That the question of the origins would be pointless sounds more like the
statement of a modernist, and, when made by people who claim to be close to the
traditionalist school, sounds even more paradoxical, especially when the word
'origins' is put in quotation marks. In Guenon's work, the expression
"superstition of facts" relates to a tendency of what he calls the modern
spirit, and, more particularly, to the scientific modern spirit and the related
myth of progress. Experimental sciences "are those of the sensible world, those
of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical
applications ; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well
be called 'the superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with
specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient
interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake,
knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not
saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be
inferior ; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of
this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present."
('The Crisis of the Modern World', p. 47)
The question of the historicity of Jesus-Christ, which is at the heart of books
such as 'The Christ conspiracy', has absolutely nothing to do with the
'superstition of facts' : it is an historical question.
As to scholarship, spuriosity and alike, you, too, give us a break : anyone
remotely interested in this subject is aware that "Scholarly opinions on the
historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they
range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to
the view that they provide no historical information about his life. The sources
extant contain little evidence of Jesus' life before the account of Jesus'
Baptism, and it has been suggested by many that the events recorded in the
gospels cover a period of less than three years. Historians subject the gospels
to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable
information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and
alterations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "The views of
scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will
Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944" ; "More recently, arguments for
non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, by Earl Doherty (The
Jesus Puzzle, 1999), by Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud), by Timothy Freke and
Peter Gandy (Jesus & the Lost Goddess) and by biblical scholar Robert M. Price.
Doherty. 'The Christ Conspiracy' is only one of the latest books published in
the long research history on the question of the historical authenticity of
Jesus of Nazareth. Cons' views are summarised at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory whose main shortcomings,
however, are to not take into account early Christian sources evidenced as
forgeries and to mix the core subject with the related, yet distinct, topic of
the influence of pre-Christian teachings and symbolism on Christianity ; pros',
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus (a related wikipedia page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Gospels has no less than three
warning signs at the top) ; to realise how scholarly some of the later are, how
soundly grounded in the roots of absolute objectivity the evidence is, the
reader is invited to have a look at the sub chapter "Work as a "Carpenter""
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), and to count the number of
verbs like 'suggested' and adverbs like 'presumably' that are found in it ; as
another example of pure scholarship, Charles Guignebert states that the
"conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence [concerning the
life of Jesus] may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee
in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a
dozen or more children besides himself.", adding elsewhere, and this is the
icing on the cake, "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed." C.
Guignebert is Professor of the History of Christianity, at the Sorbonne.
Incidentally,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory is completely
wrong in claiming that the Christ myth theory "originated among the
anti-religious: atheists, freethinkers, deists, often in response to the "Quest
for the historical Jesus" of mainstream scholarship." As evidenced by various
authors, the debate on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth dates back to the
very days of his pretended birth and was then rife in all circles, whether non
Christian or even Christian. Beyond this debate, what should become a cause of
concern for 'believers' and 'truth-seekers' is the fact that forgery lies at the
very heart of (early) Christianity.
Regarding the question of 'pagan' influences on early Christianity, based on the
fact that there are "material, significant, and pervasive similarities between
the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and other Dying God-figures (and/or
Savior-figures), and that these similarities are best explained by the
hypothesis that the figure of Jesus is materially derived from
(or heavily influenced by) these other Dying God/Savior-figures"
(
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html), it is a far more complex
matter, to which it seems to us that
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html brings a new light.
