Theos-Talk Archives (December 2008 Message tt00356)

It's been a long time since I read it, at least 30 years, but if anyone  
needs a good laugh, I cannot recommend anyone higher than Hippolytus.  He  makes 
Leadbeater look sane by comparison.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
 
In a message dated 12/21/2008 3:37:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
Augoeides-222@comcast.net writes:

Christina,
Thanks for all your research efforts! But  this thread may have opened 
Pandora's Box! 
Who in this  Forum has read the complete "Ante-Nicene Christian Library of 
the Writings of  the Early Church Fathers", 1867 (down to A.D. 325) ??? I my 
self haven't but  have waded more than a lot of  everyday non-eclessiastical 
normal people  of common ground. They do contain a huge mountain of literature as 
G. R. S.  Mead will testify were he here lol! Beleive me, put on your deep 
wading boots.  But Clement, Origen, Tertillian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Anastasius, 
Justin  Martyr, Athenagoras are all very heavy voluminous reading which 
contain  marvelous facts and bedeviling controversy's.

This is  going to become an explosion lol!

Regards,
John
PS: I might  recommend reading:
"The Diegesis --- being  A Discovery of the Origin,  Evidences, And Early 
History Of CHRISTIANITY " by the Rev. Robert Taylor A. B.  & M. R. C. S., 1851

-------------- Original message --------------  
From: "christinaleestemaker" <christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com>  
***http://www.gnmagazine.org/realstory/?
S=2&gclid=CJ_wptmD0pcCFcse3godVTQwCw

http://www.realtruth.org/wtc_005_081128.html?s_kwcid=ContentNetwork|
2848602587&gclid=CJ7mmp6E0pcCFcse3godVTQwCw

***This  has been showed on the pages from Colleted Writing posted by  
Google.

Here I copied the pages from Collected writings on which  they give me 
the idea there was another Jesus, not the NazareÃr.
HPB  mentioned that that one was living a century before the NazareÃr 
and was  cruzified on a tree.
The NazareÃr was born 120 years  BC.
Christina

Blavatsky Collected Writings, Volume 6 Page  238

FOOTNOTES TO"UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS OF ÃLIPHAS LÃVI"

[Journal  of The Theosophical Society, Madras, Vol. I, No. 6,
June, 1884, pp.  82-83]

[To her own translation from the original French of Lecture Five  in 
this Series, H. P. B. appends the following two  footnotes:]

According to the statement of Llorente (see American  Encyclopaedia)* 
from 1481 to 1808 there were burnt alive 31,912 persons;  burned in 
effigy 17,659, tortured and imprisoned 291,456. All that in the  name 
of "Jesus Christ" and by the supreme authority of the Pope, who  
appointed the "apostolic" judges of the inquisition. This is not  
"attacking Christianity," but simply stating historic  facts.

ââââââââââ

Ãliphas LÃvi being a Catholic, still cherishes  the idea that the Pope 
of Rome is really the successor of Peter, who was  made Bishop of Rome 
by Jesus Christ. 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. The 
majority of critics show that  the "apostle" Peter never was in Rome,â
and besides it is almost certain  that the real "Jesus" of the 
gospels, whose name was "Jehoshua, the  Nazarene," lived a hundred 
years before the Christian  era.
ââââââââââ
* [H. P. B. has reference to the Encyclopaedia  Americana. Edited by 
Francis Lieber, assisted by E. Wigglesworth.  Philadelphia: Carey, Lea 
& Carey, 1829-33; also 1838,1848,1849.  Article on "Inquisition," p. 
33, where Llorente is referred  to.ââCompiler.]
ââââââââââ

in CW 8 pages THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF  THE GOSPELS

