Enlightenment Corner
Antiquity Unveiled

Part 3

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 315

   “I am very happy to have the chance of giving testimony. My name was John Frederick Gronovius. I occupied the chair of belle-letters in the University of Leyden. I was the translator of Sallust, Livy, Pliny, Seneca, etc., and I must say, in all truth, that the translations of these works are not very correct. I must also say that the manuscripts from which those translations were made, were very much changed from the originals by Christian priests and professors, in order to conceal the real origin of Christianity. It was worth as much as your place would bring you pecuniarily, in my day, to show up the truth. But I here declare that the real text of the letter of Pliny to Trajan, proves that he was not speaking of the Christians, but of the Essenes of that time. And a great many other passages have been interpolated or suppressed. You will never get the truth as long as Christians fill the professorships in your colleges and control your libraries. But the spirit of free inquiry which is being aroused by writers of your time in relation to ancient literature, will soon obtain the proof that what these spirits have stated through this medium is true. It is astonishing to me that any Spiritualist writer, or one who claims to be such, would try to show that the Christos of India, on the authority of Bently, a Christian bigot, was born about A. D. 600, in Arjourn, when the real facts of the case, on an ancient authority I have seen, are, that he was worshipped by the soldiers of Alexander the Great, and that at that time that worship was nine hundred years old. I read in that ancient authority that the soldiers of Alexander the Great, when they arrived at Thebes, in Upper Egypt, they found their god Chrisna, and fell to worshipping him. It is therefore preposterous to pretend that Chrisna was born 600 years after Jesus of Nazareth. The great trouble has been, and ever will be, with Christian writers, that they cannot get over the identity of the name Christ with Christos; and it will always be a cause of grief to them, because they cannot escape from the truth of what I here state.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 315 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to the Biographie Universelle for account of Gronovius.
   We are grateful to the deeply learned man whose spirit gave that important testimony to the fact that the letter of Pliny to Trajan did not relate to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, but to the Essenian followers of the Hindoo Christos. In the light of these spirit communications, Christian writers could have made no greater blunder than to claim their identity with the Essenes of the Asiatic provinces of the Roman Empire; and especially, that Ignatius of Antioch, the very originator of the Essenian name was a Christian bishop. By taking this insensate course, they have forever made an end of their theological and ecclesiastical fraud. The Essenes were beyond all question, the followers of a blended Hindoo and Magian philosophy or religion, the great central object of their worship being the most pure and mediumistic member of their sect, who, (as the Grand Lama of Thibet, was supposed to be animated by the spirit of Gautama Buddha), was supposed to be animated by the spirit of Christos, the Hindoo Saviour. They were in no sense followers of Jesus, and had been swallowed up in the Paulite sect founded by Apollonius, and the subsequent Gnostic and Neo-Platonic sects of philosophy, at least two hundred years before the name of Jesus of Nazareth was ever heard of. [...]

   [Pg 316] Gronovius rightfully says that the great cause of Christian grief has been, and ever will be, that they cannot get over the identity of the name Christ with Christos who was the object of divine worship by the soldiers of Alexander, more than three centuries before it is pretended Jesus Christ was born.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 317

   “You have had here, before, a German Jesuit priest, (Charles Francis Alter), you shall now have the testimony of a Roman Catholic bishop. A variety of testimony, all bearing upon one point, is always calculated to strengthen it; but the direction of my studies was a little different from that of the other spirits who have communicated here. Mine reaches in the direction of the Armenian writers, Moses Chorensis and Meisrob. (That was the way the name was spelled and not Mesrob). After a close examination of the Armenian, Greek and Latin Testaments, I came to the conclusion that the Armenian version combined with the Coptic, wTas from the original Gheez, which showed a mixture of the idioms of Upper and Lower Egypt as they were found at Alexandria. The whole secret of what is called Christianity, is made plain by the New Testament, and one book of the Old Testament — the book of Daniel. This Daniel is represented as teaching the doctrines of the New Testament, less the miracles; and is said to have lived at the courts of Darius Hystaspes and Cyrus, and he was there known as the younger Zoroaster. He taught the religion of the Sun, a modern version of which are the Shastras. All this I read and studied, but the commentators of my day led me astray, because my mind was prejudiced in their favor. But you are getting more knowledge than then existed — you are getting deeper into the meaning of all religions than you think for. These ancient spirits are gathering their forces, and they are determined to show that Christianity is a fraud. I left this mortal life in 1284, and five hundred years passed away before I was willing to seek for the truth. All that time, in spirit life, was wasted by me in trying to propagate Catholicism there. The spirit who helped me out of my condition of ignorance, and to whom I am much indebted, was Apollonius of Tyana. Therefore in justice to him I promised I would return here and tell all I could possibly think of to set things right. I now belong to the spirit organization, known in spirit life as “The Illuminatii.” I would say to you, sir, that your enemies and opposers will resort to subtler and more desperate measures to obstruct you, than they have heretofore done, and you must be on your guard against them. Their proceedings will not be so apparent, but more dangerous. So I hope you will keep all your lights burning on the watchtowers of truth. The fact is, the Jesuits of the Roman Catholic Church, are supplying the opposition to you, with money to impede you, and are paying so-called Spiritualistic journals to throw back the truth despite your efforts to advance it. The spirit psychological power which was provided for this seance, is expended. Having possessed great psychological power when here, and still retaining it, I was chosen to close this sitting. It may seem a poor satisfaction to come back and give a communication after your earthly work is ended; but, still, it is a great consolation to know that the truth will live despite one’s earthly errors. I was known as Abulpharagius, bishop of Guba.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 93 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature for account of Abulpharagius.
   The spirit of this Armenian scholar comes back to testify to his long and worse than useless Christian delusion; and his conversion to the truth at last through the good offices of the spirit of Apollonius. The testimony of this spirit to the fact that the Armenian Version of the Scriptures (Christian so-called) was from the Coptic version, of the still more ancient Gheez version is exceedingly suggestive if not important. Not less suggestive is his statement that in Armenia, as late as 1286 A. D. there were extant proofs that the Daniel of the Old Testament was known as Zoroaster the Younger at the courts of Darius Hystaspes and Cyrus.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 319

