Jorden vores lille planet i kosmos
Global Theosophy

Global Theosophy

*******
En sand esoterisk stjerneport og stargate.
En indgangsport til andre verdener af energi, visdom og medfølelse
(Theos-L Forum - det ældste teosofiske forum på Internettet.)
 


Forside
Artikler
Profil
Links

En privat hjemmeside om
Teosofi, esoterisk visdom og
åndelig udvikling...


Nogle få af de personer bag moderne Planetarisk Teosofi, som jeg er tilknyttet.
Medgrundlægger af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
H. P. Blavatsky (1831-91)
Helena P. Blavatsky
Medgrundlægger af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
Mahatma Morya (fødsel-?)
Master Morya
Esoterisk Chela af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
D. K. Mavalankar (1857-?)
Damodar K. Mavalankar




Theosophy versus The Catholic Church views
(With emphasis on the four canonical Gospels)
(published Dec. 6nd 2007 by Morten Nymann)


Theosophy versus The Catholic Church and building on a Rock

The below content is of course only a general view, because there are many different variations of Christian groups. The Angelican Church is for instance a special group, which is being considered to be in between The Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches in its views. Some of the major differences between The Catholic Church and the Protestants are: "The doctrines of the Reformation can be summarized as a) the rejection of papal authority, b) rejection of some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, c) the priesthood of all believers, d) the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth, and e) the belief in justification by faith alone.[2][3]" (Look here: Wikipedia on Protestantism)

I will in this article present some info on how some of us theosophists relate to the Christian Religion and especially the Catholic Church. If the various Christian groups and especially the Catholic one can show us all that they are on the right track despite the views presented in the below, I would like to know about it. Because as far as I am concerned the Christian Churches are deceiving people. Lying and cheating is not Bible teaching says the Church, - yet its leaders and priests seem to be doing it on a daily basis with either concious or unconcious knowledge about these facts. Let us remember that even the Christians themselves are disagreeing internally. The Catholic Church and the Prtoestants are miles a part in their views on various issues. Could it be so, that a third or fourth angle could be more close to the truth than they have been and are aware of? - This is my attempt with this article.

I will suggest that any Christian or another person reading this article not overreacts or get emotional, oversensitive and the like. I am only presenting these views in the article in good faith because I find them to be true. If anyone are able to prove me wrong, I am a willing listener. To me Theosophy is the synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy. My view is, that to some Christian's the idea about Science is not a welcome one, and less so with Philosophy. Feel welcome to correct me if I am in error, also if I am in error about the below issues. My e-mail address are availbale on this website.

1. About faith:

I am saying, that the individual person who believes his own religion on faith, will regard that of every other man as a lie, and hate it on that same faith. Moreover, unless it fetters reason and entirely blinds our perceptions of anything outside our own particular faith, the latter is no faith at all, but a temporary belief, the delusion we labour under, at some particular time of life. Moreover, "faith without principles is but a flattering phrase for willful positiveness or fanatical bodily sensations," in Coleridge's clever definition.

Faith is not reason's labour, but repose.

To keep people down in blind belief about the historical circumstances around Jesus, is not good. One aught to emphasise without narrowminded prejudice, that there are different views upon the matter, and why.

You see there are honest people, who simply are trying to figure out if the Christian churches are telling the truth or if they themselves are being deceived either through blind belief og worse through others greed after power and wealth. We do know, that only few priest's are living as very poor today, because their chosen church are very wealthy.


2. The Theosophical stance:

The Christian reader is no doubt aware that Theosophy is not a religion, but a philosophy, which is both religious and scientific; and that the chief work, so far, of the Theosophical Society has been to revive in each religion its own animating spirit, by encouraging and helping enquiry into the true significance of its doctrines and observances. Theosophists know that the deeper one penetrates into the meaning of the dogmas and ceremonies of all religions, the greater becomes their apparent underlying similarity, until finally a perception of their fundamental unity is reached. This common ground is no other than Theosophy—the Secret Doctrine of the ages; which, diluted and disguised to suit the capacity of the multitude, and the requirements of the time, has formed the living kernel of all religions.

The Theosophical Society has branches respectively composed of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians and Freethinkers, who work together as brethren on the common ground of Theosophy; and it is precisely because Theosophy is not a religion, nor can for the multitude supply the place of a religion, that the success of its teachings has been so great, not merely as regards its growing membership and extending influence, but also in respect to the cultivation of the sentiment of compassion and visdom among human beings on this globe.

Note carefully the following. We Theosophists believe that a religion is a natural incident in the life of man in his present stage of development; and that although, in rare cases, individuals may be born without the religious sentiment, a community must have a religion, that is to say, a uniting bond—under penalty of social decay and material annihilation. We believe that no religious doctrine can be more than an attempt to picture to our present limited understandings, in the terms of our terrestrial experiences, great cosmical and spiritual truths, which in our normal state of consciousness we vaguely sense, rather than actually perceive and comprehend; and a revelation, if it is to reveal anything, must necessarily conform to the same earthbound requirements of the human intellect.

In our estimation, therefore, no religion can be absolutely true, and none can be absolutely false. A religion is true in proportion as it supplies the spiritual, moral and intellectual needs of the time, and helps the development of mankind in these respects. It is false in proportion as it hinders that development, and offends the spiritual, moral and intellectual portion of man’s nature. And the transcendentally spiritual ideas of the ruling powers of the Universe entertained by an Oriental sage would be as false a religion for the African savage as the grovelling fetishism of the latter would be for the sage, although both views must necessarily be true in degree, for both represent the highest ideas attainable by the respective individuals of the same cosmico-spiritual facts, which can never be known in their reality by man while he remains but man. Theosophists, therefore, are respecters of all the religions, and for the religious ethics of` Jesus they have profound admiration. It could not be otherwise, for these teachings which have come down to us are the same as those of Theosophy. So far, therefore, as modern Christianity makes good its claim to be the practical religion taught by Jesus, Theosophists are with it heart and hand. But the historical truth about the gospels is another issue, which I will touch upon later in this article.

So far as the Christian doctrine goes contrary to those ethics, pure and simple, Theosophists are its opponents. Any Christian can, if he will, compare the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospels with the dogmas of his church, and the spirit that breathes in it, with the principles that animate this Christian civilisation and govern his own life; and then he will be able to judge for himself how far the religion of Jesus enters into his Christianity, and how far, therefore, he and Theosophists are agreed. But professing Christians, especially the clergy, shrink from making this comparison. Like merchants who fear to find themselves bankrupt, they seem . to dread the discovery of a discrepancy in their accounts which could not be made good by placing material assets as a set-off to spiritual liabilities. The comparison between the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines of the churches has, however frequently been made—and often with great learning and critical acumen—both by those who would abolish Christianity and those who would reform it; and the aggregate result of these comparisons, as your Grace must be well aware, goes to prove that in almost every point the doctrines of the churches and the practices of Christians are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus.

