writng about Jesus or the Essenes
    that Jesus or the Essene mystics ever taught or believed in things
    like reincarnation, kharma, or any other "lost teachings".  
                                                              
      Better stop now before I get too preachy :-)
    
    Gil
       

    Sure you've seen them, though you probably didn't recognize them as
    such.  The phrase "As men sow, so shall they also reap" is a simple
    way of stating the Law of Karma, pure and simple.
    
    Also, check out some of the verses listed in 142.17...such as (this
    is from memory : )   Elias has already come, they just didn't recognize
    him...
    
    Why would the Gnostics have spoken in such a way as to imply their
    belief in a more mystical (sigh, there's that troublesome word again)
    interpretation of Christ's teachings, if they had no grounds so
    long ago to believe they were meant to be interpreted in that way?
    Why did the early Church go to such lengths to suppress their writings?
    Because, correctly understood, I believe that Christ was saying that
    mens churches should be *primarily* in their own minds and hearts,
    rather than ornate, expensive buildings where every letter and rite
    of the denomination's rituals was observed to the letter.  Doesn't
    this sound like his message to the Pharissees?
    
    Why is there such a problem with allowing me this personal
    interpretation of Christianity?  
    
    Doug

    Re: .66
            
    Why is there such a problem with allowing me this personal
    interpretation of Christianity?  

    'Cause it isn't the same interpretation that the church teaches!
    #-) (<-- man with blindfold ;-) )
    
    But seriously, the church has evolved to/from an organized entity
    where discrepancies in the teachings was *DECIDED*, instead of discussed
    by the leaders.  It's seemed to be hints of the scientific method
    in this:
    
    (The following is pure speculation)
    
    A religious issue is raised a LONG time ago, it's discussed for decades,
    or generations until the Pope (or some highly religious person with
    authority) says "This is the way it is" and *THEY MOVE ONTO SOMETHING
    ELSE*.  Eventually the religious discussions move to more and more
    insignificant and trivial facts instead of focusing on spirituality
    and personal fulfillment.  In the movie "The Name of the Rose" there
    was a religious debate about "if Christ died wearing his own clothes
    or borrowed."  A great scene in a fantastic movie.
    
    Face it, there are some questions that can't be answered.  There isn't
    sufficient evidence, or facts to prove or disprove any answer. Most of
    these questions have a spiritual or religious basis.  Religions attempt
    to answer these questions.  The problem in early Christianity is that
    *THEY TOLD PEOPLE ALL THE ANSWERS* In many cases, they were proven wrong as
    science explored and examined nature.  Absolute authority doesn't look
    well when they're proven wrong, and chances are that any authority that
    gives answers without adequate information will be incorrect.  There's
    a statement "I don't know for sure..." which can cover yourself, but
    also shows a flaw in absolutism. 
    
    I think parts of Christianity are moving away from "here's the answers"
    to "it's alright to question," or "Hey, I have those questions too."
    I think this is a good thing, first off, it gets arrogance out of
    religion. . . .
    
    Dave

    	DISCLAIMER:  It is not my intent to offend or gross-out 
    	anybody with the following!
    
    	My Mother (who is extremely religious) has been going to a
    	Bible class called Search for several years.  The teacher is
    	the pastor of her church, and is somebody who appears to be
    	helping to shed some of the fundamentalist viewpoints held so
    	long by the Lutheran church.  Anyway, my Mom told me that one
    	of the *new* suggested teachings is that manna is actually a 
    	secretion of a bug located around the Dead Sea area.  And 
    	there were actually people in her class who were so appalled 
    	by this *unpure* notion that they refused to entertain the 
    	very idea that something so "disgusting" was portrayed in the
    	Bible!
        
    	The other night an episode of "Nature" featured an hour-
    	long segment on the Dead Sea, and George Page also suggested 
    	there have been recent discoveries that manna was/is bug 
    	secretion that ??? (forgive me, my history here is poor) the 
    	group of people survived on, coining the phrase "Manna from 
    	Heaven."
    
    						Carla
    

    re .68 (Carla):
    
        >.................................................. And 
    	>there were actually people in her class who were so appalled 
    	>by this *unpure* notion that they refused to entertain the 
    	>very idea that something so "disgusting" was portrayed in the
    	>Bible!  
    
    Where do people _study_ the Bible these days?  The Bible contains
    all sorts of stuff that people might find "disgusting."   It's a
    rich book, but many people choose to read only only certain sections
    and have a sanitized idea of what the people mentioned in the Bible
    were like.  They were _people_, with all the virtues, faults, etc.
    that the rest of us have. 
    
    On the "manna" theory:  It's interesting, and if the secretion isn't
    waste, it's highly improbable, but possible (ants keep aphids as
    cattle because the latter secrete a substance the former can eat).
    However, the sheer _number_ of insects involved to keep the tribes
    of Israel going in the wilderness for a generation would be awesome.
    It would be easier for them to eat locusts (the "plague" of locusts
    that Moses helped bring about might have been "manna" to the Egyptians;
    I'm told that some southern Mediterranean folk consider locusts
    something of a delicacy.  And why not?  They are land-based exoskeletal
    multi-legged critters not too dissimilar than their water-living
    cousins, the shrimp, crabs, crawfish, and lobsters).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .69 (Steve)
    
    	I think I'll stick to lobster and/or pate!  =8*)
    
    
    	To All:
    
    	These next couple days seem to epitomize what Christ promoted
    	during his days on Earth -- giving, love, joy, and sharing.
    	I wish all of you all the peace and love during this holiday 
    	season that lasts throughout your lives.  Merry Christmas!!!
    
