Tag: Jesus

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Recognizing True Messengers

May 24, 2017May 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 23, 2017

Recognizing True Messengers

Jesus had some pretty strong words for people who considered themselves the enlightened in his day:

Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites ! You build up the tombs of the prophets and embellish the monuments of the saints, and you say, “If we had been alive in our fathers’ time, we should never have taken part with them in the murder of the prophets.” So you acknowledge that you are the sons of the men who killed the prophets. Go on then, finish off what your fathers began!

You snakes, you vipers’ brood, how can you escape being condemned to hell? I send you therefore prophets, sages, and teachers; some of them you will kill and crucify, others you will flog in your synagogues and hound from city to city. Matt 23:29-34 New English

Notice that these people who are now known for participating in the crucifixion of Christ and the later persecution of his followers to prison and to death thought that if they had lived in the days of the prophets, such as Moses, Jeremiah or Elijah, they would not have rejected them or sought their lives. Surely, they thought that they would have stepped forward to help. They would have stood with Moses and not worshipped the golden calf. They would not have thrown Jeremiah in a pit, nor would they need Elijah to bring fire from heaven to prove he was a prophet. They saw themselves as the good guys in the present who would have also been the good guys in the past.

Jesus, who must have heard such talk in their conversations, replied starkly that they did not see themselves correctly. If they had lived in the days of the prophets they would have shared in the mob mentality and soon in the present they would prove Jesus correct by showing their true colors.

This incident gives us good food for thought for our own consideration. We need to ask ourselves that had we lived in the days of Jesus would we had been one of the 120 that believed on him after the crucifixion, or even during his life?

He tells us that he will come again. Most Christians think he will come in such a blaze of glory that it will be obvious who he is, but suppose he comes again like he did last time – as a regular mortal.

How many would recognize him then?

Djwhal Khul through Alice A. Bailey gave out many teachings and has many followers in the esoteric world. He tells us that he will teach again around 2025.

Suppose that there are a dozen people claiming to be his new vessel. Do you think that you could pick the real one? And what if none of them represented the true DK?

After all, students will recall that he did not reveal who he was last time. Someone else let his identity slip out against his will.

So it may be possible that none of the claimants will represent the real DK. The real vessel may be an unknown who just posts enlightening material on the internet.

And suppose the real spokesperson says something positive about a controversial Republican or Democrat? Would this cause you to write the whole of the teachings off?

I guarantee this would happen with many.

One of the reasons that enlightened prophets and teachers are rejected by the very ones who are supposed to be expecting them is this. The Spiritual Hierarchy does not like to repeat itself. If a teaching is out there and it is clearly written then it violates the law of economy to just repeat it again. All any regular mortal has to do is reference a page number.

When a true teacher arrives he will present something new and different – something thought provoking that will stimulate thinking and move forward spiritual evolution.

In the days of Jesus the devout were expecting a messiah. Some were expecting him to come in a blaze of glory, similar to the Christian expectation of the Second Coming today. Others saw him as one like Moses who would deliver them from the Romans as Moses delivered he Israelites from Egypt.

As far as teachings go they expected an extension of the Lawgiver, Moses, who would place great emphasis on living the letter of the law.

As it turned out, Jesus was none of these things. He didn’t deliver the people from the Romans. He not only didn’t place emphasis on the law, but seemed to disregard it. Instead of concentrating on refining the law he had a new message centered on love. They had never heard anyone teach such a thing before.

Since Jesus did not correspond to their expectations they rejected him outright and put him to death for blasphemy.

It is interesting to contemplate what he will teach when he comes again. Most are expecting a repeat of what he gave us last time. These are likely to be disappointed and not recognize him. Of course, he will not contradict what he gave out last time, but we must be prepared for the fact that he will teach many new things that will far surpass what we have in the Bible.

And how about DK? Again the new teachings will be in harmony with those given through Alice A. Bailey but he will move on to new material, much of which may be rejected by Bailey students, just because they are new and different.

The last time he taught we went through a great division resulting in World War II. He was one of the few teachers that called it right on Hitler from the beginning. Most teachers either tolerated him or embraced much of what he stood for. Just before the war almost every prediction from the alternative folks was there was nothing to worry about, that there would be no war.

If, when he teaches again, we are still in a state of great political conflict as we are today he may give out some controversial teachings and mantras in an attempt to bring students together as he did last time. Will those who are attached to their ideals reject him just as the idealists did last time?

Unfortunately, it is often the case that several generations must pass before the true avatars are recognized by the many, or even a significant number. But let us hope that we can raise our consciousness up so we can appreciate true messengers when they are here in front of our eyes, instead of merely participating in building beautiful monuments to their name after they are gone.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

McCall Gathering, 2007, Part 29

May 22, 2017 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 29 of 54 in the series McCall Gathering 2007

The Power of Emotion

JJ: That is a good one. What I think is funny is they say that we need get more money and tax you more for more welfare because Jesus told us to help the poor. Now where does it say in the Bible that we are supposed to give to Rome and then Rome will give to its citizens? Did Christ say that? As a matter of fact Jesus did not even pay his taxes and they came after Him and told one of His disciples that his master has not paid any taxes to Rome and he had to do something about it.

