Keys Writings 2015, Part 5

This entry is part 6 of 13 in the series 2015B

2015B

March 1, 2015

Glamours

Clay wants us to examine the shadow side of ourselves. By this he seems to mean that we humans have numerous subtle flaws below the surface that we just kind of bury and do not want to bring in the daylight and examine.

He points out that even something that we may think is a virtue about ourselves could hide a flaw that we do not want to face. For instance we may take too much pride or develop an air of superiority about helping people, donating to charity, being sexually pure, being a good provider etc.

Such flaws do exist and they are a big hindrance to progression. DK calls them glamors. A glamour is basically a deception from the ego that gives us an inflated feeling of self importance.

A common example of a glamour that seems to be a virtue is a false humility. This is apparent when the guy may pretend to not be very good at a certain activity, but in reality he really is. Then when he performs he gets extra praise. In the end his humility was contrived to get extra strokes for his ego.

There are three deceptive hurtles the seeker must master on the path to liberation. The first is maya caused by the pull and attraction of matter itself. This would include the problems generated from the sex attraction,

The second has its seeds in the astral/emotional nature and this is where glamours originate.

The third are illusions and these have their seeds in the mind. These are the most difficult to discover because one can be free of ego problems, be fully intent on serving mankind, but tricked into a harmful course of action because of wrong foundation beliefs that seem to be good.

All three have their difficulties. Before one can see clearly to dispel illusion he must discover and master glamours. Seeing them in ourselves is difficult, but seeing them in others is quite easy. The trouble is that many we may see in others may be illusion or related to a glamour in the observer because we tend to judge others by how we ourselves think.

An associate may be acting in purity of heart but a flawed observer may judging him as only wanting his ego stroked.

We are the ones we need to concentrate on, not our neighbor. We have the power to change ourselves.

DK in the Bailey writings lists quite a few glamours.

Here are some.

The glamour of destiny. This is a glamour which indicates to the one whom it controls that he has important work to do and that he must speak and work as destined. This feeds a pride which has no foundation in fact.
The glamour of aspiration. Those thus conditioned are completely satisfied and pre-occupied with their aspiration towards the light and rest back upon the fact that they are aspirants. Such people need to move onward on to the Path of Discipleship and cease their preoccupation and satisfaction with their spiritual ambitions and goals.
The glamour of self-assurance or of what might be called the astral principles of the disciple. This is the belief, in plain language, that the disciple regards that his point of view is entirely right. This again feeds pride and tends to make the disciple believe himself to be an authority and infallible. It is the background of the theologian.
The glamour of duty. This leads to an over-emphasis of the sense of responsibility, producing lost motion and the emphasis of the non-essential.
The glamour of environing conditions, leading frequently to a sense of frustration, or of futility or of importance.
The glamour of the mind and of its efficiency and its capacity to deal with any or every problem. This leads inevitably to isolation and loneliness.
The glamour of devotion, leading to an undue stimulation of the astral body. The man or woman thus glamoured sees only one idea, one person, one authority and one aspect of truth. It feeds fanaticism and spiritual pride.
The glamour of desire with its reflex action upon the physical body. This leads to a constant condition of fighting and of turmoil. It negates all peace and fruitful work and must some day be brought to an end.
The glamour of personal ambition.

Then he lists glamours associated with the seven rays.

RAY I.

The glamour of physical strength.

The glamour of personal magnetism.

The glamour of self-centredness and personal potency.

The glamour of “the one at the centre.”

The glamour of selfish personal ambition.

The glamour of rulership, of dictatorship and of wide control.

The glamour of the Messiah complex in the field of politics.

The glamour of selfish destiny, of the divine right of kings personally exacted.

The glamour of destruction.

The glamour of isolation, of aloneness, of aloofness.

The glamour of the superimposed willupon others and upon groups.

RAY II.

The glamour of the love of being loved.

The glamour of popularity.

The glamour of personal wisdom.

The glamour of selfish responsibility.

The glamour of too complete an understanding, which negates right action.

The glamour of self-pity, a basic glamour of this ray.

The glamour of the Messiah complex, in the world of religion and world need.

The glamour of fear, based on undue sensitivity.

The glamour of self-sacrifice.

The glamour of selfish unselfishness.

The glamour of self-satisfaction.

The glamour of selfish service.

RAY III.

The glamour of being busy.

The glamour of cooperation with the Plan in an individual and not a group way.

The glamour of active scheming.

The glamour of creative work without true motive.

The glamour of good intentions, which are basically selfish.

The glamour of “the spider at the centre.”

The glamour of “God in the machine.”

The glamour of devious and continuous manipulation.

The glamour of self-importance, from the standpoint of knowing, of efficiency.

RAY IV.

The glamour of harmony, aiming at personal comfort and satisfaction.

The glamour of war.

The glamour of conflict, with the objective of imposing righteousness and peace.

The glamour of vague artistic perception.

The glamour of psychic perception instead of intuition.

The glamour of musical perception.

The glamour of the pairs of opposites, in the higher sense.

RAY V.

The glamour of materiality, or over-emphasis of form.

The glamour of the intellect.

The glamour of knowledge and of definition.

The glamour of assurance, based on a narrow point of view.

The glamour of the form which hides reality.

The glamour of organisation.

The glamour of the outer, which hides the inner.

RAY VI.

The glamour of devotion.

The glamour of adherence to forms and persons.

The glamour of idealism.

The glamour of loyalties, of creeds.

The glamour of emotional response.

The glamour of sentimentality.

The glamour of interference.

The glamour of the lower pairs of opposites.

The glamour of World Saviours and Teachers.

The glamour of the narrow vision.

The glamour of fanaticism.

RAY VII.

The glamour of magical work.

The glamour of the relation of the opposites.

The glamour of the subterranean powers.

The glamour of that which brings together.

The glamour of the physical body.

The glamour of the mysterious and the secret.

The glamour of sex magic.

The glamour of the emerging manifested forces.

