Shiva-shakti and Satan.

[Guest guest]

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." (20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (22) For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (24) but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (26) For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; (27) but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, (28) and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, (29) so that no man may boast before God. (30) But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (31) so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD." 2:1-14 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. (2) For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (3) I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, (4) and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, (5) so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (6) Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; (7) but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; (8) the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; (9) but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." (10) For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, (13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (14) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (NASB)

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Conclusion: One Truth = JESUS = GOD = Salvation. No Other way - sorry - but intellectual debat will NOT deliver the answer for the Mind is controlled by Satan. You have to be "Born Again in the Spirit" .

 

 

maybe you have the highest truth of the universe, but i do not accept anything simply because someone tells me to accept

 

you had a point per point response and you did'nt answer

 

are you here to throw mud on christ showing his teaching in such fanatical way?

 

how can you love jesus and use him to push your fanatical ego?

[Guest guest]

thanks for your prayer... jesus is not sectarian, he, or the principle he represents, saves who follows god's laws in all religions...

[barney 0]

THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS

 

 

". . . . Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy presence, and of the consummation of the age?"1 asked the Disciples of the MASTER, on the Mount of Olives.

 

THE reply given by the "Man of Sorrow," the Chréstos, on his trial, but also on his way to triumph, as Christos, or Christ,2 is prophetic, and very suggestive. It is a warning indeed. The answer must be quoted in full. Jesus . . . . said unto them:--

 

Take heed that no man lead you astray. For many shall come in my name saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray. And ye shall hear of wars . . . . but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places. But all these things are the beginning of travail. . . . Many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray . . . . then shall the end come. . . . when ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken through Daniel. . . . Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ, or There; believe him not. . . . If they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness, go not forth; behold, he is in the inner chambers, believe them not. For as the lightning cometh forth from the East, and is seen even in the West, so shall be the presence of the Son of Man, etc., etc.

 

Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: (a) "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus; (b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor "in the inner chambers," nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the "sepulchre" of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him.3 The "Son of Man" is no child of the bond-woman--flesh, but verily of the free-woman--Spirit,4 the child of man's own deeds, and the fruit of his own spiritual labour.

 

On the other hand, at no time since the Christian era, have the precursor signs described in Matthew applied so graphically and forcibly to any epoch as they do to our own times. When has nation arisen against nation more than at this time? When have "famines"--another name for destitute pauperism, and the famished multitudes of the proletariat--been more cruel, earthquakes more frequent, or covered such an area simultaneously, as for the last few years? Millenarians and Adventists of robust faith, may go on saying that "the coming of (the carnalised) Christ" is near at hand, and prepare themselves for "the end of the world." Theosophists--at any rate, some of them--who understand the hidden meaning of the universally-expected Avatars, Messiahs, Sosioshes and Christs--know that it is no "end of the world," but "the consummation of the age," i.e., the close of a cycle, which is now fast approaching.5 If our readers have forgotten the concluding passages of the article, "The Signs of the Times,"6 in LUCIFER for October last, let them read them over, and they will plainly see the meaning of this particular cycle.

 

Many and many a time the warning about the "false Christs" and prophets who shall lead people astray has been interpreted by charitable Christians, the worshippers of the dead-letter of their scripture, as applying to mystics generally, and Theosophists most especially. The recent work by Mr. Pember, "Earth's Earliest Ages," is a proof of it. Nevertheless, it seems very evident that the words in Matthew's Gospel and others can hardly apply to Theosophists. For these were never found saying that Christ is "Here" or "There," in wilderness or city, and least of all in the "inner chamber" behind the altar of any modern church. Whether Heathen or Christian by birth, they refuse to materialise and thus degrade that which is the purest and grandest ideal--the symbol of symbols--namely, the immortal Divine Spirit in man, whether it be called Horus, Krishna, Buddha, or Christ. None of them has ever yet said: "I am the Christ"; for those born in the West feel themselves, so far, only Chréstians,7 however much they may strive to become Christians in Spirit. It is to those, who in their great conceit and pride refuse to win the right of such appellation by first leading the life of Chrestos;8 to those who haughtily proclaim themselves Christians (the glorified, the anointed) by sole virtue of baptism when but a few days old--that the above-quoted words of Jesus apply most forcibly. Can the prophetic insight of him who uttered this remarkable warning be doubted by any one who sees the numerous "false prophets" and pseudo-apostles (of Christ), now roaming over the world? These have split the one divine Truth into fragments, and broken, in the camp of the Protestants alone, the rock of the Eternal Verity into three hundred and fifty odd pieces, which now represent the bulk of their Dissenting sects. Accepting the number in round figures as 350, and admitting, for argument's sake, that, at least, one of these may have the approximate truth, still 349 must be necessarily false.9 Each of these claims to have Christ exclusively in its "inner chamber," and denies him to all others, while, in truth, the great majority of their respective followers daily put Christ to death on the cruciform tree of matter--the "tree of infamy" of the old Romans--indeed!

