Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00119)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Smith" <aupanishad@m...> 
wrote:
> I, for one, unequivocally, gave up any belief in a personal,
> or person named, Jesus (Yahshua, etc.) when I finally
> explored the "Old Testament" and gave up on Jehovah as
> the god who created us.

It is quite likely that Jesus existed. A deity he was not, except in 
the sense that you are as well, and he never claimed to be. There 
are deleted passages in the NT which are quoted in ancient documents 
which show this to be true. He contended that ALL of us are God.

There is also no Jehovah. The Jews referred to their tribal deity 
as "Yahweh" and currently he seems to have been renamed Hashem. 
Yahweh was originally a volcano who was worshipped long after it 
became extinct (i,e, dead), a series of events which preceded 
Nietzsche by more than two thousand years.

> So whatever or whoever the myth called Jesus was, he was
> nothing more than another criminal crucified by Rome

Actually, he was the leader or one of the anti Temple sects that 
existed then the purpose of which was to bring down the Temple in 
Jerusalem. He had no chance of bringing down the Roman Empire, but 
the Temple existed because of superstitions and not armed force. 
When his campaign went nowhere, he decided to tempt his deity by 
forcing a confrontation with Temple interests in the mistaken belief 
that he would be saved miraculously and crowned king. When the 
Temple was destroyed by Titus Jesus' followers assumed this was a 
fulfillment of his mission and that Titus was divinely ordained to do 
what he did. That position may have had a political as well as 
theological significance, since the gospel of Mark was written when 
Titus and his father were still alive and enjoyed absolute power. 
Sucking up to them made good sense.

He was also a mystic who taught an extraordinarily esoteric system, 
most of which is in my possession.

> Paul, called "The Apostle," had fevered, guilt?ridden visions
> that created (Roman) Christendom and the "New Testament." 

Actually by his own showing Paul got sick of Judaism because he had a 
problem with the ten commandments, specifically the commandment that 
one not covet his neighbor's wife. Paul, as he tells us himself, was 
an eager adulterer. According to his adversaries he had an affair 
with the wife of his best friend, and married her after the friend 
died, writing later (presumably with a straight face) that no one who 
married a widow would have any place in the kingdom of God. He found 
(but did not found) an antinomian sect in Syria which taught "the law 
of liberty" and joined it, claiming later on that he invented the 
whole thing himself. Modern scholars discount that claim along with 
a lot of his other claims. He did not found the Romish church nor 
was he responsible for most of the NT. His esoteric teaching was 
passed to the priest Valentinus by one Theudas, a direct disciple of 
Paul, and became the basis of Valentinian gnosticism. Valentinus 
moved to Rome in hope of becoming a bishop. Then when someone else 
with more office political skill beat him out, he emigrated to 
Alexandria (Egypt) and taught Paul's secret teachings to anyone 
willing to pay him. It is interesting stuff, but known to only a 
very few to this day, for reasons unknown to this observer. There 
are no decent books on Valentinus, including ISIS. There are also no 
decent books on gnosticism, IMO, or not that I have found. A few of 
us have an excellent idea of Paul's esoteric teaching, though.

Regrettanly, Isis is interesting but not well informed and one will 
not get an accurate idea of what happened from that book.

> Yes! I have for years been an admirer of HPB's breakdown of
> Christianity and Gnosticism in "Isis". One thing she had for
> sure right was that the ONLY original Christians were known as
> "Ebionites" ("the poor").

Yes, that is true. "The Poor" are referred to constantly in the NT, 
and a lot of confusion clears up when one realizes that commands 
to "give to 'The Poor'" or do something else for "The Poor" are not 
commands to help the wretched of Palestine, but commands to support 
Jesus and his followers.

There is one matter that is confusing, though, inasmuch as when Jesus 
departed the scene all sorts of folks turned up claiming to be 
his "relatives." One of these was James the Less, who used his claim 
to be Jesus' brother to get him installed as the first bishop of 
Jerusalem. After James was murdered by the high priest a lot of 
other "relatives" showed up and demanded the right to choose the next 
bishop. By the end of the century the "relatives" were running the 
show. (This was documented by Eusebius, probably based on a lost 
document by Hegesippus.) There are numerous reasons to believe these 
people were just opportunists and not relatives at all. The legend 
that the parents of Jesus were called Mary and Joseph originated with 
these people. If they had been real family members they would not 
have left us contradictory genealogies, contradictory nativity 
stories, etc. Anyway, the Ebionites were taken over by James, who 
was probably an impostor. Paul says Peter broke with them, which 
makes sense, and which casts doubt on their fidelity to the original 
game plan.