March 3, 2015

Baptism for the Dead

Ken:

This thread is about “baptism ‘for’ the dead,” and I was hoping that there was someone who could share their precious understanding of how this activity validates the resurrection. How does “baptism ‘for’ the dead” prove the resurrection? And doesn’t “baptism ‘for’ the dead” disprove reincarnation IF it is referring to baptizing yourself for your dead friends and relatives? I mean, why else “baptize ‘for’ the dead,” if the dead reincarnate, for THEN they can baptize for themselves, that is, if this is what Paul was referring to?

I haven’t been following this thread that close but since it is continuing I will comment.

First let us quote the one scriptural reference to this doctrine:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? I Cor 15:29

So what is the answer to Paul’s question? Why baptize for the dead if there is no resurrection. He may have well as asked “why baptize for the living or the dead if there is no resurrection?”

Why?

Because baptism is a symbol of rebirth, or reincarnation, or the resurrection of KRISIS.

When you are submerged in water in the first stage of baptism you are symbolizing a future reentering the womb where the fetus is completely submerged in water. Then when you are lifted out of the water into the air you are symbolizing a reincarnated self where you will leave the womb of water and again enter into the air where you will take in the breath of life and start anew.

The symbology also carries over to the resurrection of life. On a higher level we are submerged in water or the astral/emotional world, the main source of corruption and error. Then, in the better resurrection we rise above this emotional prison and enter into the air (spirit) into eternal life.

So what is the advantage of baptizing the dead?

Many after death get trapped in the lower astral zones and are plagued with guilt caused by their actions. In some cases a proxy baptism for them can aid in releasing this guilt so they can reunite with their souls.

The Mormons believe that they need to go clear back to the time of Adam with this ceremony, but their founder said otherwise.

“A man may act as proxy for his own relatives; the ordinances of the Gospel which were laid out before the foundations of the world have thus been fulfilled by them, and we may be baptized for those whom we have much friendship for; but IT MUST FIRST BE REVEALED TO THE MAN OF GOD, LEST WE SHOULD RUN TOO FAR.” History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.17, p.366

The too far is most probably the “endless genealogies” (I Tim 1:4) that Paul told us to avoid.

In other words, if one receives a revelation of a troubled spirit that may be aided by this ceremony then there could be a benefit. If we attempt to baptize those who have been dead for over 100 years then chances are they are already experiencing the resurrection of KRISIS and are already reborn back into the world.

Normally this ordinance should be confined to friends and relatives of the living to speed their journey back to their Higher Self.

March 3, 2015

Translation Problems

Ken makes some more comments on this scripture:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? I Cor 15:29

He points out that the Greek verb here for baptized which is BAPTIZEIN can be translated as “washed” as the word was sometimes used in relation to ceremonial washings nor related to baptism. He also points out that the preposition “for’ comes from HYPER which can be translated as “over or beyond” rather than “for” meaning “in behalf of” in this verse.

He therefore, comes up with this translation:

“Else what shall they do which are washed (G907) over (G5228) the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then washed (G907) over (G5228) the dead?”

This translation makes no sense to me. As with many English words Greek words to can have more than one use and you have to look at the context to see the most obvious meaning.

In this context and the context of Paul’s writings as a whole it is obvious that Paul was referring to regular baptism rather than a mere ceremonial washing. The main evidence of this is that he linked it to the resurrection. He speaks of this symbolism in Romans 6:3-5

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Here and Col 2:12 he ties the symbolism of baptism by immersion to the resurrection.

It is also a historical fact that some early Christians did baptize on behalf of their dead. This gives added weight to the standard translation.

I checked about a dozen Bible translations and all, except one, gives the same meaning as the King James. The one exception is the Jehovah Witness translation which gives an odd rendering as follows:

Otherwise, what will they do who are being baptized for the purpose of being dead ones? If the dead ones are not to be raised up at all, why are they also being baptized for the purpose of being such?

This translation also does not make much sense to me.

William Barclay in his commentary discusses four possible interpretations but sums up his view as follows:

All these are lovely thoughts, but in the end we think that this phrase can refer to only one custom, which has quite correctly passed out of Church practice altogether. In the early Church there was vicarious baptism. If a person died who had intended to become a member of the Church and was actually under instruction, sometimes someone else underwent baptism for him. The custom sprang from a superstitious view of baptism, that, without it, a person was necessarily excluded from the bliss of heaven. It was to safeguard against this exclusion that sometimes people volunteered to be baptized literally on behalf of those who had died. Here Paul neither approves nor disapproves that practice. He merely asks if there can be any point in it if there is no resurrection and the dead never rise again.

As far as the method of baptism goes one would have to use immersion to complete the symbolism and this seems to be the method used by the early Christians.

Matthew 3:6, says they went “in the River Jordan;” and 3:16, says “he went up out of the water;”

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: John 3:23

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:38

I tend to trust the interpretation the best that fits with the Law of Correspondences.

***

Tweaking

It is interesting to make some posts on Allan’s forum that tweak his mindset, but for no apparent reason he has placed me and Clay on moderation so my better posts are not going through. I have thus pretty much withdrawn, but he did say something today to which I thought I would respond. His back and white stance on allegory is really unreasonable so I thought I would challenge him using his own beliefs. He has said in the past that the Homilies of Clementine represent the real words of Peter.

Allan:

What happens if Moses was not an actual person — but is a personification of the Laws of Consciousness within the seekers own mind and being?

It is interesting that you cite the Homilies of Clementine as being authentic yet they are not written as allegory but portray the prophets as real people. Moses in particular does Peter speak of as being a literal, not an allegorical person. Here are some examples.

when our God-loved nation was about to be ransomed from the oppression of the Egyptians, first diseases were produced by means of the rod turned into a serpent, which was given to Aaron, and then remedies were superinduced by the prayers of Moses.