 

The worship of the dead-letter in the Bible is but one more form of idolatry, nothing better. A fundamental dogma of faith cannot exist under a double-faced Janus form. "Justification" by Christ cannot be achieved at one's choice and fancy, either by "faith" or by "works" and James, therefore (ii., 25), contradicting Paul (Heb. xi., 31), and vice versa,10 one of them must be wrong. Hence, the Bible is not the "Word of God," but contains at best the words of fallible men and imperfect teachers. Yet read esoterically, it does contain, if not the whole truth, still, "nothing but the truth," under whatever allegorical garb. Only: Quot homines tot sententiœ.

 

The "Christ principle," the awakened and glorified Spirit of Truth, being universal and eternal, the true Christos cannot be monopolized by any one person, even though that person has chosen to arrogate to himself the title of the "Vicar of Christ," or of the "Head" of that or another State-religion. The spirits of "Chrest" and "Christ" cannot be confined to any creed or sect, only because that sect chooses to exalt itself above the heads of all other religions or sects. The name has been used in a manner so intolerant and dogmatic, especially in our day, that Christianity is now the religion of arrogance par excellence, a stepping-stone for ambition, a sinecure for wealth, sham and power; a convenient screen for hypocrisy. The noble epithet of old, the one that made Justin Martyr say that "from the mere name, which is imputed to us as a crime, we are the most excellent,"11 is now degraded. The missionary prides himself with the so-called conversion of a heathen, who makes of Christianity ever a profession, but rarely a religion, a source of income from the missionary fund, and a pretext, since the blood of Jesus has washed them all by anticipation, for every petty crime, from drunkenness and lying up to theft. That same missionary, however, would not hesitate to publicly condemn the greatest saint to eternal perdition and hell fires if that holy man has only neglected to pass through the fruitless and meaningless form of baptism by water with accompaniment of lip prayers and vain ritualism.

 

We say "lip prayer" and "vain ritualism" knowingly. Few Christians among the laymen are aware even of the true meaning of the word Christ; and those of the clergy who happen to know it (for they are brought up in the idea that to study such subjects is sinful) keep the information secret from their parishioners. They demand blind, implicit faith, and forbid inquiry as the one unpardonable sin, though nothing of that which leads to the knowledge of the truth can be aught else than holy. For what is "Divine Wisdom," or Gnosis, but the essential reality behind the evanescent appearances of objects in nature--the very soul of the manifested LOGOS? Why should men who strive to accomplish union with the one eternal and absolute Deity shudder at the idea of prying into its mysteries--however awful? Why, above all, should they use names and words the very meaning of which is a sealed mystery to them a mere sound? Is it because an unscrupulous, power-seeking Establishment called a Church has cried "wolf" at every such attempt, and, denouncing-it as "blasphemous," has ever tried to kill the spirit of inquiry? But Theosophy, the "divine Wisdom," has never heeded that cry, and has the courage of its opinions. The world of sceptics and fanatics may call it, one--an empty "ism"--the other "Satanism": they can never crush it. Theosophists have been called Atheists, haters of Christianity, the enemies of God and the gods. They are none of these. Therefore, they have agreed this day to publish a clear statement of their ideas, and a profession of their faith--with regard to monotheism and Christianity, at any rate--and to place it before the impartial reader to judge them and their detractors on the merits of their respective faiths. No truth-loving mind would object to such honest and sincere dealing, nor will it be dazzled by any amount of new light thrown upon the subject, howsoever much startled otherwise. On the contrary, such minds will thank LUCIFER, perhaps, while those of whom it was said "qui vult decipi decipiatur"--let them be deceived by all means!

 

The editors of this magazine propose to give a series of essays upon the hidden meaning or esotericism of the "New Testament." No more than any other scripture of the great world-religions can the Bible be excluded from that class of allegorical and symbolical writings which have been, from the pre-historic ages, the receptacle of the secret teachings of the Mysteries of Initiation, under a more or less veiled form. The primitive writers of the Logia (now the Gospels) knew certainly the truth, and the whole truth; but their successors had, as certainly, only dogma and form, which lead to hierarchical power at heart, rather than the spirit of the so-called Christ's teachings. Hence the gradual perversion. As Higgins truly said, in the Christologia of St. Paul and Justin Martyr, we have the esoteric religion of the Vatican, a refined Gnosticism for the cardinals, a more gross one for the people. It is the latter, only still more materialized and disfigured, which has reached us in our age.

 

The idea of writing this series was suggested to us by a certain letter published in our October issue, under the heading of "Are the Teachings ascribed to Jesus contradictory?" Nevertheless, this is no attempt to contradict or weaken, in any one instance, that which is said by Mr. Gerald Massey in his criticism. The contradictions pointed out by the learned lecturer and author are too patent to be explained by any "Preacher" or Bible champion; for what he has said--only in more terse and vigorous language--is what was said of the descendant of Joseph Pandira (or Panthera) in "Isis Unveiled" (vol. ii., p. 201), from the Talmudic Sepher Toldos Jeshu. His belief with regard to the spurious character of the Bible and New Testament, as now edited, is therefore, also the belief of the present writer. In view of the recent revision of the Bible, and its many thousands of mistakes, mistranslations, and interpolations (some confessed to, and others withheld), it would ill become an opponent to take any one to task for refusing to believe in the authorised texts.