"The question of origins, you point out, is doubly pointless in the case of
Christianity, since, according to Evola, there was a "rectification", or rather
a series of rectifications, involved which fundamentally transformed
Christianity, so much so, that Evola points to the so-called Middle Ages as one
of the "great, Aryan civilizations." In the first place, J. Evola was far from
finding the question of origins 'pointless', as shown by the various
considerations he developed in his work on the spiritual origins of
Christianity, describing it as a lunar, priestly, and feminine assumption of
spirituality. In the second place, you seem to be, so to speak, lost in
translation. The passage of 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza' you mistranslated
reads : "(...) da cio che fu proprio alle grandi civilta' arie d'Oriente,
all'antica Roma, al Medioevo romano-germanico.", and can only be translated as
follows : "by what was peculiar to great Eastern Aryan civilisations, to ancient
Rome, and to Roman-Germanic Middle Ages." What not many readers of J. Evola seem
to realise, although it is written in black and white on various pages of his
work, is that, to him, the Middle Ages represented a great civilisation, INSOFAR
AS this historical period was shaped by Roman and Germanic influences. This is
so true that, to the best of our knowledge, he was the one who coined the
expression, dismissed as 'ludicrous' by the average scholar, "Roman-Germanic
Middle Ages." In the third place, where have we denied that "Historically
speaking, Christianity has been largely corrected and mitigated in Catholicism
through the aggregation and assimilation of principles from various origins
(especially Roman and Classical), as can be seen in the theological domain of
Thomism, which would be inconceivable without Aristotelianism ? ("This is
precisely the reason that in the past, and especially during the Middle Ages,
the Roman Church was able to exercise a certain traditional and formative
influence." 'Men among the Ruins', p. 213) ? Nowhere. "But (the fact remains
that) this was not achieved, nor could it have been, without neutralizing the
original premises of the Christian religion. Even in the best Catholicism there
is still a residue large enough to ensure ambiguous and problematic traits for
any ideal of a "Christian State" and a "Christianized politics." In this regard,
a dualism will always invalidate the proper synthesis of the Ghibelline
tradition and of the above-mentioned universal tradition, in which there is no
room for such a view. This is not because the Christian values are "too noble"
for real life, but rather because of their special nature. This nature allows
only in part for a spiritual recovery of political values, and then according to
the compromise found in the formula "Render unto Caesar." (ibid.) And what
matters to us in this thread is that Christian "residue" Evola spotted in
Catholicism, and the fact that, historically as well as spiritually, that
residue, after having been neutralised to a certain extent under the pressure of
the Ghibelline movement, was pushed out of its latent state and back into an
active infectious state, following the political defeat of the Ghibellines. "The
attitude of the Guelfs, who refused to admit the possibility of a secular
autonomous state as against the Church, and demanded the complete subordination
of the Eagle to the Cross, was consistent. However, if that had occurred, what
would have remained to the Church which could have allowed it to still call
itself Christian - to claim the heritage of the one who taught renunciation
(...) and the natural equality of men as servants to a God whose kingdom is
not of this earth ? How could it have been possible to maintain dominion and
hierarchy, if not by adopting in reality the heathen values of assertion,
immanence, and difference ? This is what happened to the Church in its golden
age, the Middle Ages, when, for a moment, galvanised by the partial Romanisation
of the Nordic-Germanic spirit, it gave the impression of really wanting again to
embrace all the peoples of the West in an oecumenical unity. But this was a Fata
Morgana, something which did not last, (...)" (pp. 35-36) Had it last, had a
full re-Aryanisation of Europe civilisation occurred, the question of origins
might have been considered as a mere object of historical study, even though,
even in times when solar spirituality and attitudes prevail upon lunar
spirituality and feelings in a patriarchal civilisation, it is best to remain on
one's guard and to carry on the study of the origins of subversion, so as to
check a possible upsurge of the later. Since this is far from having occurred
and, on the contrary, the anti-Aryan premises of the Christian religion are back
in full swing, this study is paramount for those who claim to fight subversion
in its current manifestations. "Retrace backwards the process of degradation and
of inversion is the only way to separate what is positive from what is
negative;`to get to the roots of evil, and to reach the true points of reference
for the work of reconstruction." ('The Secret Story of Subversion', in
'Fenomenologia della sovversione')
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciapo" <hyperborean@...> wrote:
>
> The question of "origins" is rather pointless, especially if based on
> spurious speculations which Guenon calls the "superstition of facts". As to
> the alleged relationship between the religions of the Egyptians and the
> Christians, Guenon offers these considerations in "Spiritual Authority and
> Temporal Power".
>
>
>
> Regarding the Sphinx, Guenon claims it represented the attributes of wisdom
> and strength, corresponding respectively to the qualities of the Brahmins
> and Kshatriyas, or, spiritual authority and temporal power.