    					With love,  Carla
    

    I hadn't heard the, ah, bug juice theory, but I had heard the
    suggestion that manna was a scaly substance secreted by a cetain
    *plant*, rather like pine gum.  Is this still too "unpure"?
    
    							Ann B.

    I read somewhere this past couple of weeks (New Scientist?) an argument
    to the effect that the identification of the Essenes as the writers/
    storers of the Dead Sea Scrolls is insufficiently supported and
    unlikely for a number of reasons.  This is, however, the opinion
    of only a single expert criticising the generally excepted view
    of his profession.
    
RE: .66
    
    Since when were the Gnostics Christians?  It is a very different
    to say that the early Christian church attempted to eliminate the
    *influence* of another religion/philosophy on its dogma than to
    say that that other religion/philosophy was actually a subdivison
    of it.
    
RE: .68
    
    Why is the secretions of bugs considered so disgusting.  The bible
    speaks of bug-secretion-as-food frequently -- ever hear of "the
    Land of Milk and *Honey*".
    
RE: .71
    
    Somewhere I have a book (I believe it was a best seller) from the
    late 50's entitled something like "The Bible As History."  It discusses
    the plant secretion theory and shows a picture of the plant (billed
    in the caption as the first published photograph of the plant anywhere)
    hyphesized as the source.
    
    						Topher
    

    RE: .72
    
    If the Gnostics believed in Christ's message and followed his
    teachings, they were Christians, even if they didn't have an impramatur
    to put on their doctrines.  You are correct that the established
    Church at the time did try to wipe them out (one of the main reasons
    for the Council of Chalcedon was to condemn the writings of Origen,
    who, whether or not he was a Gnostic, taught an esoteric interpretation
    of Christ's teachings (including the doctrine of re-incarnation)...and
    if the Church thought it worth their time to formally condemn his
    writings, he must have been attracting some attention)...but who is to
    say that the established church was "it" and the Gnostics were
    an outer fringe group trying to change its doctrine?  I say, it
    was the other way around :^).  And we can look around and see who
    won.
    
    Thought I'd add this...
    
    From The American Heritage Desk Dictionary
    
    Gnosticm:  The doctrines of certain early Christian (*) sects that
    valued inquiry into spiritual truth above faith and thought salvation
    attainable only by the few whose faith enabled them to transcend
    matter.
    
    DW

RE: .73
    
    This is in contrast to my memories of some scholarly work I've read.
    Having just completed a move this weekend all my books (for that
    matter: all my life) is in boxes at the moment.  When I get unpacked
    I'll check and either post an appology or give my citation.
    
    My understanding was that that the Gnosticsm was a general mystical
    philosophy/religion, which, like many mystical religions did not
    insist that it taught the *whole* truth.  I.e., the Gnostic crede
    did not exclude you from being a Christian.  Therefore, *some*
    Christians were also Gnostics, and others were influenced by
    Gnostic (and other mystic) doctrines.
    
    Gnosticisms tolerance for Christians among its members, however,
    was not reciprocated and that denial of the right of "dual citizenship"
    is what the issue actually was.
    
    If this is true, given the historical Christocentrism of our culture,
    it would not be surprising to find the relativly non-technical meaning
    of the term to involve only Gnostic-*heritics* and to ignore
    Gnostic-*heathen* (after all, traditionally, all heathen -- which
    excludes Jews, of course -- are equivalent: worshipers of the devil).
    
    Anyway, this reading must be 20 years in my past, so I could be
    grossly misremembering this: I'll get back to you when I can check.
    
    					Topher

    BTW, you all might be interested to know, that the words "agnostic"
    and "gnostic" have totally different origins...I was looking in
    my dictionary that gives the origins of words the other night, and
    they come from totally different roots; the root words that each
    evolved from to their present form, are worlds apart.
    
    For those of you who are following this topic's counterpart in
    RELIGION, I am keying in an article there that is quite interesting,
    and quite illuminating as to the evolvement of Christianity to its
    present day form...you're invited to participate.
    
    Re: .74
    Let us know what you find out.  My own knowledge is rather limited
    on the Gnostics in particular... Thanks.  
    
    DW

re: gnostics

My impression from reading a little bit about this subject is that there were
many Gnostic Jews as well as Gnostic Christians, and that the former probably
predated the latter by at least a several generations.  The Essenes and the
Ophites seemed to have absorbed an admixture of Babylonian mythology in which
the serpent of the Garden who offered the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge to
Eve became identified with Nabu the serpent God of Wisdom.

In some models, Yahweh the Creator (AKA Yaldabaoth in some Gnostic scriptures)
became identified with the devil, with Nabu being the true god who offered
unto man and woman the fruit of wisdom which would allow them to transcend the
evil world of Yahweh's material creation.  In other models it was Sophia (AKA
"Wisdom" and also identified with the Holy Spirit) who was guilty of either
giving rise to the evil in the world or giving birth to the Yaldabaoth-figure.

So my interpretation is that the central tenet of Gnosticism (which certainly
influenced the Pauline version of Christianity) was that the material world
was inherently evil and needed to be transcended.  I'm sure Ann Broomhead,
Steve Kallis, and John Mitchell can probably explain this in better detail
though.									-- Pc.

     Could it be?  _Must_ I ADD ENTRY RAJA::RELIGION to get  "the  rest  of
     the  story." (:^D Unless someone can sell me on trying to keep up with
     things in RAJA::RELIGION too, I'd rather this note continued on here.