 

But the editors would object to one short sentence in the criticism under notice. Mr. Gerald Massey writes:--

 

"What is the use of taking your 'Bible oath' that the thing is true, if the book you are sworn upon is a magazine of falsehoods already exploded, or just going off?"

 

Surely it is not a symbologist of Mr. Massey's powers and learning who would call the "Book of the Dead," or the Vedas, or any other ancient Scripture, "a magazine of falsehoods.''12 Why not regard in the same light as all the others, the Old, and, in a still greater measure, the New Testament?

 

All of these are "magazines of falsehoods," if accepted in the exoteric dead-letter interpretations of their ancient, and especially their modern, theological glossarists. Each of these records has served in its turn as a means for securing power and of supporting the ambitious policy of an unscrupulous priesthood. All have promoted superstition, all made of their gods bloodthirsty and ever-damning Molochs and fiends, as all have made nations to serve the latter more than the God of Truth. But while cunningly-devised dogmas and intentional misinterpretations by scholiasts are beyond any doubt, "falsehoods already exploded," the texts themselves are mines of universal truths. But for the world of the profane and sinners, at any rate--they were and still are like the mysterious characters traced by "the fingers of a man's hand" on the wall of the Palace of Belshazzar: they need a Daniel to read and understand them.

 

Nevertheless, TRUTH has not allowed herself to remain without witnesses. There are, besides great Initiates into scriptural symbology, a number of quiet students of the mysteries or archaic esotericism, of scholars proficient in Hebrew and other dead tongues, who have devoted their lives to unriddle the speeches of the Sphinx of the world-religions. And these students, though none of them has yet mastered all the "seven keys" that open the great problem, have discovered enough to be able to say: There was a universal mystery-language, in which all the World Scriptures were written, from Vedas to "Revelation," from the "Book of the Dead" to the Acts. One of the keys, at any rate--the numerical and geometrical key13 to the Mystery Speech is now rescued; an ancient language, truly, which up to this time remained hidden, but the evidences of which abundantly exist, as may be proven by undeniable mathematical demonstrations. If, indeed, the Bible is forced on the acceptance of the world in its dead-letter meaning, in the face of the modern discoveries by Orientalists and the efforts of independent students and kabalists, it is easy to prophesy that even the present new generations of Europe and America will repudiate it, as all the materialists and logicians have done. For, the more one studies ancient religious texts, the more one finds that the ground-work of the New Testament is the same as the ground-work of the Vedas, of the Egyptian theogony, and the Mazdean allegories. The atonements by blood--blood-covenants and blood-transferences from gods to men, and by men, as sacrifices to the gods--are the first keynote struck in every cosmogony and theogony; soul, life and blood were synonymous words in every language, pre-eminently with the Jews; and that blood-giving was life-giving. "Many a legend among (geographically) alien nations ascribes soul and consciousness in newly-created mankind to the blood of the god-creators." Berosus records a Chaldean legend ascribing the creation of a new race of mankind to the admixture of dust with the blood that flowed from the severed head of the god Belus. "On this account it is that men are rational and partake of divine knowledge," explains Berosus.14 And Lenormant has shown (Beginnings of History, p. 52, note) that "the Orphics . . . . said that the immaterial part of man, his soul (his life) sprang from the blood of Dionysius Zagreus, whom . . . . Titans tore to pieces." Blood "revivifies the dead"--i.e., interpreted metaphysically, it gives conscious life and a soul to the man of matter or clay--such as the modern materialist is now. The mystic meaning of the injunction, "Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves," &c., can never be understood or appreciated at its true occult value, except by those who hold some of the seven keys, and yet care little for St. Peter.15 These words, whether said by Jesus of Nazareth, or Jeshua Ben-Panthera, are the words of an INITIATE. They have to be interpreted with the help of three keys--one opening the psychic door, the second that of physiology, and the third that which unlocks the mystery of terrestrial being, by unveiling the inseparable blending of theogony with anthropology. It is for revealing a few of these truths, with the sole view of saving intellectual mankind from the insanities of materialism and pessimism, that mystics have often been denounced as the servants of Antichrist, even by those Christians who are most worthy, sincerely pious and respectable men.

 

The first key that one has to use to unravel the dark secrets involved in the mystic name of Christ, is the key which unlocked the door to the ancient mysteries of the primitive Aryans, Sabeans and Egyptians. The Gnosis supplanted by the Christian scheme was universal. It was the echo of the primordial wisdom-religion which had once been the heirloom of the whole of mankind; and, therefore, one may truly say that, in its purely metaphysical aspect, the Spirit of Christ (the divine logos) was present in humanity from the beginning of it. The author of the Clementine Homilies is right; the mystery of Christos--now supposed to have been taught by Jesus of Nazareth--"was identical" with that which from the first had been communicated "to those who were worthy," as quoted in another lecture.16 We may learn from the Gospel according to Luke, that the "worthy" were those who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Gnosis, and who were "accounted worthy" to attain that "resurrection from the dead" in this life . . . . "those who knew that they could die no more, being equal to the angels as sons of God and sons of the Resurrection." In other words, they were the great adepts of whatever religion; and the words apply to all those who, without being Initiates, strive and succeed, through personal efforts to live the life and to attain the naturally ensuing spiritual illumination in blending their personality--(the "Son") with (the "Father,") their individual divine Spirit, the God within them. This "resurrection" can never be monopolized by the Christians, but is the spiritual birth-right of every human being endowed with soul and spirit, whatever his religion may be. Such individual is a Christ-man. On the other hand, those who choose to ignore the Christ (principle) within themselves, must die unregenerate heathens--baptism, sacraments, lip-prayers, and belief in dogmas notwithstanding.