So the disciple came to Jesus and told Him that they were after Him for taxes and it is one of the most unusual miracles in the Bible, Jesus sent Peter fishing and He said go and throw a line in a certain spot and you will catch a certain fish and there will be money in it to pay the taxes. So Peter went fishing caught this fish and opened him up and sure enough, there was the exact amount needed to pay His taxes!

I wish I could pay my taxes that way that would be great! So they had to go after Jesus and pester Him to pay taxes yet Rome had a welfare system to help the impoverished so long as you were a citizen of Rome. Those who were not citizens of Rome did not get any help. So, it’s interesting that Rome actually had a welfare system that was similar to ours and not as bureaucratic probably but they had one. If we are supposed to increase our taxes to pay for handouts and that is the work of Jesus, well then why didn’t Jesus tell us to give to Rome?

All he said was render the things under Caesar that are Caesar’s and render under God the things that are God’s. But He said to take your money and give it to whom? Give it to the poor. He didn’t say to give it to Rome and then have them give it to their poor, but to take your money and give it directly to the poor.

It takes our government three or four dollars to give one dollar to the poor. If you want to give some money to the poor is it not better to give to them directly from your pocket to their pocket? How about going down to the homeless shelter where they have little overhead and giving some of your money to them? If we give it to the government to give it to the poor, almost all of it goes to bureaucrats.

So we have a mislabeling here created that certainly gives a misconception that sounds positive but is really negative. There are quite a few labels that politicians use to make something negative sound good because they support it by applying a label to it. Okay anything else?

Audience Annie: You can trust the White Brothers but you can’t trust the dark brothers because they will lie to you as they deem it necessary.

JJ: Right, the Light Brothers are honest and the dark brothers are dishonest and they will lie to you and never tell you exactly what they believe and what they think. You cannot tell what they believe by listening to them. They will tell you what they believe is necessary to get them elected or gain your trust. The same thing for other professions they control – if they are the head of a union or a teachers group or a business, those who are gravitating toward the dark path will not tell you what they really believe or what their true intentions are. They will tell you what you want you to hear and this makes it difficult because of the deception in the dark where they are always pretending to be in the light. It is hard to tell the difference.

Sometimes I will listen to a debate where I think one side is honestly trying to present a true reality and the other giving what I see as tremendous distortion. Then I talk to people about it and they say, “I listened to both and they both made really good arguments and I just can’t figure out which one is closest to the truth.”

I think wow; it is so obvious to me and why is it not obvious to them that this one guy is just totally lying through his teeth? He just cannot see the deception of the one that is trying to lead him down the garden path. He just cannot see it. Just like the people could not see with Hitler and they could not see it with Mussolini and they could not see it with many other deceptive leaders in the past. They have a really hard time seeing through the lies and distortion.

What is the fastest way to distinguish between light and dark?

Audience: The soul

JJ: Right soul contact if you have soul contact and someone is up there speaking and he says that the this guy is part of the dark organization or whatever, when you have soul contact then you can tune into this person’s soul and he may not be perfect but you can tell whether the person has pure intent or not and that is very important.

Audience: I would like to say the dark uses emotional arguments and the light uses logic to make their arguments.

JJ: Right, that is true. The dark almost always appeals to the emotions and one of the things that DK says is, one of the plans of the Brotherhood of Light is to move evil up to a higher level. That is an interesting thing to say. The Piscean age was governed by the emotions and we are entering the Aquarian Age, which is an air sign governed by the mind. So what is going to happen over the next two hundred years is all the arguments are going to be moved up to the plane of the mind.

For instance, any sales course you take right now will teach you that people buy by what they feel and if you try to sell them by reasoning then you are not going to make the sale. You have to sell them by what they are feeling. You have to make them feel good about the product. I have found after being a salesman for many years myself that if you try to use reasoning with them maybe one out of ten or fewer people are influenced by logic and reasoning but for nine out of ten you must strike their feelings right at the core and then they will buy whether they need it or not, it does not matter.

I used to sell children’s books, Wayne was selling them before me and he sent me a sales kit and I went out and I thought the people that should buy these books logically would be parents with kids six years and older. So I went through neighborhoods and looked for bicycles that revealed the kids were in this age range. I struggled for two weeks and only sold one set of books.

Wayne was out of town and when he had returned and he asked if I sold any books. And I said just one set that this was one of the most difficult jobs I ever attempted. I did not understand it – nobody wanted the books. Wayne said who are you trying to sell to? And I told him and he said you have it all wrong – follow me. He took me with him prospecting and everybody that we contacted had a baby six months old or less or was pregnant. I said, they will not buy the books – and he said yes they will.

He then gives a presentation to a pregnant woman who had not even had her baby yet and her kid would not be able to read these books for ten more years. They would be out of date by that time but he would throw the huge broadside pictures on the floor and they would say, our baby could really use this and this is great. Then he would give emotional arguments and they would say, we can’t afford it but our baby is going to need this.

