8161Re: Unscrambling the pieces
- Sep 18, 2011Yes, Etznab, I read the Jesus Mysteries too. There is no actual "proof" of Jesus existence. All we have is the esoterica, some vague accounts by others and the writings of Josephus. I do believe that most scholars now believe that there probably was a person like Jesus around the time he lived. No one can pinpoint the exact date but this begs the question as to why the teachings of Christianity have evolved into the largest denominations on Earth. They had to have had a source. That being said, I seriously doubt if the teachings of Twitchell will ever evolve. His path had been bastardized by two successors and Eckankar is by no means catching on fire in the world. I would even suspect that membership is stagnant or waning because Paul stole some great ideas from the "heavyweight" paths but never followed through on his claims. Like an amateur, he simply took buzz phrases from all religions and created a "quick fix" religion called Soul Travel. To me, (and I've said it before), it is the MacDonald's of all religions. Fast and tasty but of little nutritional value.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, etznab@... wrote:
> Since you mentioned Jesus I would like to comment. How does anybody
> know there was a person who matches the story told about Jesus? There
> is a section in Ford Johnson's book about the story of Jesus and how
> similar to stories from other cultures.
> It was over 2,000 years ago, the story of Jesus. How do I, or anybody,
> know for sure the story about Jesus is true in all its details? Just
> because so many people say so? So many people who were not even born
> until centuries after the fact?
> When I hear people talking about how they lived during the time of
> Jesus and they comment about his life, it usually always matches with
> popular belief. Then sometimes people change the details a bit, saying
> Jesus lived for a time in their country (India, etc.). Well, I don't
> believe beyond a doubt all of those stories either because, Why should
> Suppose there wasn't an Internet and information sharing like we have
> today where people can research information to verify whether true. And
> suppose that all people had to know about history of Eckankar were the
> new and updated Eckankar books. Fast forward 2,000 years from now and
> what do you suppose the books would say? Would they match the ones
> being printed today? or would they contain (if allowed to do so) even
> more embellishments, etc. etc.?
> If I were living in a world 2,000 years from now I could be skeptical
> about the stories just the same as then from now. In such a world,
> however, How could I find the truth?
> Just because people say it's so, that doesn't mean its true. IMHO.
> Now I suppose there WERE people living during and after the time period
> attributed to Jesus. What are their versions about the time period and
> do any of their writings survive in original form? So many people
> probably claim that they do, but how can this be proved?
> If you ask me, Catholicism became an arm of the Holy Roman Empire that
> was used to conquer and subjugate peoples from many countries at a time
> when the Pope chose the Emperors, Kings and leaders of those same
> countries. Those countries and their Kings could be later "ordered" to
> go on Crusades and do just what the armies in the Old Testament
> reportedly did by the command of Jehovah; Kill every man, woman and
> child. The same God that reportedly told Moses: Thou shalt not kill,
> etc." And what were all those people fighting about in the first place?
> Some said holy regions in the Middle East. Places that had to do with
> Jesus and Mohammad. And still today, centuries later, people are still
> fighting over those same areas. It's not to say that Catholicism, or
> any religion is total malware, badware. It's only to say that if the
> truth be known, I suspect there would be less reasons to kill innocent
> people in the name of religion.
> When I consider the scope and repercussions today for even challenging
> the stories about Jesus and Mohammad I realize how powerful are the
> forces of belief, whether what people believe in has any correlation
> with actual fact. When I entered a.r.e. (alternative.
> religion.eckankar) many years after it began and looked at the
> discussions, eventually I decided to sift fiction from fact for myself.
> And even there, as an Eckist, I received some of the same insults and
> childish banter thrown by Eckists at Non-Eckists. I would have loved to
> continue laying out all the facts, having discussion and dialogue about
> them, and learning from them, etc. Even teaching others a truer version
> of the actual events. But you know what happened at a.r.e.? Even though
> at times I quit for a short time and later came back, in the long run I
> didn't leave. And today a.r.e. is like the cartoon Casper the Friendly
> Ghost where somebody yelled GHOST! and everybody fled. I didn't,
> because I'm not afraid of no ghosts :) I'm not afraid of looking at
> earlier versions of Eckankar - even if they include things that
> contradict contemporary belief. What I'm interested in about this
> religion is the truth. Whether that truth appears ghostly, haunting, or
> scares people doesn't concern me. I think it's better to preserve the
> truth now before we all "give up the ghost". Future generations might
> be grateful that we did.
> So long story short. It's not over. Just because David Lane, Ford
> Johnson, Doug Marman and others wrote some books, in my book it doesn't
> mean all the puzzle pieces have been put back together, let alone
> found. And just because there are groups like a.r.e. ESA, eckankrtruth,
> etc. that does not mean to me that all has been said and done.
> Perhaps the truth about a particular time period is like a landscape.
> One that changes over time. A lot of the old jungles and forests in
> South America held pyramids and ruins centuries old that most of the
> world hadn't a clue about. They were there all the time, but when
> people abandoned those places - for whatever reason - the WEEDS were
> allowed to grow. And grow they did! Lack of care, or concern allowed
> the truth to be covered up so that generations of people the world over
> had no idea.
> The following is "poetry".
> I don't think one can call a weed-eater a weed. Just because it moves
> within and gets covered by so many weeds. That is just the nature of
> the job. Calling it a weed is only an attempt to destroy the weed-eater
> so all people can Hail and Worship the God (and Gods) of WEEDS!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: al_radzik <email@example.com>
> To: eckankartruth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sat, Sep 17, 2011 9:58 pm
> Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
> I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture.
> Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what
> he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his
> life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into
> what is now known as Christianity.
> If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a
> charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar
> nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary
> uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself
> known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like
> to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a
> self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of
> a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught
> to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the
> case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen?
> Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred
> personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The
> plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common
> sense away and look elsewhere.
> I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had
> towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly
> enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending
> towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would
> make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations
> and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to
> express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
> My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a
> tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to
> be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the
> truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make
> up your mind. That's all.
> --- In email@example.com, "etznab18" etznab@
> > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
> > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "etznab18" <etznab@>
> > >
> > >
> > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the
> message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your
> > >
> > > *********
> > >
> > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not
> what it used to be.
> > >
> > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of
> David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one
> thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing
> what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and
> evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my
> back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to
> research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
> > >
> > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to
> Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
> > >
> > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in
> the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I
> think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists
> generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I
> think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include
> those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
> > >
> > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell
> used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one
> (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census.
> Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded
> about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one
> tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the
> things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to
> all the other stories I've heard.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>