 

In order to follow this explanation, the reader must bear in mind the real archaic meaning of the paronomasia involved in the two terms Chréstos and Christos. The former means certainly more than merely "a good," and "excellent man," while the latter was never applied to any one living man, but to every Initiate at the moment of his second birth and resurrection.17 He who finds Christos within himself and recognises the latter as his only "way," becomes a follower and an Apostle of Christ, though he may have never been baptised, nor even have met a "Christian," still less call himself one.

 

 

II

 

The word Chréstos existed ages before Christianity was heard of. It is found used, from the fifth century B.C., by Herodotus, by Æschylus and other classical Greek writers, the meaning of it being applied to both things and persons.

 

Thus in Æschylus (Cho. 901) we read of (pythochrésta) the "oracles delivered by a Pythian God" (Greek-Eng. Lex.) through a pythoness; and Pythochréstos is the nominative singular of an adjective derived from chrao (Eurip. Ion, 1,218). The later meanings coined freely from this primitive application, are numerous and varied. Pagan classics expressed more than one idea by the verb "consulting an oracle"; for it also means "fated," doomed by an oracle, in the sense of a sacrificial victim to its decree, or--"to the WORD"; as chrésterion is not only "the seat of an oracle" but also "an offering to, or for, the oracle.''18 Chrestés is one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer;"19 and chrésterios is one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master";20 this Canon Farrar's efforts notwithstanding.21

 

All this is evidence that the terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrést and Chréstians 22 were directly borrowed from the Temple terminology of the Pagans, and meant the same thing. The God of the Jews was now substituted for the Oracle and the other gods; the generic designation "Chréstos" became a noun applied to one special personage; and new terms such as Chréstianoï and Chréstodoulos "a follower or servant of Chrestos"--were coined out of the old material. This is shown by Philo Judæus, a monotheist, assuredly, using already the same term for monotheistic purposes. For he speaks of (théochréstos) "God-declared," or one who is declared by god, and of (logia théochrésta) "sayings delivered by God"--which proves that he wrote at a time (between the first century B. C., and the first A. D.) when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known under these names, but still called themselves the Nazarenes. The notable difference between the two words --"consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle" ( being the Ionic earlier form of it), and (chrio) "to rub, to anoint" (from which the name Christos), have not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coin age from Philo's expression of that other term "anointed by God." Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, for for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way, as we now see.

 

The secular meaning of Chréstos runs throughout the classical Greek literature pari passu with that given to it in the mysteries. Demosthenes' saying (330, 27), means by it simply "you nice fellow"; Plato (in Phaed. 264 B) has --"you are an excellent fellow to think . . ." But in the esoteric phraseology of the temples "chrestos,"23 a word which, like the participle chréstheis, is formed under the same rule, and conveys the same sense--from the verb ("to consult a god")--answers to what we would call an adept, also a high chela, a disciple. It is in this sense that it is used by Euripides (Ion. 1320) and by Æschylus (IC). This qualification was applied to those whom the god, oracle, or any superior had proclaimed this, that, or anything else. An . instance may be given in this case.

 

The words used by Pindar (p. 4-10) mean "the oracle proclaimed him the coloniser." In this case the genius of the Greek language permits that the man so proclaimed should be called (Chréstos). Hence this term was applied to every Disciple recognised by a Master, as also to every good man. Now, the Greek language affords strange etymologies. Christian theology has chosen and decreed that the name Christos should be taken as derived from , (Chriso), "anointed with scented unguents or oil." But this word has several significances. It is used by Homer, certainly, as applied to the rubbing with oil of the body after bathing (11. 23, 186; also in Od. 4, 252) as other ancient writers do. Yet the word (Christes) means rather a white-washer, while the word Chrestes () means priest and prophet, a term far more applicable to Jesus, than that of the "Anointed," since, as Nork shows on the authority of the Gospels, he never was anointed, either as king or priest. In short, there is a deep mystery underlying all this scheme, which, as I maintain, only a thorough knowledge of the Pagan mysteries is capable of unveiling.24 It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve, may affirm or deny, that is the important point, but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance given to the two terms Chréstos and Christos by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages. For the latter had no object to achieve, therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure, and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two. This evidence can be obtained by first studying the meaning given to these words by the classics, and then their correct significance searched for in mystic symbology.

