Christ indeed is the universal love.

What is meant by "the Christ?"

The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos and means anointed. It is identical with the hebrew word Messiah. The word Christ, per se, does not refer to any particular person. Every anointed person is christed. When the definite "the" is placed before the word christ, a definite personality is indicated. This personality is none other than a member of the Trinity, the Son who had a glory with the Father-Mother before the worlds were formed. According to the ancient masters, this Son is Love; so the Christ is Love, and Love is God, since God is Love.

Before creation was the Christ walked with the Father God and Mother God in Akasha. The Christ is son, the only begotten of Almighty God, the God of Force and God of omniscient, God of thought; and Christ is God, the God of Love. Without the Christ, there is no light. Through Christ all life was manifest; and so through him all things were done, and naught was done in forming worlds or peopling worlds without the Christ.
Thus, Christ made manifest Love's power to save. But men forgot so soon (lost his consciousness of right, he could no longer comprehend the boundlessness of Love; he could see naught but himself and things of self), and so Christ must manifest again, and then again.

Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christ

In many respects Jesus, by ages of strenuous preparation, he qualified to be an avatar, a savior of the world, and from childhood he was endowed with superior wisdom and was conscious of the fact that he was competent to lead the race into the higher ways of spiritual living. But he was conscious also of the fact that he must attain the mastery by trials, bufettings, temptations and sufferings. He remarked that, "My human life was wholly given to bring my will to tune with deific will; when this was done my earth-tasks all were done. You know that all my life was one great drama for the sons of men; a pattern for the sons of men. I lived to show the possibilities of man. What I have done all men can do, and what I am all men shall be."
Jesus was the name of the man and it was only appropriate for this kind of man. The word means Savior.

The word means "the annointed one". It means, the Master of Love. When we say "Jesus the Christ" we refer to the man and his office; just as we do when we say, Edward, the King, or Lincoln, the President. Edward was not always King, Lincoln was not always President; and Jesus was not always Christ. Jesus won his Christship by a strenuous life; he received the degree Christ when he was coronated by the highest earth authorities as Christ-King, properly speaking, "The Master of Love."

Jesus, in his Nazarene's testimony, made the matter clear. Once when he was speaking to a congregation in Bethany the people called him King and he stood forth and said, " I am not sent to sit upon a throne to rule as Caesar rules; and you may tell the ruler of the Jews that I am not a claimant for his throne. Men call me Christ, and God has recognized the name. But Christ is not a man. The Christ is universal Love, and Love is King. This Jesus is but a man who has been fitted by temptations overcome, by trials multiform, to be the temple through which the Christ can manifest to men. Then hear, you men of Israel, hear! Look not upon the flesh; it is not King. Look to the Christ within who shall be formed in every one of you, as he is formed in me. When you have purified your hearts by faith, the king will enter in and you will see his face.

Hopefully, you can appreciate the distinction and the deeper meaning of the message Jesus conveyed here. Look not for your salvation in christianity or within the church, from the pulpit, your tradition, or other forms of man-made indoctrinations. Rather, look within your for the Savior. Therein lies your salvation...the Christ, the universal Love which all men are equiped with. Once you are at-one with it, your Christ-consciousness will manifest, just as Jesus did.

The quip about your traditional adage is a total non-starter. Those your elders who coined that convenient adage were the very ones who orchestrated and put into practise (tradition) man-made/serving laws against their fellow humans in sharp contrast to the commandments of God and the harmony of universal Love (Christ). Have you ever wondered why your (Christian) people attend more church worship, yet receive little consolation/blessings? Anyone who delights in enslaving and keeping others down while screaming the loudest about being kept in bondage and hindered from progress (by more endowed creatures) will not taste freedom. Think about it. It is the law of nature, the law of God. Do unto others...., love thy neighbor... the greatest commandment (universal Love).

As a wonderful Christian warrior, I think you'll do a world of good, if you take your Christian crusade right to the camp of the enslaved, down-kept and trodden by the shackles of man-made traditions and inhibitions. I'm sure they'd appreciate your free dose of such universal Love.