I’ll tell you, I was just flabbergasted that the people that would buy the books for kids that couldn’t read ten for another decade. Those people that really needed the books for their kids that were old enough to read, none of them would buy the books. But the people that were pregnant or had a six month old child or less we sold them over 50% and the only ones that did not buy the books were those that did not have a dime to buy a cup of coffee with. I mean if they had any money at all – by the end of that sales presentation they would be buying the books and I was just amazed by this.

I would have never dreamed that those were the people who would buy the books but they bought them because they felt that their child was going to need everything possible to make sure they were taken care of in the future. But for some reason after the child learns to read all that goes out the window. Emotions are very important and if you are going to make a living at being a salesperson then you have to appeal to people’s emotions.

Audience: Sell the sizzle and not the steak.

JJ: Yes, sell the sizzle and not the steak. Elmer Wheeler made that statement and he is one of my favorite authors on salesmanship. He wrote this book, “How to sell your self to others” and I cannot find it anywhere, it is really a good book, one of the best books I have ever read and he invented that slogan, “Sell the sizzle and not the steak.” It really inspired me when I was young and if you ever see it, you may want to read it.

Tomorrow we are going to talk about the labors of Hercules. This is one of the more fascinating subjects that we will ever learn about.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Was Jesus a Socialist?

April 28, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 28, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 6

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Many from alternative spirituality use Jesus along with various scriptures to convince us that high taxes and a government sponsored socialism with the redistribution of wealth is all part of God’s will and therefore a benevolent thing to advocate. These people have many friends in orthodox Christianity such as President Obama who in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2012 basically says that those who have abundance should be happy to be taxed by government so they can give it to those who lack because of “God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Then he adds: “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

He continues: “It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.”

And that is not all, he also says, “Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old.”

Then he finishes by quoting the Apostle John: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

Wow, that really sounds like Jesus must have really been a socialist … or does it?

As I noted earlier there are 41 definitions of the term “socialism” that covers most every aspect of community and sharing so yes, I’m sure one or more of those definitions could be applied to make the argument that Jesus was a socialist of some kind. The same arguments could be used to make the case that many mainstream Christians of today are socialists for sharing, but that totally misses the case that the Left is subtly trying to make.

And what is that?

First, I’ll tell you what it is not. They are not trying to convince us that we as individuals are supposed to help those in need by giving our time and money directly to them as Jesus advocated. They have no interest in that. Instead, they want us to believe that Jesus wants us to share by giving our money to the government through high taxes so Big Brother can then give to those in need. Since about 50% of the people get money from the government that is a whole lot of need happening out there.

When we hear believers saying that Jesus was a socialist we need to understand that they are not saying he was some fringe definition of socialist that just donates his money to good causes but they are making the case that he would support higher taxes, especially for the rich, so their wealth can be taken from them by force and given to those in need after millions of bureaucrats take their cut in the form of high wages and benefits.

So the question is not: Was Jesus a generous and sharing kind of dude, but was Jesus an advocate of giving to Caesar so Caesar could redistribute according to his will?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately it must not be, because a lot of people, in both standard and alternative spirituality, think that Jesus was a socialist who would smile at the current government give-aways and encourage more of them.

There is a huge difference between the redistribution of wealth advocated by Jesus and that of big government people today. The difference is that Jesus taught the people what to do and let them make up their own minds. If a person didn’t want to give to the poor he didn’t have to. Jesus didn’t even follow the selfish guy around to pester him to share his wealth.

On the other hand, when Caesar, or the government, decides that you need to share your wealth it will follow you around with IRS agents and force you to share whether you want to or not.

Yes, all the President’s quotation of scripture regarding sharing with our fellowmen and women does apply to individuals using their own initiative, and if he left it at that he would have a fine sermon to deliver in church. The question is – do the teachings apply to forced sharing or tax and share?

Let us look at a couple of the scriptural arguments used to justify the government confiscating wealth and then sharing it.

One of the most popular is the story of the rich young man who came to Jesus and asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus responded by telling him to keep the Ten Commandments.

To this the man responded:

“All these I have kept,” … “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 19:16-23 New International Version

“So there you have it,” says the aspiring socialist. “The rich re supposed to give away all their money to the poor so we are just following the teachings of Jesus in advocating sharing or redistribution of wealth.”

I find it amazing that this comparison can be made with a straight face because there is a big difference between what Jesus advocated compared to the socialists and communists of today.

Jesus advocated sharing through free will. Socialists of today advocate sharing by force. – two very different approaches.

Let us suppose that after the rich man talked to Jesus he went home to discover that a thief had broken into his house and stole all his wealth. The thief then shared that wealth with his family and friends who were in need. Do you suppose the rich man then obtained a spot in the kingdom of heaven because his wealth was shared by force with the poor?

Such an idea obviously makes no sense, yet this is what many want us to believe when they quote this scripture. They seem to think they are helping the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven through taking their wealth by force.

If the taking of wealth by force helps people enter heaven then the churches ought to hire burglars to rob from their rich members. They’d kill two birds with one stone. They will fill their coffers with cash while assisting those resisting rich on the path to heaven.