 

Now Chrestos, as already said, is a term applied in various senses. It qualifies both Deity and Man. It is used in the former sense in the Gospels, and in Luke (vi., 35), where it means "kind," and "merciful." , in I Peter (ii., 3), where it is said, "Kind is the Lord," . On the other hand, it is explained by Clemens Alexandrinus as simply meaning a good man; i.e., "All who believe in Chrést (a good man) both are, and are called Chréstians, that is good men." (Strom. lib. ii.) The reticence of Clemens, whose Christianity, as King truly remarks in his "Gnostics," was no more than a graft upon the congenial stock of his original Platonism, is quite natural. He was an Initiate, a new Platonist, before he became a Christian, which fact, however much he may have fallen off from his earlier views, could not exonerate him from his pledge of secrecy. And as a Theosophist and a Gnostic, one who knew, Clemens must have known that Christos was "the WAY," while Chréstos was the lonely traveller journeying on to reach the ultimate goal through that "Path," which goal was Christos, the glorified Spirit of "TRUTH," the reunion with which makes the soul (the Son) ONE with the (Father) Spirit. That Paul knew it, is certain, for his own expressions prove it. For what do the words , or as given in the authorised translations, "I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you" mean, but what we give in its esoteric rendering, i.e., "until you find the Christos within yourselves as your only 'way'." (Vide Galatians iv., 19 and 20.)

 

Thus Jesus, whether of Nazareth or Lüd,25 was a Chréstos, as undeniably as that he never was entitled to the appellation of Christos, during his life-time and before his last trial. It may have been as Higgins thinks, who surmises that the first name of Jesus was, perhaps, the second , and the third . "The word was in use before the H (cap. eta) was in the language." But Taylor (in his answer to Pye Smith, p. 113) is quoted saying "The complimentary epithet Chrest . . . . signified nothing more than a good man."

 

Here again a number of ancient writers may be brought for ward to testify that Christos (or Chreistos, rather) was, along with = Hrésos, an adjective applied to Gentiles before the Christian era. In Philopatris it is said , i.e., "if chrestos chance to be even among the Gentiles," etc.

 

Tertullian denounces in the 3rd chapter of his Apologia the word "Christianus" as derived by "crafty interpretation";26 Dr. Jones, on the other hand, letting out the information, corroborated by good sources, that Hrésos () was the name given to Christ by the Gnostics, and even by unbelievers," assures us that the real name ought to be or Christos--thus repeating and supporting the original "pious fraud" of the early Fathers, a fraud which led to the carnalizing of the whole Christian system.27 But I propose to show as much of the real meaning of all these terms as lies within my humble powers and knowledge. Christos, or the "Christ condition," was ever the synonym of the "Mahatmic-condition," i.e., the union of the man with the divine principle in him. As Paul says (Ephes. iii. 17) " .That you may find Christos in your inner man through knowledge" not faith, as translated; for Pistis is "knowledge," as will be shown further on.

 

There is still another and far more weighty proof that the name Christos is pre-Christian. The evidence for it is found in the prophecy of the Erythrean Sybil. We read in it . Read esoterically, this string of meaningless detached nouns, which has no sense to the profane, contains a real prophecy--only not referring to Jesus--and a verse from the mystic catechism of the Initiate. The prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit of Truth (Christos), after which advent--that has once more nought to do with Jesus--will begin the Golden Age; the verse refers to the necessity before reaching that blessed condition of inner (or subjective) theophany and theopneusty, to pass through the crucifixion of flesh or matter. Read exoterically, the words "Iesous Chreistos theou yios soter stauros," meaning literally "Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Saviour, Cross," are most excellent handles to hang a Christian prophecy on, but they are pagan, not Christian.

 

If called upon to explain the names IESOUS CHREISTOS, the answer is: study mythology, the so-called "fictions" of the ancients, and they will give you the key. Ponder over Apollo, the solar god, and the "Healer," and the allegory about his son Janus (or Ion), his priest at Delphos, through whom alone could prayers reach the immortal gods, and his other son Asclepios, called the Soter, or Saviour. Here is a leaflet from esoteric history written in symbolical phraseology by the old Grecian poets.

 

The city of Chrisa28 (now spelt Crisa), was built in memory of Kreusa (or Creusa), daughter of King Erechtheus and mother of Janus (or Ion) by Apollo, in memory of the danger which Janus escaped.29 We learn that Janus, abandoned by his mother in a grotto "to hide the shame of the virgin who bore a son," was found by Hermes, who brought the infant to Delphi, nurtured him by his father's sanctuary and oracle, where, under the name of Chresis () Janus became first a Chrestis (a priest, soothsayer, or Initiate), and then very nearly a Chresterion, "a sacrificial victim,"30 ready to be poisoned by his own mother who knew him not, and who, in her jealousy, mistook him, on the hazy intimation of the oracle, for a son of her husband. He pursued her to the very altar with the intention of killing her--when she was saved through the pythoness, who divulged to both the secret of their relationship. In memory of this narrow escape, Creusa, the mother, built the city of Chrisa, or Krisa. Such is the allegory, and it symbolizes simply the trials of Initiation.31

 