For instance, Moses, on account of his piety, continued free from suffering all his life, and by his prayers he healed the Egyptians when they suffered on account of their sins

Why? Did not God convert the rod of Moses into an animal, making it a serpent, which He reconverted into a rod? And by means of this very converted rod he converted the water of the Nile into blood, which again he reconverted into water.

Peter even notes that Jesus saw Moses as a real person:

He (Jesus), knowing the true things of the law, said to the Sadducees, asking on what account Moses permitted to marry seven, ‘Moses gave you commandments according to your hard-heartedness; for from the beginning it was not so: for He who created man at first, made him male and female.’

March 5, 2015

The Homilies of Clementine

I haven’t spent much time in my life studying the early church fathers or apocryphal scriptures and gospels. Most of what I have read didn’t seem to contain much light. Besides a lot of the writings purporting to be scripture are most likely written by pretenders attempting to portray their version of reality or God’s will.

Now along comes Allan and states a claim that the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Nazirenes and the Homilies of Clementine are authentic. I realized a number of people had this view of the first two but never heard such a claim on the Homilies.

Anyway, I decided the read the Homilies to see what was there

The problem I see for Allan with them is that the apostle Peter doesn’t seem to agree with his doctrine that most of the scriptural characters were not real but merely the basis of allegorical stories. I gave him four quotes from Peter speaking about Moses as if he were a real person. To this he essentially replied that Peter was just pretending that Moses was real because that was what the people thought and he didn’t want to upset them. He points out that Jesus spoke plainly to those “in the house,” but not so much to those outside the house.

There are several problems with this idea. First Peter referred to Moses and other Bible Old Testament characters as real to those who were “in the house” or his inner core of disciples. If Moses and others were not real, and Jesus taught this to close disciples, then surely Peter and his close disciples wouldn’t speak to each other as if they were real. They wouldn’t need to dumb down things for those in the house.

The second problem is that Peter in the Homilies does indeed tell us that some of the scriptures are not historically true. So far so good for Allan. But then Peter destroys Allan’s core teaching that these were ingeniously written as allegory. Instead of calling them true allegories, he calls them lies in history and teaching and tells his disciples that the false prophet Simon uses these lies to deceive people.

Peter tells his “beloved Clement” that Moses (who Allan says did not exist) called seventy Elders to teach the people and these seventy “in order that they also might instruct such of the people as chose, after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.”

Then speaking of these false scriptures he says:

Simon, therefore, as I learn, intends to come into public, and to speak of those chapters against God that are added to the Scriptures, for the sake of temptation, that he may seduce as many wretched ones as he can from the love of God.

Clement asks Peter:

Wherefore tell me what are the falsehoods added to the Scriptures, and how it comes that they are really false. Then Peter answered: Even although you had not asked me, I should have gone on in order, and afforded you the exposition of these matters, as I promised. Learn, then, how the Scriptures misrepresent Him (God) in many respects, that you may know when you happen upon them.

Now Allan maintains that all the scriptures are true, but Peter disagrees as says that some are false and “misrepresent God.” Obviously, such scriptures would not be inspired allegory.

Then speaking of God Peter asks:

“For if He lies, then who speaks truth? … If He is not faithful to His promises, who shall be trusted”

This was the point I made earlier. It is important that we have teachers, angels and a God who does not lie to us, for a lie destroys faith.

Peter then explains that the scriptures which are lies are those which portrayed God as flawed or approving of sin or wrong doing. He tells us of certain scriptures he sees as being, not allegory, but just false. He says: “some of the Scriptures are true and some false.”

Then he goes on to name some of the false scriptures:

For, as I am persuaded, neither was Adam a transgressor, who was fashioned by the hands of God; nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world; nor did Abraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of a numerous posterity; nor did Jacob associate with four – of whom two were sisters – who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who intimated the coming of the presence of our Master; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest – he who set forth the law of God to all the world, and for his right judgment has been testified to as a faithful steward.

Notice that he ended his statement saying that Moses did “set forth the law of God to all the world.” Hus he affirms the reality of Moses.

Peter made fun of the Egyptians for taking simple truths about God and reducing then to complicated allegory. He said:

And with diverse judgments, one reverences one and another of the limbs of the same animal. Moreover, those of them who still have a breath of right reason, being ashamed of the manifest baseness, attempt to drive these things into allegories, wishing by another vagary to establish their deadly error. But we should confute the allegories, if we were there, the foolish passion for which has prevailed to such an extent as to constitute a great disease of the understanding. For it is not necessary to apply a plaster to a whole part of the body, but to a diseased part.

So rather than the scriptures being written as only allegorically true Peter in the Homilies says that some are true, but because of lies and corruption, others are false.

I quoted Peter as identifying some of the false scriptures, but he also noted many true ones. Here he is speaking of what he sees as true Bible characters:

Therefore from Adam, who was made after the image of God, there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the righteous Abel. Again, from him who amongst you is called Deucalion, two forms of spirits were sent forth, the impure namely, and the pure, first the black raven, and then the white dove. From Abraham also, the patriarchs of our nation, two firsts sprang – Ishmael first, then Isaac, who was blessed of God. And from Isaac himself, in like manner, there were again two – Esau the profane, and Jacob the pious. So, first in birth, as the first born in the world, was the high priest Aaron, then the lawgiver Moses.

He also spoke of three of Daniels friends who were thrown into the fiery furnace.

He spoke of Jesus, the Twelve Apostles and John the Baptist:

and as the Lord had twelve apostles, bearing the number of the twelve months of the sun, so also he, John, had thirty chief men, fulfilling the monthly reckoning of the moon,

He verified events and miracles in the Gospel account of Jesus such as

Jesus being tempted in the wilderness.

The miracle of calming the storm at sea.

Casting the demons into the swine,

Healing the man blind from birth.

To sum up Peter said:

He wrought many wonderful miracles and signs by His mere command, as having received power from God. For He made the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, raised up the bowed down, drove away every disease, put to flight every demon; and even scabbed lepers, by only looking on Him from a distance, were sent away cured by Him; and the dead being brought to Him, were raised; and there was nothing which He could not do.

