Re: Theos-World Re: Without 12 Apostles how much of the Gospels are history?
Mar 11, 2009 11:03 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
My views are:
Maybe it is high time to ad the following quote by H. P. Blavatsky in a letter to a pseudo-Christian - Abbe Rocha. Here Blavatsky clearly states, that the Jesus in the gospels never was a real historical person. The stories was fabricated and based on a man named Jehoshua Pandira born in Lydda north of Jerusalem in 120 B.C. - who was hung on a tree by the nasty Jews. - (It is romoured, that he never really died, but lived many years later in India and died in Kashmir at the age of 115. I have however not been able to verify this.)
Here is an important part of the letter to Abbe Rocha by Blavatsky:
"For me Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, copied from the AvatÃras of every country, from the Hindu Krishna as well as the Egyptian Horus, was never a
historical person. He is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples,* and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. It is interpreted by the help of the seven keys, similarly to the Pentateuch. This theory of the seven keys, the Church, according to the AbbÃ Roca, has simplified âwithout disfiguring it,â reducing the keys to three; while, on the contrary, it has fabricated three false keys which do not open anything. The legend of which I speak is founded, as I have demonstrated over and over again in my writings and my notes, on the existence of a personage
* Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac. When the Hebrew Gospel not according to but by Matthew the Gnostic, of whom they have made an Evangelistâ the Gospel of which (saint) Jerome spoke in the IVth century and which he refused to translate on the pretext that it was falsified (!) by Seleucus, the Manichaean disciple (See Hieronymus, De viris illust., cap. 3)âwhen, I say, that original document shall have been translated, if ever it is found, and the Christian Churches will have at least one document not falsified, then only will it be feasible to speak of the âlife of Jesus,â of the events of which âno one is ignorant.â Meanwhile, and without losing time arguing the subject of the century in which Jesus or Jehoshua lived, one fact is certain, namely that the Occultists are prepared to prove that even the sacramental words attributed to him on the cross have been disfigured, and that they mean something quite different from what the Greek translation conveys. See my additional notes (No. 2) in a forthcoming number of Le Lotus.
[H.P.B.âs reference to St. Jeromeâs De viris illustribus liber, chap. 3, is only partially correct. The main point of Jeromeâs argument, and the mention of Seleucus, occur rather in his letter to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, as can be ascertained by consulting St. Jeromeâs Opera, Vol. V, col. 445 (Johannis Martianay, Paris, 1706). H.P.B. uses the same argument in her article on âThe Origin of the Gospels and the Bishop of Bombayâ (The Theosophist, Vol. IV, No. l, October, 1882, pp. 6-9), and again in the third instalment of her essay on âThe Esoteric Character of the Gospelsâ (Lucifer, Vol. I, No. 6, February, 1888, pp. 490-96). Vide Compilerâs Notes to this latter essay for comprehensive survey of the various references and quotations used by her, and their complete text.âCompiler.]
called Jehoshua (from which Jesus has been made) born at LÃd or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era. And if this fact is deniedâto which I can hardly objectâone must resign oneself to regard the hero of the drama of Calvary as a myth pure and simple. As a matter of fact, in spite of all the desperate research made during long centuries, if we set aside the testimony of the âEvangelists,â i.e., unknown men whose identity has never been established, and that of the Fathers of the Church, interested fanatics, neither history, nor profane tradition, neither official documents, nor the contemporaries of the soi-disant drama, are able to provide one single serious proof of the historical and real existence, not only of the Man-God but even of him called Jesus of Nazareth, from the year 1 to the year 33. All is darkness and silence. Philo Judaeus, born before the Christian Era, and dying quite some time after the year when, according to Renan, the hallucination of a hysterical woman, Mary of Magdala, gave a God to the world, made several journeys to Jerusalem during that interval of forty-odd years. He went there to write the history of the religious sects of his epoch in Palestine. No writer is more correct in his descriptions, more careful to omit nothing; no community, no fraternity, even the most insignificant, escaped him. Why then does he not speak of the Nazarites? Why does he not make the least allusion to the Apostles, to the divine Galilean, to the Crucifixion? The answer is easy. Because the biography of Jesus was invented after the first century, and no one in Jerusalem was better informed on the subject than Philo himself. We have but to read the quarrel of Irenaeus with the Gnostics in the 2nd century, to be certain of it. Ptolemaeus (180 A.D.), having remarked that Jesus preached one year according to the legend, and that he was too young to have been able to teach anything of importance, Irenaeus had a bad fit of indignation and testified that Jesus preached more than ten or even twenty years! Tradition alone, he said, speaks of ten years (Contra Haereses, lib. II, cap. 22, para. 4-5). Elsewhere, he makes Jesus die at the age of fifty years or more!! Now, if as early as the year 180, a Father of the Church had recourse to tradition, and if no
one was sure of anything, and no great importance was attributed to the Gospelsâto the Logia of which there were more than sixtyâwhat place has history in all of this? Confusion, lies, deceit, and forgery, such is the ledger of the early centuries. Eusebius of Caesarea, king of falsifiers, inserted the famous 16 lines referring to Jesus in a manuscript of Josephus, to get even with the Gnostics who denied that there ever had been a real personage named Jesus.* Still more: he attributed to Josephus, a fanatic who died as he had lived, a stubborn Jew, the reflection that it is perhaps not correct to call him (Iasous) a man ("<ZD), because he was the Lordâs Anointed, i.e., the Messiah!! (Vide Josephus, Antiq., lib. XVIII, cap. iii, 3.)â
But what use is it to waste time repeating what every well-educated man knows. The AbbÃ continually refers us to the Gospels and to St. Paul, and, showering on us a torrent of quotations, triumphantly demands: âIs this clear enough? Did not Christ himself say this and that, and does not St. Paul assure us that. . . etc., etc., . . .â It is hardly necessary to say that for the words of Jesus to possess any value as proof, the authenticity of the Gospels must first be proved. Jesus, whether he lived at that epoch or earlier, never wrote anything, and what he has been made to say in the four Gospels is sometimes terribly contradictory. As to Paul, undoubtedly a historical personage, it would be difficult to separate, in his writings, what he said himself and what his editors and correctors have made him say. However, there remainsâdoubtless by inadvertenceâone expression, by him or by his collaborators, which sums up in two words what was thought about Jesus. Look up the Epistle to the Hebrews, ii, 9; you will read there that Jesus was made âinferior to the angels.â That is enough for us.
* Add to this that he invented the famous monogram for the Labarum of Constantine (a combination of X Chi, and P Rho, initials of Christos which he applied to Jesus) and fabricated the vision of that Emperor. But Gibbon and other historians have judged Eusebius long ago, and his value is well known now. See my notes (No. 3), on this subject, in a forthcoming number of Le Lotus.
â [Also 63-64, acc. to the pagination of the Greek text.âCompiler.]
Can one who is inferior to the angels be God, the Infinite and the Only?"
Now, where is it, that the CWL groups disagree with Blavatsky about the above words?
----- Original Message -----
From: Konstantin Zaitzev
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:15 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Without 12 Apostles how much of the Gospels are history?
--- In email@example.com, "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
> And if much of the Gospels as given are not history and are nothing
> but fiction, the existence of Jesus as a real person becomes even
> less tenable.
It's completely false logic.
Blavatsky and Pratt denied historicity of Gospels and nevertleless had grounds to state historicity of Jesus. For example, messages of st.Paul are written earlier than the Gospels and they mention Jesus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application