page 189
Sephr Toldoth Jeshu, about Jesus being the son  of one named Pandira, 
and having lived -a century earlier- than the era  called Christian, 
namely, during the reign of the Jewish king Alexander  Jannaeus and 
his wife Salome, who reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C.  Accused by 
the Jews of having learned the magic art in Egypt, and of  having 
stolen from the Holy of Holies the Incommunicable Name, Jehoshua  
(Jesus) was put to death by the Sanhedrin at LÃd. He was stoned and  
then crucified on a tree, on the eve of Passover. The narrative is  
ascribed to the Talmudistic authors of Sotah and Sanhedrin, p. 19,  
Book of Jechiel. See Isis Unveiled, II, 201; Arnobius [Adv. Gentes, 
I,  43]; 24 Ãliphas LÃvi's La Science des Esprits [pp. 23-40], and 
"The  Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ," a lecture by G. Massey.

Having  drawn to Madame Blavatsky's attention that, according to 
certain scholars,  this assertion is erroneous, she answered as 
follows: "I say the scholars  are either lying or talking nonsense. 
Our Masters affirm the statement. If  the story of Jehoshua or Jesus 
Ben-Pandira is false, then the whole  Talmud, the whole Jewish Canon 
is false. He was the disciple of Jehoshua  Ben Perahiah, the fifth 
President of the Sanhedrin after Ezra who re-wrote  the Bible. 
Compromised in the revolt of the Pharisees against Jannaeus in  105 
B.C., he fled into Egypt carrying the young Jesus with him. This  
account is far truer than that of the New Testament which has no  
record in history."
[Reference is here made to the tradition preserved  in the Gemara of 
the Babylonian Talmud, namely in the treatises known as  Sotah (chap. 
ix, 47a) and Sanhedrin (chap. xi, 107b). Consult in this  connection 
H. P. B.'s article, "A Word with the Theosophists" (The  Theosophist, 
Vol. IV, March 1883, pp. 143-145; re-published in Vol. IV, of  the 
present Series); a footnote embodied in the 2nd installment of her  
essay, "The Esoteric Character of the

CW IX Page 204

fondÃe,  ainsi que je l'ai dÃmontrà à diverses reprises dans mes 
Ãcrits et dans mes  notes, sur l'existence d'un personnage nommà 
Jehoshua (dont on a fait  JÃsus), nà à LÃd ou Lydda vers l'an 120 
avant l'Ãre moderne. Et si l'on  contredit ce faitâce à quoi je ne 
m'oppose guÃreâil faudra en prendre son  parti et regarder le hÃros du 
drame du Calvaire comme un mythe pur et  simple. En effet, malgrà 
toutes les recherches dÃsespÃrÃes faites pendant  de longs siÃcles, si 
on laisse de cÃtà le tÃmoignage des ÂEvangÃlistesÂ,  c'est-Ã-dire 
d'hommes inconnus dont l'identità ne fut jamais Ãtablie, et  celle des 
PÃres de l'Ãglise, fanatiques intÃressÃs, ni l'historre, ni la  
tradition profane, ni les documents officiels, ni les contemporains 
du  soidisant drame, n'ont pu fournir une seule preuve sÃrieuse de 
l'existence  rÃelle et historique, non seulement de l'Homme-Dieu mais 
mÃme du nommà  JÃsus de Nazareth, depuis l'an 1 jusqu'à l'annÃe 33. 
Tout est tÃnÃbre et  silence. Philon de JudÃe, nà avant l'Ãre 
chrÃtienne et mort longtemps  aprÃs l'annÃe oÃ, d'aprÃs Renan, 
l'hallucination d'une hystÃrique, Marie  de Magdala, donne un Dieu au 
monde, Philon fit dans cet intervalle de  quarante et quelques annÃes 
plusieurs voyages à JÃrusalem. n y alla pour  Ãcrire l'histoire des 
sectes religieuses de la Palestine à son Ãpoque. Il  n'est pas 
d'Ãcrivain plus correct dans ses recits, plus soucieux de ne  rien 
omettre: aucune communautÃ, aucune fraternitÃ, fÃt-elle la plus  
insignifiante, ne lui Ãchappe. Pourquoi donc ne parle-t-il pas des  
NazarÃens? Pourquoi ne fait-il pas la plus lointaine allusion aux  
ApÃtres, au GalilÃen divin, Ã la Crucification? La rÃponse est 
facile.  Parce que la biographie de JÃsus fut inventÃe aprÃs le 
premier siÃcle et  que personne, à JÃrusalem n'Ãtait plus renseignà 
que Philon sur ce sujet.  On n'a qu'a lire la querelle d'IrÃnÃe avec 
les gnostiques, au IIe siÃcle,  pour s'en assurer. PtolÃmÃe (l'an 180) 
ayant fait remarquer que JÃsus ne  prÃcha qu'un an au dire de la 
lÃgende, et qu'il Ãtait trop jeune pour  avoir pu enseigner quelque 
chose d'important, IrÃnÃe a un bel accÃs  d'indignation et certifie 
que JÃsus prÃcha plus de dix et mÃme de vingt  ans! La tradition 
seule, dit-il, parle de dix ans (lib. II, c.22, pp.4,  5). Ailleurs, 
il fait mourir JÃsus Ãgà de plus de 
Page  205