     RE:  .75

     >    For those of you who are following this topic's counterpart in
     >    RELIGION, I am keying in an article there that is quite interesting,
     >    and quite illuminating as to the evolvement of Christianity to its
     >    present day form...you're invited to participate.


     I, for one, hope you EXTRACT filename the  above  and  REPLY  filename
     here.

     Alvin

     p.s.

     .54 was well worth the price  of  reading  this  whole  topic  in  one
     sitting, which is what I just did.

     A.

    Sorry it's taken me so long to read your reply, .77, I just saw
    it today.
    
    Judging from the opposition I perceived to this topic being here,
    I'm going to quote the articles in REGENT::RELIGION (changed from
    RAJA) only; of course, I did leave this note here in case anyone
    wanted to discuss the topic further.
    
    You might enjoy reading RELIGION; the tone of the conference seems
    to have mellowed out considerably; the fire and brimstone seems
    to have disappeared.  My thanks to those here in DEJAVU who introduced
    me to it.
    
    I do need to comment on something said in the excerpt from the book
    "Brother of the Third Degree" in 592.16.  The soul, I am told by
    my teacher, cannot be "lost"...the worse that can happen, is that
    a soul might stop incarnating for the remainder of the current 24,000
    year cycle (12 ages of 2000 years = one 24,000 year cycle), and
    begin incarnating again when the next 24,000 year cycle starts.  The
    soul cannot be *lost*, nor can it lose its own individuality.
    
    The rest of the excerpt is accurate to the best of my knowledge,
    keeping in mind its allegorical nature.  
    
    Doug

     I finally gave in a couple of weeks ago and  started  catching  up  in
     RELIGION.   I'm  sorry  to  see  this topic "die" here, but, lo, Notes
     _can_ "reincarnate" in another conference.  (:^D

     Alvin

    Be sure to read topics 143, 145, 167, and 172, in REGENT::RELIGION.
    The discussion seems to have spread over these topics....with more
    to come, I'm sure   :-)
    
    DW

RE: .66,.73 (Doug), .72,.74 (me)

    Well this weekend I finally unpacked the box containing the book I was
    looking for.  It's entitled "The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the
    Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity" by Hans Jonas.  The
    first edition is copyright 1958, while the second ("enlarged") edition
    is copyright 1963.  This copy includes a "Note on the Occasion of
    The Third Printing (1970)".  It basically says that a lot has happened
    in the field since 1963 but the author only felt up to updating
    the bibliography.  I originally read this pre-1970 and picked up
    this copy on remainder a couple of years ago, but haven't reread
    it.

    Anyway...

    Basically, according to this source, we were both wrong.

    Doug believed that Gnosticism was a form (branded by the founders of
    what became known as the Catholic Church as a heresy) of Christianity.
    This is a view shared by early Christians who only concerned themselves
    with the conflict in or near their ranks.

    I, on the other hand, believed that Gnosticism was a loosely structured
    but essentially unitary religion, which, like some modern and many
    ancient religions (e.g., Mithraism, some Buddhist sects, and in
    theory Unitarianism) allowed its members to also belong to other
    religions as long as these did not contradict the essential beliefs
    of Gnosticism.

    The truth, it seems, is that Gnosticism is best considered as a set of
    ideas which were incorporated into or formed the foundation of many
    different sects and cults: Christian, Jewish, Moslem and otherwise.
    Some acknowledged their connection to the others and some didn't but
    there was a shared set of beliefs, acknowledged or not.

					    Topher

    Thanks for the info!
    
    My point was that they believed in Christian ideas that the formal
    Church objected to, Topher, can you confirm for me that they did
    believe in the doctrine of re-incarnation?
    
    I have gotten absolutely *nowhere* in RELIGION trying to pass on
    the idea in .16 of this topic, which is the real message that
    Christianity taught in its pristine form, before the onus was shifted
    to the *man* Jesus rather than the *Christ* doctrine that he taught.
    
    Personal revelation as much as anything has confirmed this doctrine
    to me beyond any doubt, and I know many people who believe this
    way, so it's not just me, folks.  I can only hope that, with the
    new ministry that I believe is now forming, this idea will take
    its rightful place as the message of Christianity, replacing
    the dogma, rituals, and venom-laced self-righteousness, that have come to
    characterize the modern Christian religion to many. (too many).
    
    Doug Wetherington

re:    < Note 592.82 by GLDOA::WETHERINGTON >


�    I have gotten absolutely *nowhere* in RELIGION trying to pass on
�    the idea in .16 of this topic, which is the real message that
�    Christianity taught in its pristine form, before the onus was shifted
�    to the *man* Jesus rather than the *Christ* doctrine that he taught.


    Doug, I don't think we'll ever KNOW what Christianity taught...
    we each believe what we will, and I think it's wasted energy
    to bemoan the fact that others won't believe as we.  It's all
    a matter of faith and personal experience, and we each are
    responsible for our own, and are _entitled_ to our own.
    
    One of my theories is that, yes, Jesus had mystical experiences
    and saw god/goddess/all-that-there-is,  but his ego got in the way
    and he determined to "save the world."  I believe that when one
    has become enlightened, one realizes that we all get "saved"
    sooner or later, and we each are responsible for our own
    salvation.  We each have our own path to find, and I believe
    that it's useless to tell others what path to take.  Trying to
    do so makes us just as arrogant as those who would have us follow
    _their_ way.
    
    Peace/bruce

    RE: .83	
    
    >Doug, I don't think we'll ever KNOW what Christianity taught...
    
    Well, I'm afraid I disagree.  Not only am I discovering, along with
    many others, what a lot of these original teachings were, but when
    Christ carries out his second ministry on this world, we will learn
    it from the horse's mouth.  
    