I'm not a religionist or conformer of man-made dogmas, per se. It was with deliberate purpose that I delved into the Bible and the teachings of Jesus the Christ in order to elaborate and to answer questions posed by Biblists/Christians from the biblical contest.
I am a spiritualist. I believe that a true religion can only be a system that aims at raising Man's focus of consciousness to the higher divisions of his spirit to allow him to function in a God-like manner.

Not only are the various religions aimed at the Sahu Man (people whose behavior is dominated by the lower part of the spirit, which is the source of sensuous behavior that dominated the early part of Man's life) lacking in this perspective, they even lack words for the various parts of the spirit, let alone know that it is a composite entity that contains both the saving and the damning parts of man's being. But things have gotten worse. With each passing day, we find more and more Sahu people assuming the role of leadership in religious matters and in the world.

It is the spiritual cultivation of Man that will lead him to Salvation..."the likeness of God." Spiritual culture is a system that methodically leads Man's consciousness to the higher parts of his being, wherein dwell those faculties that contain the essence of God's attributes. Its goal is to raise Man's consciousness and spiritual power.
The acquisition of wisdom (which is the intuitive knowledge that frees Man from errors) and the spiritual power to achieve his will (making criminal acts unnecessary) is the result of achieving the goal of spiritual cultivation.

We can already begin to see that not all religions share this understanding and this goal. For some, man is essentially a sinner...ie, confined to his animal spirit and concrete intellect... and can therefore only be saved by an intervention of a savior OUTSIDE of himself. Or can only be kept from doing wrong by threats of doomsday, or eternal damnation that awaits the sinner.
In actuality, Man's salvation can only be achieved by the elevation of his consciousness to the higher part of his being, and the increase of his spiritual power that he may be free of the limitations of the physical world.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Amanda Wekson ]

It was good to read from you. Thanks for wishing me a happy new year. May I wish the same? You honored me when you referenced my piece on Bola Ige. I am glad you think as you do regarding my contribution on that thread.

Isn't it interesting how they dealt with Bola Ige? The man who spoke loud for Yoruba interest in Nigerian politics and spoke louder against the Northern Hausa hegemon? Of course, the "professional confessor" ( I like that phrase,) Frayo will take the fall along with other minions not in a court of law, mind you, but in the ongoing popular allegory that is Nigeria's history, in gossips and in any excuse will do. But one thing is certain, a serious and clear message had been sent to our brothers and sisters in the Southwest. And that message is "know your place and be mindful of it". It is no more different than what happened to Moshood Abiola when he got too big for his britches.

How the Yorubas respond to this extreme act of provocation will for long determine their place in the rugged politics of Nigeria. But if the past is prologue their response will be predictable. They will pretend that all is alright with the way things are. That a grievious injustice done can be corrected with staged kindness elsewhere. And that life must go on. Mind you, this expected response is not indicative of original weakness or lack of fortitude but is instead, the product of a malaise that descends and incapacitate the ability to make and take firm, principled decisions. A malaise that often arises when one is stuck with the bewilderment of did one among us sanction the sacrifice of Bola Ige?

I shall defer my response to you until later. But be mindful that I do not querrel with or disagree with your intentions in making those posts. Indeed, I may agree with some of your beliefs as probably evidenced in your postings. I will elaborate more when I write again. I am just tired. My spirit is strong but my flesh precludes me... or is it that it is weak?

I hear you.

Go ahead and feed your flesh to the pleasures that sleep brings.

You wrote:

quote:

---

As a wonderful Christian warrior, I think you'll do a world of good, if you take your Christian crusade right to the camp of the enslaved, down-kept and trodden by the shackles of man-made traditions and inhibitions. I'm sure they'd appreciate your free dose of such universal Love.

---

Methinks you deliberately applied the terms you have used above to divert the debate to where you feel it will suit you. Go back and read my post. I did NOT lay claim to anything neither did I anounce or proclaim a crusade. On the other hand my humble assertion is that a simple christian like Ohafia has no need to feel ashamed, inadequate or intimidated because I happen not to have read the gospel of Taurus or is it aquarius.

Christianity is by individual choice and that Millions have reached personal decision does not and should not obliterate this fact. Ohafia Udumeze has a right to seek and find succour at the "old rugged cross".

You further wrote:

quote:

---

Have you ever wondered why your (Christian) people attend more church worship, yet receive little consolation/blessings?

