THEOSOPHY, Vol. 83, No. 1, November, 1994
(Pages 18-21; Size: 10K)
FROM "REPLY TO THE MISTAKEN
CONCEPTIONS OF THE ABBÉ ROCA ..."(1)
LET THE ABBÉ demolish the proofs we offer against the existence of a carnalized Christ, hence Christ-Man, whether called Jesus or Krishna; let him demonstrate that there has never been any other incarnated God than his "Jesus-Christ," and that this one is the "only" as well as the "greatest" of the Masters and Doctors -- not only the greatest of the Mahâtmans but God in person! Very good; then let him give us proofs, irrefutable or at least as logical and evident as those advanced by us. But he must not come offering as proof the voice which speaks in his soul, or quotations drawn from the Gospels. Because his voice -- were it even the twin-sister of that of the daïmôn of Socrates -- has no more value in the discussion, for us or for the public, than has for him or for any other person, the voice which tells me to the contrary in my soul.
Judge for yourself. I write in every letter that a divine Christ (or Christos) has never existed under a human form outside the imagination of blasphemers who have carnalized a universal and entirely impersonal principle.
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.
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 ... 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.
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 soidisant 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. 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. 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.
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. Can one who is inferior to the angels be God, the Infinite and the Only?
Indeed, every man, every Ju-su (name of Horus, Khonsu, the Son, the type of humanity), above all, every initiate whose body is made inferior to that of the angels, can say, in the presence of his Âtman (Divine Spirit): Vivit vero in me Christus, as he would say: Krishna, Buddha, or Ormuzd lives in me.
I have the most profound respect for the transcendental idea of the universal Christos (or Christ) which lives in the soul of the Bushman and the savage Zulu, as well as in that of the Abbé Roca, but I have the keenest aversion for the Christolatry of the Churches. I hate those dogmas and doctrines which have degraded the ideal Christos by making of it an absurd and grotesque anthropomorphic fetish, a jealous and cruel idol which damns for eternity those who decline to bow down before it. The least of the Gnostic Docetae who claimed that Jesus crucified was nothing but an illusion, and his story an allegory, was much nearer the truth than a "saint" Augustin or even an "Angel of the Schools."
FROM "THEOSOPHICAL STUDY AND WORK"
Back to the complete list of the
GROUPING OF HUNDREDS OF "COLLATED ARTICLES"
Back to the full listing containing all of the
"Additional Categories of Articles".
ONE (1) FOOTNOTE LISTED BELOW:
(1) NOTE--These are selections taken from an article by H. P. Blavatsky, originally published in the French journal Le Lotus, Paris, April, 1888. It is one of a series of essays and replies written by H.P.B. and Abbé Roca on Christian Esotericism. Reprinted in H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, Vol. IX, 1962.
Back to text.