Dismantling the Christian Edifice

The hold of Christianity over the Western world was largely gained in the first place through force, fear, and fraud.

It was a tragedy for the West that it was Christianised and – as William Quan Judge puts it on p. 124 of “The Ocean of Theosophy” – “On the coming of the Christian era a heavy pall of darkness fell on the minds of men in the West.”

He refers to it as “the mental night of Europe” and this “mental night” wasn’t actually fully dispelled until the 20th century when the actual facts about the utterly untrustworthy, unreliable, and downright erroneous and misleading nature of the scripture, theology, and background of the Christian religion were proven and exposed beyond any degree of argument.

Although many Christians like to imply that the dawning of the Christian era was the beginning of a “period of light” for humanity, the facts of the matter show otherwise. It was the enforcement of ignorance and often the massacre and murder of all who dared stand in the way of the progress and supremacy of the Church. Far from being the beginning of a period of light for humanity it was the beginning of centuries of darkness, particularly for those nations of the world which had the misfortune of becoming Christianised.

Now let us consider the following…

For Christians to describe their God as infinite is a contradiction in terms. They say that their God is a “personal God,” yet a personal God must of necessity be a finite God because if something is “infinite,” it can have nothing finite about itself whatsoever. Unless Christians believe that they are entitled to give entirely different meanings and implications to words which we all use, they must admit that the “Infinite” has to be entirely unconditioned, not-finite, undifferentiated, omnipresent, absolute, immutable, undefinable, indescribable, and impersonal.

“But we do believe and teach that God is omnipresent,” they say.

The word “omnipresent” literally means “present absolutely everywhere.” If there is something which is present absolutely everywhere, then there can be nothing in existence apart from THAT. If this is so, then God is all and in all, which is exactly what Hinduism teaches, as does Theosophy, although the latter tends to refrain from using the term “God” because of the likelihood of it misleading people.

But if God is not all and in all, then God is not omnipresent. And if “God” is not omnipresent then “He” is severely limited and therefore not worthy of being called “God” at all, let alone being indicated as Divine. Christian theology says that unless a person follows their prescribed formula for salvation, they are separated and cut off from God and headed for an eternity in hell. The very fact that Christians perceive a pervasive duality and separateness amongst humanity – between the “children of God” (Christians) and the “children of the devil” (all non-Christians) – shows that they do not believe in the divine omnipresence at all. Theirs is a dualistic, separate, separative, separating God which is the very antithesis of that which is “Infinite.”

However, in the Gospels, Jesus is presented as saying to a huge crowd of people from all walks of life and all types of backgrounds, “The Kingdom of God is within you,” and “You are gods and all of you are the children of the Most High.” None of these people could have been Christians, seeing as Christianity didn’t come about until after the death of Jesus. None of them had been “redeemed by the blood of Christ” yet Jesus tells them that they are all divine and that they are all the children of God. This is one of the innumerable contradictions and discrepancies which Christians try to avoid facing and dealing with.

“Every student of the Bible must be aware that the first and second chapters of Genesis could not have proceeded from the same pen. They are evidently allegories and parables; for the two narratives of the creation and peopling of our earth diametrically contradict each other in nearly every particular of order, time, place, and methods employed in the so-called creation. In accepting the narratives literally, and as a whole, we lower the dignity of the unknown Deity. We drag him down to the level of humanity, and endow him with the peculiar personality of man, who needs the “cool of the day” to refresh him; who rests from his labors; and is capable of anger, revenge, and even of using precautions against man, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life.” (A tacit admission, by the way, on the part of the Deity, that man could do it, if not prevented by sheer force.).”

“Who but the authors of the “Pentateuch” could have invented a Supreme God or his angel so thoroughly human as to require a smear of blood upon the door-post to prevent his killing one person for another! For gross materialism this exceeds any theistical conception that we have noticed in Pagan literature.”

“The theology of Christendom has been rubbed threadbare by the most serious minds of the day. It is found to be, on the whole, subversive, rather than promotive of spirituality and good morals. Instead of expounding the rules of divine law and justice, it teaches but itself. In place of an ever-living Deity, it preaches the Evil One, and makes him indistinguishable from God Himself! “Lead us not into temptation” is the aspiration of Christians. Who, then, is the tempter? Satan? No; the prayer is not addressed to him. It is that tutelar genius who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, put an evil spirit into Saul, sent lying messengers to the prophets, and tempted David to sin; it is – the Bible-God of Israel!”

