|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 07:32:48 AM
|
Hi Philip
quote:
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the very detailed and informative reply.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in your understanding, this line in the bible refers to men who were Christed, marrying women who were not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in my view, that is an allegory to the fall of certain angels.
Although sexual alchemy is the way to become an angel, it is also true that once the work of the genesis of the angel is complete, then it is forbidden to take a wife.
The “Being” has many different parts. It happens that the mind falls in love and through this doorway all the angels who ever fell, did so through the door of sex.
This is very interesting. Do you therefore regard humans as being the offspring of an interbreeding between earlier humans and angels? Or do you believe that only some bloodlines are decended from an angel/ human mixture? Is there any way that we can tell who had decended from an angel?
quote:
People believe that they are really saved but they still dream, they do not possess a permanent center of consciousness, and what is worse, is that they ignore that 97% of their self is "darkness" or unconsciousness.
Well... I have certainly found this to be true recently!
quote:
Only that element called “Jesus” within can save you. Only that element called “Jesus” within can reach those heights. Only that element called “Jesus” is born pure within the one who knows the way and only through him can one be Christified.
So as I understand it, for you, Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as an actual human, born in a certain place, at a certain time etc. The story of the man is an allegory, is that right? So you can believe in the accuracy of the Creed, and at the same time, believe that there could be many humans who actually lived, who were Christed? So you could say to a Hindu that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, and that Krishna was Christed, and had taken into himself the light of Christ which was Jesus, the Son of God? Have I got this right?
I am aware that the actual historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus of nazareth actually lived is very poor, other than in the bible story.
quote:
there are few who make any distinction between Jesus and Christ. In most cases it doesnÂ’t matter because Jesus was the one who best transmitted the light of Christ.
And if you believe that Jesus did not actually live, what do you mean here by Jesus was the one who best transmitted the light of Christ?
Christi |
 |
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 12:10:52 PM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
This is very interesting. Do you therefore regard humans as being the offspring of an interbreeding between earlier humans and angels? Or do you believe that only some bloodlines are decended from an angel/ human mixture? Is there any way that we can tell who had decended from an angel?
I regard a "human" as someone who does the Will of God on Earth, in the physical body, as it is done in Heaven, where the Inner Master, or inner Guru lives (Chesed in Kabbalah).
Human can be broken down into HU-MAN. Man is from MANAS, meaning, "mind." HU is the Spirit, the Wind (Ruach), the Huuu.. ("The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8)
So, the true human is a Mind that does the Will of the Spirit. A true human is a Malachim (a King) of the Four Elements, a ruler of the earth... A true Human lives in "Eden". When humanity fell out of Eden, they fell out of human generation and back into animal generation (with intellectual capacities).
In this regard, this world is populated not by real humans, but rather animals with intellect.
An Angel is a soul that has reached a level of perfection. There are many ranks of Angels, of Buddhas, of Masters, Devas, etc... call them whatever you wish. Every Angel is someone who has given up his self (ego) will and now performs the will of god, they were created by god and now they serve that intelligence called god... this is why angels have no "self" or egoic will...
Now, the Angels that fell had already completed the cooperative sexual work, they already extracted the gold (spiritual values) from their philosophical stone (sex) in the waters (energy) of alchemy (tantrism). Meaning, that, they were beyond the need for sexual cooperation, they had their center of sexual activity elevated to the "throat" (Daath).. they were creators that used the Word or Logos..
So, taking a wife means that they went backwards, they fell down, they expelled their spiritual values through fornicating with their wives.
When we are speaking in terms of the Kabbalah, the entire Tree of Life, with its Ten Emanations, is the "Being." The Being expresses itself in different ways, with different parts. The Human Soul (Tiphereth) is one part, the Innermost (Chesed) is another, the Mind (Netzach) is another.
The common and everyday person is the expression of a fraction of the Human Soul. This fraction, called the Essence, or Buddhata, etc., is bottled up in the self-willed aggregates we can call the ego, or Seth, or the Devil, the Adversary, whatever you want to call it. When we truly progress in the spiritual work, it is the spirit who is gaining all of that, the inner Guru, the Atman, not "us", not the Essence.
The inner guru (the monad) is happiness, yet, it wants to acquire cognizance of its own happiness, because that is true happiness. It is like a baby that is happy, yet, it does not even know what its own hands and feet are, until it gains understanding of its own self. It is somewhat like that.
The Atman, the Innermost, the Spark, contains all of his abilities in potentiality. An integration is needed, and in order to do that, the Human Soul is the one who works in order to give all the values and experiences that the Innermost needs.
When one reaches the state of an Angel, that is the rank of the Innermost, not the Human Soul. The Soul is just a worker, a servant. When an Angel falls, it is the Soul that falls. The inner God never falls, the Inner God never looses its rank or degree or wisdom.
So, even though an angel has reached a level of perfection, the human soul, with the mind, can fall in love and make mistakes (fornicate). Then, the fallen Angel is the outcome. Really, that have a double polarity, one angelic which is the Innermost, and one diabolic, which is the human soul entrapped within the "self-willed" aggregates. Self-willed is how they are described in The Pistis Sophia; in Tibetan Buddhism they are called aggregates; we can call them vices, defects, sins, etc.
Gudjieff called the fallen ones Hannasmusen. The human soul of a fallen one has a lot of experience, a lot of knowledge, a lot of power. With this a lot of damage occurs. This humanity has a lot of fallen bodhisattvas roaming around.. and they have a lot of heavy karma, and the blood lines are what carry that.. the only way to tell is if you awaken in the internal worlds and converse with the Innermost of someone.
quote:
quote:
Only that element called “Jesus” within can save you. Only that element called “Jesus” within can reach those heights. Only that element called “Jesus” is born pure within the one who knows the way and only through him can one be Christified.
So as I understand it, for you, Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as an actual human, born in a certain place, at a certain time etc. The story of the man is an allegory, is that right? So you can believe in the accuracy of the Creed, and at the same time, believe that there could be many humans who actually lived, who were Christed? So you could say to a Hindu that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, and that Krishna was Christed, and had taken into himself the light of Christ which was Jesus, the Son of God? Have I got this right?
I am aware that the actual historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus of nazareth actually lived is very poor, other than in the bible story.
No, my experience is that Jesus exists. He is alive, he is working is secret.
Yet, the life that is described in the Bible is not a biography. It is symbolism. The real personal life of Jesus was not written down.
People think Jesus did not exist because his life parallels so many other avatars ("messengers"). If we take lives of Krisha, Horus, Mithra, etc., we will find that many of the major elements of the life of Jesus described in the Bible occurred to other messengers before him.
We find midnight at December 24th was from other sects, cults, religions. We find the virgin mother and the immaculate conception in every culture. Krishna was a shepherd, etc.
But this does not mean he did not actually exist. He exists, and he is one with Christ, BUT, with his life he taught the doctrine of the Inner Christ.
When we are talking in Christian terms, yes, the Inner Jesus Christ is what develops within, In Hindu terms, you have Krishna. In Buddhists terms you have Avalokiteshvara or Kuan-Yin, in Mayan terms you have Quetzalcoatl, in Egyptian terms you have Osiris-Ra...
It just is that Christianity has the most complete doctrine of that, of the Only Begotten, because explaining that was part of its main purpose.
You see Jesus is a Kabbalistic name. His name can be formed by taking the Iod-Heva, Iod-He-Vav-He (Jehovah) and placing a Shin in the middle. The Shin is a Hebrew character with three points, thee Iods. It is a trinity, three flames united as one. So, you take the SHIN, the FIRE, and place it in the Iod-He-Vav-He, you get Iod-He-Shin-Vav-He: Yeshua, Jesus, the Savior. |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 1:49:15 PM
|
Here's an interesting perspective on spiritual evolution, I thought that some may enjoy. All you have to do is double click on the diagram and then move your mouse over the picture and click the little square box that appears on the bottom right hand corner to make it even larger for clarity's sake:
http://bahai-library.com/visuals/ev...ion.txt.html
"Scientific philosophy has demonstrated that a simple element is indestructible, eternal. The soul, not being a composition of elements, is, in character, as a simple element, and, therefore, cannot cease to exist."
"The soul, being of that one indivisible substance, can suffer neither disintegration nor destruction; therefore, there is no reason for its coming to an end. All things living show signs of their existence, and it follows that these signs could not of themselves exist if that which they express or to which they testify had no being. A thing which does not exist can, of course, give no sign of its existence. The manifold signs of the existence of the spirit are forever before us."
"The traces of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the influence of His divine teaching, is present with us today, and is everlasting."
http://home.arcor.de/unity9/Immortality.htm
From Aristotle:
"the body moving with this circular motion which is unnatural to it is something different from the elements, there will be some other motion which is natural to it. But this cannot be. For if the natural motion is upward, it will be fire or air, and if downward, water or earth. Further, this circular motion is necessarily primary. For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing. This cannot be said of any straight line:–not of an infinite line; for, if it were perfect, it would have a limit and an end: nor of any finite line; for in every case there is something beyond it, since any finite line can be extended. And so, since the prior movement belongs to the body which naturally prior, and circular movement is prior to straight, and movement in a straight line belongs to simple bodies–fire moving straight upward and earthy bodies straight downward towards the centre–since this is so, it follows that circular movement also must be the movement of some simple body".
http://academic.udayton.edu/BradHum...ristotle.htm
From The Emerald Tablets of Thoth:
"Yet only by curves could I hope to attain the key
that would give me access to the time-space.
Found I that only by moving upward
and yet again by moving to right-ward
could I be free from the time of the movement".
http://www.crystalinks.com/emerald.html
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Feb 22 2007 2:34:41 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 5:30:28 PM
|
Philosophical and Moral Objections to Reincarnation
THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF reincarnation is to work off all karma until the "sound of silence," that is, the primordial state of the universe, returns once more. There are two fundamental problems with this thesis. First, it assumes that things are getting better; second, when the end of the karmic phase is reached, it will begin all over again.
Toward the Sound of Silence
The assumption that good karma is increasing is a highly questionable notion, as illustrated in the previous chapter. Since most people live in "ignorance," pursuing self-gratification, bad karma would seemingly be generated at a faster rate than good karma. India bears tragic witness to the problems associated with this thesis; despite all her poverty, starvation, suffering and chaos, India is the land where reincarnation has been taught the longest and most systematically. Since most Indian religion aims at reversing the effects of bad karma, it would seem that the subcontinent should be well along the road of evolutionary progress
Page 94
and be a lighthouse for the world. Yet the exact opposite is true; India's problems are intractable and seemingly without cure.
Even Madame Blavatsky has admitted that karma does seem to be "absurd" and "unfair." She explains that only the Eastern sages have figured it out. But even though she concedes that karma spreads exponentially, she does not pursue the ramifications of her own statement: "Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you think that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his neighbors, least of all to other nations. We affirm that it will, in good time" (Blavatsky's emphasis).1
Head and Cranston also address the problem: "Objectors to reincarnation nevertheless often ask: If all of us have lived thousands of lives, why are we not much further advanced? Such questions usually equate reincarnation with progress, whereas it only provides the opportunity for progress."2 Thus they admit that reincarnation does not guarantee progress. Just how the present syndrome of rapidly multiplying bad karma will ever be reversed to reach the equilibrium of the sound of silence is never adequately explained by any reincarnationist.