It looks as if anyone who believes the real Peter is represented in the Homilies should accept the idea that most of he Bible characters were historically real including the devil himself. This was certainly not written as an allegory. Much of it may be fiction, but there is no clever allegory here.

***

Allan:

In the account of the Clementine Homilies, Peter warns his disciple Clement that Simon Magus has the ability to greatly deceive the Gentiles, because they fail to understand the vision of the authors in the composition of the scriptures — and the traditions that the authors used to compose the scriptures

That is not true at all. Simon’s problem (as well as those he deceived) was not that they didn’t see the “vision” of the authors, but that Simon used false scriptures, not created from any vision, but to deceive people away from the one God. There was no vision to be found in the deceptive scriptures. The only thing to be discovered was that they were false, according to Peter.

Allan

Thus, Peter warns that while the spiritual Jews will understand the deeper meaning — both the carnal Jews and the Gentiles will be greatly deceived and states:

Peter never talked about a deeper meaning of the deceptive scriptures. He talked as if they had little or no value.

Allan quoting:

“And with us, indeed, who have had handed down from our forefathers the worship of the God who made all things, and also the mystery of the books which are able to deceive, he will not prevail;

The deceptive books were the false ones and the only mystery that was kept from the people about them was that they were false. He wasn’t talking about some mysterious allegory. He made fun of those who used allegory to complicate teachings.

Allan:

but with those from amongst the Gentiles who have the polytheistic fancy bred in them, and who know not the falsehoods of the Scriptures, he will prevail much.

Peter talked about true scriptures and false scriptures. He was merely saying that the people did not know which was which. And he not only talked about false history, but also false teachings within the orthodox Old Testament. Peter gave no indication that something that presents false history and false teachings would be any use for allegorical interpretation.

Allan:

That the carnal Jews could not see beyond the symbols of the allegory,

The only talk in the Homilies about allegory is negative. Peter says those who misuse it: attempt to drive these things into allegories, wishing by another vagary to establish their deadly error.

Allan:

and their eyes and hearts were hardened so they could not comprehend the true meaning of the scriptures, is readily understood where Paul states that “their minds were blinded” by the Laws of God, “for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament… even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart” (2 Cor 3:14-15 KJV).

This says NOTHING about allegory being a problem for the people. A scripture can be written with no allegory and be plain in meaning and many will misunderstand it.

Allan

The 2nd century Church Father Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata explained: “…now that the Savior has taught the Apostles, the unwritten rendering of the written, this has been handed down also to us”. What Clement is stating is that it was Jesus who taught his disciples the inner spiritual meaning of the scriptures by opening their minds so their understanding could pierce through the garb of the allegorical enigmas that blind the perception of carnal men — i.e.,

He said nothing about all scripture being allegory or false history. And what did he do with these secret teachings?

Allan

“Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45 NIV).

This has happened to me.

Allan:

In the Homilies of his disciple Clement, the Apostle Peter portrays the scriptures as the “…books with the power to deceive”

You are distorting here. He is NOT conveying the scriptures in general this way, but the false ones used by Simon. Read the before and after.

Allan:

Further, it was stated by Peter in the Homilies of his disciple Clement that each person (who does not apply the Key of Knowledge) only sees in the scriptures, what they are predisposed to see and believe —

Finally you got something right and the way your group approaches the scriptures, the posts of Clay and myself, and other writings, in seeing what they want to see is evidence of this.

Allan:

And more important is the statement that those who attempt to read the scriptures from a differing mindset and objectives than the intended purpose of the original authors, will remain blind to “…the truth, but simply [see] what he wishes to find…” in the scriptures.

Right On! That is right on the money!

Allan:

The falsehood of the scriptures are the things that Moses Maimonides portrays as “…tales the reality of which seems impossible, a story which is repugnant to both reason and common sense, then be sure that the tale contains a profound allegory veiling a deeply mysterious truth; and the greater the absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit”.

And why are you quoting a twelfth century philosopher here who had less access to the truth of the scriptures than we do?

I’ve had people reject true accounts I have given from my life as being “repugnant to both reason and common sense.” So that measure is far from infallible.

Allan:

Allegories which Peter portrays as “…the mystery of the books which are able to deceive” — allegories that the Gentile mind

You keep repeating this quote over and over and it has nothing to do with allegory, but the false scriptures used by Simon.

Allan:

…believes literally because they accustomed to embracing bad and erroneous beliefs about God — i.e., “…because from their childhood their minds are accustomed to take in things spoken against God.” And therefore, as Peter states, “…even the falsehoods of Scripture are with good reason presented for a test.”

Thus the question: Can you pass the test? Or, do you believe absurd things against God as portrayed in the parting of the Red Sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians.

Peter’s criteria for testing the false scriptures is whether or not it presents God in a positive light and God parting the Red Sea presents Him in the most positive light in the entire Old Testament so I would say that Peter would think you are falsely speaking against God if you diminish God by rejecting the idea that He could have performed such a miracle.

After all, Peter definitely taught about Moses bringing the plagues to Egypt as well as turning Aarons Rod into a serpent. Just because something was miraculous didn’t stop Peter from believing it. In fact, right in the Homilies we are told that Peter preformed numerous hard-to-believed miracles and such events were obviously not intended to be allegory.

March 6, 2015

The Value of History

A reader in another forum asks:

IF scripture was history… what does/can that do for me as a seeker? ????? What would I need scripture for? I know some Jewish people that see scripture as history. So, they celebrate it as tradition … like a nationality would celebrate the traditions of their country.

Can you tell me why I should personally look at the scriptures as history??? You tell us they are history … BUT … so what? IF they are, what does that do for anyone?

First let me clarify something that I have attempted to do several times before. The main value that I have received from the scriptures does not depend on the history being accurate, but in the teachings. I have gained many good and useful principles and values from the scriptures that have little or nothing to do with accurate history.