We are accustomed to say to the Buddhist, the Mohammedan, the Hindoo, or the Parsee: “The road to Theosophy lies, for you, through your own religion.” We say this because those creeds possess a deeply philosophical and esoteric meaning, explanatory of the allegories under which they are presented to the people; but we cannot say the same thing to Christians. The successors of the Apostles never recorded the secret doctrine of Jesus—the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”—which it was given to them (his apostles) alone to know.* These have been suppressed, made away with, destroyed. What have come down upon the stream of time are the maxims, the parables, the allegories and the fables which Jesus expressly intended for the spiritually deaf and blind to be revealed later to the world, and which modern Christianity either takes all literally, or interprets according to the fancies of the Fathers of the secular church. In both cases they are like cut flowers: they are severed from the plant on which they grew, and from the root whence that plant drew its life. Were we, therefore, to encourage Christians, as we do the votaries of other creeds, to study their own religion for themselves, the consequence would be, not a knowledge of the meaning of its mysteries, but either the revival of mediaeval superstition and intolerance, accompanied by a formidable outbreak of mere lip-prayer and preaching or else a great increase of scepticism, for Christianity has no esoteric foundation known to those who profess it.

For even you, and all priests, bishops, cardinals, and Pope must be painfully aware that you know absolutely no more of those "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" which Jesus taught his disciples, than does the humblest and most illiterate member of your church. And if you do, why do you not act in accordance with true teachings of the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"?
(Rewritten a bit from the theosophical magazine Lucifer, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1887, pp. 242-251)

I will now in the below examine the various historical problems the Christian's are living with because, of a stubborn negative attitude towards truth, common sense, and ordinary accepted scholarship. I will run through a number of the major issues, which aught to raise som eyebrows of concern in the Christian minds, among all levels in the hierarchy of blind faith without the use of healthy reason and the analysing intellect etc. I am seeking to keep this article a bit short. So I am seeking to forward the major issues sourrounding the Gospels and the theosophical views about them related to Catholic and Christian ones.


3. The Council of Nicaea 325 AD:

The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology." Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church." (Richard Kieckhefer (1989). "Papacy".)

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

At the first Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, Constantine oversaw the creation of the Nicene Creed, which is still repeated in churches to this day. Christians who refused to assent to this creed were banished from the Empire or otherwise silenced, though the church continued to engage in political in-fighting thinly disguised as theological debate. After the 'Christian' Constantine returned home from Nicaea he had his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately remained unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his atrocities and still receive forgiveness of sins and a guaranteed place in heaven by being baptized at the last moment.

There are therefore a lot of historical evidence pointing to the fact that the meeting in Nicea in year 325 after the beginning of the modern era was a political meeting, and that the four gopsels chosen at the meeting was a political decision more than a honest historical one. To just simply brush this view away with, another opinion, because one have the hope that this view is not true, is of course possible. But the historical facts sticks like glue. We also know, that the study of history can be hampered by political considerations and evidence colored by sources with an ax to grind.

As it was said in the movie The Da Vinci Code, We know for instance that the question of Jesus divinity in the Flesh was voted about as if the majority gathered at this particular meeting had the right and proper level of wisdom to judge about such a thing. This was how the early Church leaders payed their respect to the very Origins of Life and Visdom. All this was done with a militant Emperor named Constantine as a leading chair. Voting about Jesus divinity just shows how silly one can get, and it makes me wonder if they one day get the idea to vote about whether the Pope should be given the same respect. This is a Catholic Church claiming to be build on a solid Rock. As theosophists, we can only disagree, because we Know, and not because we have a official belief baptised in ignorance like a Christian who seem to deny visdom its rightful place in peoples lives.

Emperor Constantine and his seal Labarum a military standard:
Today we have that Emperor Constantine used a seal, which he had a vision about according to Eusebius of Caesarea, (lived 263-339 ad., - often referred to as the father of Church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History.) The vision he had in a dream was told about by Eusebius' Historia ecclesiae ("Church History"). The emperor saw the vision in Gaul on his way to Rome, long before the battle with Maxentius: the phrase as he gives it was "Eν Tουtω, Nικα!, "In this, be victorious!".

"In a later hagiographic memoir of the emperor that Eusebius wrote after Constantine's death ("On the Life of Constantine," ca 337-339), the miraculous appearance came when the rival armies met at the Milvian Bridge. In this later version, the emperor had been pondering the logical question of misfortunes that befall armies that invoke the help of many different gods, and decided to seek divine aid in the forthcoming battle from the One God. At noon Constantine saw a cross of light imposed over the sun. Attached to it, in Greek characters, was the saying "Eν Tουtω, Nικα!".

Not only Constantine, but the whole army saw the miracle. That night Christ appeared to the emperor in a dream and told him to make a replica of the sign he had seen in the sky, which would be a sure defense in battle. Thus the element of the public miracle is logically reinforced by the account of a private dream of an explanatory nature.
(Look here in Wikipedia: The Labarum was a military standard which displayed the first two Greek letters of the word Christ)

When one contemplates what has been going on in the various churches until today, since this symbol called Labarum was given in use. It is known, that it was used at even pagan tombs before emperor Constantine used it. The Labarum was a military standard, and have through the centuries since emperor Constantine made it part of Christianity been used as a symbol in the various Catholic Churches and other Christian Churches - even as a symbol on their altars. A symbol of Militant Christianity.

And saying that the Christian's have ended militant activity like the Catholics are trying to tell people officially, they with the other hand in secret accepts the Jesuit Order and the Opus Dei and its secret political and economical activities, and in part Freemasonry. All this have been well documented in at least the last hundred or two hundred years. Groups of freemasons exist, and not all of them are only of a Protestant nature, there are also Catholic ones, who in secret have political and even militant agendas, like "Just War". Some of its members are said to be working inside the Vatican. Saying that the Christian religion is in no way heavily involved with political issues and acitivities is a false claim, and some of the Churches leaders of Christianity knows about it, and therfore they keep silent about it, because their aim is universal despotism, and the rest of reason among thousands of fanatics.