This leads to the second problem. Even if all evil and ignorance were eventually "burned off" and the universe reverted to its original equilibrium, the whole cycle would start all over again in the future. Karma is a permanent thing. At best it is only inactive for periods of time. All the gurus, and even Madame Blavatsky, would be reincarnated afresh with the next spasmodic lurch of the wounded cosmos.
This state of affairs gives rise to a rather fundamental question: Is it desirable to be born again? If the world is dominated by suffering and ignorance, as seems to be the case, would anyone of sound mind want to experience hundreds or thousands of human lives? The witness of history speaks tragically to this question. Most people down through the years have lived lives of anxiety, boredom, suffering or terror.
Page 95
True, not all people have suffered greatly, but most have lived lives of considerable struggle and hardship, especially by modern Western standards.
Of course, no one wants to believe that despair dominates human existence, and so hope is a persistent theme in human experience and is expressed in whatever context people find themselves.3 Ian Stevenson, writing in the introduction to Edward Ryall's book Born Twice, says, "Edward Ryall's case, like others of its type that I consider genuine, conveys something of which we all stand in need — hope . . . the idea of a second time around suggests both hope and an incentive to better conduct . . . If John Fletcher has become Edward Ryall in a new body, therein lies hope for the rest of us."4
This hope may sound reasonable to some people, but it fades in comparison to the Christian hope of the consummation of life through resurrection, with eternal fulfillment and the destruction of evil and suffering described in the book of Revelation: "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (21:3-4).
The Obliteration of Personality
Author John Weldon sums up another objection to the idea of reincarnation: "There is only one thing that makes a future life worthwhile — the preservation of the consciousness of personal identity and uniqueness. Yet, in reincarnation, personal identity and uniqueness are forever obliterated."5 Personality means little in the context of classic Eastern reincarnation. All personalities are ultimately interchangeable and therefore more or less synonymous when viewed over the course of thousands of reincarnations. The universe is one big interconnected unit, and
Page 96
everybody seemingly suffers for everything. Personal responsibility for one's own actions vanishes. Each person bears the allotment of karma that was generated by someone else, and the personality one gets in a particular life therefore seems to be dependent on a throw of the cosmic dice. If reincarnation is true, Adolf Hitler will never have to pay for his crimes, for he has ceased to exist. Instead, completely new, unknowing and innocent personalities inherit Hitler's karma. Likewise the righteous also cease to exists, never reaping the benefits of their good lives and self-sacrifice. Others reap the reward.
Ironically, many of the common people of India seem to understand this intuitively. I once asked a Christian pastor in West Bengal whether reincarnation posed any problem for him in his ministry. He replied, "No, because many Indians understand that in reincarnation your personality does not survive. It is destroyed and a new one created. So, in reincarnationist terms, at least, you don't have to worry that your deeds will follow you to the grave — or past it."
This is a shocking syncretistic twisting of Christianity. How is it possible to derive meaning for life from a stance which teaches obliteration of personality? For everything we are, everything we hope for, is to be found within the context of personal existence. To speak of humanity and of human fulfillment is to speak in terms of personality. This is especially true of spiritual salvation. To say that annihilation of personality is a soteriological end cuts across the grain of everything we hope for. Even if self-annihilation were the stated and desired goal, as it is in Buddhism, it is only through personal cognitive conceptualization that such a hope is formulated. To put it another way, "Without a thinker, the thought is nonexistent." Insisting that annihilation of personality is the highest good is simply an a posteriori argument of conceptual fantasy, put forth by people who are unhappy with life. As Carl Henry says, "A lapse of self-consciousness can only mean the surrender of any personal knowledge whatever."6
Page 97
Thus the truth of the matter is that death for the reincarnationist is not a great deal different from death for an atheist, since individual personality is obliterated. Reincarnation doctrine would suggest that there is no heaven, but only a series of vaguely related life sentences, and that salvation occurs not in an afterlife paradise but with a successful death. MacGregor seems to agree: "Between one life and the next, every single observable characteristic by which we identify people, and even by which we identify ourselves, undergoes a change. How then can we prove that we are really dealing with the same person? . . . For those who fear death as extinction, [reincarnation] gives little context and meaning to the idea of survival."7
If reincarnation has little regard for the individuality of persons who are mere bearers of karma from one birth to the next, it has even less regard for the flesh that bears it. A low regard for the physical creation has long been a basic presupposition of pantheist and gnostic philosophies. For example, the Hindu Upanishads state that "this body arises from sexual intercourse. It passes to development in darkness. Then it comes forth through the urinary opening. It is built up with bones; smeared over with flesh; covered with skin, filled with feces, urine, phlegm, marrow, fat, grease and also with many diseases."8 MacGregor, commenting on this text, says, "What a wretched hybrid must be that reincarnating self! It would seem to be . . . like an ugly blue-bottle hopping from one animal excrement to another."9
Past-Life Amnesia
In the previous section I have tried to show that the theory of obliteration of personality renders reincarnation unjust. This criticism demonstrates the internal inconsistency of reincarnation, for it purports to be a theory offering thorough justice, whereas in fact great injustice is done to every existing person — each of whom receives the "reward,"
Page 98
good or bad, of someone else because personality is obliterated at death.
The vacuous nature of the reincarnating self, however, poses a second problem with reincarnation: the inability to remember past lives. This is a practical problem that arises out of the very desire of reincarnationists to make the theory just. If reincarnation were true and we could remember past lives, then we would have to admit the justice of our present lot in life. So past-life recall is more than a fad to reincarnationists; it is an attempt to vindicate the theory's claim to justice. Thus the interest in past-life recall is twofold. First, if we can recall past lives, they must have been real; therefore reincarnation would be true. Second, if we can recall past lives, then we know we are fairly treated in life; therefore reincarnation would be just.
Not all reincarnationists cite memory of past lives as a proof of reincarnation, but since the inability to remember past lives is manifestly evident for the vast majority of the population, some reincarnationists are understandably defensive about it. Occult apologist Arthur Robson offers a standard reply: "The common objection to the theory of reincarnation is 'Why don't we remember our past lives?' It's true that ordinarily we cannot recall any part of our past lives, but in everything we do our past is plainly seen. Obvious examples are the natural inclinations of each of us . . . outstanding among them being great musicians, artists, mathematicians, etc."10
Here the writer avoids the question he has just asked, using words like plainly and obvious, expecting the reader to believe that the very existence of talented people proves reincarnation. Leoline Wright gives another reincarnationist answer: "The fact is that we do remember them." Her explanation is equally spurious, as she states that that individual has learned his or her lesson from past lives. "In this way we can say that character is memory."11
Page 99
By any accounting, however, not many of us (if any at all) remember past lives. Even Wright says that "John Smith and Mary Brown are not deathless beings. They are mere personalities, and as such do not reincarnate."12 If personality is obliterated at death, how can it be remembered and experienced in a future life? Those reincarnationists who firmly hold to the obliteration of personality do not look for recall experiences, believing the earlier incarnation to be gone — and all access to it, even by memory, to be gone as well. Madame Blavatsky finally admits as much: "It may be said that there is not a mental or physical suffering in the life of a mortal which is not the direct fruit and consequence of some sin in a preceding existence; on the other hand, he does not preserve the slightest recollection of it in his actual life."13
What are we to make of this? Each individual personality is supposedly responsible for his or her actions, but neither pays the penalty nor gets the reward, since the personality is extinguished. A totally different person is reborn, burdened with someone else's karma. The questions remain. Does this make sense? Is it just and fair? More important still, is reincarnation really true, or just the product of thousands of years of human speculation? Walter Martin comments on the problem:
It's very interesting that the reincarnationist tells us we go through cyclic rebirth and we suffer in various lives to atone for our sins. But it's very puzzling that nobody remembers his past life in enough detail to profit from it! So we don't know what we're being punished for. And if we don't know what we're being punished for, we're quite likely to repeat the offense. If reincarnation is really karma, or the law of justice (as you sow, so shall you reap"), why not protect the person? Why not give him a full vision of what he had been before, with all his flaws, so that the necessary corrections could be made?14
Page 100
Paternoster touches the heart of the matter when he says, "With rare exceptions, we seem to have no memory of previous existences. This is not only an argument against the truth of reincarnation, it is also an argument against its utility, if true".15
Moral Objections of Reincarnation
While philosophic matters and questions of internal logic raise serious doubts about the reality of reincarnation, it is just as important to look at the moral implications of reincarnation teachings.
One such consequence of reincarnation teachings is moral procrastination. Since one always gets "another chance" — whatever that may mean within the impersonal framework of reincarnation — moral imperatives are less urgent, reminding us of Augustine's preconversion prayer, "Give me chastity, but not yet." While a little procrastination may not seem too harmful, this attitude is intrinsically tied to a muted view of the reality of evil and suffering. Nothing is urgent since the cosmic drama of life must unfold according to predetermined karmic fate. People are perceived as merely "working out their karma," and many reincarnationists feel it is unwise to disturb the process. As a result, people who are suffering are left to their fate until their karma is exhausted. However one may mask this callous attitude by appealing to higher consciousness or karmic law, it ultimately is manifested as a low regard for individual life — which often sears both conscience and compassion.
This low regard for human life is well illustrated in the Bhagavad-Gita. Arjuna, a warrior by caste, finds himself in a genuine predicament. He must engage his kinsmen in war. Although he loves them, he realizes that it is his divine duty to fight because of his caste responsibility. As he anguishes on the battlefield, torn between duty and compassion, the god Krishna appears to him and says,
Page 101
Abandon this despicable weakness of thy heart and stand up . . . Thou grievest for those who may not be lamented . . . I myself was not, not thou, nor all the princes of the earth; nor shall we ever hereafter cease to be. As the Lord of this mortal frame experienceth therein infancy, youth and old age, so in future incarnations will it meet the same. One who is confirmed in this belief is not disturbed by anything that may come to pass.16
In other words, Krishna has just told Arjuna that he may feel free to kill his kinsmen in battle, for he is not really killing them; he is only destroying the "mortal frame," which is of no great importance since the soul will incarnate again.
This advice is based on the pivotal Hindu concept of dharma, which may be roughly translated as "the inevitability of what must be," or "doing what is set before you." "It is the dharma of fire to burn," as the Indian saying goes. The heart of the matter is that dharma is the unfolding of the divine plan, and therefore there is ultimately neither good nor evil. These categories are obliterated when one attains enlightenment and sees the perfection of all that exists. In Hindu thought, evil is an illusion, an attachment to the phenomenal world which is continually evolving and passing away. Good is therefore synonymous with enlightenment — specifically, that which serves to detach the soul from the worldly illusion of separate and individual existence. The truly enlightened soul realizes that he or she is only a mode of God's existence. Good and evil are not seen as absolute moral categories as they are in Christianity; they are merely different and complementary facets of the divine nature.