Notice that the advice of Jesus to the rich man had nothing to do with force. Did he tell the man to go to Caesar or the government and donate his money so the welfare programs of Rome could be enhanced?

No. He did not hint that he should give his wealth to government through either force or free will. Jesus did not even ask him to give to himself or his group. He simply told him to give directly to the poor through his own free will.

Then when the man refused, Jesus let him be. He did not lift a finger to force the man to comply.

This is a difficult scripture for Christians as it is a hard thing for all of us to part with our money. And it is quite possible that Jesus never intended for all the rich to part with their money. Perhaps this particular individual was corrupted by wealth more than most and parting with it would help his mind focus on spiritual things.

Joseph of Arimathea was a rich friend of Jesus who donated his expensive burial tomb. He never gave away all his wealth or else he couldn’t have assisted with this gift, but is considered a saint. Perhaps Joseph’s wealth did not corrupt his soul and he used it toward a good end – making it unnecessary to give it all away at once.

Here is the attitude Jesus said we must have toward the disadvantaged if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Matt 25:35-36 NIV

Again the socialists say, “See. Jesus wants us to share the wealth if we are to get into heaven.”

But again there is no mention of Caesar or force involved. Those who attain the prize are those who are benevolent through their own free will.

There are numerous scriptures admonishing the rich to share, but not one that indicates forced sharing benefits the soul.

It is interesting to note that the authorities were concerned that Jesus was delinquent in taxes or perhaps avoiding them altogether. It is written:

…the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax’?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. (He apparently lied here to protect his master)

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes— from their own sons or from others?”

“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matt 25:24- 27 NIV

Here we learn that Jesus didn’t pay this tax because he didn’t think it applied to him but when accosted – to keep himself and Peter out of trouble – he went ahead and made the payment.

Word must have gotten out that Jesus was dragging his feet in paying taxes for the Pharisees approached him about his view on them in the hope of getting him in trouble with the authorities.

“Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.”

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 22:17-21 NIV

He avoided saying no, which would have led to an early arrest. Instead he told them it appeared the coin belonged to Caesar since it bore his image. If it belongs to Caesar then let Caesar have it but give to God that which belongs to God.

This confused them enough to leave Jesus alone for a while but word must have gotten out that he wanted the rich to give directly to the poor instead of sharing the wealth through taxes. We find this accusation made at his trial:

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar… Luke 23:2 NIV

It should be crystal clear to any honest thinker that Jesus would not be in harmony with today’s tax and share the wealth socialists. If something belonged to an individual it was up to him whether he shared with others or not.

Because of inefficiencies of bureaucracy today it generally costs us two tax dollars to give away one to people in need. The philosophy of Jesus not only operated on free will but was much more efficient. He told the rich to just give their money directly to the poor. Under the plan of Jesus two dollars out of two went to the poor compared to one out of two or three today by Big Brother. Which makes the more sense?

Most Christians today follow the example of Jesus and pay their taxes to keep out of trouble, but as far as helping the disadvantaged goes, in most cases, they would rather have the extra money and help of their own free will rather than being forced to share. A thief with a gun can force you to share but that doesn’t even get your big toe into the Kingdom of Heaven.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Benjamin Franklin, “Management of the Poor” (1766)

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE, Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE, Part 5 HERE

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Real Jesus

August 19, 2016April 12, 2019 Joseph Dewey

Aug 19, 2016

The Real Jesus

Stephane gave a very good rundown giving a great overview, though some of the details are in dispute about the possibility of Jesus being patterned after a previous Jewish teacher such as Yeishu ben Pandeira. The problem is that there is no way to positively prove by historical research any of the theories about Jesus, among which are:

(1) He was a real historical person as presented in the Gospels.

(2) He was a historical person, but greatly embellished by the gospels.

(3) He was a historical person, but inspired by a different person in history than Jesus of the Gospels. Among these are Yeishu ben Pandeira as well as Apollonius.

(4) He was a completely fictional character created to control the masses.

(5) The life of Christ was a fictional allegory written by mystics to use as a teaching vehicle.

Stephane made about as good of a case as possible for the real Jesus being Yeishu ben Pandeira. Perhaps the strongest point for the Theosophically inclined is that HPB indicated that Jesus of the gospels was patterned after Yeishu ben Pandeira.

I tend to not accept a truth merely because she said it. I do give a lot of weight to her words as I believe she had higher contacts as well as being extremely intelligent. Among all those who have come in contact with the masters she had the sharpest mind in my opinion.

Even so, I think her words were far from infallible and few of them represented actual words from masters. I think she did receive a lot of inspiration and some detailed facts, but wrote them all down in her own language, using her own intelligence. Thus I read all she writes in the light of the soul.

On the other hand, Alice A. Bailey, though intelligent, was not as savvy as HPB, but did write the words of the Master DK pretty much word for word as given to her. In fact, I think the greatest proof that she had higher contact is to read a book written by her and then one by DK. The difference is profound.

So do I accept DK’s words without question then?

No. I do not accept anything without running it by my mind and Higher Self. However, DK is an earned authority with me and I give his words, perhaps more weight than any other author. If I come across something that does not seem logical I will then study them from every angle trying to see if I missed something or perhaps there is meaning beyond the obvious.