Finding then that Janus, the solar God, and son of Apollo, the Sun, means the "Initiator" and the "Opener of the Gate of Light," or secret wisdom of the mysteries; that he is born from Krisa (esoterically Chris), and that he was a Chrestos through whom spoke the God; that he was finally Ion, the father of the Ionians, and, some say, an aspect of Asclepios, another son of Apollo, it is easy to get hold of the thread of Ariadne in this labyrinth of allegories. It is not the place here to prove side issues in mythology, however. It suffices to show the connection between the mythical characters of hoary antiquity and the later fables that marked the beginning of our era of civilization. Asclepios (Esculapius) was the divine physician, the "Healer," the "Saviour," as he was called, a title also given to Janus of Delphi; and IASO, the daughter of Asclepios, was the goddess of healing, under whose patronage were all the candidates for initiation in her father's temple, the novices or chrestoi, called "the sons of Iaso." (Vide for name, "Plutus," by Aristoph. 701).

 

Now, if we remember, firstly, that the names of IESUS in their different forms, such as Iasius, Iasion, Jason and Iasus, were very common in ancient Greece, especially among the descendants of Jasius (the Jasides), as also the number of the "sons of Iaso," the Mystoï and future Epoptai (Initiates), why should not the enigmatical words in the Sibylline Book be read in their legitimate light, one that had nought to do with a Christian prophecy? The secret doctrine teaches that the first two words mean simply "son of Iaso, a Chrestos," or servant of the oracular God. Indeed IASO () is in the lonic dialect IESO () and the expression (lesous)--in its archaic form, --simply means "the son of Iaso or Ieso, the "healer," i.e., (). No objection, assuredly, can be taken to such rendering, or to the name being written leso instead of laso, since the first form is attic, therefore incorrect, for the name is lonic. "Ieso" from which "O'lesous" (son of Ieso)--i.e., a genitive, not a nominative--is lonic and cannot be anything else, if the age of the Sibylline book is taken into consideration. Nor could the Sibyl of Erythrea have spelt it originally otherwise, as Erythrea, her very residence, was a town in Ionia (from Ion or Janus) opposite Chios; and that the lonic preceded the attic form.

 

Leaving aside in this case the mystical signification of the now famous Sibylline sentence, and giving its literal interpretation only, on the authority of all that has been said, the hitherto mysterious words would stand; "Son of IASO, CHRESTOS (the priest or servant) (of the) SON of (the) GOD (Apollo) the SAVIOUR from the CROSS"--(Of flesh or matter).32 Truly, Christianity can never hope to be understood until every trace of dogmatism is swept away from it, and the dead letter sacrificed to the eternal Spirit of Truth, which is Horus, which is Crishna, which is Buddha, as much as it is the Gnostic Christos and the true Christ of Paul.

 

In the Travels of Dr. Clarke, the author describes a heathen monument found by him.

 

Within the sanctuary, behind the altar, we saw the fragments of a marble cathedra, upon the back of which we found the following inscription, exactly as it is here written, no part of it having been injured or obliterated, affording perhaps the only instance known of a sepulchral inscription upon a monument of this remarkable form.

 

The inscription ran thus: ; or, "Chrestos, the first, a Thessalonian from Larissa, Pelasgiot 18 years old Hero." Chrestos the first (protoo), why? Read literally the inscription has little sense; interpreted esoterically, it is pregnant with meaning. As Dr. Clarke shows, the word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all the ancient Larissians; but it is preceded always by a proper name. Had the adjective Chrestos stood after a name, it would only mean "a good man," a posthumous compliment paid to the defunct, the same being often found on our modern tumular epitaphs. But the word Chrestos, standing alone and the other word, "protoo," following it, gives it quite another meaning, especially when the deceased is specified as a "hero." To the mind of an Occultist, the defunct was a neophyte, who had died in his 18th year of neophytism,33 and stood in the first or highest class of discipleship, having passed his preliminary trials as a "hero"; but had died before the last mystery, which would have made of him a "Christos," an anointed, one with the spirit of Christos or Truth in him. He had not reached the end of the "Way," though he had heroically conquered the horrors of the preliminary theurgic trials.

 

We are quite warranted in reading it in this manner, after learning the place where Dr. Clarke discovered the tablet, which was, as Godfrey Higgins remarks, there, where "I should expect to find it, at Delphi, in the temple of the God IE.," who, with the Christians became Jah, or Jehovah, one with Christ Jesus. It was at the foot of Parnassus, in a gymnasium, "adjoining the Castalian fountain, which flowed by the ruins of Crisa, probably the town called Crestona," etc. And again: "In the first part of its course from the (Castalian) fountain, it (the river) separates the remains of the gymnasium . . . from the valley of Castro," as it probably did from the old city of Delphi--the seat of the great oracle of Apollo, of the town of Krisa (or Kreusa) the great centre of initiations and of the Chréstoi of the decrees of the oracles, where the candidates for the last labour were anointed with sacred oils34 before being plunged into their last trance of forty-nine hours' duration (as to this day, in the East), from which they arose as glorified adepts or Christoi."