    >we each believe what we will, and I think it's wasted energy to
    >bemoan the fact that others won't believe as we.  It's all a matter
    >of faith and personal experience, and we each are responsible for
    >our own, and are _entitled_ to our own.
    
    I've had the argument here in DEJAVU before, with people who claim
    that there is no central truth to the universe, that it is all
    relative.  I don't know that this is exactly what you're saying,
    Bruce, but I don't buy the idea that there is no such thing as truth.
    I submit that the very fact that the universe seems to adhere to
    certain laws (round planets that revolve in ellipses around suns,
    the cohesion of the molecules of our body, etc), is proof that there
    is some central Law that holds thing together, and that the Steward
    of this Law is also the Steward of truth.  Having said this, if
    someone discovers a small part of this truth, he is likely to try
    to spread it around to other people (not shove it down their throats,
    mind you).  Acting on guidance from God, this I believe is what
    Jesus did his best to do.
    
    >One of my theories is that, yes, Jesus had mystical experiences
    >and saw god/goddess/all-that-there-is, but his ego got in the way
    >and he determined to "save the world."
    
    Had Jesus Christ tried to use the power that he was acting as a channel
    for, for his own personal goals and ambitions, no matter how noble
    or lofty they might have been, he would never have been given that
    power in the first place.  As a prophet of God, what *he* wanted,
    what *his* ego dictated him to do, was totally irrelevent, and he
    realized this infinitely more clearly than I am describing it here.
    
    The point he was making when he said "I am the only way to the Father,
    no man cometh to the Father but through me", was that the only way
    for man to reach ultimate attunement and harmony with God, was for
    each man to develop to the point where they are purely the part of 
    themselves which is the Son of God, Christ, *which he was the pure
    incarnation of*.  That's *all*, man, he wasn't saying that he himself
    should be made a figurehead of some grand, ornate religion.  Remember
    the end of Johnathon Livingston Seagull?
    
    >We each have our own path to find, and I believe that it's useless
    >to tell others what path to take.
    
    But what if one is being instructed by something one believes to
    be God, to do this?  I know all the horror stories that come to mind
    when we think of misguided religious fanatics claiming God told
    them to do this or that.  I think the tone and manner that they
    come across in, as opposed to the tone and manner of Christ,
    Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, etc., is sufficient for us to distinguish
    who is following the instructions of the Big Guy, and who is out
    to *use* the holy name of God, to justify their own selfish and
    hung-up actions.
    
    I haven't tried to *tell* others, simply plant a seed in their mind
    and let them do with it what they will.
    
    >I believe that when one has become enlightened, one realizes that
    >we all get "saved" sooner or later, and we each are responsible
    >for our own salvation.
    
    Hear, hear.  Now tell that to the Church Lady.
                               
    DW

    
    RE: .83, regarding Jesus's ego...
    
    I personally feel that Jesus's ego did NOT get in the way.  You
    have to keep in mind that Jesus never wrote down anything himself
    that we are aware of.  It was the apostles' INTERPRETATION of what
    Jesus said that had been written down.  It was the apostles' CONCEPT
    of what Jesus was that had been written down.
    
    Linda

re: .84

�    I haven't tried to *tell* others, simply plant a seed in their mind
�    and let them do with it what they will.

re: .82
    
�    I have gotten absolutely *nowhere* in RELIGION trying to pass on
�    the idea in .16 of this topic, which is the real message that
�    Christianity taught in its pristine form, before the onus was shifted
�    to the *man* Jesus rather than the *Christ* doctrine that he taught.
    

Well, plant all the seeds you like, but don't get annoyed (which is how I
read .82) when others ignore you.  Perhaps others are told something 
different by god.


And by the way, we're not talking about astrophysics here; I believe the
topic is spiritual truth, and your spritual truth is no more or less
"true" than is mine or that of anyone else. 

To me, your tone (from .82, above) indicates that you think you have 
found _the_ truth and are impatient because others don't fall into 
line and believe _your_ way. I find that attitude just as intolerant 
as any other.


Peace/bruce
    

    I didn't mean to come off that way, Bruce, and I sure don't mean
    to be intolerant.
    
    All I was really asking for over there was an acknowlegement that
    my interpretation of Christianity was at least a valid sect, or
    denomination.  I didn't get the feeling that anyone was ready to
    give credence to anything but the church's version (i.e. faith in
    Jesus the man was the means to salvation), and yes, I was a bit
    annoyed not to be at least granted that.  What did I expect, to
    peal back 2000 years of theology with a few VAXnotes? I guess I
    got what I deserved.
    
    The impression I left you with was not the one I desired to leave.
    My apologies.
    
    DW

    Re.-1 (Doug)
    
    >I didn't get the feeling that anyone was ready to give credence
    >to anything but the church's version.....
    
    Doug,
    
    Please give the members of DEJAVU a bit more credit than this.
    
    I think if you would try to drop this (relatively false) assumption, 
    you would find a free environment in which to state your personal
    opinion.   Like Bruce, sometimes I don't agree with what you write
    and sometimes I don't even disagree with what you write. Sometimes
    I neither agree nor disagree, and it is at such times where I just 
    'let it be where it's at'.  I suspect that there are a lot of people
    here who fall into the last category.
    
    Whether you are from the liberal or conservative camp, if you believe
    that you hold *the only truth*, you will always come across as being 
    intolerant of the other position.  This is not good at all.
    
    My favorite saying is: "Those who claim to know and understand
    everything are a hinderance and an annoyance to those who really
    do."   This goes for you, me and everyone if and when we lapse into
    'preaching mode'. 
    
