100 BC Jesus?

2003-9-8 00:48:00

Glenys writes:
The following extract from Blavatsky's 'Isis Unveiled' (p342) doesn't support the position taken by the Theosophical Society that Jesus was born 100 years earlier than the biblical Jesus as outlined in your email, JJ.

The plot thickens!


JJ:
Actually, she writes all over the place. It depends on who she is quoting. Most of her writing in the Secret Doctrine and Isis consists of quotes from obscure sources on which she then comments. She often just throws them out for consideration and then seems to take the side of the original writer to see where it takes her. It is said that she had thousands of sources for these two volumes, an almost supernatural amount for that time of limited access. On a side note, she claimed such access because her master brought up to her etheric vision many of these sources she desired.

She was indeed the originator (at least in theosophical circles) of the 100BC theory. Here is a quote from a theosophical writer:

The 100 B.C. theory (the precise date is sometimes given differently) was introduced by H.P. Blavatsky in - "Isis Unveiled" Vol. 2 p. 201. She cites Eliphas Levi "La Science Des Esprits" (Paris, Germer Balliere, 1865, a publisher with offices in London and New York also.) Levi there printed the Jewish accounts. His book has not been translated, but it is in the S.P.R. Library. Although she did not always commit herself to the theory, H.P.B. did endorse it in several places, notably in 1887 in two articles "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" and her response in French to the Abbe Roca's "Esotericism of Christian Dogma". Both are in Collected Writings Vol. 8 - see especially pages, 189, 224, 380-2 and 460-1. Among scholars she cited Gerald Massey in support, but added (p. 380) "Our Masters affirm the Statement."

In 1881, too, K.H. wrote footnotes to some Levi articles, and said of the doctrine of Jesus, both public and private, "But he preached it a century before his birth." (Paradoxes of the Highest Science").

Among later Theosophists, G. de Purucker was firm in support of the theory. His comments in 1934 about the "Real Birth-Date of Jesus" are included in "Studies in Occult Philosophy" (1945) p. 426-8. "The Statement" he noted "is made from our esoteric records; but these esoteric records also are largely based on astronomical and genuinely astrological wisdom." Each Messianic [40] Cycle of about 2160 years had its own Messiah "and the Messiah of the present Messianic Cycle was the power, the influence, working through H.P.B."

Mead (A secretary to H. P. Blavatsky) himself alluded guardedly to these experiments in his book "Did Jesus Live 100 Years B.C.? (T.P.H. 1903) which was a careful account of the Jewish and early [41] Christian material relevant to the question. Speaking of the occult researchers with whom he worked he observes "Now, this handful of friends of mine who are endowed in this special fashion are unanimous in declaring that "Jeschu", the historical Jesus, lived a century before the traditional date." (p. l9) He gives the impression that there were several researchers, but I suspect it was mainly Leadbeater. Mead did not commit himself in the end of the book, and he made no appeal to the authority of the Masters. http://www.theohistory.org/thcovers/thscan103.html

In addition to this, KH in the Mahatma Letters (written by HPB) states: "John the Baptist having never heard of Jesus who is a spiritual abstraction and no living man of that epoch.' (M.L. Sinnett 3rd ed. p. 409)

The only trouble with these KH sources through the Mahatma Letters is that DK stated that most of them were fabricated by H. P. Blavatsky. (That may be one reason Theosophists do not accept AAB) Even so they do affirm that she subscribed to this idea.

You also have to consider that the quote in Isis was from earlier in her life and she probably formulated more concrete ideas later on.

I have a feeling that Alice A. Bailey did receive something on this subject and wrote it in a letter. Whether it will ever show up is hard to say.

John C Quotes me as follows:

There is a book titled The Jesus Conspiracy : The Turin Shroud & The Truth About The Resurrection by Holger Kersten and Elmar R.Gruber, published in 1994. The following is a quote from Part Three, "The Secrets Of Golgotha", which is one of the best and most logical debunkings of the Resurrection that I personally have ever seen.

John:
Do you believe that the Resurrection should be debunked, or are you simply saying that the book makes the best argument for debunking the resurrection that you have personally ever seen?

JJ
I didn't write this and I do not recall quoting it. If you want my views you can go to the archives and I will be writing more in the future.


Half the people you know are below average.
Steven Wright