 

In the Clementine Recognitions it is announced that the father anointed his son with "oil that was taken from the wood of the Tree of Life, and from this anointing he is called the Christ": whence the Christian name. This again is Egyptian. Horus was the anointed son of the father. The mode of anointing him from the Tree of Life, portrayed on the monuments, is very primitive indeed; and the Horus of Egypt was continued in the Gnostic Christ, who is reproduced upon the Gnostic stones as the intermediate link betwixt the Karest and the Christ, also as the Horus of both sexes. ("The name and nature of the Christ."--GERALD MASSEY. )

 

Mr. G. Massey connects the Greek Christos or Christ with the Egyptian Karest, the "mummy type of immortality," and proves it very thoroughly. He begins by saying that in Egyptian the "Word of Truth" is Ma-Kheru, and that it is the title of Horus. Thus as he shows, Horus preceded Christ as the Messenger of the Word of Truth, the Logos or the manifestor of the divine nature in humanity. In the same paper he writes as follows:

 

The Gnosis had three phases--astronomical, spiritual, and doctrinal, and all three can be identified with the Christ of Egypt. In the astronomical phase the constellation Orion is called the Sahu or mummy. The soul of Horus was represented as rising from the dead and ascending to heaven in the stars of Orion. The mummy-image was the preserved one, the saved, therefore a portrait of the Saviour, as a type of immortality. This was the figure of a dead man, which, as Plutarch and Herodotus tell us, was carried round at an Egyptian banquet, when the guests were invited to look on it and eat and drink and be happy, because, when they died, they would become what the image symbolised--that is, they also would be immortal! This type of immortality was called the Karest, or Karust, and it was the Egyptian Christ. To Kares means to embalm, anoint, to make the Mummy as a type of the eternal; and, when made, it was called the Karest; so that this is not merely a matter of name for name, the Karest for the Christ.

 

This image of the Karest was bound up in a woof without a seam, the proper vesture of the Christ! No matter what the length of the bandage might be, and some of the mummy-swathes have been unwound that were 1,000 yards in length, the woof was from beginning to end without a seam. . . . Now, this seamless robe of the Egyptian Karest is a very tell-tale type of the mystical Christ, who becomes historic in the Gospels as the wearer of a coat or chiton, made without a seam, which neither the Greek nor the Hebrew fully explains, but which is explained by the Egyptian Ketu for the woof, and by the seamless robe or swathing without seam that was made for eternal wear, and worn by the Mummy-Christ, the image of immortality in the tombs of Egypt.

 

Further, Jesus is put to death in accordance with the instructions given for making the Karest. Not a bone must be broken. The true Karest must be perfect in every member. "This is he who comes out sound; whom men know not is his name."

 

In the Gospels Jesus rises again with every member sound, like the perfectly-preserved Karest, to demonstrate the physical resurrection of the mummy. But, in the Egyptian original, the mummy transforms. The deceased says: "I am spiritualised. I am become a soul. I rise as a God." This transformation into the spiritual image, the Ka, has been omitted in the Gospel.

 

This spelling of the name as Chrest or Chrést in Latin is supremely important, because it enables me to prove the identity with the Egyptian Karest or Karust, the name of the Christ as the enbalmed mummy, which was the image of the resurrection in Egyptian tombs, the type of immortality, the likeness of the Horus, who rose again and made the pathway out of the sepulchre for those who were his disciples or followers. Moreover, this type of the Karest or Mummy-Christ is reproduced in the Catacombs of Rome. No representation of the supposed historic resurrection of Jesus has been found on any of the early Christian monuments. But, instead of the missing fact, we find the scene of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This is depicted over and over again as the typical resurrection where there is no real one! The scene is not exactly in accordance with the rising from the grave in the Gospel. It is purely Egyptian, and Lazarus is an Egyptian mummy! Thus Lazarus, in each representation, is the mummy-type of the resurrection; Lazarus is the Karest, who was the Egyptian Christ, and who is reproduced by Gnostic art in the Catacombs of Rome as a form of the Gnostic Christ, who was not and could not become an historical character.

 

Further, as the thing is Egyptian, it is probable that the name is derived from Egyptian. If so, Laz (equal to Ras) means to be raised up, while aru is the mummy by name. With the Greek terminal s this becomes Lazarus. In the course of humanising the mythos the typical representation of the resurrection found in the tombs of Rome and Egypt would become the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This Karest type of the Christ in the Catacombs is not limited to Lazarus.

 

By means of the Karest type the Christ and the Christians can both be traced in the ancient tombs of Egypt. The mummy was made in this likeness of the Christ. It was the Christ by name, identical with the Chrestoi of the Greek Inscriptions. Thus the honoured dead, who rose again as the followers of Horus-Makheru, the Word of Truth, are found to be the Christians , on the Egyptian monuments. Ma-Kheru is the term that is always applied to the faithful ones who win the crown of life and wear it at the festival which is designated 'Come thou to me'--an invitation by Horus the Justifier to those who are the 'Blessed ones of his father, Osiris'--they who, having made the Word of Truth the law of their lives, were the Justified--, the Christians, on earth.