For instance, Jesus said, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matt 7:2

This is true principle even if none of the Bible is true history and even if it was written by the Devil himself.

True principles and teachings that register with the soul are not dependent on true history or an authoritative writer. Words that are true will stand on their own.

Shakespeare proved this principle in that he is perhaps the most widely quoted writer for supporting truth yet his writings were presented as fiction.

For instance he wrote:

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.

That statement and others are so profound that it doesn’t matter where they appear. It would be just as useful if discovered in The National Enquirer.

Does the fact that teachings are the most important part of a writing mean that true history is not important?

No. True history is of great importance to the world. Without knowledge of our history progress as a civilization would come to a standstill.

So why should it matter whether a person presents imaginary history as allegory or presents true history either as allegory or for teaching or inspirational purposes?

An example of this is found in the story of he breaking of the four-minute mile. For thousands of years experts on the human body told people that this could not be done – that the human body just wasn’t designed to go that fast.

Then on May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister broke the barrier, running the distance in 3:59.4.

Now what would have been the effect of this if the newspapers related the story as an allegory that was not true history, but merely as an allegorical teaching of how we can overcome the obstacles in life?

People would have thought that was a nice teaching, but obviously the experts are still right that no one can break the barrier.

But what happened when people realized that this achievement was not an allegory, but real history? Humanity realized the experts were wrong and the feat can be done. Instead of taking thousands of years for the next four minute mile it took only a couple months. During the 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Australia’s John Landy along with Bannister, ran the distance of one mile in under four minutes.

From that point on many were inspired to duplicate that accomplishment. Now breaking the four-minute mile is so common that some high school athletes are doing it.

So, what is the difference between in one who has discovered that many miracles in the Bible are true compared to another who sees them as mere allegory? He who discovers for sure that miracles have indeed happened in history will then logically believe that they can happen in his life. He will attempt to live his life in a manner that miracles can manifest.

I have had miracles happen in my life that would not have transpired if I had viewed the scriptural miracles as just allegory. And because of personal encounters with supernatural forces I know for a surety that many things considered impossible are indeed possible.

In addition to the supernatural in history regular true history is of great importance. Reading the true accounts of the Revolutionary War, what they fought for and the sacrifices made inspires people in the present to appreciate the freedoms they have and not take them for granted.

Studying the true events that led up to World War II can give us many clues that will help prevent World War III. The knowledge we have of history is one of the reasons we haven’t had a major war for 70 years now.

Our past lives are true history and many think it is important to discover who we were. Discovering them is the discovery of history.

Are all historical records completely accurate? No. But there is enough truth in recorded history to get a pretty clear picture of what happened. For instance, most events in World War II are not in dispute. It is the interpretation of those events that create conflicting ideas about much of history. We know for sure that the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that there are many differing thoughts surrounding the event does not negate the event.

It was Edmund Burke who said, Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it. This is indeed a good reason to seek after true history.

March 7, 2015

Verifying Past Lives

I would suppose that many enlightened teachers of the past who knew that reincarnation was real refused to teach it openly. And why would this be the case?

Because as soon as most people learn of the doctrine they start wondering who they might have been. The trouble is that few are satisfied in thinking that they might have been a plain dirt farmer in some inconsequential time and place who died without making a mark on history. It is natural to think one might have lived some glorious life that was notable, made some great accomplishments, wrote great plays, created great art, led mighty armies, was a disciple of Jesus or changed the course of history.

The seeker needs to think of this reality. If you want to get a good idea of the quality of character you were in a past life then look at who you are in this one. Suppose you were to die tomorrow and then be born again in a hundred years and learn about the doctrine of reincarnation. Would you be disappointed to learn that you were just the present you in a past life instead of maybe Steve Jobs or Tom Cruise?

If you want to know what to look for in a past life then look at what you are now.

“But,” says the guy who thinks he was someone famous, “we are not the same in each life and our circumstances change. A person can reborn in the right circumstances in one life and become famous and do a great work but then in another life he may be more limited and live a fairly ordinary life.”

Yes, this may be true. It is possible that Abraham Lincoln is reborn today living a somewhat average life just trying to make ends meet.

If it may be the case that accomplished people in one life may live under the radar in another then how can we test the claims of one who claims to have been someone famous in a past life? We especially want to test them if they expect us to follow them because of who they were rather than who they are.

There are three things that can be done.

(1) The first is to use a regression technique to take the individual into a past life. A good regressionist can often take an individual back to a real past life, but this is far from infallible. Unless the person goes into a very deep state of hypnosis he may tap into a thoughtform or false memory of some kind. Often when people tell the hypnotist that they were someone famous further regression will reveal that he merely lived at the same time as did this famous person and admired him.

For instance, someone who worked for Steve Jobs and admired him may tell a regressionist in a future life that he was Steve Jobs instead of a guy who worked for him.

A guided meditation or light trance may bring up past lives with maybe 50-60% accuracy. You would then have to take them deeper to tell for sure. When the subject is in a deep trance he can recall minute details and even speak an ancient language from a past life. I had this happen when I did a regression for a television program. The subject started speaking ancient Aramaic effortlessly. The reporter was impressed indeed. Unfortunately they edited it out when they showed the program because they wanted to disprove reincarnation rather than prove it.

Now Allan claims he wrote the original manuscript of the Gospel story and says he can recall his life as James he brother of Jesus. I asked him what the tenth word in the manuscript was. His group gave me a bad time about this question, but it is one that could definitely be answered. If one goes back to a life and relives it in real time he can look at a page of print and see it as one can see something currently in front of his face and recall the first sentences word for word.

If the subject goes back and can recall in real time then it is quite likely he is experiencing a real past life.

Even here this is not a sure thing because we have he capacity through the soul to enter into the consciousness of others and can see through their eyes. It is possible that some regressions that seem very authentic have this happen, especially if some famous person is recalled.

