Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Are you looking to buy The Mystical Life of Jesus? Here is the right place to find the great deals. we can offer discounts of up to 90% on The Mystical Life of Jesus. Check out the link below:
>> Click Here to See Compare Prices and Get the Best Offers
The Mystical Life of Jesus ReviewAmong other things, "Mystical Life of Jesus," cites many fascinating factoids about Jesus and His native land that the average theologian, and the more puerile/credulous factions of New Age spirituality, seem wholly ignorant of even to this day.For example, Lewis asserts that reincarnation was a well-known doctrine to the general populace-including Jesus and his followers. Unaffiliated scholars agree, for Christianity accepted reincarnation until 553 AD, when it was dropped from the doctrine at the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople for reasons that may have been far more political than theological. Consequently since the Synoptic Gospels date from 66-74 & 132-135 AD, certain Biblical passages suggestive of reincarnation may indeed be subtle remnants of Christianity's original reincarnation doctrine. That may also explain why Jesus spoke well of the Samaritans despite the fact that they believed in reincarnation as revealed in their Taheb doctrine. The Gnostics who refused to forsake reincarnation after 553 AD were suddenly overnight "heretics," but was it actually the Church that was guilty of heresy insofar as Jesus' original teachings were concerned?
Insofar as Judaism and reincarnation are concerned the Zohar, the Manasseh Ben Israel & other Jewish books all affirm reincarnation. The Hassidic Jews still believe in reincarnation, as does mystical Judaism (Kabala). Moreover, according to Flavius Josephus, Eleazar, commander of the garrison at Masada before it fell to the Romans, gave speeches that radically departed from modern Judaism. They were astonishingly Essene, & even *Gnostic*, in nature with concepts like pre-existing immortal souls & reincarnation.
Ever heard of the Essenes? Back in 1929 Lewis did. He wrote at length of the Essene sect and in great detail. And consider this: The Dead Sea Scrolls that mentioned the Essenes for the first time in modern history were not discovered until 1945! Therefore Lewis wrote of the Essenes sixteen years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered! Such is easily verified and cannot simply be summarily dismissed by even the most obstinately entrenched of scoffers or dogmatists.
So does it mean anything that in the original verse Jesus was referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene" rather than "Jesus of Nazareth?" Is there physical evidence that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus? Lewis says `no,' and provides intriguing references to support his contention. Interestingly unaffiliated scholars point out that Roman maps & papers; the Talmud; St. Paul, & even Flavius Josephus never mention Nazareth.
Is Jesus the first and only "son of God," or is there precedent for differing but equal Christs or Christos "myths" throughout the world? Lewis points out that the Christian fathers were aware of previous Christos myths that occurred on December 25th that there were heralded with the well-known signs and portents: A star in the east, virgin birth, wise men in attendance and etc...
So what does it all mean?
While dogmatists and atheists have their own theories, according to mystics like Lewis, previous Christs of all races, faiths & philosophies --like Jesus-- all came from the same Creator and were all equal but different based on the needs and idiosyncrasies of the times and cultures. The implication is that orthodox Christianity could be vastly different--even incompatible--with what Jesus actually taught or indeed ANY species of intolerant orthodox religious belief.
Could Jesus have been a Gentile instead of a Jew? Was He celibate? Lewis seems to think both. Unaffiliated scholars point out that if a Rabbi, Jesus would have been expected to obey the Mishnaic Law that required all Jews to marry before teaching, thus he have been expected to have children. Judaic orthodox culture rigorously condemned celibacy, yet there's absolutely no mention of Jesus' presumed celibacy in the Bible.
Otherwise could humanistic references to Jesus have been expunged from the Bible because they contradicted the Nicene Ecumenical Council that voted Jesus equal to God? The vote was not unanimous.
Perhaps most astonishingly, Lewis asserts that Jesus survived the crucifixion and points out some intriguing points to support his theory. Unaffiliated scholars point out that even Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons held that Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived to be an old man. According to some, the "Apocalypse of Peter" (Greek) asserts that Jesus survived the crucifixion. However others assert that the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrews 5:7-8 and Gospel of Barnabas reveal the crucifixion to be a hoax. Is that necessarily a contradiction?
Furthermore any Judaic historian should be able to tell you that Judaic law forbade the Sanhedrin to convene at night & only allowed execution by stoning. The "custom" of releasing prisoners during Passover *NEVER* existed. The vinegar given Jesus wasn't a torment but a common stimulant. And finally any Greco-Roman historian will tell you that the crucifixion routinely took days, or even weeks, to kill--not mere hours. And the crucifixion "cross" was actually a T, and the crucified were nailed through the wrists-not the palms.
In the original Greek, Joseph of Arimathea asks for the body of Jesus with the word "SOMA"--a word that applied ONLY to *LIVING* bodies. According to Roman law back then, the crucified were denied burial & left to decompose on the cross as a warning to others. And Roman Centurions, as a mercy, only broke the legs of the crucified *BEFORE* death to induce suffocation. It would be senseless to break the legs of a corpse. And quite pithily, Lewis points out that dead bodies-even crucified ones-thanks to gravity cannot bleed.
"Why do you seek the living among the dead?"
Could that quote have a startling alternative interpretation? Lewis certainly thinks so.
And finally, yes, there is a single illustration of an ancient swastika, several references to an ancient Asian "Great White Brotherhood," and the theory Jesus may have been an "Aryan." While perhaps perfectly innocent back in 1929, after a recent rereading even I winced at some of Lewis's somewhat archaic phraseology. While the entire logic of the book clearly refutes the one-star reviewers' criticisms, if however only the very beginning of the book is read--or the entire book merely skimmed-- there is the potential for misunderstanding, or willful misrepresentation, if certain things are taken out of context. Therefore I urge AMORC to consider a new revised edition to perhaps better reflect the sensibilities of the post World War Two age.
Keep these four points in mind as you read the one-star reviews and decide for yourself if they're logical and fair...or something else altogether:
First of all Lewis cites several Christ (Christos myths) from several times and cultures that predated Jesus the Christ as being equal in nature to Jesus, although Lewis considers Jesus to have been the last and greatest in degree to date--a view any reasonable person can see is totally incompatible with racism or Nazism.
Second, the "Swastika" is cites as being of ancient Asian origin, as well as Buddhist, East Indian, and even American Indian that precedes nazi Germany by centuries if not millenia. Any World War II historian can tell you that Hitler appropriated the swastika for Nazism-not the other way around-- as Hitler had a mania for mystical symbols.
Thirdly, the "Great White Brotherhood" and "Aryan" terms Lewis refers to are attributed to an *Asian* mystical organization named the former. Therefore, (I cannot believe that I actually have to actually point this out...) the "White" in "Great White Brotherhood" obvioulsy(!) wouldn't refer to skin pigmentation. Asian skin pigments tend to be on a continuum from yellow to tan or dark brown--hardly Nordic (or Nazi) lily white as some of the more, ah... obtuse would seem to think if such can actually be called thinking.
And fourth and finally no, this book has no bibliography as such. Considering the fact that Lewis wrote of the Essenes sixteen years before any university scholars even knew that that the Essenes had existed, such a scholary bibliography would have been impossible to create. Again, many subsequent scholarly works now support many of Lewis's contentions, some of which are in my readers's guide.
So read the book, *THINK*, and then decide for yourself.The Mystical Life of Jesus OverviewThis is a fascinating, non-sectarian treatment of the unknown life of Jesus based on records preserved in the archives of ancient monasteries of the Essenes and the Rosicrucian Order.
Want to learn more information about The Mystical Life of Jesus?
>> Click Here to See All Customer Reviews & Ratings Now