 

In a fifth century representation of the Madonna and child from the cemetery of St. Valentinus, the new-born babe lying in a box or crib is also the Karest, or mummy-type, further identified as the divine babe of the solar mythos by the disk of the sun and the cross of the equinox at the back of the infant's head. Thus the child-Christ of the historic faith is born, and visibly begins in the Karest image of the dead Christ, which was the mummy-type of the resurrection in Egypt for thousands of years before the Christian era. This doubles the proof that the Christ of the Christian Catacombs was a survival of the Karest of Egypt.

 

Moreover, as Didron shows, there was a portrait of the Christ who had his body painted red!35 It was a popular tradition that the Christ was of a red complexion. This, too, may be explained as a survival of the Mummy-Christ. It was an aboriginal mode of rendering things tapu by colouring them red. The dead corpse was coated with red ochre--a very primitive mode of making the mummy, or the anointed one. Thus the God Ptah tells Rameses II. that he has "re-fashioned his flesh in vermilion." This anointing with red ochre is called Kura by the Maori, who likewise made the Karest or Christ.

 

We see the mummy-image continued on another line of descent when we learn that among other pernicious heresies and deadly sins with which the Knights Templars were charged, was the impious custom of adoring a Mummy that had red eyes. Their Idol, called Baphomet, is also thought to have been a mummy. . . . ... The Mummy was the earliest human image of the Christ.

 

I do not doubt that the ancient Roman festivals called the Charistia were connected in their origin with the Karest and the Eucharist as a celebration in honour of the manes of their departed kith and kin, for whose sakes they became reconciled at the friendly gathering once a year It is here, then, we have to seek the essential connection between the Egyptian Christ, the Christians, and the Roman Catacombs. These Christian Mysteries, ignorantly explained to be inexplicable, can be explained by Gnosticism and Mythology, but in no other way. It is not that they are insoluble by human reason, as their incompetent, howsoever highly paid, expounders now-a-days pretend. That is but the puerile apology of the unqualified for their own helpless ignorance--they who have never been in possession of the gnosis or science of the Mysteries by which alone these things can be explained in accordance with their natural genesis. In Egypt only can we read the matter to the root, or identify the origin of the Christ by nature and by name, to find at last that the Christ was the Mummy-type, and that our Christology is mummified mythology."--(Agnostic Annual.)

 

[Guest guest]

so many silly things stuffed in a single page..

[Guest guest]

You must identify the meanings of shiva and shakti in terms with spiritual hinduism prior to the arrival of the aryans in india. The excavated sites of mohenjodaro and harrappa reveal statues of shiva which reveals the concept of meditation and prana. Prana is associated with the divine cosmic feminine energy, Kundalini or Shakti, the female embodiment of the universal soul "the brahman" or Shiva. Without Shakti, life on earth would be an impossibility as she is "life all pervasive". From, breathing right, yoga, meditating to attaining siddhi, everything is dependent on Shakti or kundalini shakti. Shiva, the mahayogi, is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all creation - tangible and intangible. To bridge the distance of the physical and divine, shiva resides in the crown chakra amd shakti in the root. The union of shiva and shakti, through meditation and arousal of the kundalinin opens the doors of the divine world. Neither shiva nor shakti can be demonic for the simple reason that they are not gods of the aryan hindu mythology. They are spiritual realms that the people of india followed long before the aryans arrived in india. The study of yoga and the readings in vedas will tell you that there were no temples, no form of organized & institutionalized and ceremonial religion in india before the aryan arrival. The reason they cannot be compared to religious figures in other religions is because in spiritual world there is no eveil or devil. If "God is" then there is nothing else. There is no parallel to God and also the figural destructive qualities of any divine energy, shiva or shakti is possible when a person lacks the potential to awaken kundalini in the right manner or be able to live with an awakened kundalini in the right way.

 

The hundred and one forms of hindu gods is an aryan polytheistic nonsense introduced to organize the existing spiritual structure of india of the time.

 

[harerama 0]

or at least it's only a THEORY, so please stop stating it as fact.

 

 

[Guest guest]

hi

you are saying about the minor contradictions... let me say about the major one...

 

God created the heaven and earth on Day One.

and then sun on day two or day three

 

as far as i know we mean day by the sun rise to the next sun rise which we divided as 24 hours and we are maintaining it..

 

if god would have created sun or 2nd or 3rd day then how he is saying that he crated heaven and earth on day one... did he calculated the time of 24 hrs and made first two creations...

 

I doeesnt meant to hurt the believers... there may be some flaws, in each and every religion... but the non-believers must not take this as an issue...

 

you can ask then why you are criticising? I am sending this reply because a guys is spreading a christian propoganda in a hindu forum.. which is for dedicated hindus to discuss about their relgion and not for others...

 

a hindu

[Sephiroth 0]

Here's a few facts :

 

1. Hindusm has NO prophets. They have Sages but no one them proclaim themselves Gods. This Sages were humans also and they make a lot of mistakes.

 

2. Jesus DIDN'T laid down his life. He was persecuted and executed by Jews for being an idiot. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

3. I don't see anyone calling Shiva Satan.