"It seems", as you say.
Christianity is a syncretism of many different and, for some of them,
antithetical beliefs and knowledge, whether exoteric or of an
esoteric nature, ranging from Zoroastrianism and Dyoniasianism to
Mithraism, the cult of Osiris and, some say, even Brahmanism, and,
least but not last, Judaism ; those heterogeneous beliefs and
knowledge were infused and were all mixed into early Christianity,
and, as a result, when it came to esoteric knowledge, distorted, that
is, applied, according to the 'exoteric' turn of mind of early
Christians, to a plane which is not its and on which it can even
become dangerous for most people in various respects, not to mention
earlier alterations ; the Essenes played a decisive part in the
inevitable distortion which resulted from such a mix. This cannot be
emphasised enough.
That heterogenous substance is reflected in the multiplicity of rival
sects and in the endless doctrinal conflicts which opposed them,
doctrinal conflicts of which the Roman 'religion' in particular and
pre-Christian cults in general were free. Yet, in terms of spirit, of
race of the spirit, it can hardly be denied that Christianity,
especially Early Christianity is, so to speak, one. That spirit,
which is the Semitic one, is characterised by insurmountable
intrinsic contradictions which find expression in all sorts of
artificial oppositions, such as the one between matter and spirit,
flesh and spirit, and so on. If you focus on the doctrinal conflicts,
you can't see the wood for the trees. Let's go further, with Julius
Evola and Adolph Hitler : from the point of view we look at things,
to put the religious moment before the racial moment is like to put
the cart before the horse. We are not saying that it is illegitimate
or useless to consider Abrahamic religions from the religious point
of view, of course ; all we are saying is that, by focusing on it to
the detriment of the racial point of view, you lose sight of the main
thing : the spirit, the 'forma mentis' which is behind Christianity
and which originates in a plane which lies beyond the strictly
religious one. Abrahamic religions - contrary to pre-Christian Aryan
cults, which were rooted in a people, in a race, consubstantial with
it, and were not conceivable outside that people, that race - are
aimed at anyone, regardless of race, except for Judaism. Except for
Judaism, which, besides, has never proselytised and still don't
encourage conversions. Yet, AS Christianity, or, if you prefer, in
its Christian flavour, as is known, it's been a fanatically proselyte
religion. Besides, contrary, for example, to ancient Romans and
ancient Scandinavians, to limit ourselves to ancient European peoples
of Aryan stock, Jews are far from being an homogeneous race, as
indicated in the Old Testament itself, so much so that it's always
with quotation marks that Evola speaks of the Jewish people as
a 'race'. Among other differences between traditional Aryan cults and
Judaism, these cannot be emphasised enough.
A sentence of 'Il Mito del sangue', as already pointed out, shows
that Evola didn't take seriously the idea, uphold, among others, by
Chamberlain in 'The Myth of the Nineteenth Century' and later by
Rosenberg in 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century', of the 'Aryan
Christ', and, to the best of our knowledge, expressions like 'Aryo-
Christians' or 'Aryan Christianity' cannot be found in his work, nor
can we find in it any allusion to a 'positive Christianity'. On the
other hand, the possibility of a 'positive Catholicism' is discussed
in the fifth and last chapter of 'Heidnischer Imperialismus',
called 'Our European Symbol'. The reader will be able to find out
about Evola's views on this matter in its forthcoming English
translation.
As far as the doctrine of the 'Aryan Christ' is concerned, needless
to say that one cannot content oneself either with upholding it or
with rejecting it for sentimental reasons, without having examined
the positive data which have been gathered over the centuries by
scholars and others on this much controversial subject. A decisive
contribution has been made in this respect by an author specialised
in Celsus' work in a meticulous and rigorous well-documented in-depth
study which shows that Jesus couldn't but be of Jewish blood. Those
who can read French are strongly invited to read it at
http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/cercle.ernest-renan/Celse.htm
Basically, what emerges from it is that the legend of a 'bastard'
Jesus, son of Mary and of a Roman soldier called Panthèra, and,
therefore, that of an 'Aryan Christ', originates in... the Babylonian
Talmud.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@...> wrote:
>
>
> From the very beginning, it seems, there was serious conflict
between
> two starkly opposed strands of Christianity: the gnostic, Greco-
Persian
> dualist group, and the Judaic, Noahide faction that we see largely
> victorious over the world-mob today.
>
> This judaistic, Noahidic Christianity is the one Nietzsche attacked
when
> he said a Christian is "only a Jew of a 'freer' confession of
faith".
>
> The source of the defeated Christianity is actually the lands of the
> Aryans of the East, Persia and India. This defeated Aryan impulse
was
> powerful enough at the birth of Christianity to figure in the
mainstream
> Gospels in the form of the wise Magi from the East. The struggle
between
> the Aryo-Christians and the Judaizers, and the practical victory of
> Judea, is encoded in the gospel account of the Council of Jerusalem
and
> its promulgation of Noahidic Judaic legalisms for the lower-ranking,
> non-Hebrew Christians.
>
> Irano-Aryan dualist Christianity posits a decisive difference
between
> the benign Christian God, "the Holy Spirit", nourisher of the
positive
> aspects of creation, and the demonic miscreator Yahweh, Old
Testament
> God of Israel, the source of existent non-existence and unrestrained
> materialism, worshipped by the primitive Jews who have not attained
the
> progressive moral maturity to distinguish in life between the
inferior
> and the higher. Notice the key fact that the words Jehovah and
Adonai
> are absent from the New Testament. God is simply "Father".
>
> The ambiguous figure of Alfred Rosenberg certainly doesn't
represent the
> pinnacle of human intellectual culture, but he actually reveals the
> basis of a "positive Christianity" compatible with Helleno-Aryan
Western
> culture in his constant reference to the "lost, anti-jewish
> Christianity" of the ancient Gnostics and the Irano-Aryan dualist
> heretics of the Middle Ages.
>
> Relatedly, Manichaeism teaches the Realm of Light and the
transcendent
> Christ are located in the North, while the Prince of Darkness
reigns in
> the South with his giants and demons.
>
> Manichaeism, formulated by the Aryo-Persian aristocrat Mani,
constituted
> an occult influence on the Catharistic Arthurian Grail mythos,
which, as
> Evola demonstrates in his "The Mystery of the Grail", is bound up
with
> the spirit of the Nordic peoples.
>
> In terms of Evola's ideal opposition between the Light of the North
and
> the Light of the South, this Manichaean doctrine carries an extended
> racial-metaphysical meaning: the Southern kingdom of Satan and his
> spiritually dense black and semitic demonic troops arrayed against
the
> King of the Paradise of Light (Thule) of the Hyperboreans.
>