---

Amanda, consolation/blessings come in different shapes and sizes. Blessings may mean a good well paid job, it may mean plenty of healthy kids, American/British citizenship, material wealth and aquisitions, having friends and family, peace of mind, realisation of life goals, actualisation of Biafra, reading many books, being successful in politics/leadership etc etc.

Based on the fore-going, I'm at a loss as how you arrived at your conclusion that simple Christians are excluded to a greater extent from all these "blessings".

You did well to take to heart the last paragraph of my response to you. Charity begins at home, does it not?
I noted also that you seem to have difficulty grasping the name of any mind-opening book, save, of course, your bible. Ahh, the wonders of biblism. That notwithstanding, I mean every word of that paragraph…and you know what I mean. But should you insist that you don't, I understand.

" Have you ever wondered why your (Christian) people attend more church worship, yet receive little consolation/blessings?"

This quote is actually from Oyibo (your British Christians who taught you the rules of the game, ahem, christianity) who has had time to make observations about your people's practice of Christianity in Igboland. Further, in those comments you quoted, I had the Igbos in mind.

You stated, "…consolation/blessings come in different shapes and sizes. Blessings may mean a good well paid job, it may mean plenty of healthy kids, American/British citizenship, material wealth and aquisitions, having friends and family, peace of mind, realisation of life goals, actualisation of Biafra, reading many books, being successful in politics/leadership etc etc."

I'm surprised.
Since when do people in bondage have peace of mind? Do an enslaved people claim realization of life's goal while still shackled and bound? Is striving to acquire another man's permission to be his subject as refugees while leaving one's land desolate, a blessing? What good is there in having kids who appear healthy on the outside and spiritually blind/dead on the inside? Material wealth and material acquisitions, you say? Is this the new christian mantra for soul-salvation? What good are classroom intelligence, success in deceptive politics/leadership which are devoid of wisdom?
What you have described as blessing/consolation are typical Sahu man's control by the lower part of the spirit. If you want an elaborate definition of "Sahu Man", I'll happily oblige. I've mentioned it a few times on this thread.

BTW, if you feel that I have "diverted the debate" please feel free to re-direct.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Further, in those comments you quoted, I had the Igbos in mind.....
What you have described as blessing/consolation are typical Sahu man's control by the lower part of the spirit

---

I did not know you had the Igbos in mind but I can remember including the "actualisation of Biafra" as what may be considered a blessing. I noticed you made no direct reference to this in categorising what belonged to the lower Sahu man. No problem.

Let's say we add your blessings/consolations of the middle and upper class Sahu man in place of my "etc etc", it will still be impossible to exclude the simple Christians whom you would love to address as slaves etc etc.

That is my point, and this is my last take.

We must agree that there are in this world, people of widely differing mental, moral, and spiritual abilities. We will see that the similarities and differences between people, when sorted out, arrange themselves into three fundamental types of Men.
The division of people into three types is based on the various stages in human evolution.
Man's spirit is not a body. It consists of seven divisions or levels which include the physical body as its lowest and densest portion.

See the outines of the various types of people. (1) The Sahu Man (2) The Ab Man, and (3) The Ausar.

(1) People who are controlled by their emotional and sensuous being (10th sphere). They only know what they are taught by others (sphere 7-9), and whose mental perception is limited to the external and concrete side of things. Because of this their lives are full of contradictions. I.e., they are devoid of "understanding." Since this Man has not risen above the 5th division of the spirit (the Sahu), counting from the bottom, he is referred to as "Sahu Man." Recall that Sahu is the 5th division of the spirit.
(2) People who are able to rise above the influence of their emotional and sensuous being.
Although their "knowledge" is only limited to what they were taught, they are able to understand -think abstractly about-the subjects that are taught to them. This is due to the fact that their mental faculties (spheres 4-6) are able to perceive the abstractions that underlie physical events. This enables them to avoid the contradictions (falsities) that beset the previous type of man, the Sahu Man.
Since the soul qualities of this type of Man originates in the Ab part of the spirit, he is referred to as "Ab Man."
(3) People who are able to intuit the knowledge needed to avoid and solve all the problems that can face Man.
They also possess the ability to achieve such goals (influence physical events) by manipulating their spiritual power through the use of hekau and visualization. This type of man has completed his evolution. He is referred to as "an Ausar."

quote:

---

Christ was central to their teachings but everything else was perverted to suit their beliefs and postulations. As the paths of error are infinite and various, the Gnostics soon dissolved to many sects. And the teachings of the divine one including his interactions and discourses with his disciples were twisted to suit what ever belief each sect held or propagated. Each of the sects had their own bishops, congregations and martyrs. They also published different gospels outside of the four that the Church has accepted. Each of their gospels told wonderful tales in the re-telling of the four Gospels.