    A true community is wholly inclusive....of *everyone and every opinion*.
    Anything less than an inclusive community is dangerous in the world 
    today where true community is so desperately needed.
    
    Cindy     

    Howdy, it's me again.
    
    Again, to address .86 (Bruce)
    
    >And by the way, we're not talking about astrophysics here; I believe
    >the topic is spiritual truth, and your spiritual truth is nor more
    >or less "true" than is mine or that of anyone else.
    
    On the surface, I see your point and wholeheartedly agree with it.
    However, I have to qualify this by saying that I believe there are
    certain aspects of spirituality that are common to all of us, by
    virtue of us being human, certain spiritual traits and attributes
    that we, as Earth humans, share.  These things, whether or not I
    am the one communicating them, are indeed true, and if there is
    someone who is communicating them, then their spiritual truth, *is*
    more "true" than the truth of the one who is not speaking of these
    common spiritual attributes, but is speaking of their own personal
    experiences.  These personal experiences are *true* to him, not
    necessarily for everyone else.  The common human spiritual attributes
    are true for everyone, in my opinion.
    
    >I find that attitude just as intolerant as any other.
    
    Gee, Bruce, am I really as bad as Constance and Jimmy?  If I am
    I'm surprised you've put up with me for this long.
    
    RE: .88  (Cindy)
    
    >Please give the members of DEJAVU a bit more credit than this.
    
    Actually, I wasn't talking about the members of DEJAVU.
    
    >Whether you are from the liberal or conservative camp, if you believe
    >that you hold *the only truth*, you will always come across as
    >being intolerant of the other position.  This is not good at all.
    
    I guess the problem we're encountering is twofold:
    
    1. Do you believe in God, and if so, do you believe that what comes
       out of His mouth is, at the core, *the only truth*?  (Keeping
       in mind that, if you believe above assumption, all other possible 
       sources of truth were created by Him anyway), 
    
    2. Do you believe that He chooses people to work through, prophets,
       and that what comes out of their mouths is the Word of God, and
       consequently is truth also?  
       
       BTW, I'm certainly not implying that I am one of these people, or 
       that I have a monopoly on truth, or that I'm telling people to
       accept my words here as *their* truth...I'm certainly not, and I 
       apologise if I've come off that way.  I've simply discovered
       something that has cleared up a lot of questions I had in my mind 
       about the religion I was raised with, and I'd like to share this 
       discovery with the folks here.
       
       Take it or leave it, but the choice is yours and yours alone,
       and I'm certainly not in a position to tell you what to believe.
    
    Anyways, if you don't buy those two assumptions, then you're not
    going to believe in a universal truth, nor that this truth can be
    revealed to us through the words of a prophet.  I happen to believe
    these things, hence, my perspective.
    
    The only thing that I was annoyed with *in RELIGION* was that no-one
    seemed willing to grant me the right to call myself "Christian"
    with my interpretation of what it means to be a Christian.  I wasn't
    annoyed that they didn't drop all their beliefs and change over
    to mine, but that they didn't strike me as willing to legitimatize
    my interpretation as a valid Christian viewpoint.  
    
    But, the conversation was never specifically about this, and I never
    formally asked for such legitimatization...it was more or less a
    feeling I got.
    
    Have I cleared anything up?  Have I communicated my desire to not
    come off as self-righteous and intolerant?  If not, what can I do
    to be less borderline offensive and still get my point across, keeping
    in mind that I believe the assumptions I listed above?  The last
    thing I want to do is alienate anyone from Christianity any more
    than they already may be.
    
    Peace,
    Doug             

          <<< REGENT::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Religion Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 145.75             The (New) Meaning of Christianity               75 of 75
GLDOA::WETHERINGTON                                  10 lines  27-MAY-1988 17:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "It's not easy pursuing Faith when the Church upon whose lap you
    learned of God drops you to the floor.  It's difficult talking about
    God in the presence of people who have been scourged by the alleged
    representatives of God on earth.  I am as angry as anyone about
    the persecution I and others have felt at the hands of religious
    institutions, but my Church is not my God and my God need not pay
    for its sins."
    
    Brian McNaught
    

    
    Doug,
    
    If it's any consolation to you, there are *lots* of people in the
    CHRISTIAN conference who have outright stated that they don't believe
    I'm a *true believing Christian* and are convinced that I'm going
    to burn in Hell for my 'New Age' beliefs (along with Mikie and a
    few others here (;^)). 
    
    The issue then becomes whether I really care what they think or
    not.  The answer is 'no'.  There was a time when it initially 
    bothered me, but I'm way past that now. I suspect that for you 
    in RELIGION that the answer is still 'yes'.  Perhaps then this 
    is the real problem (or situation)?  
                             
    Cindy
                                         

re:    < Note 592.89 by GLDOA::WETHERINGTON >
                             -< Olive branches... >-

    
�        However, I have to qualify this by saying that I believe there are
�    certain aspects of spirituality that are common to all of us, by
�    virtue of us being human, certain spiritual traits and attributes
�    that we, as Earth humans, share.  These things, whether or not I
�    am the one communicating them, are indeed true, and if there is
�    someone who is communicating them, then their spiritual truth, *is*
�    more "true" than the truth of the one who is not speaking of these
�    common spiritual attributes, but is speaking of their own personal
�    experiences.  These personal experiences are *true* to him, not
�    necessarily for everyone else.  The common human spiritual attributes
�    are true for everyone, in my opinion.
    
    I don't think you have any knowledge of what is common experience;
    you experience your own, you can only surmise about the rest of us.
    I think you are justified in speaking only of your own experience;
    please don't tell me what mine should be like.
�
�      Gee, Bruce, am I really as bad as Constance and Jimmy?
    