Thus when HPB suggests that the person of Jesus was inspired by Yeishu ben Pandeira I do not automatically accept it though I do give it weight and study out the possibility. When DK says that the Master Jesus was also Apollonius of Tyanna the red flag of a possible error goes up, but I still give the statement a lot of weight because I have proven to myself other things he said that seemed strange or unbelievable in the past. I therefore look at and consider all possibilities that could conform to the idea that Jesus was Apollonius.

Being able to give weight to a teacher’s words is important because if that teacher is truly inspired then you also can be inspired by his words.

That said I see number of problems with the idea that Yeishu ben Pandeira was the person that some writer used as a pattern from which to create the life of the Jesus of the gospels. Let us look at the pros and cons of the idea.

Pros:

(1) They were both said to be miracle workers.

(2) Another name for Yeishu (or Yeshu or Yesu) ben Pandeira was Yeishu ha-Notzri. “Some have translated this as Jesus the Nazarine.”

(3) Yeishu had five disciples. Two of them, Mattai and Todah, had names similar to the disciples of Jesus being the Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus.

(4) They both upset the Jewish authorities and were put to death on the eve of the Passover.

(5) Early Christians were called Nazarenes, a term in use before the Common Era.

Cons

(1) We have very sketchy information on Yeishu ben Pandeira. We know little of his teachings or life.

(2) Yeishu ben Pandeira had five disciples, not twelve, and three of them, Nekai, Netzer and Buni had names one could not associate with the Twelve Apostles.

(3) The Hebrew name for Jesus is generally agreed to be Yeshua, not Yeishu, or Yeshu. Yeshua is of course translated into the English Joshua. It is believed that the Greek word for Jesus, Iesous, was back translated to come up with Yeishu instead of Yeshua. If this is the case then Yeishu ha-Notzri is not the equivalent of Jesus the Nazarine.

(4) If Jesus was patterned after the life of Yeishu ben Pandeira then where did all his teachings and parables come from as well as the story of his ministry? There is little in the life of Yeishu ben Pandeira that could be used for the script of the Gospels.

(5) The main claim to fame for Jesus was the resurrection story. Without this, he would have been lost to history. If the life of Jesus was inspired by Yeishu ben Pandeira then why was there no resurrection story about him also?

This would be like creating a character patterned after George Washington, but making him come back from the dead, something the Washington story does not have in it.

(6) There is quite a bit of evidence that Jesus lived in the beginning of the first century. One of the strongest from non Christian sources is verification from Josephus and Hegesippus that James, the brother of Jesus was a historical person, who was stoned to death in 62 AD. If the brother of Jesus (who is mentioned in the Bible) lived in the first century then Jesus would have lived then also.

For final verification let us look at the actual words of a master (DK) and see what verification we can get about the life of Jesus.

It is true that sometimes DK spoke of obvious symbolism in the life of Jesus, but there can be symbolism behind actual physical events. For instance DK speaks of the baptism as a real event.

“We have an instance of this in the manner the Christ used the body of the initiate Jesus, taking possession of it at the time of the Baptism.”

TCF, Pg 1150

Then he also talks about the symbolism behind baptism.

Here are some other real events indicated by DK in the life of Jesus.

“Behind these words of illusion, glamour and maya, lies TRUTH. This truth is the clear consciousness of Being, of Existence and of essential, initial Reality. That is the reason that Christ stood mute before Pilate who symbolised the human intellect; He knew that no reply could convey meaning to that veiled, inhibited mind.”

Glamour, Pg 240

Also:

“I would remind you that the outstanding characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth, throughout the period prior to the crucifixion, was one of complete silence;”

Rays and Initiations, Page 220

Here DK speaks of Jesus before Pilate as if it were a historical fact. Pilate was a true historical person who was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36, right around the time given the Gospels for the crucifixion.

Then there are numerous other references where DK indicates that Jesus was crucified as related in the gospels rather than stoned to death and then hung on a tree.

“The exclamation of the Christ, “Father, not my will, but Thine be done,” indicated His monadic and realised “destiny.” The meaning of these words is not as is so oft stated by Christian theologians and thinkers, a statement of acceptance of pain and of an unpleasant future. It is an exclamation evoked by the realisation of monadic awareness and the focussing of the life aspect within the Whole. The soul, in this statement, is renounced, and the monad, as a point of centralisation, is definitely and finally recognised. Students would do well to bear in mind that the Christ never underwent the Crucifixion subsequent to this episode, but that it was the Master Jesus Who was crucified. The Crucifixion lay behind Him in the experience of the Christ. The episode of renunciation was a high point in the life of the World Saviour, but was no part of the experience of the Master Jesus.

Rays and Initiations, Pages 314-315

Here DK acknowledges the Gospel account of the experience in the Garden of Gethsemane as being a real occurrence as well as the crucifixion. It doesn’t sound like he is just speaking in symbols.