---

Brother,

Thanks, for this wonderful piece. I wish People, could trace their way back home.The Bible says, There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death ( Proverbs.14:12 ).But God is not willing that any should perish (Matt.18:14 ).

quote:

---

I have spent a lot of time in reading a lot of stuff basically to appreciate where people are coming from, not for want of a fresh "light". I know not of any evidence that shows that people who live on the simple Bible are less knowledgeable and/or succesful in any way than people who have read "it" all. Infact, I'm tempted to believe that most of the so called enlightened people are people who strayed from the narrow path. In Igbo they say " oke gbanahu nwata, ya asi na obu oke nshi" meaning a child will use a derogatory name to describe an elusive rat.

Now C. S. Lewis was a great mind by any standards and was not a manipulative preacher or disciple but he came to a point in his life when he embraced God and the Bible which prompted him to talk about "mere Christianity" as the real thing.

---

Ohafia,

Keep it up brother, you are on the right track. the Bible students of Berea were commended for their zeal in searching the scriptures daily whether, those things written were so ( Acts. 17:11 )

For example, the outside perceptive ability of an Ausar Man (fully evolved person) reveals that there is no such thing as "a medicine" or "a poison." All substances can be used medicinally or toxically according to their dosage. There is a level above which arsenic will poison, and below which it will heal. Although we all know this from our experiences with vaccine, very few people are able to arrive at the above conclusion regarding "medicines" and "poisons." The point of emphasis here is that there are no concrete realities called "medicines" or "poisons." But Sahu people are not able to properly understand such abstract entities, so they lower them to their level of perception. Religion and christianity, cancer and pesticide, etc can be inserted in place of medicine and poison, if you please. The result is that they fail to avail themselves of the healing potential of the things in their environment that is intoxicating them.

The Sahu Man

A very important question is raised by the foregoing.
If Sahu Man believes that there are such things as medicines and poisons, when they don't infact exist, it cannot be said that he has knowledge. What he has is the belief that the information he has received is factual. When we examine this issue and see that this is the rule with Sahu Man, we will arrive at the conclusion that he is incapable of "knowing." Generally there is a general confusion of "knowing" with "believing", and acquiring "knowledge" versus acquiring 'information." Beliefs are what the Sahu Man has. Because the faculties of inner (abstract) perception is dormant in Sahu Man, he is unable to intuit (learn from within his spirit) the nature of things; and must therefore learn from outside of his being. All of his beliefs are shaped by what he has been taught by others or what his senses report to him. He has no way of knowing whether what he has been informed about is true or false…as truth or falsehood can only be determined by the knowledge of the relation between parts with each other and the whole. As a result, he falls into a host of contradictions.

You stated, "but I can remember including the "actualisation of Biafra" as what may be considered a blessing. I noticed you made no direct reference to this in categorising what belonged to the lower Sahu man."

If Man is made in the likeness of God, He must therefore possess the same attribute of free will as God. In fact this faculty is what separates Man from all other creatures on earth. It is his ability to step outside of the instinctive automatic reflexes that guides his lower nature.

When our consciousness is raised to the Ab part of the spirit, a reversal in the relationship between our intellect and emotions takes place. With the Ab Man, the Self uses the intellect to subjugate the sensuous division of the spirit. The faculties of this part of the spirit- spheres 4, 5 and 6- corresponds to the "Celestial government." The 6th sphere corresponds to Man's personal will. We will get to talk more about the will later, however, a great deal has been written about the will , there are a lot of misunderstanding concerning it. The common beliefs held by Sahu Men that the will is " the power of choosing the course of one's destiny", that it is the expression of one's wishes or desires, etc, are full of flaws. Since most people's "choices" and wishes are primarily underlaid by their emotions and sensuous feelings, it cannot be argued that their will is at work in such instances.