Let me quote the so-called beloved Pope and his greedy political cravings from the following recent article in one of the many newspapers who wrote about it either on paper or on the Internet:
Pope says society to fail without Christian conscience
"VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking as the European Union marked its 50th anniversary without a mention of its religious heritage, said a society that lacks a Christian conscience will end up failing. The Pope's comments came a day after he lambasted the European Union for not mentioning God and Europe's Christian roots in declarations marking its founding. "A society in which the Christian conscience does not live anymore loses direction, does not know anymore where to go, ends up empty and bankrupt," the Pope told parish elders on Sunday. Such a conscience was needed to promote justice and a sense of responsibility among one another, he said. The remarks came as the European Union celebrated its 50th birthday in a Berlin ceremony that included unveiling a broad, aspirational "Berlin Declaration" that left out mention of religion or the continent's Christian roots. But EU leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- who unveiled Sunday's declaration -- as well as Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, reaffirmed their support for its inclusion in a new EU treaty they want adopted by 2009."
.......
"'What the result will be, I can't say,' Merkel, the daughter of a Protestant pastor, told a news conference. 'I am realistic and that means not so optimistic.' The Pope made his displeasure over the matter clear in a strongly worded speech on Saturday, saying excluding values that helped forge its very soul meant Europe was committing a form of apostasy -- a total desertion of one's religion -- and doubting its own identity. The Pope, like his predecessor John Paul, often calls for including God and Christianity in the European Constitution. Plans to put a reference to Europe's Christian roots in a previous EU constitutional treaty were blocked by French President Jacques Chirac."

(VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking as the European Union marked its 50th anniversary, Sunday, March 25th, 2007)


I say, that Christianity has nothing to do with visdom and compassionte wise magical activites. The Christian conscience, which the Pope craves, is very much a worship of a doctrine based on falseness, deceit and fanatism.

We theosophists say, that there are wise magical activities and there are bad and stupid magical activities, especially those who keep people away from learning about developing wisdom, developing the compassion of the Heart, and when appropiate wise magical skills.

Jesus was said to use magical skills, to heal and similar. Despite of this it seems that Jesus words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; (Matthew 7:12) is only something we humans aught to keep, while Jesus (and God) who is compassionate are somehow strangely being disallowed by the Christian Church leaders to teach us his own magical healing capabilities or letting his possible helpers do it. And when we talk about that despotism and double-talk is attached to the leadership of the Christian Churches it is being rejected by its leaders.

Here is a list to compare Jesus words with, so that we understand their proper place in life and history. I think most readers get the general picture about, what Visdom and Visdom teaching really is:
* Commonsensism: "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated".

* Buddhism: From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."

* Judaism: from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."

* Hinduism: From the Hitopadesa- "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."

* Zoroastrianism: From the Shast-na-shayast 13:29- "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others."

* Confucianism: From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

* Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517

* Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson.

* Humanism: "Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society.

The spiritual Seekers sometimes fail to understand that an honest Theosophist operates through DESIGNS, and that it is often more important how various persons reacts to the content of the written words, articles and books as well as speech etc. than the actual content of the written words or what was said.



4. Historical mistakes and faults in the four canonical Christian gospels:

The Catholic view:

Let me first say, that the following from the Catholic website New Advent is quite interesting. It is about the historical relations which they are given by The Catholic Church.

Here are a few quotes from the section called "The Gospels":
"All recent critics admit that the contents of our four Gospels are intimately connected with more primitive accounts of Christ's life, which may be described, in a general way, as an Oral Gospel. They are well aware that Jesus Himself did not consign to writing His own teachings, and directed His Apostles not to write, but to preach, the Gospel to their fellow-men."

"The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been noticed and which all scholars readily admit. Unbelievers of all ages have greatly exaggerated the importance of this fact, and have represented many of the actual variations between the Evangelical narratives as positive contradictions, in order to disprove the historical value and the inspired character of the sacred records of Christ's life. Over against this contention, sometimes maintained with a great display of erudition, the Church of God, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), has always proclaimed her belief in the historical accuracy and consequent real harmony of the canonical Gospels; and her doctors (notably Eusebius of Cæsarea, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine) and commentators have invariably professed that belief. As can readily be seen, variations are naturally to be expected in four distinct, and in many ways independent, accounts of Christ's words and deeds, so that their presence, instead of going against, rather makes for the substantial value of the Evangelical narratives. From among the various answers which have been given to the alleged contradictions of the Evangelists we simply mention the following. Many a time the variations are due to the fact that not one but two really distinct events are described, or two distinct sayings recorded, in the parallel passages of the Gospels. At other times, as is indeed very often the case, the supposed contradictions, when closely examined, turn out to be simply differences naturally entailed, and therefore distinctly accounted for, by the literary methods of the sacred writers, and more particularly, by the respective purpose of the Evangelists in setting forth Christ's words and deeds. Lastly, and in a more general way, the Gospels should manifestly be treated with the same fairness and equity as are invariably used with regard to other historical records."
(New Advent on the Gospels: The Gospels, [Italics added by Morten Nymann])


A comment:
I find it strange, that it is being said in the above quotes, that "Unbelievers of all ages have greatly exaggerated the importance of this fact", when we know, that the Catholic Church at the same time calls its gospels infallible! It is such kinds of double-talk, which makes me throw the Catholic dogmas away.

Saying, that the above quotes on the Gospels historical content is today officially forwarded with emphais by the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches, is as far as I am concerned not true. When I read the above quote I get the view, that the gospels in reality can be said to have as much truth in them as one deceide by ones own judgement. Especially the sentence where I have added italics will later be shown to not be in touch the the historical truth and the realities of life it self. If it is not important when Jesus was born or if he had another name etc., a view which clearly turns Jesus into a myth more than into a historical person if you ask me. And if they say that their gospels is only a myth and are not at all portraying a real historical person, I might agree. But, that is not what they tell people in the churches, - but they seem to tell it on their website if one find the right page to look at, as shown in the above quote. Well, that is just my view. - And of course elsewhere the Priests and Cardinals are calling the Gospels infallible down to the last letter.


With the above and the words about a wish of treatment of "same fairness and equity" in mind I am here presenting some of the various faults - merely called "variations" by the Catholic Church, which I and others have encountered in the four gospels.

My view upon the Catholic Church and the four Canonical Gospels:

a) The genealogies of Jesus and Ussher chronology:
The genealogies of Jesus as given in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are totally different and can hardly apply to the same person. And we all know, that life was not created in year 4004 BC. That life was created in year 4004 BC. - was mentioned in a lot of Bibles in the old days from 17th century onwards. (This view is also called Ussher chronology or Ussher-Lightfoot chronology ). Even today, some of the American Churches and other churches preaches this false and insane view to children in school! - The consequence of this is, that we have a major part of the Western world swarmed with Christian fanatics, who will stop at nothing to promote their version of the proper outlook to have on life.

Wikipedia on Ussher chronology:
"It may be an accident of history that Ussher's chronology remains so well known while those of Scaliger and Bede, amongst others, have slipped into obscurity. From about 1700 onwards, annotated editions of the immensely influential King James translation of the Bible began to include his chronology with their annotations and cross-references. The first page of Genesis was annotated with Ussher's date of Creation, 4004 BC, though in reality, Ussher's Annales is estimated to have relied on the Bible for only one sixth of its volume. It was included in the widely distributed Scofield Reference Bible. More modern translations of the Bible usually omit the chronology, but there are still many copies of the annotated King James in circulation.