Then there is this:

“It is interesting here to note that the Master Jesus, as He hung upon the Cross, experienced (on a much higher turn of the spiral than is possible to the disciple) the acme and the height of this crisis, though in “His case – being attuned to God and to all God’s children – there swept over Him the sum total of the dilemma of the world disciples and all the agony of the astral awareness of this dilemma, voicing itself in the agonising words: “’My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me.’”

Esoteric Psychology, Page 374

“The Master Jesus on the Cross could not respond to any saving process (even had He desired to do so) because the soul body – as is always the case at the fourth initiation – was destroyed; there was nothing to respond to the evocative power of an outside person, interested or loving. As an adept and as one in whom monadic consciousness was firmly established, the powers then available to Jesus could not be used in the saving of His physical body.”

Esoteric Healing, Page 654

“It was the Master Jesus who ‘died’ and entered into the tomb, thus climaxing His long series of incarnations and ending – by destruction – the hold of matter on the spirit;”

Rays and Initiations, Page 355

Here we have verification of the gospel account of his words on the cross as well as his crucifixion.

In addition, DK seems to subscribe to the fact that there was a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, something not identified with any other Jewish figure before him.

“This return to an original state is pictured for us in The New Testament under the story of the Prodigal Son, who said “I will arise and go to my Father,” and by the story of the resurrection in which the Master Jesus arose out of the tomb; the chains of death could not hold Him. At that time of His “rising,” a far more important event took place and the Christ passed through the seventh Initiation of Resurrection and returned back to His original state of Being…”

Rays and Initiations, Pg 730

The fact of the resurrection will be demonstrated during the next few centuries, and the Living Christ will walk among men and lead them onward towards the Mount of Ascension.

The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pg 471

Finally, the parting words to the disciples are verified

“The final words of the Christ to His apostles, gathered together in the upper chamber (in the Hierarchy, symbolically) were, ‘Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age,’ or cycle.”

The Reappearance of the Christ, Page 29

There is some symbology in everything, but overall it does indeed sound like DK subscribes to the basic elements and timeframe of the life of Jesus as being largely historically accurate.

In addition it would add depth to the mystery if Jesus was a reincarnation of Yeishu ben Pandeira – which thing is a real possibility.

For the Previous Article on this subject GO HERE

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Lessons from Miracles

April 6, 2016May 14, 2016 Joseph Dewey

April 6, 2016

Lessons from Miracles

A reader asked me to comment on the meaning of the healing of Jairus’ daughter by Jesus. It is really a story of two miracles. Here is the account from the New International Version:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake.

Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.”

So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse.

When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.”

Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”

“You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”

But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth.

He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?”

Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”

He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly.

He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was.

He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.

He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Mark 5:21-43

There is a lot to be gleaned from these verses, but will just cover several important points.

The first thing of interest is how little things have changed as far as medical expenses go for orthodox treatments. Concerning the sick lady it was written:

She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse.

How many times do we hear patients today tell this same story? People get sick and, even with insurance, they spend all they have trying to survive but often to no avail.

The second thing of interest was the identity of the man who initially sought the help of Jesus. He was the leader of a synagogue. And why is this important?

Because the Jewish leaders, as a whole, scorned and mocked Jesus. This would be comparable to Bernie Sanders today going to Donald Trump asking for help.

The guy obviously loved his daughter and most likely, like the lady, had tried everything available to help his daughter and nothing worked. For both people Jesus was the last resort. Nothing else worked so let’s see if the crazy guy can actually do something.

The lesson here is that we should start thinking out of the box before we become desperate. Those who search for answers through self-imposed motivation are richly rewarded. Those who wait until they are desperate will rarely encounter a helper like Jesus who can turn things around at the last minute.

Another thing of significance is that when the woman touched his garment Jesus felt power go out of him, or through him. This tells us that there is a universal power source that can be tapped into that will stimulate healing. We must seek to be good conductors of it as was Jesus.

Another point is that Jesus did not tell Jairus to go jump in the lake merely because he belonged to a group of sworn enemies. He responded to a plea for help without casting negative judgment.

Then as he proceeded to assist Jairus another miracle happened along the way.

The lesson here is that as the seeker willingly serves with all his strength, more strength and power to serve are made available and opportunities blossom.

Finally we come to the most significant lesson. When Jesus began the journey he only allowed Jairus and three believing disciples to come with him. Then after he arrived he made everyone leave his presence except for Jairus, his wife and his three disciples.

Why was this?

Raising the dead was a miracle few could accept and if unbelievers and mockers were present, even Jesus could not have performed the miracle.

After all, we are told that he could not perform any miracle in his hometown because the people there had no faith in him.

Miracles will be few and far between if you are in the midst of a crowd hostile to them or those attempting to perform them.

If one person has a consciousness directed toward Spirit and finds another so directed then their power is amplified. If he finds many their power is magnified beyond belief.

This principle will eventually be demonstrated in the Molecular Relationship.

Easy Access to all the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 1

February 3, 2012 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 5 of 40 in the series 2012A

Jan 1, 2012

Gaps in Words

LWK Speaking from personal experience, the _only_ thing that will really convert the atheist mindset is pain; physical, emotional, and spiritual. They have to see for themselves that they need to somehow step outside the paradigms they have defined for themselves and take a leap of faith (“faith” as JJ defines it in The Gathering of Lights, Ch. 19 – Real Faith).