Essential to the definition of will is a choice of action that is on one hand, free of emotional and sensuous motivations, and on the other hand, based on knowledge or beliefs. The faculty that enables us such an expression resides in the 6th sphere of the Tree. Although it does not have the freedom to decide on a destiny course, this is not the major function of the personal will. (See the first paragraph).
It is the freedom to choose to live for the gratification of the lower divisions of the spirit, especially, the 6th division or according to the divine laws governing the higher/true part of the being.

When a person realizes that he/she does not have to obey the emotional nature, and lives according to truth, then the will is being exercised. The true function of the will then is to deny the animal division of the spirit its control over the life of the individual.

I require you to understand that what I'm imparting is being appreciated by the spiritually stirred and thirsty, only. No mental effort (bribery, coaxing) or physical effort (threats of hellish damnation, forceful conversion) is required for this. This is only for the spiritually awakened.

Sorry for my delayed response. So many promises to keep.

My primary aim in positing a response to your various postings on this thread was to situate clearly the source of those writings, and how the originators of those bwritings were influenced by tendencies outside of orthodox Christianity. If we agree that the Gnostics were the primary and principal influncers of your postings from the "Book of Aquarius", then we are bound by the strict standards of impartiality to decipher who or what may have influenced the Gnostics.

As I had earlier intimated, the Gnostics were the most educated, most wealthy, most civilized and most polite of the early primitive Christians. They were followers of the divine prophet. But unlike those who came to Christianity through Moses, they were susciptible to other spiritual influences, mostly from the Orient. And given the extraction of the principal founders of the Gnostic sect - Syria and Egypt- it becomes easy to see how the philosophy and religions of the Orient were familiar and admissible to Syrians and Egyptians.

We must also understand that the demarcations and separations that we think of today between the Eastern and Western religious streams were not so evident 2000 years ago. Indeed, a familiar pattern of most ancient civilizations, was to import the gods and religions of the people they frequently come in contact with. The Romans were big on borrowing gods from other, including from people they had reduced to obedience. Given this accepting attitude of the ancients it is not surprising that you will find elements of Christianity that are musings from ancient Egyptian or Babylonian mysticism. For example, your posting of the creation of the world by Egyptian Supreme Deity, Ra, does fit this acceptance. If we scrutinize closely the argument between the Pharisees and the Saducces, after Ezra had restored the ancient laws of Judaism, it boils down to this issue of borrowing from other religions and superstitions. The Saducces believed in the strict literary interpretation of the laws of Moses which they viewed as the final arbiter of their faith. The Pharisees on the other hand, shared the Saducees' view but were willing to add tradition as a source. So under tradition they borrowed such concepts as the immortality of the soul, of angels, of a future state of happiness, of spirits, from the religions of the Orient. There is no where in the Mosaic laws to find any evidence or insinuation of a future state after this present life. Indeed, it can be authoritatively said that no where in Jewish faith, belief or custom, was the concept of a future life outside of the compass of the present one ever imagined. Ther long years of exile in Egypt and Babylon did not alter this outlook. It took the divine authority and example of Christ to sanction the concept of a future state and the immortality of the soul which reason, tradition, and superstition had initially provided. Yes, Christianity did borrow from other religions and beliefs just as those who worship at the temple of Jupiter or of Apollo or of Amadiora did borrow from other religious streams.

But what made Judaism and later Chriatianity different from the other religions was their sole emphasis on one God. They stood polytheism on its head by rejecting it. Also, they brought God closer to humans. In the past, the activities of the Gods seemed far removed from the every day needs of mortals. Greek mythology is populated with the gods engaged in silly affairs including playing pranks on humans. In Scandinavian mythology, specifically, Icelandic, the gods assume human characteristics including human errors. And so forth it was in most ancient religions. By emphasising that God was daily involved in our affairs and in our salvation, Christianity introduced a new paradigm to the whole concept of God worship. But that God was one and always one God.