By the end of the 18th century, Ussher's chronology came under increasing attack from supporters of uniformitarianism, who argued that Ussher's "young Earth" was incompatible with the increasingly accepted view of an Earth much more ancient than Ussher's. It became generally accepted that the Earth was tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of years old. Ussher fell into disrepute among theologians as well; in 1890, Princeton professor William Henry Green wrote a highly influential article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled "Primeval Chronology" in which he strongly criticised Ussher. He concluded:

We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.[2]"
(Look here: Ussher chronology)


The Catholic view on Usher Chronology at New Advent "At one period it was attempted to date from the Creation (A.M. or Anno Mundi), that event being placed by Christian chronologists, such as Archbishop Usher, in 4004 B.C., and by the Jews in 3761 B.C. But any attempt thus to determine the age of the world has been long since abandoned."
(The New Advent website: Ussher chronology)

So much fallible we have about to socalled infallible Bible! I am aware of that the previous Pope John Paul the II, was a bit open to the idea of the world being much older, and the Catholic Church is today also in agreement with this view in part. The gospels are really saying something else in Luke and Matthew when we read about the genealogy of Jesus. The genealogy of Jesus in these two gospels are quite different from each other. And that is neither supporting the Christian theory of infallibility.

What I and others learn from this are, that the Gospels are not reliable and not infallible, and the Catholic Church leaders are not trustworthy.

If we support William Henry Green in the above from Wikipedia, we are also saying that: What is written in the Bible are not trustworthy to read. What the Bible says is not what it says, but something else. You simply twist the words so they fit with your own views. If this is Bible teaching, everything can be proven to be the truth.

And we will all have to wonder what theory the Catholic Church or Christian Churches will have to abandon next time, they find something in their socalled infallible Bible, which is not "infallible" or historical correct any more. We will explore more about this in the below.

- - - - - - -

b) On the events of the night before the crucifixion:

Furthermore, the events of the night before the crucifixion of Jesus are too numerous to have occurred within the prescribed time. Here is a list of them:
  • The Last Supper,
  • The agony in the Garden,
  • The betrayel by Judas,
  • The hailing and the questioning, first before Caiaphas, secondly before the Sandhedrin and then before Pilate;
  • The visit of Herod (recorded by Luke),
  • The return to Pilate;
  • Pilate's speeches and his washing of hands;
  • The scourging, the mocking and
  • The arraying of Jesus in a purple robe;
  • The long and painful bearing of the Cross to Golgotha
- all these events could not possibly have occurred in such a short time.

The Catholic view upon the issue: I could not find any Catholic view upon that, and I do not know how the Protestants clarify this issue, except saying that the gospel are filled with errors and are not containing much truth of value. I can only conclude, that its level of infallibility is something like the view of "Aliens living on the Moon is a true story even if we do not observe any of them".

- - - - - - -

c) The scientist Galileo Galilei was excommunicated:
I am aware, that the following words are not covering anything directly related to the life of Jesus and the Gospels. But, the problem with the Catholic Church is that it by it self have trampled upon an innocent man almost like the Sanhedrin did when Jesus got killed, - although we theosophists claim that it happened in a different manner than the one portrayed and agreed upon by the Catholic Church and other Churches.

The scientist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

"The circumstances around his trial was the following:
The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
  • Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[53]
  • He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
  • His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[54]"

    (Look here in Wikipedia: Galileo Galilei)
  • Among the major reasons to put Galileo on trial was, that Galileo's ideas did appear to contradict the Bible: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." Galileo was reburied on sacred ground at Santa Croce in 1737. He was formally rehabilitated in 1741, when Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of Galileo's complete scientific works (a censored edition had been published in 1718), and in 1758 the general prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

    The late Pope John Paul II expressed his regret about the role of The Catholic Church in all this:
    "Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."
    – Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November,1992

    (Look here in Wikipedia: The Galileo Affair)


    And this is not the only activity, in which the Catholic Church have failed totally and completely. Yet, it is of course promising, that they change their heart, when the great majority of the religious believers of their faith themselves can see the false teachings of the Church. This is just one example, which show me and others, that the whole Catholic Church is quite unreliable. Should the Protestants be more reliable?

    But if, what the Bible says it not true, how reliable is the Bible?

    The Bible says: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

    We can only conclude that the Bible is not reliable at all.

    - - - - - - -

    d) The gospel of Matthew is falsified says St. Jerome:
    When the Hebrew Gospel not according to but by Matthew the Gnostic, of whom they have made an Evangelist— 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; and also St. Jerome’s Opera, Vol. V, col. 445 - Johannis Martianay, Paris, 1706)—when, 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 “life of Jesus,” of the events of which “no one is ignorant.


    - - - - - - -

    e) The birth of Jesus:

    Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE (before common era). But Luke states that Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign, implying that he was born in 2 BCE, i.e. after Herod's death. He then contradicts himself by stating that John the Baptist and Jesus were miraculously conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but that Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE (common era), thereby creating the miracle of a ten-year pregnancy!

    The Catholic website New Advent says:
    "That date, as we shall see, cannot be correct and, instead of being an improvement on, is further from the truth than the dates assigned by the early Fathers, St. Irenæus and Tertullian, who fixed the date of the Nativity in the 41st year of Augustus, that is to say, 3 years B. C., or a. U. C. 751. "
    (The New Advent website: Birth of Jesus)


    But as we shall see in the quote from H. P. Blavatsky, she disagrees heavily with the Catholic Church and the most of the Christians. H. P. Blavatsky are basing her views in part on scientific indications and her clairvoyant knowledge. A lot of it seem to be true. (And the sincere theosophical Seeker aught to consider the diffeence between Blavatsky and our present day local New Age Friday-Clairvoyants and their level of foolishness). One of her contemporary theosophical friends, a scholar named G. R. S. Mead wrote a well-documented book named "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?"; 1903, showing how difficult it is for the Christian Church to prove when Jesus actually was born. Another Theosophist named G. Massey have written another book about the same issue, it was named: "The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ"; 1886. This have however some faults.

    Since that time most Theosophist have kept silent about the matter. Only a few hints here and there. A tendency to water down the issue have crept forward in the minds of most Theosophist, and that without any justification what so ever.

    Let us hear the words from H. P. Blavatsky.
    H. P. Blavatsky says in a text I have condensed:
    "For me Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, copied from the Avatâras 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 Abbé Roca, has simplified “without disfiguring it,” 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 called Jehoshua (from which Jesus has been made) born at Lüd or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era. And if this fact is denied—to which I can hardly object—one 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 “Evangelists,” 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!"
    (H. P. Blavatsky - Collected Writings Online, Vol. 9, p. 224-227.)