   “Some evidence must be forced, others give it because they are on the side of truth. I am neither a Jewish Gnostic, a Cappadocian, nor an Eclectic. I am simply a Naturalist. I think that you will find some evidence in Gibbon, that I helped to create, or that I endorsed a thing called Christianity. I knew nothing of any such thing. I was a Montanist; and the most correct idea I can give you of Montanism is modern Mormonism. I advanced nothing in regard to the life of man, woman or child on this planet, but this: We are all gods to a certain extent, and Pantheism is true Spiritualism. The point I have to make in controlling this medium is summed up in a brief sentence. All ancient and modern civilization originated, not upon the elevated plains of Asia, but upon the waters of the Blue and White Nile. There are spirits who will come here and prove that all the learned archaeologists of the present day are wrong, in supposing that Indian civilization is more ancient than the civilization of Ethiopia in Africa. It is there you must look for the true Sun — the true God — the Great Light, and you will find that Christianity is an outgrowth from Buddhism. Sun worship, from Zoroastrianism and the Egyptian Osirianism of Hermes Trismegistus, to the origin of Christianity, are at bottom one and the same thing. I would say in conclusion it has been alleged that I was a bishop. I had nothing to do with any church. I was the patriarch of a tribe.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 320 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography for account of Minucius Felix.
   Whether Gibbon speaks of Minucius Felix in his relation to Christianity we cannot say; but certainly he has been very generally credited with having been a Christian and a Christian writer. Felix, as a spirit, testifies that this was not the fact, and that he was a Montanist and a patriarch of a tribe of followers, we presume in Africa, where he was born, and where he no doubt taught Montanism with Tertullian. His “apology” was written in defence of Montanism and as much against the Gnostic Christianity of Marcion as against the persecuting decrees of the Roman government against Montanism, or Tertullianism, as it was also called.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 321

   “Good morning: — I will begin this communication by saying, that the translators of manuscripts from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea, translated to suit themselves. You can throw this in the teeth of the learned world and defy them to dispute what I here state. There are five ancient Testaments. First, the Brahmanical Testament of Christos to his disciple Arjourn, the Gospel of St. John of after times; second, the Zend Avesta of the Parsees, devoted to sun-worship, but intermixed with the sacred writings or Testament of Christos; third, the Testament of King Ardelos Babekar, a revision of the writings of Gautama Buddha made at the Council of Asoka; fourth, the Testament of Apollonius of Tyana, the Greek Version of the latter, with explanations, issued at Antioch, about A. D. 56; and fifth, the Testament of Jesus Christ, originated by Eusebius of Caesarea. Besides the five Testaments named, there was a Gheez translation of the two first named Testaments, made by one Arsaces, a brother of a king, made about 450 B. C. This last was translated into the Coptic of Upper and Lower Egypt, and this Coptic translation of Arsaces’ version was used by the great Armenian theologian Mesrob and those who followed him. These various Testaments began with passages which when translated are nearly the same as the first chapter of the Gospel of John; and that chapter contains the key to the zodiacal interpretation of all religions. When in my mortal form, I knew of two Greek Testaments— the Greek Testament before the time of Eusebius Pamphilus, and the Greek Testament after that time. The Greek Testament before that time speaks only of Apollonius as the great Saviour of mankind and the great incarnation of the Deity, known by various titles, such as “the Redeemer of Men,” “the Sun of Truth,” “the Light of the World,” and “God Expressed in Flesh.” The title “Above All” was applied to Apollonius. The Greek Testament was submitted to me in the manuscript which was forwarded from England to me at Jena. I translated it, but not correctly. I made it to conform to what we believed. Seventeen pages had been torn out of it, which were replaced by interpolated matter. This Greek Testament of Eusebius was afterwards greatly interfered with by Greek scholars, in the fourth century, and Cyril had a good deal to do with shaping it toward its modern form, as the Testament of Jesus Christ. Even in the days of Constantine the Great, it was necessary to bring a terrible pressure to bear upon the pagans in order to supplant Apollonius by Jesus; and so futile did this endeavor of Constantine prove, that it amounted to nothing more’ than substituting one name for another. All the doctrines, ceremonies, and forms of religious exercises, were retained, which accounts for the entire want of novelty in the Christian Scriptures, and their similarity to all previous Scriptures. I am well satisfied with what I have done to-day. I was known in earth life as a very positive man, and no interference could avail to defeat my testimony.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 322 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   As this is a communication of the highest value and importance, we feel it our duty to give our readers reference as to where may be found a full and critical account of the intelligence from whom it purports to come. We therefore refer them to McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopaedia, of Theological Literature Ini-account of the life and theological labors of Griesbach in order that the reader may understand the full import of his testimony as a spirit. In our estimation, no more important information was ever given by a returning spirit. He sets out with a statement that the most superficial investigator of biblical and other ancient literature, cannot help but know to be true, and that is, that the translators of manuscripts, from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea, translated to suit themselves. At the Council of Nicaea, in A. D. 325, the plan was consummated of establishing the dogmatical canon of what was called the Christian religion. Perhaps no one had a more prominent hand in that work than Eusebius. On this point we quote from McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopaedia as follows:

   “The part taken by Eusebius in the Council of Nicaea, is described by Valesius as follows: ‘In this greatest and most celebrated council, Eusebius was far from an unimportant person; for he had the first seat on the right hand, in the name of the whole synod addressed the emperor Constantine, who sat on a golden chair, between the two rows of the opposite parties. This is affirmed by Eusebius himself, and by Sozomon. Afterwards, when there was a considerable contest amongst the bishops relative to a creed or form of faith, Eusebius proposed a formula at. once simple and orthodox, which received the general commendation both of the bishop and of the emperor himself.”

   After that establishment of the Christian creed or form of faith, which had no existence, formulated or otherwise, up to that time, the whole business of the Christian priesthood was to destroy or conceal, or oppose everything which did not agree with that impious and infamous sacerdotal prescription. This is manifest in the wholesale destruction, of by far the greater portion of the literature of that period running from the time of Alexander the Great to the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era, and especially of everything that bore upon the subjects of theology and history. The fragmentary manner in which any part of the literature of that period has been permitted to come down to us shows that it must have contained much that was inconsistent with the interests of the Christian clergy, who, after the time of Constantine, and until the 15th century, monopolized the literature, “profane as well as sacred,” of the world. [...]