JJ You are right here Larry. In fact I have been arguing with atheists on another forum for the past couple days, kinda as a diversionary vacation, and I use their terminology and of course have changed no minds. I did find one guy who explained to me why he lost his faith who may have some hope.

Anyway, we are all like the alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom before we will make real change. I’m not clear what turned you around but I am sure it was something painful rather than a peaceful argument.

Jan 2, 2012

Re: Intelligent Aid

There are indeed two ways that we evolve. The first is through trial and error. Eventually the next learning point dawns on us as we stumble forward.

The second is with the assistance of a teacher or some type of guidance beyond the physical, perhaps from a higher life.

Now, even in the first category we are not alone for we slowly progress through interaction with other lives who are fellow travelers. These may not be able to explain to us the knowledge we need but they may stimulate or motivate us.

On this note DK gave an interesting thought. He said that higher lives looked upon primitive humans and their struggle to survive and basically felt sorry for them. They decided to help them and came to the earth and stimulated their minds greatly speeding up their evolution. He said that if they had not done this humanity would have still moved forward but much more slowly. The most advanced among us would be living like the Australian Bushmen in a primitive condition with little civilization. It would have been a long time in the future yet before we would have arrived where we are now.

As I’ve reflected on this it could give an explanation as to why we have not yet picked up an intelligent radio signal from another solar system. Perhaps we are one of the few planets that have received such stimulation and most of the life on other planets is still quite primitive. Maybe one of our purposes is to visit them in the future and stimulate them.

Jan 3, 2012

Odds on Candidates

Back in May I gave my odds on the various potential candidates getting the nomination. Since we are approaching the first primary in Iowa I thought I would revamp my odds.

At that time I gave Romney the highest odds for the nomination stating that he has karma on his side because of the way the press destroyed his Father when he ran for president in 1968.

I think he still has the best chance for the nomination, but it’s been a weird year. Every month or so a new favorite has arisen who has looked like he would eclipse Romney so far this hasn’t happened. Romney hasn’t seemed to move much up or down but of late he has been inching upward. In his favor is that he seems to be a known quantity with no hidden vices, actions or comments that can be exposed and he’s performed well at the debates without making a major error.

The greatest criticism at the debate came from him offering to bet Perry $10,000 that he was correct on a point. In my book I thought it was his finest moment but others were upset the average person could not bet $10,000.

My overall odds have changed as the landscape has changed. Here they are.

Romney: 60% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 70%

Ron Paul: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 30%. It looks like he will do reasonably well in Iowa but his past newsletters is starting to hurt him with new converts as I earlier predicted. If Romney views him as a threat he will do to him what he did to Gingrich with an attack ad blitz

Rick Santorum: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 45%

Gingrich: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 60%

This leaves a 10% chance anyone else will get the nomination

There’s a 30% chance Donald Trump will run as a third party candidate. If he does all bets are off and a reevaluation will be made at that time. A third party run by Trump would definitely increase the odds of an Obama win. A third party in development called Americans Elect started by Obama supporter Peter Ackerman has about $22 million to advance its cause and could wind up with someone like Trump or Huntsman for its candidate and could help Obama get reelected. This may be its purpose. In my view this has a 20% chance of having a significant influence on the election. We’ll hear more about this group as we approach the election.

Another thing that could change the election equation is if Hillary is selected for vice president. Most Democrats want this to happen, but the two people most opposed to it are Obama and Clinton.

I think Obama doesn’t want her because she may overshadow him and he doesn’t trust her in that position. Clinton is reluctant to seek the vice presidency because she wouldn’t have much power there. If she were nominated for this position it would increase Obama’s election chances by about 10%.

Only time will reveal the truth for sure. It will be a interesting political year.

Jan 6, 2012

Re: JJ Quote from the Archives for Today

JJ Quote: “Each odd number representing a ray or plane (and even years) is polarized in the positive energy and the even numbers are polarized in the negative energy. Notice that concerning this great number of seven that we have four positive numbers and three negative which gives all creation a domination toward the positive, or the dominating good.”

Ruth: I am wondering that now we are entering an even number year which means the polarization more towards the negative energy, or rather female/intuitional/receiving/magnetic energy may come into play more in all aspects of living etc.?

JJ When we speak of the energies being positive and negative the meaning is not to be taken in black and white as good and evil. Both polarities are necessary for creation. Nothing would exist without the both of them. Both male and female aspects have their positive points and there would be no dominating good without them both working together.

The odd years will reveal more male energy and the even numbered years the female or emotional side will be stronger. It is no accident that U.S. elections are on even numbered years where emotion reaches a high point.

Jan 7, 2012

Re: Big Bang Theory

It’s one of my favorite shows.

I also like Revenge, Chuck, The Mentalist ,Hell on Wheels, Castle, The Middle, Two and a Half Men, and Fringe.

Jan 9, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on the Face of Jesus.