cinquante ans!! Or, si dÃjà en l'annÃe 180 un pÃre de l'Ãglise a  
recours à la tradition et que personne n'Ãtait sÃr de rien et qu'on 
ne  faisait pas grand cas des Ãvangiles âdes Logia dont il y avait 
plus de  soixante,âqu'a à faire l'histoire dans tout ceci? Confusion, 
mensonges,  fourberies et faux, voilà le bilan des premiers siÃcles. 
EusÃbe de  CÃsarÃe, le roi des falsificateurs, insÃre les fameuses 16 
lignes touchant  JÃsus, dans un manuscrit de JosÃphe, pour donner le 
change aux gnostiques  qui niaient qu'il y eÃt jamais eu un personnage 
rÃel du nom de JÃsus.*  Plus encore: il attribue à JosÃphe, un 
fanatique mort comme il avait vÃcu,  en Juif obstinÃ, la rÃflexion 
qu'il n'est peut-Ãtre pas juste de l'appe]er  (lui, Iasous) un homme 
(), car il Ãtait l'Oint du Seigneur, c'est-Ã-dire  le Messie!! (Voyez 
JosÃphe, Antiq., lib. XVIII, cap. iii, 3.)
Mais à quoi bon perdre son temps à redire des choses que tout homme 
bien Ãlevà  connaÃt. Monsieur l'abbà nous renvoie, à tout moment, aux 
Ãvangiles et à  saint Paul, et, faisant pleuvoir un torrent de 
citations, il demande  triomphalement: ÂEst-ce assez clair? Le Christ 
ne dit-il pas lui-mÃme ceci  et cela, et saint Paul ne nous assure-t-
il pas que. . ., etc., etcÂ.  Inutile de dire que pour que les paroles 
de JÃsus obtiennent quelque  valeur comme preuve, il faut d'abord que 
l'authenticità des Ãvangiles soit  prouvÃe. JÃsus, qu'il ait vÃcu à 
cette Ãpoque ou auparavant, n'a rien  Ãcrit, et ce qu'on lui fait dire 
dans les quatre Ãvangiles est parfois  terriblement contradictoire. 
Quant à Paul, personnage historique  certainement, il serait difficile 
de se retrouver au milieu de ce qu'il  dit lui-mÃme et de ce que ses 
Ãditeurs et correcteurs lui font dire. Il  est restÃcependantâpar 
inadvertance sans douteâune phrase, de lui ou de  ses collaborateurs, 
qui rÃsume en deux mots ce qu'on pensait de JÃsus.  Voyez Ãpitre aux 
HÃbreux, ii, 9;