– H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 1, p. 575, Vol. 2, p. 454, 639

The first Christians and the later theological distortions…

As Madame Blavatsky and others have shown, the first Christians were undoubtedly the Ebionites and they were Gnostics who followed the Essene-based teachings of the older Nazarene sect, to which Jesus had belonged during his lifetime. The sect of the Nazarenes existed long before Jesus was born and he belonged to them during his lifetime. The oldest texts show that Jesus wasn’t actually known as “Jesus of Nazareth” but as “Jesus the Nazarene,” referring to his belonging to the Nazarenes, which the Apostle Paul later belonged to, hence his being called “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” in the book of Acts.

All the relatives of Jesus belonged to the Ebionites following his death and it is a proven fact that neither the Ebionites nor any other Christian group for the first few centuries of Christianity believed Jesus to have been divine or to have been “God incarnate.”

The Ebionites had but one scriptural text, namely the Gospel of Matthew, the original version written in Hebrew, which is known to have been entirely different from the so-called “Gospel of Matthew” which exists in the Christian New Testament today. The Gospel of Matthew which we have today is – in its initial Greek form – largely the product of Saint Jerome in the 4th century A.D. but has also been edited and altered on numerous occasions since then, as has the entire New Testament.

The Ebionites, which included Jesus’ own friends and family, rejected all other Gospels and scriptures than their Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as being false (this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was a highly esoteric text which only a relatively small number of people could comprehend at all, as they had to be initiated into the understanding of it) and maintained that Jesus was neither a Saviour, nor a Redeemer, nor the “Only Son of God” but simply “a good and righteous man only” who they believed taught an important message.

“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 succession 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.”

“Is the language of the Old Testament more pure or moral than the books of the Brahmins? Or any fables of the heathen world more blasphemous and ridiculous than Jehovah’s interview with Moses (Exodus xxxiii. 23)? Are any of the Pagan gods made to appear more fiendish than the same Jehovah in a score of passages? If the feelings of a pious Christian are shocked at the absurdities of Father Kronos eating his children and maiming Uranos; or of Jupiter throwing Vulcan down from heaven and breaking his leg; on the other hand he cannot feel hurt if a non-Christian laughs at the idea of Jacob boxing with the Creator, who “when he saw that he prevailed not against him,” dislocated Jacob’s thigh, the patriarch still holding fast to God and not allowing Him to go His way, notwithstanding His pleading.

“Why should the story of Deukalion and Pyrrha, throwing stones behind them, and thus creating the human race, be deemed more ridiculous than that of Lot’s wife being changed into a pillar of salt, or of the Almighty creating men of clay and then breathing the breath of life into them? The choice between the latter mode of creation and that of the Egyptian ram-horned god fabricating man on a potter’s wheel is hardly perceptible. The story of Minerva, goddess of wisdom, ushered into existence after a certain period of gestation in her father’s brain, is at least suggestive and poetical, as an allegory. No ancient Greek was ever burned for not accepting it literally; and, at all events, “heathen” fables in general are far less preposterous and blasphemous than those imposed upon Christians.”

“The Gospels being “Divine revelation,” doubtless Christians will regard their testimony as conclusive. Do they affirm that Jesus gave himself as a voluntary sacrifice? On the contrary, there is not a word to sustain the idea. They make it clear that he would rather have lived to continue what he considered his mission, and that he died because he could not help it, and only when betrayed. Before, when threatened with violence, he had made himself invisible by employing the mesmeric power over the bystanders, claimed by every Eastern adept, and escaped. When, finally, he saw that his time had come, he succumbed to the inevitable. But see him in the garden, on the Mount of Olives, writhing in agony until “his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood,” praying with fervid supplication that the cup might be removed from him; exhausted by his struggle to such a degree that an angel from heaven had to come and strengthen him; and say if the picture is that of a self-immolating hostage and martyr. To crown all, and leave no lingering doubt in our minds, we have his own despairing words, “NOT MY WILL, but thine, be done!” (Luke xxii. 42, 43).”

– H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 544, 429-430, 545

Another interesting consideration – this time in regard to early Christian art – is that the very first images of Jesus, which themselves didn’t appear until at least 200 years after his death as the original Christians were strongly against the idea of portraying him, all showed him as clean shaven and holding or using a magic wand to perform his miracles. The later images of the bearded Jesus were based on Greek artwork of Zeus, as an attempt by the Christian Church to attract the pagan masses to the new religion.