(2) The second test is that of intelligence and talent. We have different personalities from life to life because of various circumstances and pulls from energies that affect us. For instance, one life one may be an introvert and another an extrovert. We do not take our personality with us, but we do take our intelligence and talents that were acquired through learning. If you played the piano in a past life you could relearn it quickly in this one. If you were Mark Twain in a past life you would still have a way with words in this one and most likely have a great sense of humor. Even though you would keep your talent at writing you may find yourself working at developing a new talent. Maybe Mark Twain would want to be a Rock star in this life.

Perhaps the most reliable test we can perform on one who claims to be someone famous is to compare what the guy’s intelligence has produced in this life to what the famous guy did in the past. If you think you were Mark Twain, but cannot write a good story then you are most likely fooling yourself. If you think you were Telsla but haven’t invented anything new and useful then you are probably not him.

If you think you were Jesus, but do not have power to teach or perform works like him then you can be counted as being in illusion.

If you think the gospel is an allegory that you made up while Jesus was still alive then you should be able to write something as innovative as that in this life. After all, it turned out to be the most famous piece of writing in the history of the world.

The story of Jesus has staying power because of the great teachings, the words of wisdom, the parables, the miracles and the crucifixion and resurrection which Allan says he wrote of while Jesus was still alive and well. If this is true then this James character certainly had a great imagination and talent for presenting a miraculous idea.

He should be able to do an even more profound work in this life because we progress rather than regress.

That’s right. If you were Mark Twain in a past life and become a writer again in this one then you should be better than Twain because we improve as we apply ourselves.

(3) Test the person with your inner self. If you are familiar with the famous person and one who claims to be him you need to ask if there is a similarity of vibration. If there is not then you can discount his claim. If there is then keep an open mind, but always judge each person by what and who they are now. Who we are in the present is the important thing.

***

Clay:

Thanks for the critique JJ and I agree with you 100%. I would like to add a couple of more issues. There exist an additional problem with past life recollection in that there are times when you are just given insight to the Akashic records of someone else’s life or an experience from history but there is a powerful lesson that you can employ in your life. You may see into the distant past some event that you did not actually live, but whose information is relevant to your development in this lifetime.

I agree. One of the problems we have in understanding the full reality from a mortal perspective is that the abilities of access for the soul is almost unlimited.

Clay:

I also do not like regressions and advise against them because unless you are very well trained prior to the regression, one’s ego is still too strong and is going to distort the reading and of course bring up events that one has simply read about or heard about that are buried deeply in ones subconscious.

Regression is not perfect but it is the most reliable I have found outside of personal revelation that I have had on others several times. This, however, is only given to me as seen necessary by my Higher Self.

Clay

I personally recommend a person go to a powerful reader of past lives as they are not as likely to want to glorify you and satisfy your ego needs to be a person of importance.

I have not found this to be true. I have had a number of psychics read my past lives and no two are alike and most are way off base. Unless a person is close to being a master the only way to read the past life of another is through a revelation through the soul or a recollection of a personal past life where you were associated with the person in question.

Here’s an interesting example. When I was in real estate a new client came into my office who I had never met before in this life. After talking with him for five minutes my soul revealed to me who he was in a past life. He was a close and trusted friend. I stopped in the middle of the subject and told him I knew who he was and explained it to him. Even though he didn’t believe in reincarnation in this life he seemed to take it to heart and we became close friends.

Here is another:

Shortly after meeting my second wife my soul told me who she was in a former life. It was someone that she had no knowledge of in this life. Instead of telling her who she was I asked her if I could regress her. When I did she went back to the life that was told to me by my soul, gave her correct name, and related details that she could have only given if she had been there.

Clay

Third it is a distinctly Western Phenomena that we want to parade our past lives as almost spiritual status symbols to demonstrate how advanced we are. Now instead of owning a huge mansion and driving a new Mercedes, we simply use supposed past live recollections to comfort us and satisfy our ego in this incarnation. So if we have not lived up to certain expectations we have of ourselves in this life or are insecure about who we are, we rely upon glorious past lives to give us pride and a sense of self worth and purpose.

Good observation.

March 8, 2015

The Song and Colors

Tom:

When one imagine light on oneself or on the group saying the song what color is the light? Can it be any color or white light? In the book the Immortal 1 and 2 pages 128-129 talks about John saying the song and the first verse is white light descending at an arms length. The second verse after it is said shows bright yellow, pink and magenta light coming into john’s aura. The third verse shows deep violent light with edges of gold coming into Johns aura. My question is do we imagine the same colors as describe in the book or what colors do we imagine coming to oneself and the group who says the song?

Good to hear from you again Tom. Don’t be such a stranger.

When seeing the light you can use one of three approaches.

(1) Visualize specific colors to create specific effects.

(2) Attempt to see the colors sent to you by your soul.

(3) Just go with the flow and get a general sense of light and enlightenment.

March 9, 2015

The Backsliding Soul

I thought I would make a few comments on Jim’s post the other day.

He says:

until a person is seeking some kind of a Power higher than them selves, which might be an unrecognizable god, than, that soul is not guaranteed to progress forward, or higher, every reincarnation,

It is certainly true that the recognizing of a power higher than ourselves and seeking it will be a big help to the person’s progression, but it doesn’t mean that he will make zero progression or go backwards if he doesn’t believe in or seek God.

Many atheists are further along the path than many believers. All on the path at one time have gone through a period of atheism as mental abilities are developed. Before being atheists most of them were unthinking believers in God for many lives but reached a barrier after they developed their reasoning abilities. Then what they saw as logic prevailed. They became frustrated with the unfairness and suffering in the world and the illogical beliefs of many religions and disbelieved for a number of lifetimes.

Then they made a discovery which was the mind could only take you so far in the search for truth. The pilgrim then works his way back to a renewed belief in God, but a sounder belief based on intuitive perception, soul contact and higher vision.

What hurts our progression more than anything is when we receive some light and reject it in word or deed. As I have said many times we must all live up to the highest we know and this is different for each person. Sometimes the highest we know is a guess and sometimes it will take us on the wrong path, but if we are true to ourselves the mistakes we make will be revealed and when they are the highest we know will be a decision to make a correction.