Now enter the Gnostics. They saw God as many and inherent in each of us. And because they believed that they experience God in the inner self they also argued that that God has many forms. Sometimes God is a woman, sometimes he is light, sometimes he is a child in the field with a lost sheep and so on they went in prescribing different forms and dimensions of God, all gleaned from the recesses of their imaginations and induced euphoria. No matter whether one agrees or disagrees with this tendency all will or must at least agree, that such tendencies can or has the potential to breed POLYTHEISM.

Is it any wonder the orthodox Church found it easy or convienent to charge the Gnostics with heresy? By such engagements as interpreting God through their experience of Him the Gnostics felt justified to recreate the New Testament. They wrote different gospels about Christ and the apostles and gave them entirely new meanings.

In 1945, in the village of Nag Hammadi in Egypt, a peasant named Mohammed Ali, made a historically significant finding. Buried in an earthern vessel, 1600 years ago, were manuscripts and writings of the Gnostics which enabled us to have a coherent sense of who and what they were about. The writers of the Nag Hammadi find used a lot of Christian terminology. They claim to offer traditions about Christ that are secret and hidden from the "many" who constitute what later came to be called "the catholic church". Many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament Gospels. The living Jesus of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentence, like the Jesus of the New Testament. This Jesus comes to us not from sin but as a spiritual guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. And becomes not the Sonship but the equal of one who has gained spiritual understanding.

Well, this interpretation is certainly in conflict with orthodox Christianity. Especially that part which believes that Jesus is Lord and Son of God in a unique way and remains forever distinct from the rest of humanity whom he came to save. Does not these teachings - the identity of the divine and heaven, the concern with illusion and enlightenment, the founder who is presented, not as Lord, but as a spiritual guide - sound more like Buddism or Hinduism? And underscores the accusation by the orthodox Christians that the Gnostics invented what they wrote? Moreso, when some of the Gnostics openly acnowledged that they derived their gnosis(knowledge) from their own experiences?

My argument is that the Gnostics were Christians who followed in the long tradition of the Pharisees and that they opened a new way for seeing and communioning with God. But their readiness, almost, eagerness, to re-write and re-interprete the gospels, forces me to confess that in the sublime inquiry, their reason had been often guided by their imagination, and their imagination had sometimes been prompted by their vanity.

In my follow up postings, when time permits, I shall endeavor to lay in simple, clear and concise terms, my fundamental Christian beliefs. And how to some extent, it was influenced by gnostism, to the extent at least, where God sees the children of God as the creation of love and thus entirely free of sin and fear if only the ego will be tamed. Until then, enjoy!

Actually, the Gnostics are not necessarily “the primary and principal influencers” of my postings on this thread, rather, the deeper and more elaborate meanings of Jesus’ ministry are the precipitate factor behind this thread. However, further into the postings, factors presented themselves that allow incursion into other related matters about christianity, religion, etc.
But on the issue regarding the Gnostics and the orthodox Christians, every indication from various sources belies the Gnostics’ approach toward Godliness as more tenable and result-oriented toward oneness with God than that of the orthodox Christians. The orthodox Christians sowed seeds of religious tyranny, religious hypocrisy, and religious bigotry. The orthodox Christian fathers sought to control spiritually, to restrict personal relationship with God, and gained prominence within the first centuries of christian era. Their beliefs formed the idealogical foundation for much of the dark side of the church’s christian history. Committed to the belief in singular supremacy, these orthodox Christians thought that fear and submission to hierarchical authority were imperative. They believe that divinity is manifest only in one image. However, the Gnostics disagreed. The belief in a singular God differed radically from a widespread belief that divinity could be manifest in a multiplicity of forms and images. As the orthodox had people believe that God can have only one face, so they tend to believe that worth or godliness among humans can also have only one face. Different genders, races, classes, or beliefs are all ordered as better-than or less-than one another. Even the notion of two differing opinions existing harmoniously becomes foreign; one must prevail and be superior to the other.

With such a belief structure, God is understood to reign singularly from the pinnacle of a hierarchy based not upon love and support, but upon fear. The orthodox believe that people should fear their earthly ruler as they fear God. To them, fear was essential to maintaining order.
Christians such as the 2nd century Marcion who stressed the merciful, forgiving and loving nature of God, found themselves at odds with the orthodox. In the orthodox Christian eyes, God must be prone to anger and demand discipline and punishment. It has been suggested that the first line of the Christian creed, “I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,” was originally written to exclude Marcion’s followers by emphasizing the monotheistic and judgemental nature of God. According to one Gnostic Christian, “They (the orthodox) wanted to command one another, outrivaling one another in their vain ambition,” lusting “for power over one another,” “each one imagining that he is superior to the others.”

