| |
It has been called to my attention that some
articles have been published, which call into question the authenticity
of The Aquarian Gospel. These articles cite five instances of
contention. One of the arguments claims that Levi, the
transcriber, made a mistake by misidentifying the ancient rulers known
as Herod. The second criticism contends that the Akashic
records, as transcribed by Levi, are not in agreement with Edgar
Cayce’s description of these same sacred records.
And the third criticism claims that Jesus could not have known Meng-tse
of Lassa, Tibet, since Meng-tse lived 300 years before Jesus’
time. The fourth argument states that Jesus could not have
discussed evolution, because Darwin did not discover this natural
process until many centuries later. And the fifth
issue implies that Jesus could not have visited the Indian province of
Orissa, because Orissa did not yet exist. Furthermore,
critics of the Aquarian Gospel have stated that the Lord could not have
visited Lahore and Percepolis, b
because Lahore did not yet exist, and Percepolis had been destroyed by
Alexander the Great.
All of these assertions are refuted here.
Furthermore, critics have asked: how could Jesus have used the word,
“photograph,” and how could he have spoken of a
harpsichord? These two questions are also addressed
here.
1. The “Herod issue:”
Historians have often gotten the Herods confused, with good
justification, for there were at least seven, and two of them were
known as Herod Antipas, and adding to the confusion, two of them have
been referred to as “Herod of Judea.”
The Herods were all of the same extended family. They
practiced Jewish faith and traditions, intermingled with their own
ancestral practices, as well as Roman customs. Roman
authorities appointed them as rulers over lands in the Middle East.
The patriarch of the Herodian dynasty is known as Antipater II, and his
cultural roots were of Arabian and Indumean heritage. He
ruled an area that included Palestine, which consisted of three
provinces: Judea, Samaria and Galilee. He died in 43 BC.
Antipater’s son, Herod Antipas (the first Herod) succeeded
him, and under his authority, a major restoration of the Holy Temple in
Jerusalem was begun. Because of his reputation as a great
builder, Herod Antipas became known as “Herod The
Great,” and historians seem to have forgotten that he was
originally known as Herod Antipas. Near the end of this
Herod’s reign, Jesus was born, and by his order, the infant
boys of Bethlehem were slain.
Herod The Great died shortly after the slaughter in Bethlehem, and
after his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his
sons. One of these was named Herod Antipas (the same as his
father), and another was Herod Archelaus.
Herod Antipas (2nd) became ruler of Galilee and Paraca, and because his
name was identical to his father’s, historians have often
confused these two rulers; and furthermore, Archelaus (who became
Governor of Judea) has also been confused with the father, because both
have been referred to as “Herod of Judea.”
I’m sure historians (2,000 years from now) might well become
confused about American Government officials named Bush, Johnson,
Roosevelt, and Adams.
Herod Archelaus ruled Judea for approximately nine years, and then was
deposed by Rome because of excessive cruelty. (A man from
outside the dynasty, Gratus, replaced Archelaus as ruler of Judea, and
more than eleven years later, Pontius Pilate, also from outside the
dynasty, succeeded Gratus. Pilate’s rule extended
well beyond 20 years.)
Herod Antipas (the 2nd) ruled Galilee and Paraca for more than thirty
years. His palace was in the city of Tiberius, upon the
shores of the Sea of Galilee. However, he had other palatial
residences available to him, including one at Machaerus and one in
Jerusalem.
In a drunken state, during a festive celebration in the fortress at
Machaerus, he ordered the beheading of John the Baptist, and more than
a year later, he was residing in Jerusalem on the morning of
Jesus’ trial before the great Sanhedrin of the Jews.
Since death by crucifixion required confirmation by Roman authority,
Jesus also stood before two Roman courts that morning. He
faced the court of Pontius Pilate (twice), as well as that of Herod
Antipas (2nd).
Some of this Herod’s soldiers scourged Jesus (in an attempt
to force confession of crimes), and after the second interrogation of
Jesus by Pontius Pilate (who passionately attempted to prevent the
execution), these same soldiers crucified the Lord, at the insistence
of Pharisaic rulers and other religious and civic leaders (who
manipulated a murderous mob during the events of that historic day).
This resolves the criticism of Levi’s description
of “The Herods.” Levi was not
confused.