This aspect of monism is illustrated very well in the Hindu scripture, the Svetasvatara Upanishad, where we see the concept of enlightenment inextricably bound with reincarnation: "This vast universe is a wheel. Upon it are all creatures that are subject to birth, death and rebirth.
Page 102
Round and round it turns, and never stops. It is the wheel of Brahman, it revolves upon the wheel in bondage to the laws of birth, death and rebirth."17
Therefore, just as it is the dharma of fire to burn, each individual's dharma, or fate, is sealed by his karmic inheritance as it evolves its way slowly back to the Godhead. It is all part of the divine play, or lila, which goes as it must.
Consequently, dharma strongly implies a predeterminism which binds each soul to its respective load of karma. This is illustrated in the Bhagavad-Gita when Yudhishthira, older brother of the hero Arjuna, tries to get a straight answer about the problem of predetermined dharma from Krishna, the incarnation of Absolute Deity. Instead he gets only an evasive half-answer because his time for enlightenment has not yet arrived. R.C. Zaehner comments on the passage:
When the battle is over and won, he [Arjuna] asks Krishna whether he would be good enough to repeat them [the words of esoteric saving knowledge] since their purport has gone clear out of his head! Why, one wonders, did the Incarnate God elect to waste his words on Arjuna rather than on Yudhishthira who was athirst to hear them? . . . Yudhishthira's karma has not yet worked itself out: he must wait for it to "ripen" and only then will he attain to moksha [liberation]. To tell him the great secret prematurely would be to violate kharma itself, for the law of karma is inseparable from the eternal dharma and not even God can break it.18
In other words, Arjuna's karma, buried in previous lives, had somehow qualified him for Krishna's saving words; Yudhishthira, despite his desperate desire for truth, was spiritually hamstrung by unremembered karma from past lives, karma so binding and unremitting that not even Krishna, as God incarnate, could release him.
The Neo-Platonic philosopher Plotinus (A.D. 205-270) expresses
Page 103
similar sentiments as those found in the Gita:
It [death] comes to no more than the murder of one of the personages in a play; the actor alters his make-up and enters in a new role. The actor, of course, was not really killed; but if dying is but changing a body as the actor changes a costume, or even an exit from the body like the exit of an actor from the boards when he has no more to say or do, what is there so very dreadful in the transformation of living beings one into another? Murders, death in all its guises, the reduction and sacking of cities, all must be just a spectacle as the changing scenes in a play; all is but the varied incident of a plot, costume on and off, acted grief and lament . . . All this is the doing of man, knowing and never perceiving that in his weeping and in his graver doings alike, he is but at play.19
As might be expected, this view has some rather sinister outworkings. It negates not only absolute moral values, but even relative moral values. For instance, hypnotherapist Edith Fiore says, "The therapist should have a metaphysical background too. If she finds a patient murdered his sister in a past life, she has to help him understand that these incidents are just lessons. Just like the child in school who fails, the failure doesn't mean he's good or bad, just that he failed the lesson" (emphasis mine).20
A more blatant example is that uttered by one John-Roger, a Los Angeles "spiritual leader" who is head of the syncretist "Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness" (MSIA):
Let's look at the Vietnamese people for the last 3,000 years of their existence. As a collective group, they may have gotten exactly what they created for themselves, and they may have balanced all of their karma. Now, is it bad for them to be karmically free of all that? Is that wrong? Perhaps that particular freedom didn't come about in a really popular way, in terms of what we all might have wanted it to be, but it came about in a way
Page 104
that was entirely perfect. There was no overkill; there was no underkill. The Americans that went over there and were caught up in it were part of the Vietnamese process thousands of years ago, and even though they were born in America this life, they were pulled back there to complete their karma, also. And those who went through the war unharmed were not part of the process and came home safely. So how can that action be judged as "wrong"?21
If we are to accept John-Roger's judgment, the war in Viet Nam was a cosmic necessity as it balanced a lot a karma. How much more fulfilling, then, was the holocaust of World War II, in which millions were tortured and roasted, their skins made into lampshades! If ever there were a notion more morally repugnant than this, it would be hard to find. The Scriptures testify:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
If reincarnation is true, there is little reason for comforting one another when misfortune overtakes us. Imagine saying to a young couple with a deformed infant: "It's no problem. Look at it in the cosmic perspective. He must have been a horrible person in the past life, perhaps one of Stalin's executioners, a murderer, or even Attila the Hun." The response is not hard to imagine; and such ghoulish and tasteless speculation could be applied to every unfortunate situation of life. Little wonder that in the East misfortune is met with resignation.
________________________
1. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy (New York: Theosophical Publ. House, 1889), pp. 46-47.
2. Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.13.
3. There is a notable dichotomy between the bare bones of Hindu-Buddhist philosophy and the way people actually live it out. Even gurus and Buddhist holy men hope—although the hope is for samadhi, nirvana or a better lot in the next life. They rarely if ever acknowledge the eternal cyclic despair that lies behind their beliefs.
4. Edward Ryall, Born Twice—Total Recall of a Seventeenth Century Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p.3.
5. John Weldon, "Reincarnation: A Billion People's View of Reality" (manuscript prepared for Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Berkeley, 1979).
6. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, 4:71.
7. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, pp. 74-75.
8. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1921), Maitri Upanishad 3:4.
9. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, p. 73.
10. Arthur Robson, "Infinite Continuity in Multimillionfold Diversity," in Hanson, Karma, p.65.
11. Wright, Reincarnation, p. 21.
12. Ibid., p.7.
13. Blavatsky, "Original Programme," in Collected Writings, vol. 3 (Ostende, Belgium, 1886), p. 170.
14. Walter Martin, The Riddle of Reincarnation (Santa Ana, Calif.: Vision House, 1977), p.26.
15. Paternoster, "Reincarnation—A Christian Critique," p.126.
16. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.231.
17. The Upanishads, p.118.
18. Zaehner, Hinduism, p.86.
19. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.231.
20. Long Beach Independent-Press Telegram, 6 June 1980.
21. The Movement Newspaper, August 1980, pp. 22-23.
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 5:45:37 PM
|
Reincarnation and Theodicy
On the surface, the doctrine of reincarnation is an honest human attempt to answer the problem of theodicy, God's relationship to evil. For this reason many people find it appealing. W.R. Alger, a distinguished Unitarian clergyman of the nineteenth century, enthusiastically shared this view: "The theory of transmigration of souls is marvellously adapted to explain the seeming chaos of moral inequity, injustice and manifold evil presented in the world of human life. Once admit the theory to be true, and all the difficulties in regard to moral justice vanish."4
In the first half of his statement Alger makes a valid point: reincarnation does provide a specific explanation for situations of injustice, inequality and suffering. The victimized person has committed offenses in previous lives and must therefore pay the consequences. It is a theory which very much appeals to the deep questions of people who cry out and ask "Why?" or "Why me?"
Page 109
But herein lies the danger. It is an attempt to reduce the deepest and most painful human questions and problems to an easily manageable formula. While it does provide a convenient solution to the problem of injustice and suffering, it only pushes the real problem of theodicy and the origin of evil further out of reach and perpetuates it through endless cycles of karmic action and reaction.
The second half of Alger's statement, his remark that "all difficulties in regard to moral justice vanish," is both naive and incorrect. For even if we are able to account for the unjust suffering of individuals, the root problem of the origin of evil remains. Nor does the philosophic system on which reincarnation is based ever provide any final solution to the problem of evil and suffering; for each new regeneration of the universe gives rise to the same old status quo. In this respect reincarnation is a totally inadequate response to the problem of evil.
The Christian faith approaches the problem of evil and suffering quite differently. Instead of indicating a specific reason for each person's individual plight, biblical revelation appeals to the sovereignty and mercy of God. This is well illustrated in the story of the man born blind (John 9:1-3). When specifically asked about this very problem ("Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"), Jesus did not engage in past-life speculations: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." Jesus then restored his sight. The man's individual situation is viewed as a symptom of the total human condition, which Jesus came to redeem. Why the blind man had suffered more than others we are not told.
Paul also addressed this problem in the book of Romans: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! . . . But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay,
Page 110
to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (9:14, 20-21). Paul responds to the problem by appealing to the sovereignty of God as expressed in Christian theism: God is the all-powerful and all-wise Creator, a personal God who actively wills things, as opposed to the impersonal God of reincarnationists that is in bondage to its own nature in perpetuity. In Romans 11:33-34, the apostle rests his case:
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Who then are we to presume to understand the infinite wisdom and complexity of the divine purposes? God's plan will unfold perfectly and in its time; it is our duty to love and obey him. It is our desire to place ourselves at the center of the universe and be as God that has been our undoing.
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 5:59:28 PM
|
WAS REINCARNATION DE- CANONIZED?
Following in the footsteps of "Christian" reincarnationists like Edgar Cayce and Jeane Dixon, the typical Western advocate of the theory today does not regard his or her belief system as an opposition to the teachings of true Christianity. In fact, it is believed to have been the original faith of the Jews and the sect known as the Essenes, as well as that of the Apostles and the fathers of the early Church. The doctrine of reincarnation was even claimed to have been a pre-eminent concept in the Bible before it was conspired against and deleted from the scriptural canon by a Church council that viewed it as a threat to their authority over the average layman. Amusingly, reincarnationists can never seem to reach an agreement on which council was actually responsible for this alleged censure. Some blame Constantine and the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., while others point to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, or Constantinople II, in 553 A.D. under Justinian. It should be noted, however, that a careful study of Church history clearly indicates that reincarnation was not even a matter of discussion at either council, much less removed from the Bible by overzealous fundamentalists.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the contents of our present Bible are lacking in any way from what was included in its original text. With over 24,000 partial or complete manuscripts in existence, the new Testament is the best documented literary account of ancient history that we possess today (coming in a distant second is The Iliad and the Odyssey, by Homer, with 643 contradictory manuscripts). Even if all of the new Testament manuscripts were somehow destroyed, it would still be possible to reconstruct all but approximately ten verses from the writings of the early Church fathers, all done prior to the third century.
THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
The earliest recorded Christian reference to reincarnation is a passing remark made by Justin Martyr about 150 A.D. in his Dialogue With Trypho IV. He is claimed by many reincarnationists to have herein stated his belief that human souls were repeatedly reborn into other bodies, but a look at the quotation in question reveals otherwise:
"Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards."
A few decades later, in his exhaustive attack on the Gnostics, Against Heresies, Irenaeus also criticized reincarnational beliefs, pointing out the lack of recollection of past lives on the part of the general public. Reincarnation was likewise unfavorably discussed in the second century by Tertullian (On the Soul, chapters 23-24, 29-35), and Arnobius (Against the Heathen II, chapter 16). Other opponents were Lactantius in the third century (The Divine Institutes, Book III, chapters 18-19), Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century (On the Making of Man, chapter 29), and Augustine in the fifth century (The City of God, Book X chapter 30).
The Church Father most often cited by reincarnationists is Origen, who not only was known in the third century for his brilliant scholarship, but for his theological speculations as well. However, though he did indeed hold to the doctrine of pre-existence of human souls before their physical births, this can in no way be misconstrued to indicate that he believed in successive incarnations following the initial one. This he demonstrated in his voluminous Against Celsus, in which he wrote:
"But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping with which is the following: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king’, -in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into another) may be thrown before the common understanding... (parenthesis in original)."
