The Historical Jesus

[Bruce Michael]

Hi All,

There is little historical evidence. There are eyewitness accounts however, passed down by word of mouth.

There is more evidence for Apollonius of Tyana, for instance.



Regarding your Apollos, Dionysos et al: Rudolf Steiner goes into detail as to who these were: aspects of the pre-earthly Christ.

Though we can speak of "Christ in us" Christ Himself is more of an Individuality than we ourselves are.

Christ Jesus did not claim to be perfect. Father God the Absolute is Perfect.

Here is a link to Massey's lectures:

These lectures by Massey are very good. However he was a scholar not an not initiate. He is correct to distance Jeshu Ben Pandira from Jesus of Nazareth.


Massey states that Celsus observed that Christ was not a pure Word, not a true Logos, but a man who had learned the arts of sorcery in Egypt. But we have our own Para-Celsus who taught the opposite.


Massey says:

"other than Ben-Pandira, the Nazarene, of whom James was a follower, according to a comment on him found in the Book Abodazura"

Very interesting considering what we know about James! Rudolf Steiner stated that there would be three main ways that folk would view Jesus Christ:

1. The simple man- a teacher. Suitable for a materialistic age.
2. A myth. The Gospels are to be treated as a story of the soul and the history of such is not important at all- Anna Kingsford was one of these; and I think Massey was a follower of her's. An example of this is how the Gospel of Mark can be shown to be a story of the progression of the Sun through the Zodiac for three years. The Christ Story is undoubtedly written in every human soul.
3. As written in the Gospel of John: that the Creative Word was made flesh.

With #3 we are made aware of a special deed which will echo into the future. It may sound quite absurd. As Tertullian put it "credo quia absurdum est" I believe because it is absurd. (or did he?)

"by pointing briefly to Tertullian's treatise On the Flesh of Christ. The treatise itself is an attempt to insist against all comers that the Son of God assumed flesh that was truly human, hence neither phantasmic nor of some non-earthly origin. But the work interests us here especially because in it
is found the statement by which Tertullian has been chiefly, and indeed widely, known in the West. The statement is usually quoted as, 'I believe because it is absurd' (credo quia absurdum est). The statement has been used by Christians to justify the irrationality of belief, and by non-Christians
to ridicule the same. In fact the statement thus cited is a misquotation, and being misquoted, Tertullian's words are inevitably misunderstood.

Tertullian in fact said, credo quia ineptum est, 'I believe because the story does not fit.' Tertullian most probably meant that belief in the Incarnation of God in Jesus is justified, not because the belief is irrational, but, quite the contrary, because the belief can be based on a fundamental principle of rational conjecture, namely, that the story of the Incarnation is so far outside our human experience that no one is likely to have made it up. Its very improbability becomes the compelling reason to believe! "
​

If we believe the truth prospers, if we believe that the human soul has attraction for the truth, then we can earnestly set about focusing our attention on it.

As the Brothers put it:

"Should a man consciously pronounce "I shall go into the inquiry, based on the concept that the world is truly flat", then eventually, with dedicated pursuit of such an assumption, the truth of that matter will be revealed. The aspects that
involve such an inquiry, with careful observation, shall also be digested. So long as there is an active interest, an intent, an earnest and a conscious starting-point."

"If the statement had referred to the world and its roundness, the perception of the world and the inquiry to follow, should also lead to staggering truths. However these two examples may be difficult to follow through with, with fervour."

"Let us say then for example, a man might base his world inquiry and dedication to living by the example set before us of our Lord, Christ. This study and dedication, which has assumed value, is now central to the life and perspectives of that soul which has consciously held that all else shall be to reveal this higher knowledge of our Lord. If in earnest, even the morning bread shall now speak to that man.........."

"Questions must be asked continually; and before one can be stimulated and motivated in keen interest and awareness, one must adopt an earnest dedication, which can be the basis and foci point for such questions to attract themselves to. This involves a conscious decree which shall stream forth from the individual, out into the course of his life and into its connections, reaching the appropriate questions, bringing home the wonderfully profound explanations."

So may we pursue our studies with dedication and fervour.


-Br.Bruce

 

[taijasi]

On this issue, I cannot more heartily recommend a reading of the short editorial article entitled Jesus in Theosophical History, found online here, from the July 1985 issue of Theosophical History.

This article gives a good overview of the ideas involved, including several varying Theosophical positions and the reasons for them ... and also mentions Rudolf Steiner's clairvoyance as contrasted with C.W. Leadbeater's, as well as the position advocated by Alice Bailey, who emphasized the symbolic value of what Jesus taught above & beyond any fixation on dates.

It should be pointed out that the Anthroposophical position is that Christ and the Bodhisattva - as you have mentioned before, Bruce - are not one and the same figure, such that the occult Bodhisattva is accepted Anthroposophically as being identical with Jeschu ben Pandira ... yet not at all the "Christ Jesus" of conventional, or even esoteric, Christianity!

Not as a Theosophist, but simply based upon my own findings and intuitions as a student of the Wisdom, I believe Rudolf Steiner's teachings to be in error in this regard. Ultimately, no, the dates may not matter ... but of one thing I am quite confident: the Christ is the Bodhisattva, as these are but two varying terminologies, one Western, one Eastern, for the same exact spiritual Office ... and whatever the year, it was Jesus of Nazareth (be he Jeschu ben Pandira or otherwise), a high Initiate, through whom the Christ (Bodhisattva) has already come to us.

I am inclined, for several reasons, to say that the Jesus in question was born about 105BC, probably dying due to stoning in about 70BC, and I think the Dead Sea Scrolls will eventually show incontrovertibly that this is the case. The connections, for me, are too many, the likelihood too great, that we are off by 100 years ... but this is really all a complete tangent, when the real issue is what was the signficance then, and now, of the appearance and teaching(s) of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

As long as we are continuing to ask this question ... I feel certain we are on the right track.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

 

[Bruce Michael]

Yes Bro Andrew,
>On this issue, I cannot more heartily recommend a reading of the short >editorial article entitled Jesus in Theosophical History, found online here, >from the July 1985 issue of Theosophical History.

In that article you'll find the line that biblical scholars have not identifed Jesus of Nazareth with Jeshcu Ben Pandira.

We can date the characters such as Herod the Great and Herod Antipas.


Ben Pandira was stoned to death, in the city of Lud, or Lydda,

He lived in the time King Alexander Jannæus (he was born in the fourth year of his reign) who reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. Apart for the chronology the number of disciples is also different.


>It should be pointed out that the Anthroposophical position is that Christ >and the Bodhisattva - as you have mentioned before, Bruce - are not >one and the same figure, such that the occult Bodhisattva is accepted Anthroposophically as being identical with Jeschu ben Pandira ... yet not at >all the "Christ Jesus" of conventional, or even esoteric, Christianity!

Ben Pandira was viewed by Steiner as being guarded, or overshadowed by the Bodhisattva. These things are discussed in his Gospel of Matthew lectures.


>what was the signficance then, and now, of the appearance and >teaching(s) of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

I stand with traditional Christianity in that I see the Deed as more important than the teachings. You can find similar teachings by earlier teachers.

In Christ,
Br.Bruce