After the human entity becomes self-conscious and begins his journey through many lives his progress is very slow. Even though he starts his progress with a fairly ingrown sense of the Divine he is slow to learn his lessons. It is when he starts to actively question and seek answers outside of outward authority that his real progress begins,

If we were to draw a graph of the progress of a soul it would show very little movement for many lifetimes, but after this turning point is reached then the line on the graph would suddenly shoot upward and continue to accelerate until liberation is achieved. The last dozen or so lifetimes would see a tremendous upswing as these are times of tremendous learning.

So can we go backwards if we live a life where we go against the light? In some ways yes and others no. Let us say you learn to play the piano and afterwards you start beating your wife. Can you still play the piano?

Yes, of course. Your ability to apply your basic intelligence in this direction is not affected by your bad behavior. Even so, we can make many mistakes and still be born again with our basic intelligence intact. For instance, I believe that Hitler’s two previous lives were as Charles XII of Sweden and then Napoleon. He made some pretty grave errors in both of these lives but that didn’t prevent him from being a very savvy guy in his life as Hitler. History correctly records him as an evil genius.

So is there any negative effect for sinning against the light?

Indeed, yes. The person may still be clever in the ways of the world, as was Hitler, but his ability to perceive light and truth and contact his own soul will dramatically decrease. If he continues on the downward path then the barrier between himself and his soul will become beyond repair.

So, if a person lives a very carnal life will he be born again as an animal?

No. Human souls are only born as humans or self conscious entities. There are plenty of opportunities to pay our debts for our mistakes as human beings.

Some have had impressions of past lives as animals and conclude that we switch back and forth. What does happen is this. In between lives the soul can project itself and identify with any lower life form on this planet. It can project itself into the consciousness of a dog, a cat, a bug, a tree or even a rock. This is much different than being incarnated into lower life forms. Lower lives are governed by a group soul rather than an individual soul.

There is a possible exception though. If the pilgrim continues in error and takes the left hand path so a permanent barrier is set up to the light of the soul then all that makes him human begins to unravel and he is deconstructed. In this case fragments of him may incarnate as lower life forms. This only happens to a small number of stubbornly dark entities.

***

Jim:

Any one who has lived with pets, cats, dogs, horses, or birds, or even pigs, turkeys, sheep, or the list is unlimited, may recognize the very same spirit animating them as animates humans.

I was raised in a farming community and very familiar with numerous types of animals. They are similar to us in that their lives are a part of the life of God, as are we, but as far as consciousness goes they are very different. An animal is not self conscious as is a human. He cannot be embarrassed, could not care less if he is dressed in clothes and if you did put clothes on him he could care less about the style and color. An animal is as different from a lowly evolved human as a lowly evolved human is different from one near the end of his evolution. He who is near liberation will not incarnate and return to being a savage in consciousness and the savage will not return to being an animal because he has a self consciousness that he will not lose unless he winds up being a total failure and the fragments that compose him are returned to their Source to be reformatted in a future system.

And consider this. If a backsliding life could caused one to be born as an animal then one could also retrogress more and be born as a potato. The correspondence here does not fit.

There is no way to outwardly prove this but each person must run such things by his soul as well as run them by his sense of reasoning and the Law of Correspondences.

No one is rejected or shunned here if they do not agree with me.

March 11, 2015

Animal Consciousness

Reasons why humans do not regress in future incarnations and become animals.

(1) The consciousness of an animal is different than a human. If a human consciousness incarnated as an animal then it could be taught to communicate and even work on the internet.

(2) The degree of intelligence achieved is not lost which would be the case if we incarnated as an animal. Intelligence is just wrongly applied when a human entity becomes corrupted – as was the case with Hitler.

(3) Reincarnating as a crocodile and taking on its consciousness would not be seen as a punishment for the bad guys because once reduced to the crocodile’s consciousness the entity would be happy to be such an animal and probably feel blessed instead of cursed. There would be no lesson to be learned.

(4) There is no question that the animals share the life of God with us and share some characteristics in common with us, but they do not have self consciousness and do not see themselves as separate entities the way we do. This is why they have no desire in their natural state to wear clothes.

(5) By the Law of Correspondences if a failed human can be born as an animal then a failed animal could be born as a vegetable. Does not compute.

(6) There is a logical reason why on rare occasions people are regressed through hypnosis or meditation as animals.

(A) We are composite beings. That which makes up the human soul is a fusion of lower lives from the animal, vegetable and mineral. The composite human soul itself was not an animal in the past but parts of its makeup has been and those memories can be recalled.

(B) In between lives, during the dream state or in deep meditation one can overshadow any life that is of lower evolution than oneself. In these states one can have the thrill of soaring as an eagle, roaring as a lion or running as fast as a cheetah. During this overshadowing you can identify with the lower consciousness as if you were living in its body. The difference is that you can withdraw at any time and the evolving lower life cannot unless the body dies.

(7) The direction of the force of our progression always takes us forward, not backward.

That said, Jim’s reference to farm animals reminds me of a story I told the group years ago.

When I was a young teenager, shortly after my parents divorced, my mom bought a run down place in the country with chicken coops in the back so I decided to raise some chickens. I decided that I wanted to raise as interesting a bird as possible because I was doing it for a hobby as much as it was for fried chicken and eggs.

Now, my dad used to take me to fighting chicken matches and would always place some bets. Most of us realize today that this was a cruel sport because they attach steel spurs and the birds fight to the death. What made these special chickens different than regular chickens is that they would not quit in a fight but continue until one of them was dead or incapacitated.

Even though I felt sorry for these chickens I noticed several things different about them. First was that determination to fight on, no matter what. Secondly, they seemed a lot more intelligent than regular chickens and finally they were much more beautiful and colorful than any of the standard farm chickens.