   [Pg 323] It is to his immortal credit that he proclaimed the result of his investigations, in his “Symbolse Critical,” “that the manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western recensions, on which his system is founded, were grossly corrupted in the age succeeding highest esteem were corrupted in every page by marginal scholia and interpretations of the fathers, and contained innumerable and very serious errors.” It is also a most significant fact, that in the same treatise, Griesbach said, “that no reliance can be placed on the printed editions of the works of Origen, on the fidelity of his different transcribers, on the accuracy of his quotations, or, finally, on the copies of the Scriptures from which he quoted.” Having done this, Dr. Nolan very naturally and logically said, “we have only to take his own account of the state in which he finds the best part of his materials to discover the extreme insecurity of the fabric which he has raised on such a foundation.” Decidedly so, Dr. Nolan, say we; but it was, as Griesbach well knew, on precisely that “extreme insecurity,” that rested the fabric of Christianity in the construction of which he was acknowledged to be one of the most competent theological artizans. It is this concatination of corrupted and falsified ancient literature that is called by the Christian world “The Holy Scriptures of their Lord God, Jesus Christ.” For the sake of common honesty, why not drop the sanctified fraud; and allow mankind the the chance of being honest and consistent? Why not!

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 324

   “My arraignment of Christianity here to-day, may be very severe, but not more so than it deserves. I was known when in this mortal life as Haico. I am regarded as the founder of the Armenian nation, or at least called so; but in reality the Armenians existed as a people fifteen hundred years before my time. My special office here is to make clear some important points in corroboration of the testimony of other spirits who came before me. There are two spirits who have been particularly instrumental in having me come here, although the band of this medium assisted them and myself in bringing it about. One of those two spirits was Ardilua Babekra, and the other Apollonius of Tyana. When you come to investigate the truth concerning what I say here to-day, by the light of history, you will be struck by the singular fact that all Armenian history, from the day of Meisrob Madoza, about the 4th century, A. D., when the Armenians embraced Christianity, or most of it, remains intact. But hardly a word of their history, before they embraced Christianity, has been permitted to survive. Thank heaven! through controlling this medium I am enabled to-day to set before you some facts, which, if not supported by absolute proofs, all can see and understand the justice of. Before the Christian era, between 2100 and 2200 years, I existed in mortal form. I was the contemporary of the great Bel or Belus, the founder of the Assyrian empire. The Armenians of my day were worshippers of what is, in your day, called the Parsee religion, but in my day they were known as the votaries or followers of Zarathustra. They worshipped Sol, or the Sun. The reason why the Christians would not let our ancient manuscripts survive, (those prior to A. D. 400), was simply because what they called their Old Testament belonged to myself and people. It is Armenian and not Jewish; and its historical characters are all nothing more than altered names and accounts of Armenian kings and heroes. Let the most learned ethnologists of to-day be called upon to point out the difference between six Armenians and six Jews who are dressed alike and not allowed to speak, and I defy them to successfully show the difference between an Armenian and a Jew. Their forms, features and all their physical characteristics are the same in both; and sothoroughly have the Christians attempted to cover up or disguise it, that they have made a Joseph a Jew, sold to the Ishmaelites or Midianites, in the so-called ancient Jewish Scriptures. It was to the Armenians that this Joseph was sold. He was a Midianite sold to the Armenians, and this whole story was set forth in old Armenian manuscripts, while the Armenians were Sun worshippers, and long before they became Christians. The Armenians had, as have the Hindoos of to-day, a sacred or literary language and a spoken language. [Here the spirit hesitated for a moment, and then said.] No one can know but myself the buoyancy of my spirit, and its tendency to bear me upward, and the effort of will that it requires to hold me here to allow me to make these facts known. The famous legend in the Hebrew Scriptures in regard to Solomon, grows out of the history of an ancient king, who was worshipped in my day as Solomonna, literally meaning the Sun born into human mortal life, of a virgin named Monna. Almost all of what is called the Hebrew Testament before Ezra has been stolen from Armenian sacred writings, history, or general literature. It was this Solomonna and not Moses who wrote what is termed the Decalogue long before my time. So it was set down in my day, partly by descriptive signs and partly in legendary lore. It is well for me, that with all their literary vandalism, they have not been able to conceal the name of Haico, and that there was the Haiken philosophy and teaching. They were too indelibly stamped upon the minds of the people, prior to the advent of Christianity, to be obliterated, it has often been said that the temple Belus or the temple of Bel, was the original Tower of Babel. I will make clear to you what the purpose and use of that structure was. It was simply intended to store the king’s tribute, which, in those days, was largely derived from the farming population and paid in grain. That temple or tower was used to store away the grain paid as tribute to the king. The Assyrians of my time differed from the Armenians in this one particular. They were great astronomers, and they modelled a serpent deity after the great dragon in the heavens, and worshipped it as the symbol of the all-pervading power. It is claimed that Meisrob Medoza invented an Armenian alphabet. This is a Christian untruth, for his Armenian alphabet was old when I lived. In the sixth dynasty after my reign, an Armenian king, Atharavin, placed the worship of the Samaritan god, Jehovah, in the Armenian manuscripts, and this was the origin of the Jewish Jehovah. And, now, I am particularly desired by my friend Ardilua Babekra to give you a clue by which you can find out this Christian duplicity. He was the great reformer of Buddhism, but these Christians, in order to set investigators astray, have placed him in Persia instead of India, and represented him as a reformer of the Zend Avesta; and they called him Ardshir Babegan, the reformer of the Zend or Parsee religion, when in reality he was a reformer of Buddhism. The spirits I have named sent for me to right these two points; first, in regard to Babekra being an Indian and. not a Persian king; and, second, in regard to Meisrob inventing the Armenian alphabet. Both of those spirits were interrupted by interfering influences when here to communicate. But Haico fears not the powers of evil; for too long has he contended with them, and he understands all their duplicity and untruthfulness. I would also say that the great pyramid of Egypt was called Cheops, and was not built by Cheops. It was built in the beginning of the ante-historical period by Rameses Pharoth Phraath, and was in existence in my time. Its object was twofold. Like the temple of Belus, it was used as the depository of the king’s tribute, and also for astronomical observations. And in conclusion, I would say that in the Geez pyramids in the upper valley of the Nile, there are secret vaults or chambers which have never been discovered by explorers, and the secrets of which none but spirits can disclose. This they will do when Christianity has lost its prestige and not before. It has taken me six months to prepare for this communication and to get here to give it.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 327 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Biographie Universelle for account of Haico.
   Well does the spirit say that his “arraignment of Christianity may be severe, but it is well deserved. That the name of the spirit was Haico, as he gives it we have no doubt, and not Haig as the French writers give it. [...]