With the prevalence of today’s christianity having its foundation from the orthodox christianity, there’s little wonder these christians are mired in confusion and contradictions between their actions and the teachings of christian religion. The path to enlightenment involved not simply accepting the words of the Church on faith, but an active personal search for understanding. In other words, self-exploration is imperative to one’s spiritual path.

Jesus says:
If you bring forth what is within you, what you
bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth
what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.

Ignorance brings about anguish and terror. The anguish grows solid like a fog, so that no one is able to see. The orthodox believe that truth could come only through the successors of the Apostles. Consequently, they thought that one should learn about God through the Church, and not from personal inquiry or from one’s own experience (from within). Funnily, Bishop Iranaeus wrote, “If we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture, we should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect. So much for his reception of God’s “calling” and “divine understanding” of words of God handed down by men “inspired by God.” One can begin to appreciate why Constantine recognized christianity as a means of conquering dissention within Roman Empire and instated it as the Empire’s official religion. Interestingly, it was Constantine who introduced and presided over the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325, to wipe out idealogical dissent in the Church. He banished all bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith.

You said, “…unlike those who came to know christianity through Moses, they (Gnostics) were susceptible to other spiritual influences, mostly from the Orient….it becomes easy to see how the philosophy and religions of the Orient were familiar and admissible to Syrians and Egyptians.”

Apparently you are unaware that Jesus traveled to India, Tibet, Western India, Persia, Assyria, Greece, and Egypt to receive his education before he finally emerged in Palestine for his ministry. The so-called Judaeo-Christian religion and Islamic culture and religion came out of the philosophical teachings of the indigenous Africans of the African Great Lakes region and the Nile Valleys MYSTERIES SYSTEM. Even the origin of the so-called “Christian Cross” and the Hebrew Mogen David” (Star of David) are shown to have existed in central-east Africa thousands of years before the birth of Jesus the Christ and King David of Palestine/Israel.

Moses himself was an African who lived among the priests of the Mysteries. He became a Hierogrammat, which is partly due to his royal upbringing in the house of Pharaoh. On the other hand, Jesus, a fellow Haribu (Hebrew) never completed his his final initiation. The forerunners of the African Lodges at Mount Carmel, attended by Moses of the Haribus, and Jesus the Christ of the Christians, were Egyptians. Therefore, it is not strange that these Sages (Ausar Men) of Judaism and Christianity had to study under their Nile Valleys and Great Lakes African teachers and priests. Emperors Justinian and Theodosius outlawed the Mysteries System’s Lodge in Africa (Egypt) but made certain that their scribes copy the ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMAS of the Mysteries System for adoption into the new religion – CHRISTIANITY. Thus, the FIRST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, the name which was adopted by the Romans for their own institution, later on became, THE HOLY “ROMAN” CATHOLIC CHURCH.

It is most convenient for the so-called modern Christianity, Judaism to forget that their own prophet, Moses, who was an African of Kimit (Egypt), having been born, raised and disappeared into oblivion there at Mount Sinai, received his education and all that he knew from the Priests of ANU, which was at the chief seat of the religion of the worship of the God RA. But if they should investigate deeply into the religion of the Africans of Kimit, especially in the BOOK OF THE DEAD and the PAPYRUS OF ANI, they may discover, much to their displeasure, thst their entire BOOK OF GENESIS (FIRST BOOK OF MOSES), is nothing more or less than an attempt to camouflage the philosophical teachings relative to “CREATION, LIFE, DEATH, RESURRECTION, HEAVEN, HELL, GOD” (Monotheism and Polytheism), etc.