    - - - - - - -

    f) The day when socalled historical Jesus died:

    John places Jesus' death on the eve of the Passover, whereas the other gospels place it on the following day.

    - - - - - - -

    g) Lack of real historical proof about Jesus existence:

    Few Christians are aware that there is not a single piece of legitimate historical evidence that the gospel Jesus ever existed. The birth, life, miracles, teachings and death of Jesus are not referred to by any historians of the time, despite the fact that the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era were some of the best documented in history. Apart from Luke's Gospel, no historical sources mention the Roman census that supposedly required Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. In fact, a Roman census could not have been carried out in Palestine in the time of King Herod, for his territory was not part of the empire.

    Josephus, on the other hand, a younger contemporary of the apostle Paul, wrote two famous history books, one of which (Antiquities of the Jews) contains two passages which do refer to Jesus: one of them speaks of him as the messiah, who was crucified under Pilate and appeared to his disciples three days later. For hundreds of years these passages were seized on by Christians as conclusive proof that the gospel Jesus was an historical figure. But more careful scrutiny has shown them to be later forgeries. [It has to be noted, that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. A great number of Christian's still use this as proof on Jesus lived at the same time as Pilate. H. P. Blavatsky and other sane Clairvoyants rejected this view; by Morten Nymann.]

    "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 the manuscript of Josephus, to get even with the Gnostics who denied that there ever had been a real personage named Jesus."
    (Taken almost verbatim from H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings Online vol. 9, p.227)


    And I will have to agree upon this view.


    A great number of Christian's have through the centuries sought to prove scientifically, that Jesus was a real historical person who got crucified at the time of Pontius Pilate around the years 6 B.C.-4 A.C. Yet today, there are only very few words to support this theory. We can agree upon Jesus being a historical person, but never upon that he was one who lived at the same time as Pilate as pictured in the canonical Gospels.

    The Christian's like to refer to the following passage to justify, that Jesus lived at the same time as Pontius Pilate:

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
    (Annals of Tacitus, book 15.44)
    For instance, is it so, that Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, the first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. 850. An the Tacitus Books eleven through sixteen are in another manuscript dating from the eleventh century. (I think it is on page 60 in Strobel, Lee. The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.)

    My view is, that saying that these manuscripts never have been changed from their original is not a scientific stance worth wasting ones time on.


    H. P. Blavatsky says:
    "That the apostles had received a "secret doctrine" from Jesus, and that he himself taught one, is evident from the following words of Jerome, who confessed it in an unguarded moment. Writing to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, he complains that "a difficult work is enjoined, since this translation has been commanded me by your Felicities, which St. Matthew himself, the Apostle and Evangelist, DID NOT WISH TO BE OPENLY WRITTEN. For if it had not been SECRET, he (Matthew) would have added to the evangel that which he gave forth was his; but he made up this book sealed up in the Hebrew characters, which he put forth even in such a way that the book, written in Hebrew letters and by the hand of himself, might be possessed by the men most religious, who also, in the course of time, received it from those who preceded them. But this very book they never gave to any one to be transcribed, and its text they related some one way and some another." And he adds further on the same page: "And it happened that this book, having been published by a disciple of Manichæus, named Seleucus, who also wrote falsely The Acts of the Apostles, exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction; and that this book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen to." §

       He admits, himself, that the book which he authenticates as being written "by the hand of Matthew"; a book which, notwithstanding that

    ————————————————————————————————————
    *
    Hieronymus: "De Virus.," illust., cap. 3. "It is remarkable that, while all church fathers say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, the whole of them use the Greek text as the genuine apostolic writing, without mentioning what relation the Hebrew Matthew has to our Greek one! It had many peculiar additions which are wanting in our evangel." (Olshausen: "Nachweis der Echtheit der sammtlichen Schriften des Neuen Test.," p. 32; Dunlap: "Sod, the Son of the Man," p. 44.)

    Hieronymus: "Commen. to Matthew," book ii., ch. xii., 13. Jerome adds that it was written in the Chaldaic language, but with Hebrew letters.

    "St. Jerome," v., 445; "Sod, the Son of the Man," p. 46.

    § This accounts also for the rejection of the works of Justin Martyr, who used only this "Gospel according to the Hebrews," as also did most probably Titian, his disciple. At what late period was fully established the divinity of Christ we can judge by the mere fact that even in the fourth century Eusebius did not denounce this book as spurious, but only classed it with such as the Apocalypse of John; and Credner ("Zur Gesch. des Kan.," p. 120) shows Nicephorus inserting it, together with the Revelation, in his "Stichometry," among the Antilegomena. The Ebionites, the genuine primitive Christians, rejecting the rest of the apostolic writings, made use only of this Gospel ("Adv. Hœr." i., 26), and the Ebionites, as Epiphanius declares, firmly believed, with the Nazarenes, that Jesus was but a man "of the seed of a man."


    183                                                                                                  THE CRAFT OF ST. JEROME.


    he translated it twice, was nearly unintelligible to him, for it was arcane or a secret. Nevertheless, Jerome coolly sets down every commentary upon it, except his own, as heretical. More than that, Jerome knew that this original Gospel of Matthew was the expounder of the only true doctrine of Christ; and that it was the work of an evangelist who had been the friend and companion of Jesus. He knew that if of the two Gospels, the Hebrew in question and the Greek belonging to our present Scripture, one was spurious, hence heretical, it was not that of the Nazarenes; and yet, knowing all this, Jerome becomes more zealous than ever in his persecutions of the "Hæretics." Why? Because to accept it was equivalent to reading the death-sentence of the established Church. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was but too well known to have been the only one accepted for four centuries by the Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. And neither of the latter accepted the divinity of Christ."
    . . . . . . .

    Why wonder at the unfathomable mysteries of the Christian religion, since it is perfectly human? Have we not a letter written by one of the most respected Fathers of the Church to this same Jerome, which shows better than whole volumes their traditionary policy? This is what Saint Gregory of Nazianzen wrote to his friend and confidant Saint Jerome: "Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire. Our fathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity forced them to."

    (Look here: Isis Unveiled, vol. 2 written by H. P. Blavatsky - The Internet version is the so far best available. Loading can take time.)

    [THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED LATER BY THE AUTHOR - on the December 16th, 2007]

    Pope Damasus (305-384) requested St. Jerome to undertake the revision of the Bible. Guided by old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, he corrected its mistakes and emended such translations as affected the true sense of the Gospels, and probably followed the same method in revising all the books of the New Testament, which he put forth at Rome about year 383. It is largely the same Bible, which The Catholic Church supports today. The Catholic Bible is here with various comments included.


    *******

    We can observe, that there is not much difference between H. P. Blavatsky's quote in the above and the Catholic translation in the below:

    "To my lords the holy and most blessed Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome, a humble servant of Christ, in the Lord greeting.