   The spirit with great emphasis points to the fact, that from the time that Christianity obtained a foothold in Armenia, in the fourth century, the history of that country has remained almost complete; but that hardly any of the history of that people prior to that time, has been allowed to come down to us. This is true, and leaves little doubt that this striking fact is owing to the unwillingness of Christian and Jewish writers to have the history of Ancient Armenia, and its religion and literature known. The reason for this will become apparent, as we proceed. Moses Chorenensis, to whom we are indebted for all that is historically told of Haico, flourished in the 5th century. He was an Armenian, and was appointed to the bishopric of the Christian church at Bagrevand. It is very evident from the very little that he says in regard to Haico, that he did not care to go any further into his history than he could help doing, in writing a history of Armenia. It is, however, much to be thankful for that he mentioned him at all and thus enabled us to authenticate the communication of the spirit of Haico. It is undoubtedly true that Haico flourished in the twenty-second century B. C, that he was the contemporary of Belus of Babylon, king of Assyria, and that he was a most distinguished Armenian king, who undoubtedly reigned when the Armenian nation had reached the zenith of its distinction and power. How any one could have supposed that the Armenian kingdom or empire originated with him it is difficult to imagine. Haico says that the Armenians had existed as a nation fifteen hundred years before his time, which would have given that people an antiquity of three thousand six hundred and twenty-five years B. C. He says that the ancient Armenians were the religious followers of Zarathustra, and were worshippers of Sol, or the Sun. From the statement of the spirit, it would appear, that the Armenians, even as early as the time of Haico, had a very perfect literature, and that is borne out by the fact that an Armenian grammar which he, Haico, highly prized has come down to us. What has become of that very ancient literature? Haico tells us it was stolen by the Jews to make up their Bible. Through this spirit disclosure, we are enabled to advance much nearer to the great secret facts upon which the Jewish and Christian theological systems rest, and which once fairly understood, will put an end to their antiquated religious impositions. Heretofore the supposition has been that the Jews borrowed largely from the Chaldeans and Egyptians, in constructing and compiling their so-called sacred books. It now appears that they were vastly more indebted to the Armenians, who were even a more advanced people, in literature at least, than the Assyrians. Indeed, from what the spirit says, there is much reason to believe that the Jews were nothing more nor less than Armenians, who for some reason became separated from their fellow Armenians. [...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 330

   “I salute you, sir:— Brave comrade in the war for truth, let us fight to the last. [...] When I was on earth, everything was undergoing transition. Old and effete idolatrous religions were beginning to die out before the great question, propounded by the Patriarch of Chaldea, Jovinus, (called in jour Old Testament Job), whose works I read, and which bore the date of 2200 years before my time: “If a man die shall he live again?” I found it repeated in a little book called the “Analysis of Pythagoreanism” which was extant at that time. This set me to thinking, and I then resolved to follow the directions of Pythagoras, in order to establish communication with what were termed the manes of our ancestors. This, by the aid of two female mediums, or extatics, as we called them, I accomplished. Their names were Priscilla and Maximilla; and from what we received through those extatics, myself and followers became converts to the teachings of the great spirit intelligences that controlled them. With the fervor of our race, we started out together, to prove that what we asserted was true, by word and act. Even the most learned and influential priests could not make a stand against our facts. From A. D. 175 to 250, we increased so rapidly as a sect, in spite of the opposition of the priesthood of other systems then known, that our meetings were suppressed by the ruling powers of different countries. We actually proved, at the time of making our statements, that we had the true light that lightened every one that cometh into the world, because it was equally available to man, woman and child. The Montanists were the predecessors, or founders, of the Eclecticism of Potamon, Ammonius Saccas and their followers, which was a blending of Platonism and Pythagoreanism. One of the so-called Christian fathers, Origen, became a follower of mine. We had those phases of spiritual phenomena called trance, healing, physical appearances, and other manifestations of spirit power. Maximilla was a healing medium. Priscilla a medium for materialization and other physical phenomena, and I was the trance medium, and taught in a state of ecstacy. There was one phenomenon that was very impressive. We mediums became transfigured and illuminated, so that the people could with difficulty look upon us. I taught from the revised Buddhistic canons, of the reign of Ardelos Babaker, which Apollonius brought from India. It was translated into the Phrygian dialect by a priest of Cybele.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 331 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature for account of Montanus.

   [Pg 332] The spirit tells us that the book called Job was the work of a Chaldean named Jovinus and was not a Hebrew book at all. This is very certainly correct, in the main at least. We are told that Montanus and his followers were rigid ascetics. This, we take it, meant nothing more than that they followed the precepts of Pythagoras, who, by the way was the great spiritualistic teacher of philosophy among all the Greek philosophers.
   It will be seen, by attentively reading the communication, how consistent it is with Tertullian’s description of the opinions, doctrines, and practices of the Montanists. But for his testimony, which the advocates of Christianity could not dispense with, every trace of Montanus and his mediumistic work would have been destroyed. Had the work which he set on foot been fully carried out, Spiritualism would not have had to wait until 1848 to find a foothold on the earth. But it was not to be. The interests of priestcraft were too weighty for the truth to be permitted to weigh against them, and hence the vehemence and vindictiveness with which every gowned humbug, of the priestly class, has followed it, down to the present hour. Montanus is certainly right when he says that Montanism was the foundation upon which the Eclectic or Alexandrian school of Potamon, Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus was founded. They were all mediums, and were controlled to teach while entranced, as is sufficiently evident from the facts that have been recorded concerning them. Montanus well says that the ablest and most influential of the priests could not stand before the phenomenal proofs he and his associates gave of the after life.
   But one of the most significant features of the communication is, that Origen, as well as Tertullian, was a Montanist, or in other words a medium for spirit control. That either of them were ever, in any sense, Christians, is absurd; unless it is admitted that Apollonius of Tyana was a Christian, and his teachings pure and unquestioned Christianity. Montanus tells us plainly that the books he used were the canons of Buddhism, which were brought from India by Apollonius; and which, he might have added, were the original books from which the Christian Scriptures were derived. Who can question that but for the dishonesty and selfishness of priests, Christians as well as heathens, Spiritualism, with all its momentous and inextinguishable truths would have been the common possession of all mankind, long before the present time. There has been more than enough Christian misrepresentations concerning Montanus, his teachings, practices and disciples, than would suffice to overwhelm a thousand frauds such as that of Christianity.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 333