    I think only you can answer that one.
    
�
�        2. Do you believe that He chooses people to work through, prophets,
�       and that what comes out of their mouths is the Word of God, and
�       consequently is truth also?  
    
    Prophets speak of their own personal experience of god. Because
    I have no way of knowing whether their experience is "genuine,"
    I think I'll rely on my own experience, thank you  ("shouldn't
    let other people get your kicks for you..." zimmerman said that).
    
    
    Doug, I really feel that you are proselyting.  I infer from your notes
    that you think that [your experience of] Christianity is   _THE WAY_.
    I don't think that DEJAVU is the place to discuss whether you
    qualify as a Christian or not. 

    
    peace/bruce

    Re: .91
    
    What happened to .91?
    
    Re: .92
    
    You definitely have a point, Cindy, and one that I need to think
    about.  Why do I need other people to recognize and respect the
    spiritual path I've chosen for myself?  Why did I feel this need?
    I will give this consideration.  In the meantime, I think your attitude
    makes a lot more sense, and I'd like to try and emulate it.
    
    Re: .93
    
    >Doug, I reelly feel that you are proselytizing.
    
    Maybe I am.  If you had found something that had helped you to
    understand something about yourself, that had helped you understand
    your own spirituality, that had enabled you to set a goal to strive
    for, a goal that you think would bring peace to you and other people,
    wouldn't you at least bring it up in an open discussion?  I'm not
    telling anyone they have to follow it, or that they're wrong if
    they don't, I'm just offering it for your perusal.  
    
    >I infer from your notes that you think that [your experience of]
    >Christianity is _THE WAY_. 
    
    Well, yes, I do.  But it's not offered in the spirit of "you have
    to be this way also", but rather, "here, think about this".  No-one
    here has critisized Shirley MacLaine for offering her perspective
    of what she's discovered about her own spirituality.  Well, I'm
    offering this in the same spirit.  Would you be critisizing it if
    it were any other perspective than a Christian one?  
    
    >I don't think that DEJAVU is the place to discuss whether you qualify
    >as a Christian or not.
    
    Neither do I.  That's not what I'm doing, either, and has not been
    the main point of, or the reason of, my notes here.  That point
    came up incidentally as part of the discussion.  My purpose here
    has been to offer a thought.  As far as I'm concerned I've done
    that and I'm ready to hush up on this topic.  
    
    DEJAVU happens to be the place that I will get the least resistance,
    by putting my idea of what Christianity means.  As someone said
    before, I believe Jesus was adept at many of the things we discuss
    here, and had answers to a lot of the questions that we ask here,
    thus as long as I'm not evangelizing, which I don't think I'm doing, I think
    this discussion has a place here.  If the moderators disagree with
    me I'm sure they will not hesitate to remove my notes.
    
    If I were to have put this forth in the CHRISTIAN conference, I
    don't need to tell you the reaction I would have gotten.  In RELIGION,
    I get the feeling that I'm politely being told that "we've already
    got our conception of what Christianity is, and we don't want to
    hear anything else".  I had hoped that in DEJAVU, I would be able
    to put forth the idea, and it would be met with the same openness,
    and given the same chance, as all the other beliefs are given here.
    Now I'm being asked to not discuss it here.  
    
    What would you have me do?  Neither of the three conferences are
    tolerant of what I would have to say, each for their own reasons.
    DEJAVU happens to be the least resistant.  I am grateful for that.
    
    I've said all that I was wanting to communicate, and I'm happy that
    I've accomplished all that I want to.  In other words, if my entries
    on this subject bothered you, relax, I'm finished. If this discussion 
    doesn't belong here, the moderators are going to have to move it, 
    because I've come here after being theologically rejected everywhere else
    and I've no other place to go.
                                                                   
    Doug

    This is an extract from a book, an extract that someone entered
    into another conference, that someone sent me privately.  I have
    stripped off the mail header and the comments from the person who
    entered it in the other conference, thus, the only text here is
    from the original book.
    
    This passage re-iterates the theory of the meaning of Christianity
    that I entered in reply .16 to this topic, which I maintain, was
    the original doctrine taught by Christ during his first ministry
    here, before the doctrine was distorted and shifted by the church
    to put the emphasis on the personality Jesus Christ, rather than
    on the Christ spirit within man that Jesus was the pure incarnation
    of (thereby setting themselves up as intermediaries between man
    and God and setting up a good thing that organized religion has
    enjoyed ever since).
    
    This is being entered in DEJAVU because it is only open minds that
    can absorb knowledge.  This entry would be attacked and perhaps even 
    deleted, if I were to enter it into the IOSG::CHRISTIAN conference; 
    in DEJAVU I feel there might be fertile ground for the knowledge, or
    at least, open minds.  Many of the folks that are into the New Age,
    look into their own minds and intuition for confirmation of knowledge, 
    rather than checking the Bible for confirmation of a new idea or 
    spiritual concept. It is with this hope that I offer this extract for
    you.  I don't intend to write anything else unless I need to come back 
    and defend the fact that it was entered into DEJAVU, or unless anyone
    asks a question or wishes to discuss the content of the extract. 
    
