Possession and Overshadowing

2004-12-2 17:39:00

John C:

My question is how come DK seemed to know more specifics about this in 1948 than he did in 1957?

Alice A. Bailey died Dec 15, 1949 so there was no new information given out in the Fifties. Some of the materials were published after her death and the publishing and copyright dates do not necessarily reflect the dates the material was written. The last transmissions were in 1949. Concerning this DK wrote:

"This is the last Wesak Message which I intend to give you. In 1949, I shall have completed thirty years of carefully planned and meticulously outlined work; this work I undertook under cyclic law (related to the periodical giving out of the esoteric teaching) in order to aid humanity and the work of the Hierarchy, to both of which I happen to belong."

John C:

2. The so-called Overshadowing of Christ.

With some Keys members, it seems that a belief in this doctrine is almost a litmus test of orthodox belief. I, myself, have never felt good about the doctrine as I understood it. I have prayed and reflected about this a great deal, and I still cannot support it in the form which it has been presented to me.

Anyway, I have come across passages in DK where it says Jesus and the Christ shared the same physical body and others where Jesus vacated his body to the Christ could use it...

So, when you say that you believe DK when he says that Jesus was overshadowed by the Christ, which version do you believe? I can go along with the idea above of "cooperation" or "identical response" because it harmonizes with what was revealed to me about this subject, but I cannot go along the idea of the Christ "divinely possessing" Jesus any more than I can go along with the idea of God "divinely raping" Mary.

I believe I've covered this in some detail, but I'll try and clarify.

First, the Brotherhood of Light do not ever use force as in the idea of rape. The only force they use is the attractive power of love, light and truth as a carrot to entice us to cooperate.

Any part that Mary played in the conception of Jesus was through her free will.

Divine possession is done through the free will reception of the disciple whereas possession by the Dark Brothers is often done through force.

Divine possession is the occupation of two entities in one body. I believe that this was the case with Jesus as evidenced in some of the words he spoke - "The Father is IN me etc."

Also the scripture:

"If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I WILL COME INTO HIM, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev. 3:20-21.

Here, Jesus is talking about the divine possession where the entity comes "into him," even as happened between the Father and Jesus.

Perhaps you have a wrong idea of what divine possession is. It does not involve any loss of free will and the person who owns the body still has stewardship over it. Identical response is involved and a merging of the minds as if the two are one soul, yet still individual in their own right.

Did Jesus step aside, or was there divine possession? Both are technically correct. Normally, the two were in the same body with Jesus receiving from the Christ and speaking the thoughts in his own language. He spoke of this as follows:

"The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: But THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOTH THE WORKS." John 14:10

Then there were other times that the Master was speaking or doing great works when he stepped aside for a short time and let the Christ speak and act on his own. Even here there was not a complete vacating of the body, but more of a turning over the podium to an honored speaker. They were both always present in consciousness while they worked together.

Have you ever spoke under great inspiration and it seemed that the words coming out were not even spoken by you. It was something like this when Jesus stepped aside.

John C:

I am sorry to have to disagree with so many people, but I cannot go along with the doctrine of "divine possession", which phrase occurs nowhere in all the writings of DK, and which doctrine, in the estimation of "one who should know", totally undermines the power and efficacy of the atonement of Christ.

I coined this phrase. DK uses the term overshadowing, but describes several types of it. The divine possession is the most intense of the overshadowings and I use the term divine possession to differentiate.

Neither divine possession or the overshadowing principle is out of harmony with the true teachings on the atonement.

John C:

Perhaps, in order to preserve harmony, we can write if off to a communication misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding is not between you and I, but between all of us and DK, who seems to be saying three different things in three different places.

This is why it is always important to understand the principles involved. This enables one to either harmonize the apparent contradictions or see flaws in the presentation.

All disciples eventually receive the divine possession as promised in Rev 3:10 and when this occurs in his (or her) life then he will know for sure about the principle.

No problem with anyone asking questions or disagreeing on this or anything else. We have to see the differences before we can see at all.

The world is so dreadfully managed, one hardly knows to whom to complain. Ronald Firbank