   “I greet you, sir, by saying: The Sun of Truth never sets. It may be obscured by clouds of ignorance and error, but it will finally burst through these clouds and cheer the whole world by the brilliancy of its light. I was a strict Pharisee; but you must not think that a Jewish Pharisee was of the ridiculous character that he is represented to be in the modern New Testament. While I allow we were rather too much inclined to ceremonial law; yet we were the true Spiritualists of our time, though not without a great deal of supercilious egotism. [Have we not a good many of these Spiritual Pharisees to-day?] We were the party or sect who in those days were opposed to all idolatrous mummeries, in so far that we had but one God, Jehovah, and Moses as his prophet. All this was well enough for us while here on the earth, but we have found as spirits that our views of Spiritual things were too narrow and contracted. And now, having prefaced my remarks, I want to speak of Jewish history as known to me when on earth; and upon this subject I will be as clear and explicit as I possibly can. At that time there was a great struggle between different nations to prove their respective religions were more ancient than any other; but there was no learned Jew of my time who did not know that our religion, as founded upon the Old Testament, antedated my time by only about four hundred and thirty-two years; and to disguise this fact we resorted to all kinds of chronological forgeries. The Jews having become pretty well scattered, at that time, we introduced into the Old Testament the sun worship of Zoroaster, and even one of his books which is known to you in modern times as the Book of Daniel. It was the younger Zoroaster who, as a Persian Magian, figured as Daniel is represented to have done at the courts of Darius and Cyrus, where he was much respected and highly honored. But in the original book of Zoroaster, or the Book of Daniel, there was a table, or what you term an almanac, of the time in which he lived. This occupied the place of an appendix to the book; but it was destroyed by Rabbi Saadias Gaon, for fear that the Jews would take to astronomy, he claiming that they were forbidden to do so by Moses. That my pupil Aquila ever had anything to do with Targum writing I know to be utterly false, and that the Targums attributed to him, and placed in my time and in my school, by Eusebius, were but versions of the writings of Apollonius of Tyana made by a copier, and that copier not Aquila, but Plotinus. Things have been so mixed by designing men, that it is very difficult to set ancient history in its proper light. When I was about twenty years of age I knew Apollonius of Tyana. I met him at Smyrna, where I listened to his teaching, and became a proselyte to some of his ideas, but not to all of them. While he delivered his discourses he underwent that wondrous phenomenon of modern times, transfiguration of face and form, as it is described to have occurred with the so-called Jesus Christ. Rays went out from his garments, and his face became so bright that the eye could not endure it. Upon my advent into spirit life, I became very anxious to seek out Moses, but with the very worst of results. I found that the ancient Chaldeans, under the name of Seth, and the Moabites, under the name of Mo, were the people from whom we Jews had been receiving our traditions and worshipping the hero of them, under the name of a prophet who never existed. This is what I have discovered as a spirit. [...]

   [Pg 335] One thing more before I am done, and that is, there are learned Jews, who are almost beggars, in Jerusalem to-day, who know where there are concealed priceless manuscripts, which, once in the possession of the learned, would prove the falsity of the whole Jewish religion. But these Jewish custodians of those treasures are so bigoted that they would rather starve to death than let the world know the truth about their religion. Perhaps this communication may indirectly be the means of opening their eyes to a different course. I thank and bless you for this hearing. You have my name.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 335 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Biographie Universelle for account of Akiba.
   In the work above referred to will be found the historical and traditionary account that has come down to us concerning the acknowledgedly learned and distinguished man, whose spirit gave that startling communication. If the statement it contains can be verified, it is very evident that the Jewish religion and Scriptures were not a whit less false and deceptive than are the Christian religion and Scriptures, which have been tacked on to the former by Eusebius and his successors.
   The spirit of Akiba tells us that in the beginning of the Christian era, there was a great rivalry between the priests of different nations, as to which one of their religions was the most ancient one among them. This was the fact then, and it is in a measure the fact to-day, so far as the antiquity of Buddhism and Christianity is concerned. All religions that have ever prevailed have been but copies of one original religion, more or less varied, to suit the different states of civilization which they were modified to suit. It was a source of mortification for classes of men who claimed to have the only truth, in the way of religion that have existed, to find that other people had substantially the same religion, and hence the rivalry to show which was the oldest and original. Especially has Christianity found itself confronted with this perplexing difficulty; for, being the youngest of the modifications of the old heathen religions, and having borrowed or stolen its every garment from the back of heathen victims, its priesthood are driven to their wits’ end to know how to conceal that mortifying fact. Especially are they driven to desperation, to show that the Buddhistic tatters, in which their boasted, only true religion, is compelled to figure, were not stolen and appropriated by their predecessors dishonestly. In order to do this, they have irrationally sought to show that Buddha did not live and teach his religion until six hundred years after the alleged life, sayings and doings of Jesus Christ; and that Buddhism is but a heathen corruption of the religion founded by, and in the name of this Jesus Christ. There was a time when the ignorance of Oriental literature made it safe for the Christian priesthood to put forth such a falsehood; but what was safe for many hundreds of years, has become fatally ruinous to those who had not the discernment to know that time would bring out the truth. To have acknowledged that the analogies existing between the Buddhistic religion and Christianity were sufficient to establish the fact that the one was but the corruption of the other, as the Christian priesthood have* been forced to do, amounts, now, in the light of known and indisputable facts, to an acknowledgement that Christianity is nothing more than a corrupt version of Buddhism. Buddhism certainly ante-dates Christianity by more than a thousand years, for Christianity had no existence until the beginning of the fourth century. [...]

