Theos-Talk Archives (June 2011 Message tt00098)

Dear John and friends

My views are:

Is there anything else than Edgar Cayce (who was not without errors in his readings) and the mentioned ecplise March 4 AD, which make you think that Jesus (Joshua Pandira) was born that year 4 AD?

Where is the historical evidence for Jesus being born around that time, 4 AD?
H. P. Blavatsky and G.R.S. Mead wrote a lot in oppostion to this, because most historical evidence in reality points to the fact that Jesus was born earliere namely around 120 BC.

The Annals by Tacitus is no valid proof since the earliest record is dated at least more than 800 years if not 1100 years after the claimed birth of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ). And Eusebius of Caesarea was a falsifier of scriptures --- and his passage about Jesus being born at the time of Pontious Pilate is today consider a falsification by many of the best present day scientists on the subject, who have examined the original text. There is not much left of solid evidence - only a Bible concoted under "guidance" by a murderous emperor, year 325 AD (Emperor Konstantin). Whereas the Jews wrote a lot about Joshua Pandira, and pointing at the earliere date I mentioned, and which Blavatsky and Messey mentions, where Blavatsky says that the Master confirms the year to be appr. 120 BC. (See H. P. Blavatsly's Collected Writings, vol. 9, p. 225-6 and  H.P. Blavatsky: Isis Unveiled, Vol II, p.544). G.R.S. Mead (Here: Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? --- http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/jesus_live_100/) And I am told by some, that G.R.S. Mead's book in fact is respected in various scientific circles even until today.
Even Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (the Church Father of the orthodox, d. 403) called Jesus by birth for Pandira or Pandera, which fit in with the Jewish historical papers claim that the one they called Jesus had a grandfather named Pandira, Panthera or Pandera in his surname . (G.R.S. Mead touches upon this in the above mentioned book by him. And Blavatsky also, and perhaps more clearly, in her article: A WORD WITH âZERO.â, page 361, http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v4/y1883_029.htm - See also Mr. Gerald Masseyâs âJesus and the Records of his Time,â in the April Spiritualist, 1878, whom Blavatsky are referring to with regard to Epiphanius)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"This theory of the seven keys, the Church, according to the Abbà Roca, has simplified âwithout disfiguring it,â reducing the keys to three; while, on the contrary, it has fabricated three false keys which do not open anything. The legend of which I speak is founded, as I have demonstrated over and over again in my writings and my notes, on the existence of a personage called Jehoshua (from which Jesus has been made) born at LÃd or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era. And if this fact is deniedâto which I can hardly objectâone must resign oneself to regard the hero of the drama of Calvary as a myth pure and simple. As a matter of fact, in spite of all the desperate research made during long centuries, if we set aside the testimony of the âEvangelists,â i.e., unknown men whose identity has never been established, and that of the Fathers of the Church, interested fanatics, neither history, nor profane tradition, neither official documents, nor the contemporaries of the soi-disant drama, are able to provide one single serious proof of the historical and real existence, not only of the Man-God but even of him called Jesus of Nazareth, from the year 1 to the year 33. All is darkness and silence. Philo Judaeus, born before the Christian Era, and dying quite some time after the year when, according to Renan, the hallucination of a hysterical woman, Mary of Magdala, gave a God to the world, made several journeys to Jerusalem during that interval of forty-odd years. He went there to write the history of the religious sects of his epoch in Palestine. No writer is more correct in his descriptions, more careful to omit nothing; no community, no fraternity, even the most insignificant, escaped him. Why then does he not speak of the Nazarites? Why does he not make the least allusion to the Apostles, to the divine Galilean, to the Crucifixion? The answer is easy. Because the biography of Jesus was invented after the first century, and no one in Jerusalem was better informed on the subject than Philo himself." 
(H. P. Blavatsly's Collected Writings, vol. 9, p. 225-6). 
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_033.htm

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"For me Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, copied from the AvatÃras of every country, from the Hindu Krishna as well as the Egyptian Horus, was never a historical person. He is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples,* and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. The present volumes have been written to small purpose if they have not shown, 1, that Jesus, the Christ-God, is a myth concocted two centuries after the real Hebrew Jesus died; 2, that, therefore, he never had any authority to give Peter, or any one else, plenary power; 3, 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; 4, that the Gospel according to Matthew is a fabrication based upon a wholly different manuscript. The whole thing, therefore, is an imposition alike upon priest and penitent."
(H.P. Blavatsky: Isis Unveiled, Vol II, p.544).
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Isis_Unveiled.htm
(That is: "that Jesus, the Christ-God, is a myth concocted two centuries after the real Hebrew Jesus died")