ââââââââââ
* Ajoutez à cela  qu'il invente le fameux monogramme pour le Labarum 
de Constantin  (combinaison de X, Chi, P, Rho, initiales de Christos 
qu'il applique à  JÃsus) et fabrique la vision de cet empereur. Mais 
Gibbon et d'autres  historiens ont depuis longtemps jugà EusÃbe dont 
on connaÃt la valeur  maintenant.âVoir dans un prochain numÃro du 
Lotus mes notes (No. 3) Ã ce  sujet.
ââââââââââ

Page 206

vous y lirez que JÃsus a Ãtà fait  ÂinfÃrieur aux angesÂ. Cela nous 
suffit. Celui qui est infÃrieur aux anges  peut-il Ãtre Dieu, l'Infini 
et l'Unique?
Oui tout homme, tout Ju-su  (nom d'Horus, Khons, le Fils, type de 
l'homme), tout initià surtout dont  le corps est fait infÃrieur à 
celui des anges, peut, en prÃsence de son  Atman (Esprit divin), dire: 
Vivit vero in me Christus, comme il dirait:  Krishna, Bouddha or 
Ormuzd vit en moi.* AprÃs avoir rÃpÃtà ce que j'avais  dit dans mes 
ÂNotes du Christos ne se dÃveloppant que par le Chrestos,  comme s'il 
disait quelque chose de neuf et venant de lui, Monsieur l'abbà 
s'Ãcrie d'un ton menaÃant que nul n'entrera dans ce corps glorifià  
sinon par la Âvoie critique et la porte ÃtroiteÂ. Pour lui, c'est le  
Nirvana bÃatique, et il continue à prÃcher ce que nous prÃchons 
depuis  douze ans et ce que je disais encore dans mes Notes. Il me 
permettra  d'achever ce qu'il laisse en si beau chemin, ne trouvant 
cette voie que  dans le giron de son Ãglise, de sa foi à lui. 
Malheureusement son angusta  porta, et arcta via ne peuvent 
s'appliquer ni à son Ãglise ni à sa foi.  Dans cette Ãglise oà tout 
s'achÃte, crimes et indulgences, amulettes et  bÃatitude (sur terre, 
du moins; quant au CielâaprÃs moi le DÃluge!), la  voie et la porte 
s'Ãlargissent en proportion des sommes payÃes par le  croyant. ArriÃre 
religion de Judas! C'est à (saint) Pierre que son maÃtre  a dit: VADE 
RETRO SATANAS! La preuve en est dans l'Ãvangile mÃme, disje,  rÃpÃtant 
la phrase coutumiÃre de M. l'abbà Roca.

-âââââââââ
* En  hÃbreu, I'homme, ou AÂsh (:*!) donne par dÃrivation 
cabbalistique cette  autre forme :*, Jesh, en grec et en fran,cais Jes-
us, signifiant en mÃme  temps lefeu, le soleil, là divinità et 
l'homme. Ce mot (voyez-le avec les  points de la massore) Ãtait 
prononcà :!, ish ou Jesh, l'homme dans ce cas.  La forme fÃminine 
Ãtait %:!, Issa, la femme; en Ãgyptien Isi-s, Isis. La  forme 
collatÃrale en Ãtait *:* Jesse, ou Isi, dont le fÃminin en Ãgyptien  
Ãtait Isi-s. Mais Isi est l'Ãquivalente de Jesse, le pÃre de David, 
de  la race de qui vient JÃsus, Jes-us. C'est qu'il faut connaÃtre la 
langue  du MystÃre et du Symbolisme avant de parler avec tant 
d'autoritÃ, et cette  langue l'Eglise l'a perdue.âVoir mes notes (No. 
4) dans un prochain numÃro  du Lotus.
ââââââââââ

CW IX Page 226

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  "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 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 Lord's  
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 Abbà 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 remainsâdoubtless by inadvertenceâ
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.

ââââââââââ
* 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.]
ââââââââââ




[Non-text portions of this  message have been  removed]


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups  Links




**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]