After the scheming bishops and theologians had liberally adopted countless aspects, symbols, and allegories from other religions, they then proceeded to condemn all the others as demonic and evil, began to rigorously persecute them all, and flatly denied there being any similarity whatsoever between them.

“Jesus taught the world nothing that had not been taught as earnestly before by other masters. He begins his sermon [on the Mount] with certain purely Buddhistic precepts that had found acceptance among the Essenes, and were generally practiced by the Orphikoi, and the Neo-platonists. There were the Philhellenes, who, like Apollonius, had devoted their lives to moral and physical purity, and who practiced asceticism. He tries to imbue the hearts of his audience with a scorn for worldly wealth; a fakir-like unconcern for the morrow; love for humanity, poverty, and chastity. He blesses the poor in spirit, the meek, the hungering and the thirsting after righteousness, the merciful and the peace-makers, and, Buddha-like, leaves but a poor chance for the proud castes to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Every word of his sermon is an echo of the essential principles of monastic Buddhism.”

“When they find that – 1, all his [i.e. Jesus’] sayings are in a Pythagorean spirit, when not verbatim repetitions; 2, his code of ethics is purely Buddhistic; 3, his mode of action and walk in life, Essenean; and 4, his mystical mode of expression, his parables, and his ways, those of an initiate, whether Grecian, Chaldean, or Magian (for the “Perfect,” who spoke the hidden wisdom, were of the same school of archaic learning the world over), it is difficult to escape from the logical conclusion that he belonged to that same body of initiates. It is a poor compliment paid to the Supreme, this forcing upon Him four gospels, in which, contradictory as they often are, there is not a single narrative, sentence, or peculiar expression, whose parallel may not be found in some older doctrine or philosophy. Surely, the Almighty – were it but to spare future generations their present perplexity – might have brought down with Him, at His first and only incarnation on earth, something original – something that would trace a distinct line of demarcation between Himself and the score or so of incarnate Pagan gods, who had been born of virgins, had all been saviours, and were either killed, or otherwise sacrificed themselves for humanity.”

– H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 552-553, 337

It may be asked in what way Theosophy views Jesus. First of all, Theosophy maintains that the Jesus of popular Christianity never existed.

For one thing, if this were not the case then why is it that of all the writers, philosophers, historians, and commentators who lived at the time Jesus was supposedly doing all those many wondrous things in such wonderful ways before enthusiastic and increasing crowds of many thousands all over Palestine, none of them ever mentioned him in any way or even seem to have known or heard of him?

As HPB wrote, “How little Jesus had impressed his personality upon his own century, is calculated to astound the inquirer. Renan shows that Philo, who died toward the year 50, and who was born many years earlier than Jesus, living all the while in Palestine while the “glad tidings” were being preached all over the country, according to the Gospels, had never heard of him! Josephus, the historian, who was born three or four years after the death of Jesus, mentions his execution in a short sentence, and even those few words were altered “by a Christian hand,” says the author of the Life of Jesus. … For nearly four centuries, the great historians nearly contemporary with Jesus had not taken the slightest notice either of his life or death. Christians wondered at such an unaccountable omission of what the Church considered the greatest events in the world’s history. Eusebius saved the battle of the day.” (“Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 335, 328)

This last sentence is in reference to the historian Josephus’ apparent reference to and glorification of Jesus. This is still used and referred to by some Christians today as proof of the reality and legitimacy of the Jesus preached by their Church and theology. But the fact is that this praise of the supposed “Saviour” was not in Josephus’ original works and only began to appear in the editions that followed his death. It was in fact Eusebius, one of the Church Fathers, who had the passage in question fraudulently interpolated into the text, in order to give credence to the claims of Christianity and to help the Christian cause.