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Theodoret, as shown elsewhere, describes the Nazarenes as Jews who "honor the Anointed as a just man," and use the evangel called "According to Peter." Jerome finds the authentic and original evangel, written in Hebrew, by Matthew the apostle-publican, in the library collected at CÃsarea, by the martyr Pamphilius. "I received permission from the NazarÃans, who at Beroea of Syria used this (gospel) to translate it," he writes toward the end of the fourth century. * "In the evangel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use," adds Jerome, "which recently I translated from Hebrew into Greek, â and which is called by most persons the genuine Gospel of Matthew," etc. "
.......
"He admits, himself, that the book which he authenticates as being written "by the hand of Matthew"; a book which, notwithstanding that 
(H.P. Blavatsky: Isis Unveiled, Vol II, p.181-182 - see also p. 190).
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Isis_Unveiled.htm
(And Sct. Jerome was the one who was the main force, who collected the 4 Biblical Gospels in the versions we know them to today, only with a few minor change through the many centuries since Sct. Jerome died about 420 AD. - And this truly raises the question - whether there were three Wise men, who say a Star or not - year 4 AD or another year. - Because no other gospel than that of Matthew mentions these wise men - and that aught to raise som eyebrows - when one claim that this star has importance to the birth of Jesus. )


And also to consider is the following:
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! (See also The Origins of Christianity by David Pratt ---  http://davidpratt.info/christian.htm )


How do you clairify these views and historical claims or falsifications on the last quote?

All in all I find the claim about Jesus being born around 4 AD to be somthing, which aught to be disputed because of the lack of historical evidence, and because the real historical evidence points to a much earliere date of his birth.

Now it took some time to write all this.
But I do hope that some of you will find it useful.



M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John W 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:53 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk H. P. Blavatsky commited many erros and mistakes? --- also in the Secret Doctrine?


    
  Actually, according to Edgar Cayce, and as I have been able to corroborate from other spiritual sources and confirm from the writings of Josephus and by astronomical and astrological means (particularly Josephus' mentioning a lunar eclipse visible at Jerusalem at the time King Herod died), He was born on 19th March 4 AD (not BC) at Bethlehem, Roman Palestine, most probably at about 10.40 p.m. local time with Neptune on the Ascendant. This was only hours before the vernal equinox of that year, which was about the era that the Sun at the position of the vernal equinox was opposite Arcturus, as the result of precession of the equinoxes; His Sun is now at about 24Â Aries, taking into account precession.

  This does not give a "grand hexagon" (Seal of Solomon) horoscope (which would involve Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, also aspecting the star Arcturus), because of the karma of His "fall" (through black magic, particularly resulting in a badly afflicted Pluto) as the first Adam (of five Adams) in Atlantis around 200,000 years ago, which he had to meet and overcome by way of his Crucifixion and Resurrection. However, he did have such an horoscope in his "perfection" (according to Cayce) incarnations as the fifth and last Adam in the Caucasus (just over 6,000 years ago), and as Enoch.

  John W.

  --- On Fri, 17/6/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@YVY4ZCAO0oIi5G1W1cfKCIm0Nv2BxviDV1_zmrAGrfi0G12FWpqBtPto6gQDiM7EBA-t2bsfQli9G2ntazhLwwYbZqRVjA.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
  From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@YVY4ZCAO0oIi5G1W1cfKCIm0Nv2BxviDV1_zmrAGrfi0G12FWpqBtPto6gQDiM7EBA-t2bsfQli9G2ntazhLwwYbZqRVjA.yahoo.invalid>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk H. P. Blavatsky commited many erros and mistakes? --- also in the Secret Doctrine?
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Friday, 17, June, 2011, 10:27 PM

   

  Dear John and raders

  My views are:

  Okay.

  I will do my best to seek to help us all out about the claim on whether Blavatsky was in error in her words given in THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS (p. 174 fn)

  http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v8/y1887_030.htm

  Now, I am doing my best, no matter if you call my emails silly.

  I do it so to if possible help us all out.

  (cut)

  This is in agreement with your view stated in the post.

  But why rely on someone who think that Jesus was born as Christ year 5 BC. and even in Bethlehem?

  http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/chrono.htg/chrono.htm

  Seal of Solomon Birth Chart of Christ 

  "The chart above is for Friday February 18th 5 BC (Bethlehem, Judea or Giza Plateau)."

  http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/christpi.htg/christpi.htm

   

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



  

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