    Doug
    
    *********************************************************************
    From "The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East"
    
    by Baird T. Spaulding
    =====================================================================
    (Book 1, pg 118)
    
    The meal had not progressed far when our Chief asked the lady what
    she considered the greatest attribute of God. Without a moment's
    hesitation she answered, "Love." Then she went on to say, "The Tree
    of Life is located in the midst of the paradise of God, the very
    depth of our own soul, and the rich, abundant fruit that grows and
    ripens to the fullest perfection, the most perfect and life-giving,
    is Love. Love has been defined by those who perceive its true character
    as the greatest thing in the world. I might add that it is the greatest
    healing force in the world. Love never fails to meet every demand
    of the human heart. The Divine Principle of Love may be used to
    eliminate every sorrow, every infirmity, every harsh condition,
    and every lack that harasses humanity. With the right understanding
    and use of the subtle and illuminable influence of love, the world
    may be healed of its wounds and the sweet mantle of its heavenly
    compassion may cover all inharmony, all ignorance, and all mistakes
    of mankind.
    
    With wings outstretched, Love searches out the arid spots of the
    human heart, the waste places of life, and with seeming magic touch
    redeems humanity and transforms the world. Love is God, eternal,
    limitless, changeless, going beyond all vision into infinitude.
    The end we can only envision. Love fulfills the law of its own,
    consummates its perfect work, and reveals the Christ within the
    soul of man. Love is ever seeking an inlet whereby it may flow forth
    into the soul of man and puor itself out as all good to him. If
    it is not disturbed by man's perversity and discordant thinking,
    God's eternal, changeless current of love flows ever onward, carrying
    before it, into the great universal sea of forgetfulness, every
    appearance of inharmony or ugliness which disturbs the peace of
    man. Love is the perfect fruit of the Spirit; it goes forth, binding
    up the wounds of humanity, drawing nations into closer harmony,
    and bringing peace and prosperity to the world. It is the very pulse
    of the world, the heartbeat of the universe. Humanity must be charged
    with this current of love from the great Omnipresent Life if it
    would do the works of Jesus.
    
    "Does life press heavily upon you? Do you need courage and strength
    to meet the problems that confront you? Are you sick or afraid?
    If so, lift your heart and pray to Him who leads the way. The
    imperishable love of God enfolds you. You need not fear. Did He
    not say, 'Before they call I will answer and while they are yet
    speaking I will hear'? Approach this throne of grace boldly, not
    as you have thought of beseeching and groveling attitude, but with
    the prayer of understanding faith, knowing that the help you stand
    in need of is already yours. Never doubt. Do more - ask. Claim your
    birthright as the child of the living God, as Jesus did. Know that
    in the Invisible, Universal Substance, in which we all live and
    move and have our being, is every good and perfect thing that man
    can desire, waiting to be drawn forth into visible form or
    manifestation. Read in your own great Book what Paul says of love
    in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13, using the word, 'love,' instead of
    charity, as was intended.
    
    "Consider Solomon, when in the night of his experience he allowed
    his radiant love nature to expand to that universal plane of
    consciousness where he asked to be of service and not for self.
    This brought to him wealth untold and added to this was life and
    honor beyond his power to ask. He recognized the wisdom of Love
    and Love released its boundless wealth upon him. 'Silver was counted
    as naught in the days of Solomon.' Even the drinking vessels of
    this mighty king of love were of pure gold.
    
    "To love is to release God's unlimited storehouse of golden treasure.
    If we can love we cannot help giving, and to give is to gain, and
    the law of love is fulfilled. Then, by giving, we set in operation
    the unfailing law of measure for measure. With no thought of receiving,
    it is impossible to avoid receiving, for the abundance you have
    given is returned to you in fulfillment of the law, 'Give and it
    shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together,
    and running over, shall men give unto your bosom. For with the same
    measure that you mete, withal, it shall be measured to you again.'
    
    "How well we realize that in the great heart of humanity there is
    a deep homesickness which never can be satisfied with anything less
    than a clear consciousness or understanding of God, our Father.
    We recognize this hunger as hearts cry after God. There is nothing
    the human soul so longs for as to know God, 'Whom to know aright
    is life eternal." We see people ever shifting from one thing to
    another, hoping they will find satisfaction or rest in some
    accomplishment or in possession of some limited, mortal desire.
    We see them pursuing and gaining these things only to find themselves
    still unsatisfied. Some fancy they want houses and lands; some great
    wealth; and some, great learning. We are privileged to know that
    man has all these things within himself. Jesus, the Great Master,
    attempted to have all see this. How we do love Him! He stands out
    so beatuifully triumphant because of His attainments. We love all
    who have reached the heights or high places in consiousness that
    Jesus has. We not only love them for their attainments but because
    of what they really are.
    
    Jesus never allowed Himself to dwell in the external after His
    illumination. He always kept His thoughts as the central part of
    His being, which is the Christ. In Jesus, the Christ, or Central
    Spark which is God in us all, living in everyone today, was drawn
    forth to show itself perfectly ruling the material body, or flesh
    man. It is in this way that He did all His mighty works, not because
    He was in some way different from you. He had no greater power than
    all have today. He was not in some way a Son of God and we only
    servants of God. He did these works because this same Divine Spark,
    which the Father has implanted in every child born, was fanned into
    a brighter flame by His own efforts in holding Himself in conscious
    communion with God Himself, the source of all Life, Love and Power.
    