“It will not be amiss to remind the reader that it is the same Eusebius who is charged with the interpolation of the famous paragraph concerning Jesus, which was so miraculously found, in his time, in the writings of Josephus, the sentence in question having till that time remained perfectly unknown.” (H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 327-328)

In her lengthy dialogue with the Abbe Roca, a French Canon of the Roman Catholic Church, HPB wrote the following:

“Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, copied from the Avatars 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. It is interpreted by the help of the seven keys, similarly to the Pentateuch. … 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 Lud 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 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 that 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 (Contra Haereses, lib. II, cap. 22, para. 4-5). 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 Casearea, 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. Still more: he attributed to Josephus, a fanatic who died as he had lived, a stubborn Jew, the reflection that it is perhaps not correct to call him (Iasous) a man, because he was the Lord’s Anointed, i.e., the Messiah!!” (See “Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 83-85)

Irenaeus, mentioned above, was one of the chief culprits responsible for the gigantic fraud which is known today as the Christian Church and the theology of the Christian religion or, as HPB puts it, “that stupendous compound of unintelligible dogmas enforced by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, which is now termed Christianity. … In the modern Jesus of the Christian Church, we find the ideal of the imaginative Irenaeus, not the adept of the Essenes, the obscure reformer from Galilee. … Irenaeus … set himself to invent a new religion, drawn from the depths of his imagination. … It is but the inveterate desire of the latter to connect Jesus in every possible way, even in the Haeresies, with the Highest God, that led him into so many falsifications. … The blunders of the Old Testament are as nothing to those of the gospels. Nothing shows better than these self-evident contradictions the system of pious fraud upon which the superstructure of the Messiahship rests. … The New Testament is noted for its mistranslations and transparent falsifications of texts. … Twitted and cornered at every step by his not less acute and learned adversaries, the Gnostics, he [i.e. Irenaeus] boldly shields himself behind blind faith, and in answer to their merciless logic falls upon imaginary tradition invented by himself. Reber wittily remarks: “As we read his misapplications of words and sentences, we would conclude that he was a lunatic if we did not know that he was something else.” (“Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 123, 33-34, 24, 177, 133, 326)

But back to the question of what Theosophy has to say about Jesus.

As stated above by HPB, the Christian myth or legend about Jesus is based “on the existence of a personage called Jehoshua (from which Jesus has been made) born at Lud or Lydda about 120 years before the modern era.” This was Yeshua ben Pandira, who is mentioned in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu scripture of Judaism.

“All the commentators have agreed that a literal massacre of young children is nowhere mentioned in history; and that, moreover, an occurrence like that would have made such a bloody page in Roman annals that the record of it would have been preserved for us by every author of the day. Herod himself was subject to the Roman law; and undoubtedly he would have paid the penalty of such a monstrous crime, with his own life. But if, on the one hand, we have not the slightest trace of this fable in history, on the other, we find in the official complaints of the Synagogue abundant evidence of the persecution of the initiates. The Talmud also corroborates it.

“The Jewish version of the birth of Jesus is recorded in the Sepher-Toldos Jeshu in the following words:

“Mary having become the mother of a Son, named Jehosuah, and the boy growing up, she entrusted him to the care of the Rabbi Elhanan, and the child progressed in knowledge, for he was well gifted with spirit and understanding.

“Rabbi Jehosuah, son of Perachiah, continued the education of Jehosuah (Jesus) after Elhanan, and initiated him in the secret knowledge”; but the King, Janneus, having given orders to slay all the initiates, Jehosuah Ben Perachiah, fled to Alexandria, in Egypt, taking the boy with him.

“While in Alexandria, continues the story, they were received in the house of a rich and learned lady (personified Egypt). Young Jesus found her beautiful, notwithstanding “a defect in her eyes,” and declared so to his master. Upon hearing this, the latter became so angry that his pupil should find in the land of bondage anything good, that “he cursed him and drove the young man from his presence.” Then follow a series of adventures told in allegorical language, which show that Jesus supplemented his initiation in the Jewish Kabala with an additional acquisition of the secret wisdom of Egypt. When the persecution ceased, they both returned to Judea.”

– H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 200-201

In the second of her series of three articles titled “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels,” HPB says, “Reference is made here to the Rabbinical tradition in the Babylonian Gemara, called Sepher Toldos Jeshu, about Jesus being the son of one named Pandira, and having lived a century earlier than the era called Christian, namely, during the reign of the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus and his wife Salome, who reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. Accused by the Jews of having learned the magic art in Egypt, and of having stolen from the Holy of Holies the Incommunicable Name, Jehoshua (Jesus) was put to death by the Sanhedrin at Lud. He was stoned and then crucified on a tree, on the eve of Passover.”