We must remember that the age of the Haribus extended only into antiquity as far as the birth of the first of their faith – AVRAM(Abraham, Abram) who was a Chaldean fro the city of Ur. At that time Chaldea was a colony of Africans who had established the Kingdom of Elam within the Persian Empire. From Abraham to Moses, the Haribus knew not what it was to have a set of works bearing the name “SCRIPTURES;” neither any “TEN COMMANDMENTS;” nor, even, an organized state or national grouping. EXODUS said that Moses left with a mixed multitude from Kimit (Egypt). Significantly, Moses did not arrive at Mount Sinai until forty years…”after he fled to escape his fellow Africans of Kimit, having illegally killed Pharoah (his King) Ramses II soldier – a worshipper of the God RA. Therefore, it is obvious that the “mixed multitude” with Moses continued their worship in accordance with the teachings of God and religion they received from their fellow Africans, priests of the MYSTERIES SYSTEMS that existed in Kimit all in /and to honor RA. Remarkably, these Africans including those who worshiped the God JEHOVAH, also worshiped the “GOLDEN CALF,” one similar to that which they created after the disappearance of Moses on Mount Sinai. This calf figure was a total replica of the “HATHOR COW” worshiped in Kimit and the other regions of north and east Africa at that period in history.

For those of us who may become alarmed over the above revelations, please be not forgetful that it was the Roman Catholic Christian Bishops, members of the COUNCIL OF NICE, who in 4th century C.E. (A.D.) presented Emperor Constantine “the great” with the decision to corrupt the “HOLY BIBLE” by removing many of the basic books and other writings therein. Hopefully, you would also realize that the HOLY BIBLE is merely a collection of writings that suffered various translations and trans-literations by writers who copied from more ancient works which realized the same, and that the books therein are not written in any way, shape, or form, by a single person, or a God, Jehovah included, Jesus the Christ and Al’lah also. The conduct of the Bishops of the Council of Nice (or Nicene) should be sufficient proof to anyone whose brain-washing has not completely blocked their mind from thinking independently. For if it was not a suppressed information, which the “Bishops” thought were dangerous for the masses of people to know; what other purpose did it serve? Thus, it became necessary, up until this very day, to have an “authorized version” of, even, the KING JAMES VERSION of the HOLY BIBLE. And in those BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, which were allegedly “lost,” but never out of possession of those who control and operate religious institutions for their own benefit and profit, and that of the other members of the ruling class in secular society, the tales and myths of all sorts still remain now for the masses to examine.

I find your rationale regarding Monotheism and Polytheism vi a vis the so called Christianity and Judaism belief interesting. Very few people are aware of the fact that the Kabalistic tradition (a Canaanite tradition) which gave birth to Christianity is in reality a “polytheistic” system. The so called archangels of each sphere of the Tree of Life are exact correlates to the deities in other traditions. Infact, most of them were taken directly from Canaanite sources. Long before the formation of Israel, “El” (Al) was the generic name for the deity in Canaan. Combined with others, the term denotes various aspects of God; AndEL, ArchangEL, MichaEL, RaphaEL, HanaEL, Elohim, YsraEL, etc,. In order to have a wisdom (esoteric, mystical) tradition without seeming to be polytheistic, the Hebrews changed the Canaanite/Phoenician deities into so called “angELs”, virtues, heroes, and “names of God.”
A careful study of the literature of the Kabala, the Old, and New Testament will reveal that the angels depicted therein perform most of the functions of the “deities” of other so-called polytheistic cultures. Like Elegba of the Yorubas, for example, Raphael, the “airy” angel is a mediator between God and the prophets (who are also known as meduims). The angel is still primarily the messenger or a member of the heavenly retinue, and there is not always a demarcated distinction between the angel of personal being and a personification of divine word/divine action.

This fact underscores one of the greatest shortcomings of the Hebrew Kabala and Christianity. While the Hebrew Kabala hides and downplays the fact that angels are to be invoked to possess the spirit of the meditator, in the African tradition, the angels (deities) are openly invoked. They possess the spirit and borrow the bodies of the mediators to heal, counsel, admonish, teach, the community, and carry out many other functions. E.g., Saul’s transformation on his way to Damascus, Nathan the Seer (prophet) who brought Jehovah’s punishing decree to King David, etc. Hebrew Kabalists and Christians, obviously limited by the need to avoid the image of practicing “polytheism,” which they are indeed practicing, have thus limited and distorted their understanding of Kabala. Have the Christian