Well, when we got these empty chicken coops and I decided to put some chickens in them, my mind reflected back to these beautiful birds. I decided I wanted to raise these, not to fight, but because they were a very high quality chicken. I found an old fighting chicken magazine my Dad left behind. This magazine advertised prized fighting chickens and also eggs from gamers around the country. I found an ad for eggs that interested me. I couldn’t afford to buy the fully developed birds but I did have enough money to buy some eggs from a prize winning line. They were supposed to be among the best chickens in the world. Even these eggs were expensive – about $10-$20 each by today’s standards.

I got a Banty hen to set on the eggs and in a few weeks I had the start of my fighting chicken farm. After a short period of time I had all the chickens I wanted but there was one in particular that caught my fancy. He was the prettiest rooster of them all and without question the toughest of the bunch. None of the other roosters dared challenge him. In addition, he was the most intelligent and he was fearless. I spent many hours just watching him and showing him off to my friends. I grew as close to him over the next couple years as I have any dog. Finally one day I came home from school and found a trail of feathers from the chicken coop to a pond several blocks away. In the bushes there I found my prize rooster still alive but mortally wounded. There were several small boys nearby and I asked them if they saw what happened. Fortunately they had. Apparently a large dog attacked my chickens and my prize rooster defended the bunch by attacking the dog. He fought the dog all the way to the pond and never gave up. The dog finally gave up but the bulk of a forty pound dog was just too much for my two pound rooster and he was wounded beyond repair.

It was one of the saddest days of my life when I had to end the little fellow’s life. I couldn’t believe how much I grew to love a mere chicken and how much I missed him. I still have feelings for him to this day.

A point to be derived here is that because this chicken entered into my sphere of consciousness, I would have no more dreamed of killing and eating him any more than I would my best friend. He did not fear me for he sensed there was no fear necessary. If a dog, a cat, a horse or even a chicken or a cow were to transcend regular consciousness, he can endear himself to his master and come under the protection of the master rather than become a victim.

In many ways we humans are in a similar situation to the animals. As we expand our ring-pass-not we catch the attention of the Masters, or the Brotherhood of Light, and certain entities among them will take us under their wings and nurture us.

https://freeread.com/archives/241.html

March 12, 2015

Nouns

Ken:

The demonstrative pronoun can be either male, female, or neuter, but it must agree in gender with the noun to which it refers. “The Logos” in the Greek is a male noun so the demonstrative pronoun with which it is associated cannot be translated by anything other than “HE” or “HIM”. “In HIM was life (Zoe)”.

Not really. If the noun refers to a male person this is true, but if it refers to a masculine noun where the gender is not applicable then it is usually translated as “it.”

For example Matthew 5:15 reads:

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and IT giveth light unto all that are in the house.

“Candle” comes from LYCHNOS and is a masculine noun but translators realize it would be silly to translated AUTOS as “he.” In this case where an individual person is not referred to then it is translated as “it”.

The LOGOS, the Word that created the universe was not Jesus, but a vibration from God as all words are vibrations, so the correct translation of AUTOS would be “it” not “he.”

Now let us look at John 1:4-5

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

You correctly say that life is feminine, but here life which is “the light of men” is called an “it” not a she.

The Concordant translators are very careful to not make an obvious mistranslation and I have found their translations to be quite accurate and not reflect the bias found in most other translations.

March 13, 2015

The Logos

Latuwr:

How do you really know whether or not the Greek mind viewed a masculine Greek noun as an “it” rather than a “he”?

Obviously you need to look at the context. As I noted it would be silly to call a candle a “he” just because it is a masculine noun. The context would logically tell us that it is an “it”.

Latuwr

The Apostle John, who I believe is still living on this Earth today, clearly teaches in the first chapter of his Gospel that the Logos refers to Messiah Yahushua:
John 1:14

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

There is no argument that Jesus is referred to as the Word made flesh. And after the Word is made flesh in the male person of Jesus we would then refer to him as a “He”. Jesus was the great example of the Word, the Christ principle, the creative force being manifested in human form, but the Word and the creative principle is much bigger than the man Jesus. All of us are expected to become the Word made flesh just as happened to Jesus.

The creative originating Word is neither male for female and would be correctly referred to as an “It”.

Latuwr

I submit to all that John is not teaching in Chapter ONE that a vibration created the Cosmos; nor is John teaching that a vibration was made flesh and dwelt among us.

It is a scientific fact that nothing solid can be found. All that can definitely be discovered as the basis of creation is vibration.

Latuwr

I agree that Rhema is formed sound which does consist of vibrations, but once Rhema becomes clothed with physicality, then Rhema becomes the Logos

Rhema merely refers to human conversation dealing with human words which is much different than the creative force of the originating sound, or the Logos.

Latuwr

whom John teaches was in the Cosmos and whom John teaches created the Cosmos, and according to John, the Cosmos, that is, the whole physical Universe, did not really know or recognize its Creator:
John 1:10
10 He was in the world (the Cosmos), and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
According to you view of things John 1:10 should really be translated in this manner:
10 It was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not.

The Concordant version does use “He” in this verse because it is definitely talking about Jesus and not just the neutral Logos which is neither male or female.

This verse gives the false idea that the man Jesus created everything there is and this is just not true. He was a manifestation of the Logos which created everything there is as all creation is made of sound or vibration. Each age manifests at least one Word made flesh and we will eventually see many of them as Jesus was the “firstborn among many brethren.”

In addition to this there are billions of planets with human beings as ourselves and on each of these planets the Word is seeking to become flesh. There are many like Christ in the many worlds.

Jesus correctly differentiated himself from the One God or the Logos when he was called good and replied back:

“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:” Matt 19:17

He could just as well have said:

“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me Logos? I merely represent the Logos, which is, God:”

Jesus said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:.” John 5:9

Even he who represented the Logos “could do nothing of himself” but needed a little help, just like the rest of us.

To read last years writings go HERE

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2015, Part 4Keys Writings 2015, Part 6

Leave a Reply Cancel reply