    He who digs in ground where he knows that there is gold, does not instantly snatch at whatever the uptorn trench may pour forth; but, before the stroke of the quivering spade raises aloft the glittering mass, he meanwhile lingers over the sods to turn them over and lift them up, and especially he who has not added to his gains. An arduous task is enjoined upon me, since what your Blessedness has commanded me, the holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew himself did not write for the purpose of publishing. For if he had not done it somewhat secretly, he would have added it also to his Gospel which he published. But he composed this book in Hebrew; and so little did he publish it, that at this day the book written in Hebrew by his own hand is in the possession of very religious men, to whom in successive periods of time it has been handed down by those that were before them. And this book they never at any time gave to any one to translate. And so it came to pass, that when it was published by a disciple of Manichæus named Leucius, who also wrote the falsely styled Acts of the Apostles, this book afforded matter, not of edification, but of perdition; and the opinion of the Synod in regard to it was according to its deserts, that the ears of the Church should not be open to it. Let the snapping of those that bark against us now cease; for we do not add this little book to the canonical writings, but we translate what was written by an Apostle and Evangelist, that we may disclose the falsehood of heresy. In this work, then, we obey the commands of pious bishops as well as oppose impious heretics. It is the love of Christ, therefore, which we fulfil, believing that they will assist us by their prayers, who through our obedience attain to a knowledge of the holy infancy of our Saviour."

    (Look here at The Catholic New Advent website: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew)


    The excerpt from the above letter to the Bishops are sometimes referred to as spurious. But the fact that the Catholic Church have it as a valid reference from St. Jerome on their website, is a clear evidence on the falsification af the Catholic teaching about Jesus. St. Jerome is clearly talking about a genuine and secret Gospel of Matthew.

    So the present gospel by Matthew used by Christianity must be a false one. This must be true, since the version of the Matthew Gospel used presently by The Catholic Church is based on the translations by St. Jerome. So the conclusion is clear: The Catholic Church, (on the New Advent website), even publicly confess, that the Gospel by Matthew was falsified. It also reveals, that there must be a secret tradition behind the REAL gospel by Matthew. The question is how The Catholic Church relates to this secret tradition?

    It is in fact quite interesting to know, that the Catholic Church puts the following words in the mouth of their physical God, named Jesus: ""Don't cast your pearls before swine," Matthew 7:6, meaning don't waste time by giving something valuable to someone who won't appreciate it.

    The new Pope Benedict XVI are supporting St. Jerome's importance to the Church teachings and the Bible:

    "I thus conclude with a word St Jerome once addressed to St Paulinus of Nola. In it the great exegete expressed this very reality, that is, in the Word of God we receive eternity, eternal life. St Jerome said: "Seek to learn on earth those truths which will remain ever valid in Heaven" (Ep. 53, 10)."

    (Look here at The Catholic Church's website: BENEDICT XVI - GENERAL AUDIENCE - Saint Peter's Square; Wednesday, 7 November 2007 )


    The question is whether, the Catholic Church is actually prepared to follow this advice by St. Jerome, about to "learn on earth those truths which will remain ever valid in Heaven", when we talk about the Gospel of Matthew, and other issues, which I have mentioned in the earlier parts of this article.

    The new Pope Benedict XVI are supporting St. Jerome as being inspired by the Holy Spirit when translating the scriptures:

    "For Jerome, a fundamental criterion of the method for interpreting the Scriptures was harmony with the Church's Magisterium. We should never read Scripture alone because we meet too many closed doors and could easily slip into error. The Bible has been written by the People of God and for the People of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God do we truly enter into the "we", into the nucleus of the truth that God himself wants to tell us. For him, an authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmonious accord with the faith of the Catholic Church. It does not treat of an exegesis imposed on this Book from without; the Book is really the voice of the pilgrim People of God and only in the faith of this People are we "correctly attuned" to understand Sacred Scripture.

    Therefore, Jerome admonishes: "Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you can preach according to right doctrine and refute those who contradict it" (Ep. 52, 7). In particular, given that Jesus Christ founded his Church on Peter, every Christian, he concludes, must be in communion "with St Peter's See. I know that on this rock the Church is built" (Ep. 15, 2). Consequently, without approximations, he declared: "I am with whoever is united to the teaching of St Peter" (Ep. 16)."

    (Look here at The Catholic Church's website: BENEDICT XVI - GENERAL AUDIENCE - Saint Peter's Square; Wednesday, 14 November 2007)


    I would say, that it is fair to conclude, that the Catholic teachings are based on at least one falsified gospel. Namely the Gospel of Matthew, which was translated by St. Jerome, while protesting vaugely to the two Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus, who appearently was his friends and co-translators. So The Catholic Church is not actually building its teachings on a solid Rock. And clearly not the one named Pet-Roma (or Kepa) in the same by St. Jerome falsified Gospel of Matthew. The PetRoma which in the aramaic-chaldean original was and is the secret emerald tablets of Thoth. Because Jesus or Joshoua was taught in the Egyptian mysteries. Nearly all the Protestants seem to also have the same problem as The Catholic Church, since they also base their teachings on the translations of St. Jerome.

    *******
    [ENDING LATER ADDTION]




    Blavatsky also says:
    "For me Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, copied from the Avatâras of every country, from the Hindu Krishna as well as the Egyptian Horus, was never a

    Page 225

    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 Abbé Roca, has simplified “without disfiguring it,” 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 Evangelist— 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)—when, 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 “life of Jesus,” of the events of which “no one is ignorant.” 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.’s reference to St. Jerome’s De viris illustribus liber, chap. 3, is only partially correct. The main point of Jerome’s argument, and the mention of Seleucus, occur rather in his letter to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, as can be ascertained by consulting St. Jerome’s Opera, Vol. V, col. 445 (Johannis Martianay, Paris, 1706). H.P.B. uses the same argument in her article on “The Origin of the Gospels and the Bishop of Bombay” (The Theosophist, Vol. IV, No. l, October, 1882, pp. 6-9), and again in the third instalment of her essay on “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” (Lucifer, Vol. I, No. 6, February, 1888, pp. 490-96). Vide Compiler’s Notes to this latter essay for comprehensive survey of the various references and quotations used by her, and their complete text.—Compiler.]
    ––––––––––

    Page 226

    called Jehoshua (from which Jesus has been made) born at Lüd or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era. And if this fact is denied—to which I can hardly object—one 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 “Evangelists,” 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

    Page 227

    one was sure of anything, and no great importance was attributed to the Gospels—to the Logia of which there were more than sixty—what 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 Lord’s Anointed, i.e., the Messiah!! (Vide Josephus, Antiq., lib. XVIII, cap. iii, 3.)†
    But what use is it to waste time repeating what every well-educated man knows. The Abbé continually refers us to the Gospels and to St. Paul, and, showering on us a torrent of quotations, triumphantly demands: “Is this clear enough? Did not Christ himself say this and that, and does not St. Paul assure us that. . . etc., etc., . . .” 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 remains—doubtless by inadvertence—one 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 “inferior to the angels.” 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.
    † [Also 63-64, acc. to the pagination of the Greek text.—Compiler.]
    (H. P. Blavatsky - Collected Writings Online, Vol. 9, p. 224-227.)
    So when we theosophists discover, that Alice A. Bailey claimed to have written a book named "From Betlehem to Calvary", we could only but disagree, that her Master did not tell her the great lack of justice she gave both Jesus - (whose real name was Jehoshua or Jehoshua ben Pandira) and H. P. Blavatsky, because the real historical Jesus or Jehoshua ben Pandira was born in Lod / Lüdda about the year 120 B.C. and certainly NOT in Betlehem at the time of Pontious Pilate.

