Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00402)

At 04:20 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote:

>>Bjorn wrote:
>>Have you or anybody else proven that he (Jesus) was NOT a real and living
person? If
>>that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely
>>possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing
>>is proven, right?
>
Alexis wrote:
>Bjorn: May I suggest that you read Albert Screecher's book: "The Search for
>the Historical Jesus", and then we can talk about this subject. I am not a
>Christian "near Saint" Schweitzer is. I always prefer to refer people to
>real experts.

        There is a relative consensus (not total consensus) among historians
and "real experts" that Jesus was an actual living person of flesh and
blood. There is any number of books about the subject, most of which support
the conclusion that Jesus is a historical person, and that certain events in
his life can be considered actual historical events. This, of course, still
leaves much to be discussed, but your Screecher belongs to a minority among
serious historians, if he claims that the person Jesus is nothing more but a
myth.

        There is about one hundred pages of a book on the subject available
on the net, chockful with references to sources that not only confirm Jesus'
existence as a physical person, but also that he spent much of his time
between age 12 and 30 in India and the Himalayas. The sources that contain
references to his presence and activity in the East are pretty heavy duty,
63 of which are to be found in the Vatican (see
http://www.skypoint.com/members/ceo/). One discourse cited in this book and
attributed to Jesus, taken from a Tibetan manuscript, I find especially
beautiful. The subject is "woman":

10 "Listen, then, to what I say unto you: Respect woman, for she is the
mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation lies in her.

11 "She is the basis of all that is good and beautiful, as she is also the
germ of life and death. On her depends the whole existence of man, for she
is his natural and moral support.

12 "She gives birth to you in the midst of suffering. By the sweat of her
brow she rears you, and until her death you cause her the gravest anxieties.
Bless her and worship her, for she is your one friend, your one support on
earth.

13 "Respect her, uphold her. In acting thus you will win her love and her
heart. You will find favor in the sight of God and many sins shall be
forgiven you.

14 "In the same way, love your wives and respect them; for they will be
mothers of tomorrow, and each later on the ancestress of a race.

15 "Be lenient towards women. Her love ennobles man, softens his hardened
heart, tames the brute in him, and makes of him a lamb.

16 "The wife and the mother are the inappreciable treasures given unto you
by God. They are the fairest ornaments in existence, and of them shall be
born all the inhabitants of the world.

17 "Even as the God of armies separated of old the light from the darkness
and the land from the waters, woman possesses the divine faculty of
separating in a man good intentions from evil thoughts.

18 "Wherefore I say unto you, after God your best thoughts should belong to
the women and the wives, woman being for you the temple wherein you will
obtain the most easily perfect happiness.

19 "Imbue yourselves in this temple with moral strength. Here you will
forget your sorrows and your failures, and you will recover the lost energy
necessary to enable you to help your neighbor.

20 "Do not expose her to humiliation. In acting thus you would humiliate
yourselves and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing can exist
here below.

21 "Protect you wife, in order that she may protect you and all your family.
All that you do for your wife, your mother, for a widow or another woman in
distress, you will have done to your God."<11>


Bjorn wrote:
>Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who
>>have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for
>>better or for worse, as the case may be.

Alexis:
>That is true, but one has no way of actually identifying them. The hard part
>for those not Shamans, is deciding what is real.
>
        This certainly is hard for anybody, even shamans. Ultimately the
truth about the identity of a spiritual being, as the truth in any other
matter, is known through the Holy Spirit. We have to go to the core of our
own being and become familiar with the vibration of truth there, then
compare phenomena at any plane with this vibration - if they are the same,
the manifestation contains truth. The Christians talk about the "gift of
discernment of spirits", which is another way of describing this.

Bjorn:
>>What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you
>>have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about
>>matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven
>yourself?
>
Alexis:
 As a Shaman, "spirits"who are intrinsically unidentifiable, use
>my body and voice as a transmitter for the Cosmic harmonic. Who they are, I
>have no idea,although I do see them from time to time, and they are very
>interesting indeed. BUT that is a far cry from saying I have met the Master
>K.H. or The Master Jesus.

        So, you have "met" your spirits, from time to time, and tell people
about it. I "commune" with this or that master/angel from time to time and
tell people about it, sometimes. Spirits or masters, they are both
nonphysical. If I ask you to "prove" your spirits to me empirically, you
have a problem. You/your spirits may be able to produce some phenomena that
you claim are caused by the spirits, and that is about it.

        I believe that "My sheep hear my voice", which would mean that many
of us will recognize the presence of a master, and see the difference in
vibration between him/her and astral imitators, etc, when given a chance. I
have a habit of reading the vibrations/energies of anything/anyone I
encounter and "judge" accordingly. Not without making mistakes, of course,
but this technique has nevertheless led me to higher and higher
manifestations of truth for at least 20 years.

        In no way am I claiming to be a channel or to convey "messages" etc.
I am only sharing some experiences of communion with you, that's all. And I
do this, because this is what have been most helpful and inspiring to me on
my path, reading and listening to other's spiritual experiences. Take the
book "Good Morning, Holy Spirit", by Benny Hinn, for example. He is a
traditional Christian as far as doctrine goes, but his relationship with God
the Holy Spirit is so tangible and real that it has an enormously uplifting
and inspiring effect on me to read his biography. Is he deluded? Is he a
victim of "glamour" etc? Read and judge for yourself.

 I have
>met several people whom I consider to be Adeptii, but they were in the
>flesh.

You seem to think it OK to mention that you have met embodied Adeptii, but I
am breaking the rules when I mention that I have had contact with spiritual
ones. To me this does not make sense.

Some of the spirits I work with and see may indeed be at that level
>but I would never presume to say so. If one is going to be an occultist, one
>must follow the rules of occultism.

        I do not claim to be an occultist, and I believe that the occult
rules have changed during the last 100 years. That which used to be "hidden"
has been made much more available to the public, through activities like
Theosophy, but certainly not limited to theosophical organizations.
Theosophy was just one step, one part in a grand plan to lead mankind
towards higher consciousness and a golden age.

>Many people have called Mme. Blavatsky a fraud, and in some instances they
>may be right. But reading her words one finds they are anything but
>superficial and banal, they may be absurd and ridiculous, but they are never
>banal. The theosophical writings that are banal and superficial were mostly
>written by Bishop Leadbeater and his many imitators, and they in fact are
>the basic sources for Elisabeth clair Prophets writings.
>>
>>I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her
>>predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and
>>consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and
>>have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion.
>
>His name by the way, was Mark Probbert (he was her husband, not simply her
>predecessor). She changed it after his death to suit her purposes.

Yes, they were married. No, his name was Prophet. He was born Prophet, his
father bearing that name from his Irish ancestry. Mark was born in Chippewa
Falls and his name etc is a matter of public record.

This is
>one of the many reasons I find her extremely questionable.

So, now that obstacle should be removed.

 One of the joys
>of being a doddering old man is that I can say I met him once or twice. I
>liked him and thought he was a valid psychic.

        Regarding psychics, please read
http://home.earthlink.net/~futurecon/channel which exposes channeling and
psychicism in a theosophical spirit. I have seen many psychics, perhaps even
valid ones, but have never gotten anything of value from them. The masters
don't work from the psychic (astral) plane, as you know. Mark certainly was
not a psychic in vibration.  There is some info available on the net, both
on Mark and Elizabeth Prophet (http://www.tsl.org/ecp.html). Also
http://www.tsl.org/melton.html is interesting, since it is an excerpt from
Encyclopedia of American Religions, and not written by a member of her
organization.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net