   [Pg 337] There can hardly be any doubt that the whole of the Jewish Scriptures were derived from the Chaldeans, if not the Moabites and Armenians. There is certainly every reason to regard the Chaldeans as the sons of Seth, as they no doubt so regarded themselves, rather than of Abraham, the undoubted Patriarch of the Hindoos, called I-brahm in the original signification of that name.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 338

   This spirit was announced by the guide of the medium, as Lucius Appulceius, who lived in the latter half of the second century. This was a mistake as the communication will show.

   “I will salute you by saying:— Let us unite our efforts to kill that curse of modern times, called Christianity. I may introduce myself as a satirical philosopher and a follower of Lucian. If the works of Lucian had not been interfered with, there would have been no necessity for the spirit communications that you are now receiving. For, in the dramatization of his great work “Promethus Bound,” — Lucian prefaced it by expressly saying that he drew his material, not only from AEschylus, but from the gods of all nations that he knew of; and that he did this because of the similarity of their teachings. He was also, to a great extent, the writer of the Gospel of St. Luke, which received his name at the hands of the Gnostics, after his death. It was the custom in those days, when a man died, leaving anonymous writings behind him, to give his name as the author of them. The ideas set forth in the so-called New Testament, are founded on what I term the Apollonian- Essenian doctrines — the Essenes of my time being the strictest of the strict, in following the teachings of Apollonius of Tyana. As for myself, I pinned my faith, or belief, or knowledge upon no man’s skirts. I thought for myself, and acted accordingly. The only work of mine that has been permitted to survive Christian vandalism, has been of the least use, it being nothing more than a kind of satirical poem called, “The Golden Ass,” the materials of which were largely drawn from Lucian. But, in two works written in the early part of my life at Carthage, and afterwards revised at Rome, I set forth so clearly the religious beliefs of my time, that everything that is clouded and obscured in the teachings concerning the Indian and Scandinavian gods, would have been as apparent to-day as the noonday Sun. These works were destroyed by order of Constantine.

   [Pg 339] In the books I have spoken of, I set forth the doctrine that Apollonius of Tyana was a reincarnation of Gautama Buddha; but I have learned differently in spirit life. Apollonius was simply controlled by Buddha, to keep alive his teachings. In the time when I lived, every effort was made by the active followers of Apollonius, to promulgate his teachings, as they contained all that they thought good and useful in all religions and philosophies, then known. Their idea was to promulgate a religion of peace among men; and this was most ably forwarded by Potamon, Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus. The two last, after my time; I was a contemporary of Potamon. I never met him, although I read his doctrines. The only improvement that he made upon the teachings of Apollonius, was that he adhered more closely to the Platonic doctrines than did Apollonius, who leaned more to Pythagoreanism. The mythical gods of my time such as Jupiter, Orpheus, Osiris, etc., were but substitutes for Chrishna, Buddha, Pythagoras, Hesus, etc., all of them being supposed to be the sons of God here upon earth — which meant nothing else than that they wrere mediums for the control of spirits. With the most earnest regret that the works of my time had not escaped Christian destruction, I will have to give way to others. But it seems to me that I am absolutely myself, while controlling this medium.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 339 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   After the spirit yielded control, the guide of the medium stated that Appulceius, as he called him, was born at Carthage, but went to Rome, Athens and Alexandria. For account of Appuleius, we refer to Chambers’ Encyclopaedia and Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography. [...]

   [Pg 340] And now we come to notice a fact, mentioned by Appuleius, which furnishes the key to unlock the mysteries that attended what has been called the Christianity of the three first centuries of the prevailing era. He tells us that when he lived, every effort was being made by the followers of Apollonius to promulgate his teachings, as they contained all they thought good and useful in all religions and philosophies then known. He tells us that their idea was to promulgate a religion of peace among men, and that Potamon, Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus worked grandly for that end. Oh, what a misfortune it was that the efforts of these great, good and benevolent men were neutralized and defeated by the founders of the prevailing Christian religion! Appuleius tells us in what respect the Eclectic religion of Potamon differed from the Essenian religion of Apollonius; and that it was mainly to be seen in the greater leaning of the latter to the Pythagorean doctrines, while Potamon followed more closely the doctrines of Plato. This is beyond all question the fact, as any one conversant with the teachings of the different philosophic schools of Greece well knows.
   Appuleius tells us that the Greek and Egyptian divinities were identical with Chrishna, Buddha, Pythagoras, Hesus, &c., all of whom were supposed to be the sons of God upon the earth; and meant that they were mediums for the control of departed spirits.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 341

   “I salute you, sir:— I am afraid that during your mortal life you will be in much the same position I was. 1 found it hard to maintain peace while the work of reform was a necessity; but nevertheless, I never became discouraged in trying to do as nearly right as I could under the circumstances that surrounded me, although my reign was a very short one. I am here mainly through the efforts of the hero or saint of my time, Apollonius ol Tyana. He was in Rome, when I was there, for a short period. There was no other god advocated by him but Christos of India, whose disciple he claimed to be; and whose doctrines and logic he expounded in my time. That he was the Paul of the Christian Epistles I know, because he submitted them to me to read for myself. They were written in the Latin and Greek tongues by himself. I allowed him full sway during my reign, and upon one ground only — not that I believed what he taught, but simply because he was a Pythagorean as I was myself. The real secret of my becoming an emperor of Rome was, that I belonged to the secret order of the Pythagorean Brotherhood. As to whether there was any other god than Christos taught in those days, I will say, that there were about fifteen of them, among which the most prominent were Prometheus of the Greeks, Horus of the Egyptians, and Hesus of the Scandinavians. These were the principal Saviours of men that were preached in my day. The foundation of the history of each and all of them, as far as I can give it, was the theory of a woman overshadowed by a god, who gave birth to a divine man. I would further say that in my day, at Rome, all religions seemed to drift towards the central theory of a great god, who had a son who would die to save the world. But from manuscripts written at least four thousand years before my time, the same idea seemed to pervade all ceremonies and observances, but in every case relating to the great Sun of Light that you behold above you. It was useless for Apollonius to try to convince me of the existence of a god, or a son of a god; I being, in fact, initiated into a thorough understanding of the secrets of the Order of Light — that light that lighteth all men that cometh into the world. [Was that a Pythagorean idea?] It was. As to the spiritual manifestations occurring through Apollonins, although they were grand in their way, yet similar manifestations were common in my day. There were many astrologers of my court through whom the same phenomena occurred. I believe I have said all that it is necessary for me to state at this time. I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to do it. [How did your being a Pythagorean influence your election as emperor of Borne?] That order had gained great power among the nobility of Rome and Greece. It was almost unknown to the common people. The order was composed of the aristocracy, and its members united to forward my elevation. I am Cocceius Nerva, emperor of Rome.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 342 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Biographie Universelle for account of Nerva.
   The spirit of Nerva tells us that it was mainly through the efforts of the spirit of Apollonius of Tyana that he was present to giye his testimony concerning what he knew about the life and writings of the great Cappadocian sage. No spirit had a greater reason than he, to desire that that testimony should be given to the world. Nerva tells us that Apollonius was, for a short time, at Rome, in his time; and that while there he expounded the doctrines and logic of the Christos of India. It is true that the spirit does not tell us when it was that this visit of Apollonius to Rome took place. It is a historically known fact, however, that Apollonius was at Rome several times during his life, and the last time during the reign of Domitian which occupied the period from A. D. 81 to 96. At that time Apollonius must have been a very old man. It was most probably during that period that Nerva met him at Rome, perhaps during the six years that Nerva was associated with Domitian in the consulship, from A. D. 90 to 96.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 344