    The Christian's do not understand these facts of Clairvoyant readings, since they only believe blindly in their Nicean - Canonical Gospels and do all they can to make historical texts fit to their very own views instead of seeking to make TRUTH fit with what really happened.

    - - - - - - -

    h) Jesus socalled final words:
    The final words of the Christ to His apostles were, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age" or cycle. (Matt., XXVIII, 20.) The important word is "end." The word used is the Greek "sun-teleia," which means the end of the time period, with another immediately following after (what would be called the end of a cycle). In Greek the final end is another word "telos." In Matt., XXIV, 6, "but the end is not yet," the other word telos is used for it means "the end of the first period has not yet been reached.

    So Judgement Day is a false teaching and doctrine. At least the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches failes to clearly show the public, that Judgement Day is maybe not just like that the final day and the end of times.

    It because of the Catholic Church's and other Christian Churches' stance on the strange doctrine of Judgement Day, that a lot of persons on this Planet are being kept down in a fearful lifestyle. Faith is not reason's labour, but repose. And reason without objectivly analyzing the issues surrounding religion is as false a teaching as it can be. I think it is fair to conclude that the Catholic Church's and other Christian Churches' are deceiving people, when they are not objectivly and fairly promoting the doctrine of Judgement Day. To the theosophists, the idea of Judgement Day was changed by some of the early Christian's. It was in fact a teaching quite similar to the Dzyan Stanzas and Hindu teachings on Manvantara's, Pralaya's and similar, which the Chirstian's later changed so to keep people in ignorance about the realities of the world and the truth about its origins. This teaching is also the teaching of the Akasha Records.


    - - - - - - -

    i) Martin Luther got Excommunicated by Pope Leo X:
    Martin Luther got Excommunicated by Pope Leo X. That must be a fact. Some says it is a false claim, but I do not think so.

    If Luther got excommunicated why did not other Christian Protestants and later ones get the same sentence at the same time? When you Excommunicate a leader of a group, are you not in fact at the same time excommunicating the groups followers, - or least telling them, what can happen if they do the same efforts as Luther did?

    His actions of breaking with the church and intentionally committing heresy, though, may be viewed as him willfully breaking with the church and its sacraments, which is the definition of excommunication.

    The Catholic website New Advent says:
    "The Bull of excommunication, "Exsurge Domine", was accordingly drawn up 15 July [year 1520, Morten Nymann]. It formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment."
    (The New Advent website: Ussher chronology)


    If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians
    "The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as “not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope."
    ("If it isn't Roman Catholic then it's not a proper Church" - The Times July 11, 2007)


    To us theosophists, such an action as excommunication is a silly doctrine since no Earthly power are able to excommunicate anyone. And such a thing as an eternal hell is a false teaching, since no wise Teacher will ever let people suffer eternally. This is something some of us Theosophists know about, and that is why we from time to time draw attention to this fact.


    - - - - - - -

    j) Peter the rock to built the only Church on?:
    If it is admitted that Peter really was the first Pope, then it follows logically that the “Roman Catholic” church is really the only Christian church that has any legitimate existence, and all the so-called protestant churches are only so many heresies that ought to be rooted out; but biblical criticism has shown that Peter had nothing whatever to do with the foundation of the Latin church. “Petroma” was the name of the double set of stone tablets used by the hierophant at all initiations during the final Mystery; and the designation “Peter” (in Phoenician and Chaldaic, an interpreter) appears to have been the title of this person. No one have ever had any authority to give Peter, or any one else, plenary power. And that even if he had given such authority, the word Petra (rock) referred to the revealed truths of the Petroma, not to him who thrice denied him; and that besides, the apostolic successon is a gross and palpable fraud.

    Just rethink these words from the gospel of Matthew: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:8-9, King James Bible)

    So why do anyone ever think there can be an earthly Pope?

    One thing that cannot be proven by The Catholic Church is their false claim that Peter should have given their own church the power and authority i claims for it self. The apostolic successon is a fraud, and are being used to seek the creation of universal despotism and power by the people behind the self same Catholic Church. Peter never gave the keys of heaven to the so-called next leader of the Catholic Church who followed him. Those who have written or said this in the past are in error and are lying. There are no evidence on this.

    So if the Catholic Church ever wants to build its church on a rock, it aught to rethink its false doctrine and its false claims and attempts to deceive people around the world.

    I admit, that I cannot prove all of what I write. But, what I claim has at least equal value when compared to what many followers of blind belief promotes, Christian's included. But you could try to research the claims I make, when I in this article forget to give you any source. Quite often you easily will be able to find some solid source of value.

    Yet, I will like to say, that it is better, that people are peaceful, than aggressive. It is a beautiful thing, to experience the friendliness and goodness some of the more ordinary and less fanatical Christian's or Gnostics give out freely to other people no matter what creed they belong to.


    - - - - - - -

    k) Infallibility or not?:
    Many people who identify themselves as Christians, Muslims, or Jews regard the Bible as inspired by God yet written by a variety of imperfect men over thousands of years. Bible-believing Christians regard both the New and Old Testament as the undiluted Word of God, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans under guidance of God's holy spirit.

    I will say, that this view is as stupid as it can be. Blind beliefs like the above will lead anyone astray. I mentioned St. Jerome somewhere in the above sentences. Why did St. Jerome say, that the Gospel of Matthew was false? Was it God who wrote these words through his hand, when he wrote this? Who can tell?

    To blindly believe that God would create such a Bible and New Testament is stupid. Maybe those who meet at Nicea in year 325 AD., who deceided which gospels to use were wolves in sheeps-clothes? Who knows?

    One should not let ones use of reason and commen sense be put to rest and replaced by mere blind belief and faith in what a few perhaps power--greedy leaders say!