Toward the end of his life, Origen also produced a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, in which he discussed at great length whether or not John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. His conclusion on the matter was undeniably apparent:
"In this place (Matthew 17:10-13) it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures."
It is quite obvious from the above statement that Origen did by no means support reincarnation or even suggest its possibility. Incidentally, Origen was posthumously declared a heretic because he taught against eternal hell.
DID JESUS TEACH REINCARNATION?
Reincarnationists that profess a Christian faith, are, of course, forced to believe that Jesus Christ Himself accepted and promoted transmigration of souls, which He allegedly was taught in India during the eighteen "silent years" of his adolescence and early adulthood. Most often cited in support of this claim, is the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus found in the third chapter of the Gospel of John:
"(Nicodemus) came to Jesus at night and said, ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.’
"In reply, Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again (John 3:2-3)."
Erroneously resorting to a literal method of interpretation of the above, reincarnationists insist that when Jesus spoke of being "born again", He was actually implying cyclic rebirth. However, if this indeed was His implication, it unfortunately was entirely lost on Nicodemus:
"How can a man be born when he is old?... Surely, he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born (verse 4)!"
Instead of rebuking the Jewish religious leader for his lack of understanding of the presumably wide-spread doctrine of reincarnation, Jesus then went on to explain the true meaning of His words:
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless He is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at My saying, you must be born again (verses 5-7)."
In the above passage, Jesus made it quite clear that He was not speaking of a physical birth, or a series of them for that matter, but one of a spiritual nature. Actually, the correct rendering of this text from the original Greek should use "born from above", for that is precisely what is involved. Mortal human beings mate and bring forth offspring that were mortal and subject to death like themselves ("flesh gives birth to flesh" - verse 6.) However, the "birth" that Jesus spoke of was not achieved through natural reproductive means, but as an event initiated by God alone (John 1:13). When a person is "born again" as a child of God through faith in Christ’s redemptive provision of Himself on the cross, the Holy Spirit imparts to him a new nature that is not physical and therefore perishable (I Peter 1:23). Continued rebirth does not necessitate itself, for the individual has already entered God’s Kingdom of eternal life (John 5:24).
WAS JOHN THE BAPTIST ELIJAH?
Reincarnationists further attempt to solicit the endorsement of Christ for their doctrine by claiming that Jesus had alluded to His belief in reincarnation many times in his private conversations with His twelve disciples. One of these instances are said to be found in Matthew, in which Jesus allegedly taught that John the Baptist was actually the reincarnation of the Old Testament prophet Elijah:
"The disciples asked (Jesus), "Why then do the teachers of the Law say that Elijah must come first?"
"Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and restores all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished..."
Then the disciples understood that He was talking to them about John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13. Parenthesis added)."
It is quite understandable how this passage can be misunderstood to support reincarnation. Frequently, the phrase "this is" is actually intended to be understood as "this represents", and "this is like" as "this is a fulfillment of". Examples of this literary method of expression can be seen in such passages as Matthew 26:26, Hebrews 12:29, I Corinthians 10:4, etc. It would not be unreasonable, therefore, to assume that John came merely as the functional, not literal, fulfillment of Elijah’s ministry, operating in the "power and spirit" of the prophet (Luke 1:17), as also did Elisha (II Kings 2:15).
The absurdity of the reincarnationists’ association of John with Elijah can be more clearly seen when another important fact is realized. In II Kings 2:11, we are informed that the prophet never experienced a physical death, thereby rendering his soul unavailable for future rebirth in the body of the Judean baptist. Furthermore, he showed himself to be still alive and in his original body on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:30-33). And finally, to dispel any remaining doubt, when asked, "Are you Elijah?", John plainly answered, "I am not (John 1:21)".
|
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2007 : 8:50:09 PM
|
"As above, so below" Hermes.
Great great posts, Doc. I will have to reread to contemplate many of the points:
I would just like to add that the material world mirrors the Kingdom and I think fear arises, because we may equate the loss of personality with the loss of individuality - (speaking of spiritual progress). For example, one day, we may be angry, head-strong, rash. Through the grace of God, we become peaceful, patient, humble; although the personality has changed, we haven't forgotten who we once were, nor will we in the next world, as Abdul Baha states.
"Some one has asked a question on personality. From what source does it come? What are its attributes? What are its characteristic features or aspects?
Personality is of two kinds. One is the natural or God-given personality which the western thinkers call individuality, the inner aspect of man which is not subject to change; and the other personality is the result of acquired arts, sciences and virtues with which man is decorated. When the God-given virtues are thus adorned, we have character. When the infinite effulgences of
God are revealed in the individuality of man, then divine attributes, invisible in the rest of creation, become manifest through him and one man becomes the manifestor of knowledge, that is, divine knowledge is revealed to him; another is the dawning place of power; a third is trustworthy; again, one is faithful, and another is merciful. All these attributes are the characteristics of the unchangeable individuality and are divine in origin. These qualifications are loved by all, for they are emanations of the father. They are the significance of his name and attributes, the direct rays of which illuminate the very essence of these qualifications.
As regards the personality which is the result of acquired virtues, let us take this mirror as an example: In the beginning it was a piece of black stone; now, through the process of purification, it has become a mirror and has reflecting power and displays its innate perfections so that they are clearly visible to all. The rock was endowed with a distinct individuality which acquired a personality through the process of education.
The individuality of each created thing is based upon divine wisdom, or in the creation of God there is no defect. However, personality has no element of permanence. It is a slightly changeable quality in man which can be turned in either direction. For if he acquire praiseworthy virtues, these strengthen the individuality of man and call forth his hidden forces; but if he acquire defects, the beauty and simplicity of the individuality will be lost to him and its God-given qualities will be stifled in the foul atmosphere of self.
It is evident that every human being is primarily pure, for God-created qualities are deposited in him. If man extend his individuality by acquiring sciences, he will become a wise man; if he be engaged in praiseworthy deeds and strive for real knowledge, he will become godlike. If, on the other hand, when God has created him to be just and he practices injustice, he denies his God-given attribute. Man was created to be merciful, he becomes a tyrant; he was created to be kind to all the children of men and given the capacity to confer life, but he becomes the destroyer of life.
quote:
Doc: The absurdity of the reincarnationists’ association of John with Elijah can be more clearly seen when another important fact is realized. In II Kings 2:11, we are informed that the prophet never experienced a physical death, thereby rendering his soul unavailable for future rebirth in the body of the Judean baptist. Furthermore, he showed himself to be still alive and in his original body on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:30-33). And finally, to dispel any remaining doubt, when asked, "Are you Elijah?", John plainly answered, "I am not (John 1:21)".
I just had to add this quote, since it was nearly verbatim to your above post.
"Each nation has awaited the re-incarnation of its greatest Prophet in accordance with its religious belief. The Jews await the return of Moses as the Messiah; the Christians, Christ; the Mohammedans, Husein, son of Fatima and the twelve Imams. They awaited the return of the soul and of the personality. When they asked if John the Baptist was Elijah he answered, "Yes"; and when they interrogated John Baptist, he replied "No". Both replies were the truth. The reply of Christ was spiritual, that is John the Baptist returned in the same spirit of God, but not in the same soul, but John the Baptist meant that his soul and his body were not the same as those of Elijah." Abdul Baha
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Feb 23 2007 03:44:57 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 01:00:02 AM
|
Hi Philip,
Thanks once again for a most detailed reply.
quote:
An Angel is a soul that has reached a level of perfection. There are many ranks of Angels, of Buddhas, of Masters, Devas, etc... call them whatever you wish. Every Angel is someone who has given up his self (ego) will and now performs the will of god, they were created by god and now they serve that intelligence called god... this is why angels have no "self" or egoic will...
This is very interesting for us in this forum as we have already had a discussion in another thread about whether Angels are perfected humans:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=1677#14974
This thread (linked to here) started by me asking if anyone knew why I had a large pair of Golden wings on my back somewhat resembling the wingspan of a golden eagle if they were stretched out!? Here:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....OPIC_ID=1677
You seem to have a great deal of knowledge in these matters. Can you throw any light on this? Are the angels that we are talking about here, the ones that fell, the same as the ones often portrayed as having wings? Could it be possible for an animal with intellect (a son of the devil) living on the earth today, to be descended from a fallen angel, and could they still manifest wings in this manner?
quote:
No, my experience is that Jesus exists. He is alive, he is working in secret.
I would agree with you here, purely from an intuitive level. Can you throw any light on what spiritual person or power I was contacting in this dream:
quote:
A few years ago I had an amazing dream. I was in a vast black hall standing in front of a man who I thought was Jesus. He was about one hundred feet tall and wearing a purple robe. I was lying face down and holding on to the hem of his robe. The energy coming from him was so incredibly powerful that I did not dare raise my face and only saw the purple robe. I can still remember what the energy felt like. It was like all those words used in the Bible to describe God: Love, Power, Peace, Grace, Light. His robe seemed to be just as charged with this energy as he was. It washed over and through me like a river. Then I woke up.
Or maybe it was just a dream
I have mentioned this dream before in another thread, here:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=1625#12480
Yours
Christi
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 03:35:55 AM
|
Greetings friends.
The discussion on reincarnation has prompted me to do a little research on the world's religions:
Hinduism:
Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22) The Bhagavad-Gita
Islam:
"I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as man,
To soar with angels blest;
But even from angelhood I must pass on ..."
-excerpt from Masnawi, by Hazrat
The Quaran:
[2:28] How can you disbelieve in GOD when you were dead and He gave you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life, then to Him you ultimately return?
[9:35] The day will come when their gold and silver will be heated in the fire of Hell, then used to burn their foreheads, their sides, and their backs: "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you have hoarded."
http://www.lubbockonline.com/images...branding.jpg
[4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
http://www.cicadamania.com/cicadas/...rism2006.jpg
[5:60] Say, "Let me tell you who are worse in the sight of GOD: those who are condemned by GOD after incurring His wrath until He made them monkeys and pigs, and the idol worshipers. These are far worse, and farther from the right path."
[73:12] We have severe punishments, and Hell.
[73:13] Food that can hardly be swallowed, and painful retribution.
http://www.blackbearheaven.com/snake/pig3.jpg
[111:3] He has incurred the blazing Hell.
[111:4] Also his wife, who led the persecution.
[111:5] She will be (resurrected) with a rope of thorns around her neck
http://www.cobankopegi.com/t-col.jpg
Sikhism:
"Shalok: He wanders around in the four quarters and in the ten directions, according to the dictates of his karma.
Pleasure and pain, liberation and reincarnation, O Nanak, come according to one's pre-ordained destiny."
-The Guru Granth Sahib Page 253 Shabad 792
Buddhism:
"Through many a birth wandered I, seeking the builder of this house. Sorrow full indeed is birth again and again." - Gautama Shakyamuni
Taoism:
Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting point. Existence without limitation is space. Continuity without a starting point is time. There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in. That through which one passes in and out without seeing its form, that is the Portal of God. -Chuang Tzu 23
Judaism:
"All souls are subject to revolutions."