   “I will salute you, sib, by saying:— Those who would obstruct these communications confirm the saying, ‘Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.’ I was born into the mortal life about A. D. 30, and departed to the spirit life about A. D. 85. I lived at the time of the great triumphs and renowned career of Apollonius of Tyana, a man and a medium who, (if people must have a God and a Saviour) ought to be the leading character in that direction, to-day. I most positively assert, that under the name of Paulinus or Polionos, Apollonius was brought before me for disturbing the peace of the country; but nothing could be proven against him, except that he knew more about the Jewish religion than my own people did. In those days, the Jews gladly killed any Gentile who knew more of their religion, and who could expound it better than their learned Rabbies. As I could find no harm in the man except what I have stated, he was discharged. He was brought before me a second time about the time of the downfall of the Jewish state, which was about A. D. 67 or 68, when he was again charged with disturbing the country, by advancing ideas that were derogatory to the Jewish Jehovah. But again his accusers failed to prove their point. Apollonius was, in fact, a disciple and initiated member of the school of Gamaliel, and so well did he argue with his accusers, that they failed in all their attempts to prove anything against him. That Apollonius was the St. Paul of the present Christian religion is plainly proven, by reading the various epistles attributed to him. Those epistles will show to any candid inquirer or thinker, that Paul was not a Jew. Everything therein goes to show that he must have been a person well versed in Greek, and just such a writer and thinker as was the great Cappadocian sage, Apollonius of Tyana. The last time, during my mortal career, that I met Apollonius, was in the camp of Titus, before Jerusalem, about A. D. 70, where I saw such spiritual manifestations occurring through his mediumship, or in his presence, as Josephus relates as having occurred through Eleazer the Jew. Josephus was in the camp of Titus at that time. Those manifestations were similar to the various phenomena now well known to be produced by spirits through mediums, and were such as to incite Vespasian and Titus to greater endeavors to overthrow the Jewish state. I have further to say, that there was no Jewish history or book, written in my time, that could prove my people to have a history extending over five hundred years before my time. The sacred writings all took their present shape in the days of Ezra the scribe. This communication is not from a ‘Jew of the Jews,’ but is from one who despised them because they would never submit to be properly ruled, and were always in a state of anarchy. They were bigoted on all points, and it was their bigotry that destroyed them as a nation. My name was Agrippa Herodes the Younger. I was king of Judea.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 345 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   For account of Agrippa Herodes II, we refer to Smith’s Greek and Roman Biography.
   If the communication of Herodes Agrippa the Younger is authentic and true, then have we positive proof that Apollonius of Tyana was the St. Paul, or the Apostle Paul, of the socalled Christian Scriptures, and the true nature of the so-called New Testament is clearly and certainly known. We do not believe that any untruthful spirit, however bent on deceiving, could invent a story so consistent with so many and widely variant historical facts. We therefore conclude that the whole communication came from the controlling spirit intelligence of him who was known as Agrippa Herodes II. The only other question that remains to be determined, is the substantial truthfulness of the communication.
   That Agrippa lived, as he says, during the great triumphs and renowned career of Apollonius of Tyana, is very certain; and, that he was thoroughly acquainted with the distinguished reformatory labors of Apollonius, is equally certain. Therefore, when, as a spirit, he comes back and testifies that Apollonius under the name of Paulinus or Polionos was twice brought before him on the complaint of the Jews, and was twice acquitted by him, he states what we have every just reason to believe was the fact. Agrippa was king from A. D. 48, until the conquest of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews, A. D. 70. It was during that time that Apollonius was brought before him, as he states. The complaint, in the first instance, was, that he was disturbing the peace of the country, which disturbance arose from his showing the people that he knew more about the Jewish religion than the Jewish priests knew themselves. As that was no offence under the law, Agrippa discharged him. The charge in the second instance was that Apollonius was disturbing the country by advancing ideas that were derogatory to the Jewish Jehovah. But, on this charge too, he was acquitted. Why? Because as the spirit tells us, he, Apollonius, was a disciple of the great Jewish philosopher Gamaliel, and an initiate of his school, and was thus enabled to confound and defeat his Jewish accusers. This was, as the spirit states, about A.D. 67 or 68. At that time Apollonius must have been in his sixty-fifth or sixty-sixth year. [...]