This gives me an idea for a group assignment. There are two portraits online where the artists claimed to paint Jesus from actually seeing him. The first is the one you mentioned by Akaine at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg

The second is by Glenda Green at: http://www.lovewithoutend.com/

Take a look and these two and see if either registers as a true image.

Next go to Google image search at: http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en

Type in “Jesus portrait” and scroll through the images. If you see any that strike a chord give us a link with your impressions.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on Jesus.

Thanks for your comments and participation on the face of Jesus. There is something one can say for sure about him if he were to come across a true picture which is this. The eyes would be interesting and exude intelligence and a strong life force. Take this picture for instance: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

It is a composite put together using research and guesswork and though some ingredients may be more accurate than the traditional pictures the eyes are surely way off. The guy just doesn’t look very bright and if a person is truly intelligent it is revealed through the eyes as well as the whole look of the individual.

Other pictures make Jesus look weak, wimpy, and effeminate in a syrupy way. These type of pictures can be ruled out as being good representations

I do not see any pictures on the internet that strike me as being 100% accurate but some capture part of his essence. I would have to say that I like Akaine’s picture best at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg

I did see one many years ago in a tabloid that impressed me as accurate. I cut it out and saved it for a long time and was finally lost in one of my moves. It hasn’t surfaced anywhere on the internet. I wish I had it to show it to you. I’m sure the group would be impressed.

It was painted by a lady who claimed to have had a vision of Christ when he was in his twenties. His hair wasn’t that long and he didn’t have a beard at the time, but it was the most interesting looking human being I had ever seen.

Ruth brings up an interesting item of discussion. If one has soul contact does this mean he would recognize a true picture of Jesus?

Not necessarily. If one had known Jesus in a past life this would be possible but if he had not then it would require true psychic powers rather than soul contact to bring forth the right image.

Remember soul contact deals with principles more than data. Sometimes when it is important the soul will send an impression on a piece of data but more often than not we are on our own to reason it out. On the other hand, the person with reliable soul contact is very capable in seeing true principles and how they play out in this reality.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: recognizing Jesus.

Dan: How about if the overshadowed Jesus were actually standing before us? It seems almost incomprehensible that MOST folks wouldn’t feel the impact – I suppose to some it would just evoke irritation rather than peace but SOMETHING would register in almost everyone wouldn’t it?

JJ The actual presence of a person is much different than a photo or painting. In this case soul contact is a great help for you can sense the aura of the person as well as his inner being. As I said before one with soul contact can recognize another with it in their physical presence and often in communication away from their presence.

Jan 12, 2012

Ron Paul & World War II

Ron Paul was drafted for service He had to go. FDR did not get the approval of Congress to help Churchill during the war before 1941 but had to bend the rules. His good judgment made a world of difference – something Ron Paul would have never done. I doubt if Paul would have declared war on Germany until they were at our shores.

Keith: Ron Paul may or may not have gone to to war in 1941 if he was President. There is no way for anybody to know for sure. I honestly do not know. My gut instinct tells me Ron Paul is being unfairly painted as an isolationist who would never go to war. I do not believe this is true.

JJ No one is saying he would never go to war. He has made it clear the conditions in which he would go to war though.

(1) The United States must be attacked by the enemy. (2) Congress must first officially declare war.

His statements indicate that he would have not responded to Hitler until he had attempted to invade our shores and that wouldn’t have happened until he had first conquered all of Europe and Russia. At the end of the war he was close to developing nuclear weapons and if he had some more time he would have had them available when the time came to attack us. Even so, with Iran Paul wants to do nothing to make them mad but will wait until they send a nuclear bomb somewhere.

As far as controlling spending and reducing the size of government I am with him 100%.

I would guess that Paul would have declared war on Japan but waited on Germany even though they were allies. Their alliance was not that tight before the U.S. got into the war. I’m not even sure he would have declared war on Japan since Hawaii was not yet a state. After all he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/fmr-staffer-ron-paul-planned-no-vote-for-afgha\ nistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/

I’m not saying he wouldn’t have done anything after Pear Harbor, but not sure he would have retaliated with an all out war. If he was set on not retaliating for 9/11 then it is probable he would have been reluctant to do much because of Pearl Harbor, specially since Hawaii was not a state.

Here is additional powerful evidence I am correct with his own words:

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP’s leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.

“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”

“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.

(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4167841,00.html

Jan 12, 2012

Inside Ron Paul’s Mind

Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero: Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325052.php

Jan 13, 2012

Re: Ron Paul Predictions

Keith: The only part I slightly disagree with is your assessment that we are not in a dollar crisis. I think we have been in a dollar crisis for a few years now.

JJ I think you misread me there. Here was the dialog.

Ron Paul: An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.

My response: Didn’t happen. Interest rates have been very low over the past 10 years.

What didn’t happen was a dramatic rise in the interest rates due to any dollar crisis. I made no statement saying there was or was not a dollar crisis. It’s up to interpretation whether one would call the current instability of the dollar a crisis, but there is certainly a danger with it considering the world situation. The danger from the European situation is much greater right now than the fact that we have printed so much money.

(You do not have to log in to add comments)