"Men do not know the way they have been judged in all time." - Zohar II, 199b
"If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor ... but if she has been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain and despair... until the days of her purification." -Kether Malkuth
Gnosticism:
"The counterfeit of the spirit is stationed without the soul, watching over it and dogging it, and the rulers bind it to the soul with their seal and with their bonds, and force it to commit mischiefs unremittingly, that it may be their slave forever, and be under their subjection forever in the transmigration into bodies: And they seal this counterfeit to the soul, so that it may be in every kind of sin and all the desires of the world. It is because of this that I have brought the mysteries into the world, which break all the bonds of the counterfeit of the spirit, which make the soul free and ransom it from the hands of its parents, the rulers, and transform it into pure light, to bring it into the kingdom of the True Father, the first everlasting mystery." - The Pistis Sophia
Christianity:
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9, The Bible
That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. Ecclesiastes 3:15, The Bible
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out .. Revelation 3:12, The Bible
AYPism ;):
It has been said that we can leave this realm when we have grown to love it unconditionally. That is not a mental construct, but a state of being arrived at through purification and opening -- evolution. Lesson 262 - Beyond the Cycle of Birth and Death
Feel free to add to this list.. |
Edited by - Chiron on Feb 24 2007 01:26:57 AM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 08:34:52 AM
|
Great pics, Chiron and it seems apropos for the type of people that Muhammad had to endure at His time and is apparent by the language necessary for the limited intellectual capacity of that generation:
"These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do. [The Banu-Tamim, one of the most barbarous Arab tribes, practiced this odious custom.] Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves."
http://bahai-library.org/writings/a.../saq/07.html
I'm sure it was similar in King David's time and also that of that of Moses - who, as a very last measure, destroyed the Tyrannical Egyptians.
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Feb 23 2007 09:04:17 AM |
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 10:02:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChristiAre the angels that we are talking about here, the ones that fell, the same as the ones often portrayed as having wings? Could it be possible for an animal with intellect (a son of the devil) living on the earth today, to be descended from a fallen angel, and could they still manifest wings in this manner?
Well, there is in reality a lot of fallen bodhisattvas roaming earth today. Some are rising again and some are falling. An example of the former is Wagner; and example of the latter is Hitler.
When students hear about this, many start to imagine that they "must" be one of them. That can cause problems.
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:2
"THE IGNEOUS WINGS
"When the Solar and Lunar atoms unite at the base of the spinal colunm, the Igneous Serpent of our Magical Powers awakens. The Serpent ascends slowly amidst the ineffable delights of the Perfect Matrimony. The Serpent enjoys the enchantment of Love.
"When the Serpent reaches the height of the heart, we receive the Igneous Wings, the wings of the Caduceus of Mercury. Then the Serpent has feathers. This is the Quetzal, the Serpent Bird, the Feath ered Serpent.
"Every Initiate who transforms himself into the Serpent Bird can fly to the superior worlds. He can enter the different regions of the Kingdom, travel in the astral body at will, travel with the super-astral vehicles, travel with his physical body within the fourth
dimension. He is a Serpent Bird.
"The Serpent Bird can escape from a sealed tomb, walk upon the waters as was demonstrated by Jesus the Christ, pass through a rock from side to side without injury as was proven by the disciples of Buddha, can fly with his physical body through the air etc., etc." -The Perfect Matrimony
When someone has that, the wings, they know it. They know what it is, they know what it represents. It is the solar mind, awakened, pure and clean.
Unless you are able to walk on the water, walk through stone, etc., your experience was just a gift. When one actually possesses something, they can use that at their will. When things just sort of happen, without full consciousness of what and why it is happening, then obviously the "self" is not what is in control. Something else is.
That "something" can be divided into two basic categories: the subjective powers of the mind (ego), or powers of "god." To be able to discern between the two should always be paramount for the student. No student should ever take any experience at face value. That is how mythomaniacs are born.
A lot of experiences can be misleading, even if they are objective and real. For example, the whole Krishnamurti case.
"A great conflict occurred inside the Theosophical Society during those times when Annie Besant was occupying the presidency of this marvelous organization, whose founder was the great Initiate Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.
"The problem that presented itself was the Krishnamurti case.
"Lady Besant lifted her finger aloft in order to asseverate to the four winds that the Hindu boy Krishnamurti was the living Reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
"The great clairvoyant Leadbeater and other eminent Theosophists totally agreed with Lady Besant. All of them were asserting that the Hindustani boy was Jesus Christ newly reincarnated.
"We still remember the foundation of that order named The Star of the East whose unique purpose was to welcome the Messiah. Later on, Krishnamurti himself dissolved it.
"A division occurred within the bosom of the Theosophical Society in that epoch.
"Some of them were asserting that Krishnamurti was the Messiah. Others did not accept such a concept; thus they withdrew from the Theosophical Society.
"The powerful illuminated clairvoyant, eminent intellectual, founder of the Anthroposophic Society, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, appears among those who withdrew. The work of Rudolf Steiner is grandiose. His books are wells of profound wisdom.
"The Spaniard group Marco Aurelio also withdrew from the Theosophical Society.
"The incision that occurred within the bosom of that famous Theosophical Society was a true tragedy.
"We need to analyze the Krishnamurti case."
You can read the rest here:
http://www.gnosticteachings.org/con...view/195/65/
Concerning your other experience, much of the same can be said. I am not attempting to invalidate your experiences, only to stress that we need to be profound in order to comprehend them.
There are experiences that one may have, and it will not be for another 15 years before that experience makes sense. But our mind just wants to take that experience, immediately label it this or that with some sort of authority, desire for it to happen again, yet never really observe it or comprehend it. |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 6:34:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VIL:
"Each nation has awaited the re-incarnation of its greatest Prophet in accordance with its religious belief. The Jews await the return of Moses as the Messiah...." Abdul Baha
Hi VIL!
Abdul Baha is definitely off target on this part of his quote. The Jews await the Coming of Mashiach/Messiah for the first time, not for his return, and this is NOT expected to be Moses. LOL
"...the belief in a messiah and a messianic age is so deeply rooted in Jewish tradition that a statement concerning the Messiah became the most famous of Maimonides's Thirteen Principles of Faith: "And Ma'amin, I believe with a full heart in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry, I will wait for him on any day that he may come." In the concentration camps, it is reported that many Jews sang the Ani Ma'amin while walking to the gas chambers.
On the one hand, ironic jokes and skepticism; on the other, passionate faith: What then is the Jewish position on the Messiah?
Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world. Concerning the more difficult tasks some prophets assign him, such as Isaiah's vision of a messianic age in which the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the calf with the young lion (Isaiah 11:6), Maimonides believes that Isaiah's language is metaphorical (for example, only that enemies of the Jews, likened to the wolf, will no longer oppress them). A century later, Nachmanides rejected Maimonides's rationalism and asserted that Isaiah meant precisely what he said: that in the messianic age even wild animals will become domesticated and sweettempered. A more recent Jewish "commentator," Woody Allen, has cautioned: "And the lamb and the wolf shall lie down together, but the lamb won't get any sleep."
The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus." Jewish Virtual Library
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. The preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. The immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. Retribution;
12. The coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
Light to All ~
Doc
|
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 7:31:34 PM
|
"When they asked if John the Baptist was Elijah he answered, "Yes"; and when they interrogated John Baptist, he replied "No". Both replies were the truth. The reply of Christ was spiritual, that is John the Baptist returned in the same spirit of God, but not in the same soul, but John the Baptist meant that his soul and his body were not the same as those of Elijah." Abdul Baha
-------------------------------------
"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No". JOHN 1: 19-21
-----------------------------------
Hey, Doc, from the above you will see that the Jewish Leaders at that time believed in reincarnation. Abdul Baha is not in error. I think the discrepancy lies in the word "awaits" vs. "awaited", since the Jewish Leaders, of the past, shaped the world of the Jewish People of this day and age, since they still do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Herein lies the confusion. Abdul Baha stated, "has awaited"... followed by "awaits" and then, "They "awaited" the return of the soul and of the personality". In context:
"Each nation has awaited the re-incarnation of its greatest Prophet in accordance with its religious belief. The Jews await the return of Moses as the Messiah; the Christians, Christ; the Mohammedans, Husein, son of Fatima and the twelve Imams. They awaited the return of the soul and of the personality. When they asked if John the Baptist was Elijah he answered, "Yes"; and when they interrogated John Baptist, he replied "No". Both replies were the truth. The reply of Christ was spiritual, that is John the Baptist returned in the same spirit of God, but not in the same soul, but John the Baptist meant that his soul and his body were not the same as those of Elijah." Abdul Baha
And if modern day Jewish Leaders had questioned past beliefs of their predecessors, they would have to re-evaluate their stance or refutation of Yeshua as the Messiah:
quote:
In Matthew 11:13, Jesus states: “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” (Jesus calls him “John” not “Elijah.” Elijah is included with 'all the prophets' who came before John. In verse 14, Jesus says “and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt and preached in the wilderness. This was the same attire that Elijah wore (2 Kings 1:8), bringing attention to the Jews of the similarity of John's mission to that of Elijah's. Prophecy has many patterns and sometime dual or more fulfillments.
Malachi had predicted that before the Messiah's appearing, Elijah would come as a forerunner (Mal. 4:5-in relation to the day of the Lord). If the people had been willing to receive Jesus as the Messiah, then John would have filled the role of Elijah. Jesus then tells them to heed His words. If John fulfills Elijah's coming then Jesus is the Messiah.
Jesus pointed to John the Baptist as a type of fulfillment of Elijah's coming but he was not a reincarnation.
http://www.letusreason.org/NAM2.htm
And it's been said, some Levitical Priests or other Orthodox Jewish Leaders actually expected the return of Moses, as there are many articles stating that the Messiah would come again:
Salo Wittmayer Baron (b. Galicia, Austria-Hungary 1895; d.1989), American Jewish historian and educator, taught for several decades at Columbia University (New York), holding the first professorship of Jewish history in a U.S. university. His major work is the monumental Social and Religious History of the Jews:
"Experience, however, had taught that God performs miracles only through men, for example, Moses and Elijah. The new miracle would also have to be accomplished through some one man.
The levitical priests probably looked for a return of Moses".
http://www.jhom.com/topics/david/messiah.html
"Orthodox Jews expect the Messiah to return, the dead to be resurrected, and there to be everlasting retribution".
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Religi.../1.5_Judaism
Founders: Prof. Richard Landes, PHD from Princeton University, Dr. O'Leary, undergraduate degree in the comparative study of religion at Harvard University:
"The original model for the Messiah was actually Moses, who led his people, the Israelites, out of Egypt and away from the tyrannical and unjust rule of Pharaoh. He was both a spiritual and political leader and had the qualities expected of the future Messiah. Many connections are made in literature and scripture between the life and actions of Moses and those of the expected Messiah."
http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/d...messiah.html
http://www.mille.org/people.html
"As Moses prepares to leave this world, God shows him the flow of his final incarnation. When he returns as the Mashiach, Moses will redeem the world and reveal the Torah of the Mashiach -- the inner depths of the heart of God."
http://www.inner.org/audio/aid/E_037.htm
I had to add this:
"Pasteur Monnier: Is the unification of religion possible? If so, when and how and through what channel will it be realised?