She doesn’t say that the assertions of this tradition are necessarily entirely accurate in every single respect but, when informed that certain scholars consider it erroneous to say that Jesus or the spiritual Teacher on whom “Jesus” is based lived “a century earlier” than is commonly believed, she responded by maintaining “I say the scholars are either lying or talking nonsense. Our Masters affirm the statement. If the story of Jehoshua or Jesus Ben-Pandira is false, then the whole Talmud, the whole Jewish Canon is false. He was the disciple of Jehoshua Ben Perahiah, the fifth President of the Sanhedrin after Ezra who re-wrote the Bible. Compromised in the revolt of the Pharisees against Jannaeus in 105 B.C., he (Jehoshua Ben Parahiah) fled into Egypt carrying the young Jesus with him. This account is far truer than that of the New Testament which has no record in history.” (“Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 47)

According to Theosophy, a spiritual Teacher did exist in that part of the world sometime around that time, some of whose teachings and activities bore some similarities to those later described in the Christian Gospels (which, let us remember, are categorically proven to have not been written in anything resembling their present form and content until at least 300 A.D. at the very earliest and thus not by the four Apostles at all!) and that the Jesus of the Christian Church is largely just a fictitious, fantastical, and distorted copy of this actual individual, who may indeed have been named Jehoshua or Yeshua.

It is this Teacher of whom HPB wrote that “Jesus the initiate (or Jehoshua) – the type from whom the “historical” Jesus was copied – was not of pure Jewish blood,” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 577-578) and “The personage (Jesus) so addressed – whenever he lived – was a great Initiate and a “Son of God”.” (“The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” Part II)

What was the real mission of Jesus?

However, as shown, the teachings of Theosophy emphasise the fact that “Jesus taught the world nothing that had not been taught as earnestly before by other Masters,” and maintain that in reality his life, mission, and work were of very little importance or consequence to the world at large. And if that statement should inadvertently cause offence to some, we have only to turn to the purported words of Jesus himself in the Gospels to see that he believed and taught that he was to be a Saviour only to the Israelites and not to the other races and peoples of the world.

“I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” he is recorded as saying in Matthew 15:24. There are also numerous instances related in the Gospels where Gentiles (meaning non-Jewish people) approached Jesus to be healed, only for him to inform them that “I was not sent to the Gentiles but to the children of Israel. Is it right to take the children’s bread and give it to dogs?” The Gospels relate that he did often eventually consent to heal such individuals but only because of their relentlessness and refusal to leave him in peace until they had received the blessing they sought for.

“Now, as I do not believe in the revelation of the contents of the two Testaments and as, for me, the Mosaic and Apostolic “Scriptures” are not more Holy than a novel of Zola’s, and as the Vedas and the Tripitakas have far more value in my sight, I do not see how I could be accused of “blasphemy” against the Holy Ghost. … Raca are those who accept the divagations of the “Fathers of the Church” to the “Councils” as the direct inspiration of that Holy Ghost. History shows us those famous Fathers killing each other at their assemblies, fighting an quarrelling among themselves like street porters, intriguing and covering with opprobrium the name of Humanity. The Pagans blushed to see it. Every new convert who had permitted himself to be entrapped, but who had retained his dignity and a grain of good sense, returned, like the Emperor Julian, to his old gods. … I know my history too well, and rather better than you know your Zohar, Monsieur l’Abbe.”

“The Churches, which style themselves Christian, are nothing but whited sepulchres filled with the dead bones of esoteric paganism and moral putrefaction. So I prefer by far to remain the humblest of esoteric Buddhists than the greatest of orthodox and exoteric Christians. 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 Abbe 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.” A pagan living a simple and patriarchal life, loving his neighbour and doing his duty, is a thousand times nearer the angusta porta, et arcta via than was ever a (saint) Cyril, the ferocious murderer of Hypatia, or a (saint) Constantine, probably beatified because he killed his son with his own hands, boiled monks in pitch, disemboweled his wife, and made himself as miserably famous as Nero.”

– H.P. Blavatsky to the Abbe Roca, “Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 118, 87-88

The Christian religion – including its God, its Saviour, its Bible, and its doctrines – is largely built upon centuries and centuries of lies, treachery, ignorance, and corruption. H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Movement, had no qualms about describing Christianity as the most arrogant, ignorant, and impudent of all the world’s religions. It is also the one which stands on the shakiest and most dangerous ground when it comes to the investigation of facts, history, theology, and proofs – for in the 21st century blind fanatical faith and wilful ignorance will not and CANNOT prevail against evidence and hard fact.