>
>
>
> He also points out that the Sphinx represents the principle uniting the
> sensible and the suprasensible worlds. It is for this reason that the
> Egyptian Christians also adopted the Sphinx as a symbol of Christ, as it
> represents the union of the divine and human natures. There is no question,
> then, of "influence" in the common and secular meaning of the word, but
> rather reflects a common understanding of Traditional doctrine.
>
>
>
> The question of origins is doubly pointless in the case of Christianity,
> since, according to Evola, there was a "rectification", or rather a series
> of rectifications, involved which fundamentally transformed Christianity, so
> much so, that Evola points to the so-called Middle Ages as one of the
> "great, Aryan civilizations". ("Sintesi di dottrina della razza", p 29)
>
>
>
> In particular, Evola claims that the Middle Ages were a Roman-Germanic
> creation (hardly a creation of the Egyptians, and even less so of the Jews).
> This is so obvious that even a non-Traditionalist can notice it: "Medieval
> Christianity was more a Germanic/European folk religion based on traditional
> Indo-European beliefs than the de-Europeanizing ecumenicalism that today
> passes for Christianity." (
>
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol8no2/TOQv8n2OMeara.pdf )
>
>
>
> As a matter of historical record, the Protestant so-called reformers
> objected to these "rectifications" and sought to bring back the message of
> the earliest Christians, which was "unadulterated communism". This revolt of
> the lower castes by the Northern Europeans began the creation the modern
> world. This is also an observation of Evola himself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of vandermok
> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:59 PM
> To: evola as he is
> Subject: Re: [evola_as_he_is] Re: 'The Christ Conspiracy'
>
>
>
>
>
> The thesis is not just a novelty and I agree partially with it. Osman
> already theorized this in the book 'Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt' (1990) based
> also on the famous work of Freud, 'Der Mann Moses und die monoteistische
> Religion...'(1934-38). Unfortunately, even if rather interesting, Osman is
> lacking of metaphisical outlook, and when he wrote that Moses and Akhenaton
> were the same person, this move could be a literary strategy.
>
>
>
> I too wrote about here and there (but in Italian) see for instance:
>
http://www.fuocosacro.com/pagine/lexaurea/lexaurea36.pdf
>
> 'La fuga in Egitto e le origini del cristianesimo'.
>
>
>
> ----
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: sithwalker <mailto:asbrekka@...>
>
> To:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:26 PM
>
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: 'The Christ Conspiracy'
>
>
>
>
>
> I have not read it but the book "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion"
> should be of interest regarding this topic.
>
> ´
> • Shows that the Romans fabricated their own version of Christianity and
> burned the Alexandrian library as a way of maintaining political power
>
> In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion author Ahmed Osman contends
> that the roots of Christian belief spring not from Judaea but from Egypt. He
> compares the chronology of the Old Testament and its factual content with
> ancient Egyptian records to show that the major characters of the Hebrew
> scriptures--including Solomon, David, Moses, and Joshua--are based on
> Egyptian historical figures. He further suggests that not only were these
> personalities and the stories associated with them cultivated on the banks
> of the Nile, but the major tenets of Christian belief--the One God, the
> Trinity, the hierarchy of heaven, life after death, and the virgin
> birth--are all Egyptian in origin. He likewise provides a convincing
> argument that Jesus himself came out of Egypt.
>
> With the help of modern archaeological findings, Osman shows that
> Christianity survived as an Egyptian mystery cult until the fourth century
> A.D., when the Romans embarked on a mission of suppression and persecution.
> In A.D. 391 the Roman-appointed Bishop Theophilus led a mob into the
> Serapeum quarter of Alexandria and burned the Alexandrian library,
> destroying all records of the true Egyptian roots of Christianity. The
> Romans' version of Christianity, manufactured to maintain political power,
> claimed that Christianity originated in Judaea. In Christianity: An Ancient
> Egyptian Religion Osman restores Egypt to its rightful place in the history
> of Christianity.´
>
> Available in e-book format here:
http://depositfiles.com/files/mrpfs94o7
>
> And here is "The Christ Conspiracy":
>
http://rapidshare.com/files/85959989/The_Christ_Conspiracy-the_Greatest_Stor
> y_Ever_Sold.rar
>
> .
>
>
> <
http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=14012590/grpspId=1705077076/msgI
> d=1246/stime=1261865664/nc1=3848643/nc2=5807836/nc3=5658258>
>