'Abdu'l-Bahá: When the devotees of religion cast aside their dogmas and ritualism, the unification of religion will be in sight, and the realities of the holy books will become unveiled. In these days misunderstandings are rife, but when these misunderstandings and blind imitations are relinquished, the sun of reality shall dawn.
When in San Francisco(26) I was invited to speak in a Jewish synagogue. I said, "For about two thousand years, between you and the Christians, there have been friction and opposition, owing to the misunderstandings which today have blinded the eyes. You conceive that His Holiness the Christ was the enemy of Moses, the destroyer of the laws of the Pentateuch, the abrogator of the commandments of the Bible. When we investigate the reality we observe that Christ appeared at a time when according to your own historians, the laws of the Torah were forgotten; the foundation of religion and faith was shaken. Nebuchadnezzar had come, burning the context [contents] of the whole Bible,(27) and taking into captivity many Jewish tribes. Alexander the Great came for the second time, and Titus, the Roman general, devastated the land for the third time, killed the Jews, pillaged their property and imprisoned their children.
At such a time, under such gloomy conditions, His Holiness the Christ appeared. The first thing he said was: 'The Torah is the divine book; Moses is the man of God; Aaron, Solomon, Isaiah, Zechariah and all the Israelitish prophets [prophets of Israel] are valid and true.' Through all regions he spread the Old Testament, which for fifteen hundred years had not been sent out of Palestine, but Christ promulgated it in all countries. Were it not for Christ the name of Moses and his book would not have reached America; for during fifteen hundred years the Torah had been translated but once. It was Christ's seal of approval which caused it to be translated into six hundred languages. Now be just, was Christ the friend or the enemy of Moses?
You say he abrogated the Torah, but I say he promulgated the Torah, the ten commandments and all the questions which belong to its moral world. But he changed the following: That for a small theft one must cut of the hand.(28) If a person blind another, he must be blinded, or if he breaks another's teeth, his teeth must be broken. Is it possible nowadays to establish the archaic laws of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth? Christ changed only that part of the Mosaic religion which did not accord with the spirit of his time. He had no desire to abolish the Torah.
Is it not true that the Christians believe that Moses was the [High] prophet of God, and all the Israelitish seers were the messengers of God, and the Bible [Torah] the book of God?(29) Has this belief of theirs harmed their religion? If you say from your heart that Christ is the word of God, then all these differences will cease. The persecutions of the last two thousand years have been on account of this fact, that you were not willing to proclaim these two words. But I hope that it is proven to you that Moses had no better friend than His Holiness the Christ."
http://bahai-library.org/provisiona...ha.xity.html
VIL
|
Edited by - VIL on Feb 23 2007 11:00:27 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2007 : 10:52:15 PM
|
Hi Philip,
Thanks again for your advice here. Concerning the wings, I think you are probably right, that it was a glimpse of something that will unfold more. This has been the case with all other energy changes that have occured in my body/ mind. First there is an initial glimpse, and then the currents become gradually stronger and more permanently established. So far I cannot walk on water, or walk through stone, so obviously in my case the serpent has not reached the height of the heart yet.
It sounds like it will be quite a lot of fun when it does Unfortunately I probably won't be relating my experiences about it on this forum.... the world isn't ready etc.
As for Krishnamurti.... It is of course possible that he was Jesus Christ, born again. And it is possible that what he did, concerning the dissolution of the Order of the Star of the East, was exactly what the born again Christ would have done in that situation. In one act, he disassociated himself completely from both the Theosophical society and the trappings of the Christian Church. He left himself completely free to teach his message of Love to humanity. Sound familiar? Jesus of Nazareth disassociated himself from his Jewish roots in the same manner.
Just a possibility
Christi |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 10:16:09 AM
|
Hello VIL!
With all due respect for the writings and teachings of Abdul Baha, the awaited Mashiach/Messiah of the Jews is generally expected to be a descendant of David's Royal bloodline, according to God's promise in His Covenant with David, as outlined in the Holy Scriptures and referenced time and again by the Old Testament Prophets. Moses lived prior to David....was therefore not a descendant of David, and is NOT who is expected to come as Mashiach. In fact, Jewish Scriptural references to Mashiach identify only the characteristics of Mashiach, not a specific name identity of anyone in particular as the Awaited Mashiach. It wouldn't take much research to verify this, if you're willing to depend on actual Jewish sources in addition to the writings of Abdul Baha. Here's another example:
THE UNIFYING HOPE: AWAITING THE MESSIAH
by Mr. Yosef Ben Shlomo HaKohen
May the Compassionate One make us worthy of reaching the days of the Messiah and life everlasting. [from Birkat HaMazon/Grace After Meals]
The Days of the Messiah:
A staff will emerge from the stump of Jesse (the father of David), and a shoot will sprout from his roots. The spirit of the Compassionate One will rest upon Him -- a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and strength, a spirit of knowledge and reverence for the Compassionate One. He will be imbued with a spirit of reverence for the Compassionate One; and he will not need to judge by what his eyes see nor decide by what his ears hear. He will judge the destitute with righteousness, and decide with fairness for the humble of the earth. He will strike the world with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be the girdle round his loins, and faith will be the girdle round his waist. The wolf will live with the sheep, and the leopard will lie down with the kid; and a calf, a lion whelp and a fatling together, and a young child will lead them. A cow and bear will graze and their young will lie down together; and a lion, like cattle, will eat hay. A suckling will play by a viper's hole; and a newly weaned child will stretch his hand towards an adder's lair. They will neither injure nor destroy in all of My sacred mountain; for the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Compassionate One as water covering the sea bed. [Yeshayahu/Isaiah 11:1-9]
"He will strike the world with the rod of his mouth" -- with the strength of his Torah teachings. [Commentary of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch]
The Prophets teach that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David, the son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah. He will be a great Torah teacher and sovereign who will inspire Israel and all the peoples to serve the Compassionate One in a spirit of unity. Some people have difficulty imagining that one great person could become the "Messiah" and cause a radical change in the world. A study of history reveals, however, that there have been a number of individuals who helped bring about great changes in the world, whether for good or for bad.
The belief in the coming of the Messiah is deeply embedded within the consciousness of the Jewish People. In his book, "World of Our Fathers", Irving Howe describes the messianic yearnings of an earlier generation of Jewish socialists and progressive activists. Although their ideology was secular, their yearning, hope, and struggle for a better world was rooted in the ancient Jewish belief that the Messiah will eventually come and inaugurate a new age of justice and peace. In one chapter (page 454), Howe quotes from a poem by the Yiddish poet, Aaron Zeitlin, which refers to this belief:
"Being a Jew means running forever to God, even if you are His betrayer. Means expecting to hear any day, even if you are a nay sayer, the blare of Messiah's horn".
The Talmud states that on our individual "Judgment Day" -- after the soul departs from the body -- one of the questions we will be asked is: "Did you anticipate the redemption?" [Babylonian Talmud/Tractate Shabbos 31a]. Why, however, should this question be asked of us? Is it a mitzvah -- Divine mandate -- to believe in the coming of the Messiah and the future redemption? An answer can be found in the first of the "Ten Mandates" which were spoken at Mount Sinai:
I am the Compassionate One, your God, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. [Shemot/Exodus 20:2]
Maimonides, in his classical work, "The Book of Mitzvos", cites this verse as the source for the mitzvah to believe in the Compassionate One. The verse, however, does not speak of the Compassionate One Who created the world; it speaks of the Compassionate One Who is the Redeeming One, Who liberated us from the bondage of Egypt. According to Rabbi Isaac of Corbeil, a 13th century sage, this verse calls upon us to not only believe that the Compassionate One redeemed us in the past, but to also believe that He will redeem us in the future.
In his respected work on the mitzvos, known as "Sefer Mitzvos Katan", Rabbi Isaac states that the obligation to believe in the coming of the Messiah is rooted in the words, "I am the Compassionate One, your God, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt"; for the Exodus from Egypt is a testimony to the ongoing Divine providence in human history. The verse which calls upon us to believe in the Redeeming One specifically mentions our Exodus from Egypt, because this Divine act of physical and spiritual redemption is to make us aware that Divine providence is leading the People of Israel and all humanity to their ultimate physical and spiritual redemption.
Our faith in the future redemption of Israel and humanity is a "gift of hope" that we can share with the other peoples of the earth. As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, a 19th century sage, writes:
The entire world thirsts for redemption. Grief and misery, reigning in both huts and palaces, arouse messianic longings in every heart. It is not only Israel whose redemption depends upon the rebuilding of Zion; and surely, their confident expectation that the redemption will indeed come about is not the least valuable dowry which the Jew brings with him into the community of nations. [See "The Hirsch Haggadah" -- pages 282-83]
We are therefore awaiting the arrival of the true Messiah who will inaugurate the new age of enlightenment and unity. Even though he may tarry, we are not to lose hope, for when the hour arrives for the birth of the messianic age, he will not delay. In this spirit, the prophet Habakkuk proclaims:
For there is yet another hazon -- vision -- for the appointed time; it will speak of the end and it will not deceive. Though it may tarry, await it, for it will surely come; it will not delay. [Habakkuk 2:3]
The Prophets also indicate, however, that we can hasten the arrival of the messianic age through fulfilling the life-giving and unifying mitzvos of the Torah. Among the mitzvos that they stressed are the mitzvos of justice which prevent us from hurting and oppressing others, and the mitzvos of "tzedakah" -- the sharing of our resources with those in need. In this spirit, the Prophet proclaimed, "Zion will be redeemed through justice, and those who return to her through tzedakah" [Yeshayahu/Isaiah 1:27].
The Prophets also stressed the mitzvos related to "Shabbos" -- the Sacred Seventh Day. These mitzvos serve as a reminder that the earth and its resources belong to the Unifying One. On Shabbos, we are to refrain from exerting human mastery over the earth and its creatures, and we are to also refrain from commerce. Through the mitzvos of Shabbos, we remind ourselves that the human being is the "custodian", and not the owner of the earth's resources. Through the mitzvos of tzedakah, we learn how to share these resources with others.