It could also be described as the most unphilosophical, unscientific, illogical, and hypocritical of religions, not to mention the one which has caused and instigated the most violence, destruction, and bloodshed in the world. It is “a parasitic growth” and it is “suicidal” for any country to adopt it as the national religion (“Five Messages from H.P. Blavatsky to the American Theosophists” p. 11).

On p. 53-54 of the second volume of “Isis Unveiled,” we may read that “There has never been a religion in the annals of the world with such a bloody record as Christianity. All the rest, including the traditional fierce fights of the “chosen people” with their next of kin, the idolatrous tribes of Israel, pale before the murderous fanaticism of the alleged followers of Christ! Even the rapid spread of Mahometanism [i.e. Mohammedanism] before the conquering sword of the Islam prophet, is a direct consequence of the bloody riots and fights among Christians. It was the intestine war between the Nestorians and Cyrilians that engendered Islamism; and it is in the convent of Bozrah that the prolific seed was first sown by Bahira, the Nestorian monk. Freely watered by rivers of blood, the tree of Mecca has grown till we find it in the present century overshadowing nearly two hundred millions of people.”

He who does his part – wisely, sanely, and decently – to help dismantle altogether the already largely fallen Christian edifice is doing humanity a great service, for the Christian religion is not the cure for atheism but the cause of atheism…for millions upon millions of people in the West at least.

~ * ~

“The Christian virtues inculcated by Jesus in the sermon on the mount are nowhere exemplified in the Christian world. The Buddhist ascetics and Indian fakirs seem almost the only ones that inculcate and practice them. Meanwhile the vices which coarse-mouthed slanderers have attributed to Paganism, are current everywhere among Christian Fathers and Christian Churches.”

“The light of Christianity has only served to show how much more hypocrisy and vice its teachings have begotten in the world since its advent, and how immensely superior were the ancients over us in every point of honor. The clergy, by teaching the helplessness of man, his utter dependence on Providence, and the doctrine of atonement, have crushed in their faithful followers every atom of self-reliance and self-respect. So true is this, that it is becoming an axiom that the most honorable men are to be found among atheists and the so-called “infidels”.”

“Let it not be imagined that we bring this reproach to any who revere Jesus as God. Whatever the faith, if the worshipper be but sincere, it should be respected in his presence. If we do not accept Jesus as God, we revere him as a man. Such a feeling honors him more than if we were to attribute to him the powers and personality of the Supreme, and credit him at the same time with having played a useless comedy with mankind, as, after all, his mission proves scarcely less than a complete failure.”

“Let them [i.e. the Christian priests and leaders] pass on – we have devoted too much space to them and their conglomerate theology, already. We have weighed both in the balance of history, of logic, of truth, and found them wanting. Their system breeds atheism, nihilism, despair, and crime: its priests and preachers are unable to prove by works their reception of divine power. If both Church and priest could but pass out of the sight of the world as easily as their names do now from the eye of our reader, it would be a happy day for humanity.”

~ H.P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 526, 374, 530, 585-586 ~

SOME RELATED ARTICLES: Blavatsky on Vicarious Atonement, Reincarnation and Christianity, Salvation from Christianity, The True Nature of Jehovah, Blavatsky on Hell and Christianity, Greetings from “Lucifer” to the Archbishop of Canterbury!, Christos – The Christ Principle, Some Reflections on Christmas, 12 Things Theosophy Teaches, The Impersonal Divine, Responding to Lies about H.P. Blavatsky, A Film about H.P. Blavatsky, The Blatant Fallibility of Christian Theology, and Conversation between a Christian and a Theosophist.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~

2 thoughts on “Dismantling the Christian Edifice

  1. Why does it say “Notify me of new comments via email” and “Notify me of new posts via email.”
    What’s the difference?

    1. Thank you for this query. “Notify me of new posts via email” means that whenever a new post in blog format is published on this site you will receive an automatic email notification informing you about it.

      However, all the articles on this site are not in “post” format but rather are “pages,” meaning that there is actually no way to be automatically notified of new *articles.* The only “posts” are the “Theosophy Quotes” posts which are all listed here: https://blavatskytheosophy.com/theosophy-quotes/

      “Notify me of new comments via email” means, as far as we are aware, that whenever anyone posts a new comment on any of the articles on this site you will automatically receive an email notifying you about it.

Comments are closed.