Jesus, Why, action inaction.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Roger wrote>Tony, PLEASE explain something useful,

anything please, even remotely

useful

about this fantasy. When a line of thought has no

practical expression

as

action, what's the use of it?<

Posted by Melody on NonDualitySalon a couple a months

ago:

more from "Only One Sky" by Osho:<

 

Well we are an arrogant little boy aren't we?????

 

Well the purpose was to show you a little bit more

about Jesus, what he was, and his history with

Mystical Kabbalists etc. There are some differences,

re Joshua but there have been several Joshuas. Many

Jewish mystics believe that Jesus was Moses even!

 

With regard to Rajneesh/Osho, now there we have a real

fraud and dishonest pervert. He could teach the

Christian fundamentalist evangalists a trick or two.

Guns and votes and all.

 

My postings re Jesus, if you penetrate them for

meaning, were about there being no death, and that

Jesus as a Sage demonstrated this. I'm sorry if I

didn't make it clear enough. They were in response to

Jerry really and death experiences, and of course your

post about Christians and Jesus etc.

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

=====

http://members.xoom.com/aoclery/sanskritglos.htm

 

ASATHO MA SATH GAMAYA, From the unreal lead me to the real,

THAMASO MA JYOTHIR GAMAYA, From darkness, lead me to light,

MRITHYOR MA AMRITAM GAMAYA.From death, lead me to immortality.

OM, SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI. Om, Peace Peace Peace.

 

 

 

Send online invitations with Invites.

http://invites.

[Guest guest]

>Tony wrote:

>According to Cayce and others Jesus was Adam, the

>descended Earth Deity, Sons of God, Sirians Pleiadian

>spirits etc, Kumaras, Enoch, Melchizadek, Joshua,

>Jeheshua, Elisha-succesor to Elias,Zend the father of

>Zaroastra, and Amilius in Atlantis. the teacher with

>the people of the Law of One, Is-Ra-El-ites, as

>opposed to the sons of Belial.

>Roger wrote:

>Tony, PLEASE explain something useful,

>anything please, even remotely useful

>about this fantasy. When a line of thought has no

>practical expression as

>action, what's the use of it?

>Tony:

>Well we are an arrogant little boy aren't we?????

>Well the purpose was to show you a little bit more

>about Jesus, what he was, and his history with

>Mystical Kabbalists etc. There are some differences,

>re Joshua but there have been several Joshuas. Many

>Jewish mystics believe that Jesus was Moses even!

>Tony:

>With regard to Rajneesh/Osho, now there we have a real

>fraud and dishonest pervert. He could teach the

>Christian fundamentalist evangalists a trick or two.

>Guns and votes and all.

 

Roger:

I think your assumption here, Tony, is that the truth of a [wo]man's

statements can be accurately determined in advance by an evaluation of the

person's reputation.

 

By your way of thinking, Cayce et al have positive reputations, in your

mind, therefore everything they say can be taken as truth without further

investigation. And you assert Rajneesh/Osho has a negative reputation, in

your mind, therefore, NOTHING he says could possibly be of any value.

 

This is confirmed by the fact that you DID NOT address any of Osho's

comments directly, instead, you have made a sweeping attack on his

personality.

 

Is this the way to discover truth? By examining reputation and personality?

 

I challenge you, Tony, especially about "Amilius in Atlantis", tell us how

your comments are useful. And tell us how it is that you can say with

certainty that your comments are true. What hard facts do we know about

"Amilius in Atlantis"?

 

You are simply indulging in imagination. How can you ever know the real when

you make a career out of projecting the false?

 

Roger