We are therefore not to passively await the salvation of the messianic age, for the Compassionate One desires that we actively prepare for this new era:
Thus said the Compassionate One: "Guard justice and perform acts of tzedakah, for My salvation is soon to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Happy is the person who does this and the person who holds on to this: Who guards the Shabbos against desecration, and guards his hand against doing any evil". [Yeshayahu/Isaiah 56:1-2]
Shavua Tov from Liberated Yerushaliyim,
Mr. Yosef Ben Shlomo Hakohen
Light to All ~
Doc
|
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 11:57:52 AM
|
"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No". JOHN 1: 19-21
-----------------------------------------
quote:
"Experience, however, had taught that God performs miracles only through men, for example, Moses and Elijah. The new miracle would also have to be accomplished through some one man. The levitical priests probably looked for a return of Moses. The prophets of the north seem to have been so much impressed by the vivid memories, embellished by legends, of the striking demeanor and personality of Elijah. that they hoped for his miraculous return in the same manner as when he "went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Messiah, the son of David
For the Judean prophets it was natural to expect that the Messiah would be a scion of David, whose house had ruled the country for centuries and in its early years had been blessed by God with power and prosperity. Despite the dynasty's later corruption, there was still a hope that the exalted poet-king would reappear and and establish an age of unrivaled glory. The priests of that age left little, if any writings, and Samaria had vanished as an independent state at the very beginnings of written prophecy. The ideology of the southern prophets, therefore, soon overshadowed all others. The Davidic Messiah became the apotheosized figure on which all later Jewish eschatology centered. Moses, Elijah, and even the Messiah of the house of Joseph so prominent in later times, were relegated to secondary positions".
Salo Wittmayer Baron (b. Galicia, Austria-Hungary 1895; d.1989), American Jewish historian and educator, taught for several decades at Columbia University (New York), holding the first professorship of Jewish history in a U.S. university. His major work is the monumental Social and Religious History of the Jews.
Hey, Doc, there is a clear line drawn between the expectations of the Levitical Priests and the Judean Prophets. Abdul Baha is correct. You are correct. Both Messianic Expectations existed then and also now. I think that we could both continue to quote reputable sources, to ad nauseam, but I don't think that would solve anything, or make the point more clear. The most important point being that we believe that Yeshua was the promised Messiah, as foretold in the books of old, as does Abdul Baha:
VIL
|
Edited by - VIL on Feb 24 2007 1:06:16 PM |
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 2:12:51 PM
|
quote:
As for Krishnamurti.... It is of course possible that he was Jesus Christ, born again.
Christi
Well, let me post the rest of that chapter. The first part may have been misleading:
A great conflict occurred inside the Theosophical Society during those times when Annie Besant was occupying the presidency of this marvelous organization, whose founder was the great Initiate Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.
The problem that presented itself was the Krishnamurti case.
Lady Besant lifted her finger aloft in order to asseverate to the four winds that the Hindu boy Krishnamurti was the living Reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
The great clairvoyant Leadbeater and other eminent Theosophists totally agreed with Lady Besant. All of them were asserting that the Hindustani boy was Jesus Christ newly reincarnated.
We still remember the foundation of that order named The Star of the East whose unique purpose was to welcome the Messiah. Later on, Krishnamurti himself dissolved it.
A division occurred within the bosom of the Theosophical Society in that epoch.
Some of them were asserting that Krishnamurti was the Messiah. Others did not accept such a concept; thus they withdrew from the Theosophical Society.
ImageThe powerful illuminated clairvoyant, eminent intellectual, founder of the Anthroposophic Society, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, appears among those who withdrew. The work of Rudolf Steiner is grandiose. His books are wells of profound wisdom.
The Spaniard group Marco Aurelio also withdrew from the Theosophical Society.
The incision that occurred within the bosom of that famous Theosophical Society was a true tragedy.
We need to analyze the Krishnamurti case.
While some Theosophists were convinced that Krishnamurti was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, others stated that he was just an ignorant boy. They stated that the only thing he knew was how to drive an automobile and play tennis, etc.
So, what was the matter? Why did they not agree?
What is most intriguing is that the greatest clairvoyants from the Theosophical Society were divided into two opposite bands.
Absolutely logical questions emerge: why did the clairvoyants divide among themselves?
These clairvoyants saw the internal Being of the Hindu boy. Why then did they not agree? Is it perhaps because some clairvoyants see in one way and other clairvoyants in another distinct way? Is it possible that the clairvoyants contradict among themselves? If the clairvoyants saw the Inner Being of Jiddu Krishnamurti, what was the motivation for their disagreement?
When a thousand people see with their physical sight an object, they say: “This is a table, a chair, a rock, etc., etc.” When they see a person they say: “This is a man or a woman or a child, etc.” Then, what is going on with Clairvoyance? What is the motive in this concrete case of this Hindu boy in which the clairvoyants could not agree in their concepts? There is no doubt that Krishnamurti was a true puzzle for the Theosophical Society.
The most critical thing was to see those clairvoyants fighting among themselves.
This is something that confuses the minds of those that until now are starting these studies.
Krishnamurti fell into skepticism. He remained skeptical for many years; yet, he finally reacted and started his mission.
All of us, the endoteric Gnostic Brethren, proposed ourselves to investigate within the superior worlds the Krishnamurti case.
After many patient works, we arrived at the following conclusions:
* First: Every Human Being is a trio of body, Soul, and Spirit.
* Second: When the Spirit defeats matter, he becomes a Buddha.
* Third: When the Soul purifies and sanctifies itself, then it is called a Bodhisattva.
* Fourth: The Spirit of Krishnamurti is a Buddha.
* Fifth: The Soul of Krishnamurti is a Bodhisattva.
Many Buddhas exist in Asia who have not incarnated the Christ yet.
A ray that unites us to The Absolute exists within every human being.
That ray is our Resplendent Dragon of Wisdom, the Internal Christ, the Sephirotic Crown.
The Buddhas who have not incarnated the internal Christ have not Christified themselves yet.
Krishnamurti’s Buddha has already incarnated his Resplendent Dragon of Wisdom, his Particular Ray, his own Internal Christ.
When Lady Besant, Leadbeater, and other Theosophists studied the Krishnamurti case, they became astonished with the splendid light of that Christified Buddha. However, since they did not know the Christic Esotericism, they completely believed that Krishnamurti was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
The mistake was not in their clairvoyance; the mistake was in their lack of Intellectual Culture. They only knew about the Theosophical septenary. They only knew about the body, soul, and spirit. Yet, they ignored that beyond these three aspects (body, soul, and spirit) every human being has a Ray (the Internal Christ) that unites us to the Absolute.
They saw the internal God of Krishnamurti and believed that he was Jesus of Nazareth, that was their mistake. What is most critical, is the damage that they perpetrated upon the Hindu boy. When a Bodhisattva is told that his internal God is a Master, he becomes confused; he is damaged; he develops a complex.
The Hindu boy saw those instructors arguing among themselves because of him. Thus, the outcome was a psychological trauma for his human Personality. Krishnamurti had a psychological trauma.
There is no doubt that the Theosophist clairvoyants did a great damage to the Hindu boy. The Theosophist Hierarchs should have left the Hindu boy in Peace. He would have developed himself freely in India. Then, his work would have been marvelous.
The great Buddha of Krishnamurti did not give his whole message because his Bodhisattva had a psychological trauma.
If we exam the doctrine of Krishnamurti, we see that the best of it is Buddhism. Unfortunately, he does not know the Christic Esotericism.
The Hindu body drank from the fountain of the Buddhist Gospel. It is a pity that he did not know the Christic Esotericism.
Later on, he mixed the Buddhist Philosophy with the Conventional Philosophy from the Western World.
Thus, the doctrine of Krishnamurti is the outcome of that mixture. The doctrine of Krishnamurti is Buddhism.
However, the doctrine of Aquarius is the outcome of the mixture of Buddhist Esotericism with Christic Esotericism.
The doctrine of Krishnamurti is Free Buddhism. However, the living fountain of that doctrine is the marvelous gospel of the Lord Buddha.
We are not against Krishnamurti; we only regret the fact that the Internal Buddha of that Hindu Philosopher could not give the whole message. That is all.
When a clairvoyant discovers that the Innermost (the Spirit) of someone is a Master; then, it is best for that clairvoyant to be silent, in order not to damage that person.
When somebody knows that his inner being is a Master, he becomes filled with pride and arrogance. Fortunately, Krishnamurti learned how to be humble.
Fallen Bodhisattvas also exist. These ones are worse than demons.
No one has to be told that his inner being is a Master. The clairvoyant must be prudent. The clairvoyant must learn how to be silent.
The Spirit of someone could have achieved the degree of Master in some ancient reincarnation. The Bodhisattva (Human Soul of the Master) could have fallen later on, thus, now that Soul can live upon the path of evil.
The Master never falls. The one who falls is the Bodhisattva (Human Soul) of the Master.
The clairvoyant must be prudent; thus, before announcing a new Master, he must wait with patience many years, in order to see how the person of flesh and bones, the terrestrial Bodhisattva, behaves. The Master could be very great above; yet, the person of flesh and bones (Bodhisattva) here below is dangerous.
In any case, By their fruits you will know them.
Madame Blavatsky stated that one of the greatest mysteries of occultism is the mystery of the double personality.
All the fights and errors of the Theosophical Society were the cause of the trauma of Krishnamurti. The Krishnamurti case is very important.
Dr. Steiner knew the Christic Mysteries. This is why he did not allow himself to be confused. Steiner was Gnostic.
Steiner did not accept that Krishnamurti was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
Many followed Steiner and many others Lady Besant.
The clairvoyant Steiner had a vast intellectual culture; this is why he did not fall into that mistake. Steiner was a true Rosicrucian Gnostic. - Fundamental Notions of Endocrinology and Criminology
The point being, that even if we experience something amazing, we need to know how to interpret that experience. If we interpret everything according to the whims of our ideas and expectations, then we can fall into serious error. A few experiences can transform a humble student into a mythically inflated tyrant. |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 2:40:35 PM
|
Hey VIL:
I respect your decision to believe that Abdul Baha's view of this matter holds more authority than that of the overwhelming majority of Jewish authorities to be found in libraries and online everywhere, but when the Holy Scriptures point to a descendant in the lineage of King David, it's tough for me understand how Moses can even be considered a possible candidate for the role of Messiah, much less the most probable candidate. He precedes the life of David and Davidic Covenant and, thus, cannot possibly be a descendant of David....unless you choose to believe that Moses is scheduled to reincarnate as a descendant of David, with full remembrance of his former identity as Moses!
The man destined to be the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David (Isaiah 11:1) through the family of Solomon, David's son (1 Chronicles 22:9-l0). He will cause all the world to serve God together (Isaiah 11:2), be wiser than Solomon (Mishnah Torah Repentance 9:2), greater than the patriarchs and prophets (Aggadah Genesis 67), and more honored than kings (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10), for he will reign as king of the world (Pirkei Eliezer).
Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:
Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)
Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)
Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)
Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).
In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
"If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah."
Identity of the Messiah
The Tanakh gives several specifications as to who the messiah will be. He will be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader.
In general, only the following passages are accepted as referring to the messiah:
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14
Light to All ~
Doc
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 2:55:59 PM
|
Hi Christi:
Sorry I got sidetracked a bit with the additional topics of 'Reincarnation' and 'Identity of the Awaited Messiah'. The following are offered as direct responses to your earlier questions regarding Jesus's overt claims of His identity for your consideration.