Furthermore, his eyewitness account of that day’s events
reveals the true facts of the most heinous crime in History –
(the “legal” murder of a totally innocent, most
holy man – the Messiah, who cherished and forgave his
executioners with an unfailing Divine Love).
2. The Edgar Cayce issue:
Let’s address the issue of Levi’s account of the
Akashic Records vs. Edgar Cayce’s account.
Edgar Cayce was a very talented man, and, among other things, he was
able to access the Akashic Records (also called “the Book of
God’s Remembrance”), but his ability to visit the
mystic records of ancient times was limited. One who visits
these records must learn to tune his mind to the delicate frequencies
of tiny etheric energy waves, which emanate from all past
events. (This is a very difficult achievement.)
Edgar Cayce’s ability to tune his mind to the recordings of
ancient events was not perfected, as Levi’s was.
Edgar was able to “fan through” a few pages of the
mystic records of World History. That is, his endeavor to
examine records of ancient times produced partial success –
somewhat like a radio or television, which is receiving two or three
stations simultaneously. However, he did not acquire the
ability to view specific ancient events clearly, precisely and
sequentially.
Whereas, Levi acquired this ability. With care and precision,
he consciously opened The Sacred Book of Records; and he was able to
“turn pages” at will. He observed events
precisely, and could return (to examine them again), similar to how we
view recordings of modern events; but Levi required only his mind,
instead of machines. Consequently, Levi composed an
exquisitely accurate transcript of Jesus’ life.
Levi was able to remain in a state of meditation for several
days at a time. Only a person who can achieve this level of
self-control (and strength of will) is strong enough to perfectly tune
his mind to the tiny energy waves emanating from the distant past,
enabling him to view specific ancient events (as if happening
“here and now”).
Levi gave us the Aquarian Gospel by carefully witnessing and
documenting all the pertinent events of Jesus’ life, exactly
as they occurred; all because he (by the grace of God) acquired the
strength and knowledge to open the Book of God’s Remembrance
(and these are the times of Revelations!).
The “Edgar Cayce issue” is resolved.
3. The “Meng-tse issue:”*
Consider this: James Madison was elected President of the
United States in 1808, and less than 200 years have elapsed.
Yet, a significant number of James Madisons have resided in North
America since then. Likewise, Meng-tse, who befriended Jesus
when He visited Lassa, Tibet, is obviously not the same Meng-tse of
Chinese historical records (unless there is a calendar discrepancy of
nearly 300 years, which seems unlikely).
“Meng-tse issue” resolved.
*(Please Note: The Adventures Unlimited Press edition of the Aquarian
Gospel spells Meng-tse as
“Meng-ste.”)
4. The Evolution issue:
One criticism of the Aquarian Gospel contends that Jesus could not have
discussed evolution, because Darwin lived many centuries later.
The author of this criticism is apparently unaware that many of
God’s prophets, seers and sages (and certainly, Christ
himself) knew all about evolution. They did not need to wait
many centuries to learn about it from Darwin.
Jesus discussed survival of the fittest, and he gave an oration
regarding evolution. In this amazing discussion, Jesus
explained that evolution began when “the fall of
man” occurred, and all the animals were included in the fall.
If you read his oration on evolution carefully, you can see that he
taught that evolution has certain limits and boundaries. For
example, a worm species may eventually develop legs (or other
variations of shape) and thus evolve into a new form, but the soul is
still that of worm; or a rodent species may change its form through
time (and become a rodent of a different type), but neither worm nor
rodent can ever cross boundaries of soul, to evolve into bovine, bird
or man.
Furthermore, the animal-primates can never become human. This
is why Science has been unable to find any unmistakable
“missing links,” and those that were
“discovered” turned out to be the work of ambitious
deceivers and hoaxers.
Jesus explained that the fall of man (and the animals) will eventually
be rectified, and part of his mission (and the mission of all holy men
and women) is the task of restoring Humanity (and the Animal Kingdom)
to our original heavenly home. When this is accomplished,
evolution will cease to exist, because the drama of survival will no
longer exist (. . . and “the lion will lay down with the
lamb”).
A major step in the restoration process is about to take
place. This milestone is called the Age of Aquarius.
But first, Judgement Day must occur.
The “Evolution issue” is put to rest.