    "Jesus was a man the same as all men are today. He suffered, was
    tempted and tried, just as you suffer because of temptation and
    trials. We know that during His residence on earth in the visible
    body Jesus spent hours of every day alone with God and we know that,
    in His early manhood, He went through just what we have gone through
    and what you are going through today. We know that every man must
    overcome the mortal, the fleshly desires, the doubts and fears,
    until he comes to the perfect consciousness or recognition of the
    indwelling Presence, this 'Father in me,' to whom Jesus ascribed
    the credit of all His mighty works. He had to learn as we had to
    learn and as you are learning today. He was obliged to try over
    and over again as you are doing. He was obliged to hold fast as
    you are obliged to hold fast today, even with clenched fist and
    set teeth and saying, 'I will succeed, I do know the Christ lives
    within me." We recognize that is was the Christ within which made
    Jesus what He was, and is today, and that the same attainments are
    for all. In all this we would in no way detract from Jesus for we
    love Him with a love unspeakable. We know He went through the perfect
    crucifixion of self that He might lead His people to God; that He
    might show them the way out of sin, sickness, and trouble, that
    they might manifest the Father in them; that He might teach all
    that the same Father lives in all and loves all. None that follow
    Jesus' life and teaching closely can help but love Him. 
                 
    "God is in the midst of you, child of infinite, immortal Spirit.
    There is naught to make you tremble or despair, naught to make you
    fear. From the bosom of the Father you came; the breath of Almighty
    God created you a living soul. 'Before Abraham was, you were. Beloved
    now are we Sons of God, joint heirs with Christ.' The same power
    is in you that is in Jesus. This is called the mantle of the Spirit.
    With the right concept of this, it is found that there is no decay,
    no disease, no accident, no death, nothing that can take your life
    in any way. You can draw this mantle so closely around you that
    nothing can penetrate it, nothing can touch you. All the destructive
    agencies or forces ever created by man may be directed at you; yet
    you will come forth unharmed. If by any chance the outer form should
    be destroyed, it would immediately return as spiritual in the same
    form. This is an armor better than any armor plate ever devised
    by man and you can use it at all times without money and without
    price. You can stand forth as you are, the child of the living God.
    
    "Jesus recognized this, and He could have saved Himself the Calvary
    experience. Had He wished to use His power, His enemies could not
    have touched Him. He saw there was a great spiritual change taking
    place in His body and saw that, if this was brought about among
    those He know and loved, without some outward change, a great many
    would not recognize the spiritual import but would still cling to
    the personal. He knew that He had the power to overcome death and
    He wished to show those that He loved that they had the same power;
    so He chose the Calvary way, the way they could see; and seeing,
    they would believe. He also wished to show that He had so perfected
    His body that, should His enemies take His life (as they looked
    upon life) and place His body in the tomb and roll a great stone
    thereon (the last limitation that man could put upon it), still
    He, the true Self, could roll away the stone and raise His real
    or spiritual body above all mortal limitations. Jesus could have
    taken His body and disappeared but He chose to show that, when the
    spiritual body is developed, no material accident or condition can
    destroy it, not even the taking of the life by another.
    
    After the Crucifixion and Ascension His body was so highly developed
    spiritually that Jesus was obliged to raise the consciousness of
    those about Him to a plane where they were able to see Him, just
    as we are obliged to raise the consciousness of nearly all those
    about us tonight. When the women came to the tomb that morning and
    found the stone rolled away and the grave clothes lying by, even
    they did not know Him until He had raised their consciousness to
    the plane where they could behold Him. Then later, when two were
    on the road to Emmaus, Jesus drew near and conversed with them,
    yet they knew Him not until He broke bread with them. At that time
    their consciousness was raised to the plane where they could behold
    Him. Just so, when He appeared to others, He even walked and talked
    with them, yet they did not recognize Him because their consciousness
    was not functioning on the plane where they could see Him. Then
    some perceived the spiritual import of actuality. They saw the deep
    meaning underlying it all. They knew. Yet with all this a great
    many did not believe Him because they had not yet attained a plane
    in consciousness where they could see or perceive the underlying
    spiritual meaning.
                      
    Here the talk dropped for a moment and one of our party asked about
    the Relativity of Matter. She went on to say, "The real world is
    Substance, the Relativity of Substance. Let us consider for a moment
    the five kingdoms: the mineral, the vegetable, the animal, the man
    and the God kingdoms. We will begin in the mineral, the lowest.
    We find every particle of the mineral kingdom expressing the one
    life, the life of God. The disintegration or division of the particles
    of the mineral, combined with elements or air and water, has formed
    soil, every particle still retaining the original life, the life
    of God. This gives place to the vegetable kingdom, the next higher
    expression of God to come forth. Then the vegetable, every part
    of which contains this one life, has taken up a part of this life
    from the mineral, has increased and multiplied it, and is expressing
    it one step higher toward the God kingdom. This gives place to the
    animal, the next higher expression of God. Then the animal, every
    part of which contains the one life, has taken up a part of this
    life from the vegetable, has increased and multiplied it, and is
    expressing one step higher toward the God kingdom. This gives place
    to the man kingdom, the next higher expression of God. Then the
    man kingdom, every part of which contains the one life, has taken
    up a part of this one life from the animal kingdom and, in expressing
    it one step higher, gives place to the God kingdom, the highest
    expression through man. When man has attained this kingdom, he
    recognizes that all have come forth from the one Source, that all
    contain the one life, the life of God, and he has gained the mastery
    over all material things. But we need not pause here, for all is
    progression. When he arrives here he will find there are new worlds
    still to conquer. Now we have come to the place where we recognize
    that all space or magnitude contains one life, the life of God,
    that all is from the one Source and Substance. Then all substance
    becomes relative or related, does it not?"

    
    Christianity is not a life insurance policy from which one benefits
    only by dying.
    
    Those who say they believe in Christianity and those who practice it
    are not always the same people.
    
    Christianity requires the participants to come down out of the 
    grandstand and onto the playing field.
    
    The better we understand Christianity, the less satisfied we are
    with our practice of it.
    
                                  RM