***************************
Jesus called himself "I AM", a direct reference to God's statement to Moses from the burning bush:
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)
It is clear from the context that this is just exactly how Jesus meant his statement. It is also clear that His hearers took this statement as a claim to be God because they immediately picked up stones to stone Him. (Stoning was the penalty under Jewish law for blasphemy against the name of God (Exodus 20:7)(Leviticus 24:16)
**********************
There was a man who had been blind from birth. Jesus had the following conversation with him after giving the man sight:
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and it is He who talks with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshipped Him. (John 9:35-38)
Here the man asks Jesus a direct question regarding the identity of the Son of God. And Jesus tells the man that he, Jesus, is the Son of God.
***********************
Jesus had the following discussion with the woman at the well:
"The woman said to him, I know that The Annointed One cometh, who is called Messiah. When he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus said unto her, I that speak unto you am he." (John 4:25-26)
Notice, the woman makes direct reference to the coming Messiah, then Jesus claims to be the person to which she makes reference. This is a direct claim by Jesus to Messiahship.
Light to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 25 2007 03:15:55 AM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 3:32:41 PM
|
quote:
Doc: I respect your decision to believe that Abdul Baha's view of this matter holds more authority than that of the overwhelming majority of Jewish authorities to be found in libraries and online everywhere, but when the Holy Scriptures point to a descendant in the lineage of King David, it's tough for me understand how Moses can even be considered a possible candidate for the role of Messiah, much less the most probable candidate. He precedes the life of David and Davidic Covenant and, thus, cannot possibly be a descendant of David....unless you choose to believe that Moses is scheduled to reincarnate as a descendant of David, with full remembrance of his former identity as Moses!
I've quoted many reputable sources that support Abdul Baha's claim and have noted these in previous posts. One being a renowned Jewish Historian, who held the first Professorship in a United States University, who taught at Columbia University for decades, whose major work was the Social and Religious History of the Jews. Another site whose founders include a Phd from Princeton University and Undergrad from Harvard on religious studies.
"The Jews commonly expected that Elijah and Moses would somehow "return" before the end-time (Mark 9:11). This idea was based on Old Testament texts. The prophet Malachi had written in God’s name: "I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes" (4:5). Of course, Jesus had already pointed out that Malachi’s "Elijah" was a symbol for a great prophet, in this case John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11-14). So had the Gospel of Luke (1:16).
Thus, the church should have understood that "Elijah" had already come, and he was symbolic of John the Baptist. Perhaps, because of some Jewish thinking to the contrary, a question about this had arisen in the church.
In the same way, the Jews expected a Moses to come on the scene at some point in the future (John 6:14). This idea may have come from Moses’ prophecy of Christ ("I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers"), which was sometimes misunderstood to refer to Moses himself (Deuteronomy 18:18)."
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/Rev/2witnesses.htm
"About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.) While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him." When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen". Luke 9:28-36
It would make sense that at those times it would be important for Christ to dispel any doubt that He was not the literal return of Moses or Elijah, as it was common knowledge that God spoke to Moses through a cloud, showing that He was the One.
There is not much more that I can add, although I keep editing:
VIL
|
Edited by - VIL on Feb 24 2007 5:14:22 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 5:58:48 PM
|
VIL:
Actually, you have made vague, nameless references to the non-traditional opinions of three modern Jewish scholars, who probably all have Reformed Jewish backgrounds. The modern academic views of a small minority, even though the minority is of Jewish descent, cannot be considered more authoritative than the Traditional Orthodox Jewish beliefs most prevalent in the Holy Scriptures, or the thousands of Jewish commentators, both past and present, who have generally shared a common view regarding the Messiah that differs from these modern commentators. 
However, nonetheless, there may indeed be some Jews who expect the return of Old Testament Prophets....especially Moses, Elijah, and Enoch...at or before the End Times, and Scriptural references to support such a belief, as you pointed out, but these Prophets are not generally expected to appear in the role of Mashiach or Messiah.
Light to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 24 2007 6:29:43 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2007 : 6:52:43 PM
|
Perhaps some of you will find this article of interest relevant to the topics which have been discussed on this thread.
http://www.projectmind.org/exoteric/kabbalah.html
Light to All ~
Doc
|
Edited by - Doc on Feb 24 2007 7:28:56 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2007 : 01:18:30 AM
|
Hi Philip,
Thanks for quoting the rest of the text. I find this text a little confusing I have to admit. I am not too sure what it is based on. Certainly I have seen nothing in the writings of Krishnamurti, either those based on his talks, or in private letters that he wrote to individuals, which would indicate that he was confused in any way by the arguments which went on about him in Theosophical circles. Neither did he mention any psychological damage that arose from such conflict. It seems that much of the argument is based on knowledge aquired clairvoyantly, and I have no way of knowing how accurate it is. I would love to know what Krishnamurti himself would make of all this.
I am not sure that his teachings were predominantly Buddhist either. I would say more Advaita Vedanta with Christian overtones. Buddhism is essentially a path, with sets of practices. Krishnamurti was very much against any kind of path.
Until my psychic powers are better developed I am afraid I will have to reserve judgement over Krishnamurti and his Christ consciousness.
I assume from all of this though, that you believe that although Jesus represented a power, or a flame of God, which we can all manifest, that you also believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a man who lived at a particular time and will come again in the form of a man? And that that time has not yet come? Are you awaiting this time? And do you know when it will be?
Christi |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2007 : 03:58:20 AM
|
When Will the Moshiach Come?
There are a wide variety of opinions on the subject of when the moshiach will come. Some of Judaism's greatest minds have cursed those who try to predict the time of the moshiach's coming, because errors in such predictions could cause people to lose faith in the messianic idea or in Judaism itself. This actually happened in the 17th century, when Shabbatai Tzvi claimed to be the moshiach. When Tzvi converted to Islam under threat of death, many Jews converted with him. Nevertheless, this prohibition has not stopped anyone from speculating about the time when the moshiach will come.
Although some scholars believed that G-d has set aside a specific date for the coming of the moshiach, most authority suggests that the conduct of mankind will determine the time of the moshiach's coming. In general, it is believed that the moshiach will come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good).
http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/end1.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/g...c01_ch03.htm
Light to All ~
Doc
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2007 : 5:00:40 PM
|
Mashiach
The Principle of Mashiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition
Mashiach Ben Yossef
by Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet
Jewish tradition speaks of two redeemers, each one called Mashiach. Both are involved in ushering in the Messianic era. They are Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yossef.[1]
The term Mashiach unqualified always refers to Mashiach ben David (Mashiach the descendant of David) of the tribe of Judah. He is the actual (final) redeemer who shall rule in the Messianic age. All that was said in our text relates to him.
Mashiach ben Yossef (Mashiach the descendant of Joseph) of the tribe of Ephraim (son of Joseph), is also referred to as Mashiach ben Ephrayim, Mashiach the descendant of Ephraim.[2] He will come first, before the final redeemer, and later will serve as his viceroy.
The essential task of Mashiach ben Yossef is to act as precursor to Mashiach ben David: he will prepare the world for the coming of the final redeemer. Different sources attribute to him different functions, some even charging him with tasks traditionally associated with Mashiach ben David (such as the ingathering of the exiles, the rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash, and so forth).[4]
The principal and final function ascribed to Mashiach ben Yossef is of political and military nature. He shall wage war against the forces of evil that oppress Israel. More specifically, he will do battle against Edom, the descendants of Esau.[5] Edom is the comprehensive designation of the enemies of Israel,[6] and it will be crushed through the progeny of Joseph. Thus it was prophesied of old, "The House of Jacob will be a fire and the House of Joseph a flame, and the House of Esau for stubble.." (Obadiah 1:18): "the progeny of Esau shall be delivered only into the hands of the progeny of Joseph."[7]
This ultimate confrontation between Joseph and Esau is alluded already in the very birth of Joseph when his mother Rachel exclaimed, "G-d has taken away my disgrace" (Genesis 30:23): with prophetic vision she foresaw that an "anointed savior" will descend from Joseph and that he will remove the disgrace of Israel. In this context she called his name "Yossef, saying 'yossef Hashem - may G-d add to me ben acher (lit., another son), i.e., ben acharono shel olam - one who will be at the end of the world's time,'[9] from which it follows that 'meshu'ach milchamah - one anointed for battle' will descend from Joseph."[10]
The immediate results of this war[11] will be disastrous: Mashiach ben Yossef will be killed. This is described in the prophecy of Zechariah, who says of this tragedy that "they shall mourn him as one mourns for an only child." (Zechariah 12:10).[12] His death will be followed by a period of great calamities. These new tribulations shall be the final test for Israel, and shortly thereafter Mashiach ben David shall come, avenge his death, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace and bliss.[13]
This, in brief, is the general perception of the "second Mashiach," the descendant of Joseph through the tribe of Ephraim.
Quite significantly, R. Saadiah Gaon (one of the few to elaborate on the role of Mashiach ben Yossef) notes that this sequence is not definite but contingent! Mashiach ben Yossef will not have to appear before Mashiach ben David, nor will the activities attributed to him or his death have to occur. All depends on the spiritual condition of the Jewish people at the time the redemption is to take place:
The essential function of Mashiach ben Yossef is to prepare Israel for the final redemption, to put them into the proper condition in order to clear the way for Mashiach ben David to come. Of that ultimate redemption it is said, that if Israel repent (return to G-d) they shall be redeemed immediately (even before the predetermined date for Mashiach's coming). If they will not repent and thus become dependent on the final date, "the Holy One, blessed be He, will set up a ruler over them, whose decrees shall be as cruel as Haman's, thus causing Israel to repent, and thereby bringing them back to the right path."[14] In other words, if Israel shall return to G-d on their own and make themselves worthy of the redemption, there is no need for the trials and tribulations associated with the above account of events related to Mashiach ben Yossef. Mashiach ben David will come directly and redeem us.[15]
Moreover, even if there be a need for the earlier appearance of Mashiach ben Yossef, the consequences need not be as severe as described. Our present prayers and meritorious actions can mitigate these. R. Isaac Luria (Ari-zal) notes that the descendant of Joseph, by being the precursor of the ultimate Mashiach, is in effect kissey David, the "seat" or "throne" of David, i.e., of Mashiach. Thus when praying in the daily Amidah, "speedily establish the throne of Your servant David," one should consider that this refers to Mashiach ben Yossef and beseech G-d that he should not die in the Messianic struggle.[16] As all prayers, this one, too, will have its effect.
It follows, then, that all the above is not an essential or unavoidable part of the Messianic redemption that we await. Indeed, it - (and the same may be said of the climactic war of Gog and Magog) - may occur (or may have occured already!) in modified fashion.[17] This may explain why Rambam does not mention anything about Mashiach ben Yossef. R. Saadiah Gaon[18] and R. Hai Gaon,[19] as well as a good number of commentators, do refer to him briefly or at length. In view of the divergent Midrashim and interpretations on this subject it is practically impossible to present a more definitive synopsis that would go far beyond the above. Thus it is wisest to cite and follow R. Chasdai Crescas who states that "no certain knowledge can be derived from the interpretations of the prophecies about Mashiach ben Yossef, nor from the statements about him by some of the Geonim;" there is no point, therefore, in elaborating on the subject.[20]
Baruch Shem Yeshua Ha-Mashiach La-Olam. Amin.
Doc |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Kabbalah, Gnosticism and Christianity