5. Jesus’ visits to Orissa, Lahore and Percepolis:
A published article questions the authenticity of the Aquarian Gospel
by asserting that Jesus could not have visited these areas, because
(the article suggests) the geo-political entities known as Orissa and
Lahore did not yet exist during Jesus’ time, and Percepolis
had been destroyed.
The author of this article has simply failed to do sufficient
“homework.” Orissa and Lahore did exist,
although their geographical boundaries (and political significance)
were quite different than during recent times. Furthermore,
just because Percepolis was destroyed by military conquest does not
mean that no one lived there afterwards.
American President Jimmy Carter visited Hiroshima in 1984, yet by the
reasoning of some critics of the Aquarian Gospel, news accounts of his
visit must be fictitious, because Hiroshima was destroyed in
1945. (The city of Jerusalem was destroyed several times
throughout History, but people continued to dwell there.)
The “Orissa – Lahore – Percepolis
issue” is not an issue.
6. The “photograph” question:
How could Jesus use the word, “photograph?”
In Chapter 109, Jesus used this very word (as a verb). The
Lord was describing how every event is recorded in the sacred Book of
Records. Aquarian Gospel critics have suggested that his use
of the word, “photograph,” is proof that the
Aquarian Gospel cannot be genuine.
However, there is an explanation. Ancient scholars certainly
recognized the concept of radiant energy, and Jesus knew that The Book
of God’s Remembrance is a recording of this kind of
energy. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for Jesus to have
referred to the Akashic Records as “recordings of radiant
energy,” and Levi would have easily interpreted this as
“photograph,” because (after all) a photograph is
nothing less than a man-made recording of radiant energy.
It is even likely that Jesus used a single word (a verb) that meant,
“to record radiant energy,” i.e. to record light,
or to “photon-graph.” Ancient mystics and
scholars knew much more about nature than some modern scientists and
theologians are willing to acknowledge.
Furthermore, we need to be aware that people who are able to clearly
observe past events (in the Akashic Records) do not need to know the
language being spoken. They “listening
in” on ancient conversations in a telepathic way, and thus,
they “hear” the thoughts being discussed, not the
actual words being spoken, and therefore, they
“hear” the thoughts in their own native language.
7. The Harpsichord Question:
How can the word, “harpsichord” appear in the
Aquarian Gospel (eight times)?
It is stated (in an encyclopedia on line*) that the harpsichord was
actually a Chinese invention, going back to “at least the 8th
century," and was not introduced into Western culture until the 15th
century. The key phrase here is "at least the 8th
century." Since we know that ancient Chinese culture had
developed the harpsichord, this instrument (or a very similar
mechanism) could well have existed during Jesus’ time.
Furthermore, regular camel caravans traversed trade routes between the
Middle East and the Far East during that period. It
is very possible (even likely) that a few musical instruments (closely
resembling the harpsichord) would have been purchased (by Middle
Eastern merchants) and transported to cultural centers in Egypt, Israel
and Persia. These instruments would certainly have been
regarded with great awe (as one reference in the Aquarian Gospel
clearly suggests).
*The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
The most important question: Since anyone can claim to have
transcribed a document from mystic archives, how can one be sure the
Aquarian Gospel is authentic and genuine, and not just a sham and a
cruel hoax?
Just read the Aquarian Gospel (carefully and completely), and you will
know.
I repeat: Just read, and you will know.
To read carefully, with a sincere, warm heart and an open mind, is to
be wise, and the wise can understand. The insincere reader
cannot understand. “None but the pure in heart can
recognize the King.” Pay heed to how you approach
The Word. Honest skepticism is certainly OK (and is even
encouraged), but prejudice and insincerity will block understanding.
Any honest, discerning soul, who carefully and comprehensively reads
this sacred book, is sure to recognize the awesome, profound Truths
contained within. The clear, incisive ideas and concepts of
the Aquarian Gospel penetrate so deep into the heart of the astute,
sincere reader, that he (or she) soon realizes (with certainty) that
Levi’s Transcript of Jesus’ life is authentic and
genuine; and that, through Jesus, God spoke. Indeed, through
Jesus, God revealed Himself. Thus, the desire to carefully
read and re-read becomes compelling.
Article By: Michael F. O’Keeffe
|
|