    The fact, that some people continue to do that, perhaps shows us all, that there really is a need for such a sect as the Christian one. But, the year is 2007, and science is today not stupid. I would say, that it is only a question of time, when this exchange of views, I am engaged in with you will reach the medias and journalists internationally - because the number of inconcistencies and errors in the four Gospels and also the Bible in general are too numerous to avoid public media attention in these days of the Internet.

    Further we have:
    Furthermore, the events of the night before the crucifixion of Jesus are too numerous to have occurred within the prescribed time. Here is a list of them: the Last Supper, the agony in the Garden, the betrayel by Judas, the hailing and the questioning, first before Caiaphas, secondly before the Sandhedrin and then before Pilate; - the visit of Herod (recorde by Luke), the return to Pilate; Pilate's speeches and his washing of hands; the scourging, the mocking and the arraying of Jesus in a purple robe; the long and painful bearing on the Cross to Golgotha - all these events could not possibly have occurred in such a short time.


    - - - - - - -

    l) Why Jesus to me is falsely portrayed in the four Gospels:
    For me, Jesus Christ, that is to say the Man-God of the Christians, was never a historical person. He is a deified personification of the glorified type and his story told in the New Testament is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but an allegory. . . . The legend of which I speak is founded . . . on the existence of a personage called Jehoshua or Jehoshua ben Pandira (from which "Jesus" has been made) born at Lud or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era. - One of the Church Fathers Epiphanius almost admit this, when he says, that Jesus' father was named Jacob Panthera / Pandira

    Epiphanius in his book against Heresies (fourth century) gives the genealogy of Jesus, as follows:

    Jacob called Panthera=
    |
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    |                                                         |
    Mary=Joseph                                             Cleophas
       |                                                             
    Jesus                                                          

    (See Mr. Gerald Massey’s “Jesus and the Records of his Time,” in the April Spiritualist, 1878.)



    We learn from Tract Shabbath, of the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna, that Jehoshua ben-Pandira was stoned to death as a wizard in the city of Lud or Lydda, and was afterwards crucified by being hung upon the tree on the eve of the Passover. Although we do not agree with the Jews and their materialistic version of an ideology, we find this to be much more in accordance with historical realities, than the fictional Christian version(s).

    In spite of all the desperate researches made during long centuries, if we place on one side the witness of the "Evangelists," 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, nor 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 . . . made several journeys to Jerusalem. 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 Nazarenes? Why does he not make the most distant 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 a bit better informed 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 Gospels—to the Logia of which there were more than sixty—what place has history in all of this? Confusion, lies, deceit, and forgery, such is the ledger of the early centuries.
    (H. P. Blavatsky - Collected Writings Online, Vol. 9, p. 224-227.)

    All this have been based on readings of what are called the Akasha Records. The Akasha Records are not something the Christian's are aware of the exsistence of since they have never seen them or maybe never heard of their existence, because they are so deeply entangled in narrowminded thinking-patterns. The Akashic records / Akasha Records are maybe better described as sort of non-physical "Cosmic memory" or non-physical library, which clairvoyants or individuals with extra sensory perception use or tap information from. And hopefully they use their compassionate heart when doing so. I claim that these Akasha Records are real, although I cannot easily prove their existence to people by writing about it.


    - - - - - - -

    m) A Theosophical stance based on visdom and compassion:
    H.P. Blavatsky wrote:
    "...I deny in toto the Christ invented by the Church, as well as all the doctrines, all the interpretations, and all the dogmas, ancient and modern, concerning that personage..."
    (H.P. Blavatsky: REPLY TO THE MISTAKEN CONCEPTIONS OF THE ABBÉ ROCA CONCERNING MY OBSERVATIONS ON CHRISTIAN ESOTERICISM, in Collected Writings, Vol. IX, page 216).

    H. P. Blavatsky said about The Theosophical Society:
    "The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of Christianity, to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute".
    (The Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 7, p.246)

    Master KH wrote in a Mahatma Letter:
    For the opposition represents enormous vested interests, and they have enthusiastic help from the Dugpas -- in Bhootan and the Vatican!
    (Here is all of Mahtama Letter, No. 55. Dugpas are the same as selfish Magicians.)


    I know, that some readers will disagree with these views by H. P. Blavatsky. But, I would like the interested readers to deeply consider, if there actually could me more to these claims and views presented by H. P. Blavatsky, than one at first sight have digested.

    Conclusion:

    And when one reads all of the above quotes and words in this article, we have that the only thing left is, that the Christian Jesus is not the Theosophical Jesus, Jehoshua or Jehoshua ben Pandira, and what is written in the gospels are a lot of it not really true. How far out are the Catholic Church and other Christian's willing to go?

    If the various Christian groups and especially the Catholics can worm themselves easily out of this one, I would like to know. Because as far as I am concerned the Christian Churches are deceiving people. Lying and cheating is not Bible teaching says the Church, - yet its leaders and priests seem to be doing it on a daily basis with either concious or unconcious knowledge about the facts. We can only wonder why the present day Journalists not already have taken up the opportunity to analyze these issues in a fair both scientific, religious and philosophical manner. It is evident from more than one section in the above, that there are something quite disturbing going on, when we deal with the historical realities and falsfications of the Bible and especially the four Canonical Gospels.

    Christian Churches are at least not publicly and officially enough open and honest towards the quite understandable views coming from scholars and other truth-seeking people on this planet. And the Catholic website New Advent admits, in fact to a certain extend that the four gospels are most likely filled with errors or inaccuracies, - and I would say, that they do it to such an extend that the whole scheme of theirs become highly unlikely and even false.

    "What is Truth?" asked Pilate of one who, if the claims of the Christian Church are even approximately correct, must have known it. But He (Jesus) kept silent. And the truth which He did not divulge, remained unrevealed, for his later followers as much as for the Roman Governor. The silence of Jesus, however, on this and other occasions, does not prevent his present followers from acting as though they had received the ultimate and absolute Truth itself; and from ignoring the fact that only such Words of Wisdom had been given to them as contained a share of the truth, itself concealed in parables and dark, though beautiful, sayings. Jesus says to the "Twelve"--"Unto you is given the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables," etc. (Mark iv. II.)

    This does not seem to prevent a number of Cardinals or Priests from saying that they are among the chosen ones to understand the parables of their version of a Jesus, and saying that Women are never able to understand things like that. That must be a lie. Well, it seems so if one ask me, but I might be wrong.

    You are of course always welcome to prove, that I and a number of scholars and sane people are wrong in our views in the various parts in the above article.

    I do hope you find this article useful.

    I will always be here, if you are in need. I know, that removal of ignorance happens everyday to you. Sometimes it happens slowly and at other times more fast. This is what life is all about. Visdom is a reality, something real.







     
     
    Copyright © 2001 | M. Nymann - global-theosophy@stofanet.dk