   [Pg 346] Now in order to show our readers the positive identity of the Christian St. Paul and Apollonius the Cappadocian sage and Saviour, as he was called by his followers, we refer our readers to the account of the trial of the apostle Paul before Agrippa. Acts xxiv, xxv, xxvi. As to the version of the trial of Apollonius before king Agrippa, as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, by what person, or when written, the writer did not dare to disclose. It is a well known fact that this fictitious book was not written until after all the other books of the New Testament, as it is called, were written; and that it was written to explain the connection between the so-called Christian Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. Everything about that account of the accusation of Paul by the Jews, his defence, and of his being sent to Rome, shows that it was a concocted affair, to get away from the fact that it was Apollonius of Tyana, who created such an excitement among the Jews; and who was the real author of the Pauline Epistles. This trial, about which Christians make such an ado, is no where mentioned in Josephus’s histories, which shows one of two things; either that it was considered by Josephus as a matter of too little account to be worthy of mention, or the mention of it has been destroyed. That neither Apollonius nor Paul, who are said to have figured so prominently at that epoch, should be mentioned by Josephus or any writer of that time, in any connection whatever, would show that there was some great reason for this studied silence. Apollonius was certainly in Judea while the Jewish war was in progress, and there made the acquaintance of Vespasian whose prophet and seer he became. It was just before the breaking out of the war, that the trial before Agrippa took place, most probably not in A. D. 60, as has been supposed, but in A. D. 67 or 68, as the spirit states. It was no doubt this accusation of Apollonius before Agrippa, and his discharge, that constitutes the whole ground work of the fabulous account of the same occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles. It was most natural that a Greek, such as Apollonius was, who was a remarkable medium, and who created an uproar wherever he went, on account of the wonderful spirit manifestations which took place through him or in his presence, should have aroused the deadly enmity of the Jewish priests; but it was most unnatural that any Jew, and especially any Pharisee, should have caused such a commotion, and caused so long a detention in custody, as more than two years. Besides, the writer of Acts, inadvertently no doubt, says, that- one of the charges brought against the accused by the Jews, was that he was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” This charge could apply to no Jew of the sect of the Pharisees, as it is claimed that Paul was. It did, however, apply especially to Apollonius who was one of those persons whom the Jews, in derision, called Nazarites, who, about that time, assumed the designation of Essenes. Besides, it is very certain that Apollonius as a Nazarite or Essene, believed in the resurrection of the dead. Indeed, however critically the statement of the spirit of Agrippa is compared with the account of this occurrence in Acts, the fact will become the more clear that Apollonius, and not the Christian St. Paul, was the individual to which the account in Acts relates. The spirit then tells us that the last time he met Apollonius was in the camp of Titus, before Jerusalem, about A. D. 70, where he saw such spiritual manifestations take place in his presence as Josephus relates as having occurred through Eleazer the Jew. The part of Josephus’s writings referred to by the spirit, is to be found in the Antiquities of the Jews, Book viii., chap. ii, Section 5.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 349

   “I will salute you by saying: There is no God we can serve that will do us as much good as the truth. I am claimed to have been the writer of the Ketubim, called by others the Hagiographa. I was at the head of the school of Sora, in the third century. I was not the transcriber of either of the classes of writings mentioned. They were put into their present shape, in the ninth century, by a Greek Jew named Georgius. Whether you will be able to corroborate this I cannot say. But I did put in shape the Jewish writings of the Minor Prophets. I also wrote a great deal upon the teachings of Gamaliel; but the real Jewish records, before the time of Ezra the scribe, are all plagiarized from ancient sacred Armenian writings. The whole of the Pentateuch really belongs to the time of an Armenian king, who was contemporary with Psammeticus the Egyptian, and was extant in my day. By this I mean that these Armenian writings were in the library of the academy at the head of which I was. The actual writings and teachings of Gamaliel have been very much tampered with by Christians, and this was known in after times, as shown in the writings of Moses of Chorene, who is claimed to have embraced the Christian religion, but who in reality was an Ebionite follower of Krishna, (as the name was spelled in Armenian); and when you read about Josephus having been an Ebionite Christian, you must understand it to mean the same as when the term was applied to Moses of Chorene. I think that the most that I have said here to-day can be corroborated by that celebrated Armenian spirit, Haico, who has communicated with you before. I mean corroborated by the history of Haico. The Ebionites of the time of Gamaliel and Josephus were all tainted with Gymnosophism. They were Jews who had become acquainted with that Indian philosophy through Apollonius of Tyana. It has been one of my most imperative obligations as a spirit, in conjunction with many spirits of the sixth century to bring to light the Armenian, Pythagorean, Judean, Gnostic and Eclectic systems, the writings, concerning which, are sufficiently extant to overthrow the purpose of the Christian priesthood to conceal or destroy them. I will be with you, with all my spirit power, to crush this gigantic superstition — Christianity. I was known as Rabba Joseph, sometimes called the Blind.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 350 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   The spirit guide of the medium remarked that this spirit must have been a Gymnosophist himself, as he came almost naked. We have been unable to find any historical reference to such a person as Rabba Joseph or Joseph the Blind, of the third century, and yet we cannot divest ourself of the inclination to regard the communication as genuine and true. The spirit who gave it was thoroughly informed upon many points of history on which he has touched, and we cannot conceive what motive any spirit could have in deceitfully inventing it. [...]

   [Pg 352] That none of the writings of Rabba Joseph have come down to us, except in the Minor Prophets, should surprise no one; for hardly anything that could throw light upon the origin of the Jewish scriptures has been spared, either by the Jews or by the Christians.
   But we are now called to notice a statement, which if true, will necessitate a modification of the commonly supposed origin of the Jewish scriptures. The spirit says, that the Jewish records, before the time of Ezra the Scribe, are all plagiarized from ancient sacred Armenian writings; and that the whole of the Pentateuch really belongs to the time of an Armenian king, who was a contemporary of Psammeticus the Egyptian, and was extant, and in the library of the Academy of Sora in the 3d century. Psammeticus was king of Egypt about B. C. 670, and the Armenian King who was contemporary with him was perhaps his predecessor of Haikak II., who lived from 607 to 569 B. C. His name we cannot fix. But the king referred to may be Haikak II., himself; for it is historically stated Haikak II., joined Nebuchadnezzar in his expedition against the Jews, and brought into Armenia a Jewish noble named Shambat with his family. From this Shambat descended the Armenian royal family of the Bagratides or Bagradites, some of whom still hold high offices in Russia.” It will thus be seen that there wras an intimate and influential connection between the Jews and the Armenians, just about the time that the Jewish Scriptures were first published, that is B. C. 450. It would therefore seem that the Armenian people were older as a nation than the Assyrians, and as the spirit of Haico testified, they had a much more ancient literature. The spirit of Rabba Joseph tells us that the writings and teachings of Gamaliel have been very much tampered with by Christians; and that this was shown in after times in the writings of Moses of Chorene, who is claimed to have been a Christian, but who was in fact an Ebionite follower of Krishna, and when you read about Josephus having been an Ebionite Christian, you must understand it to mean the same as when the term was applied to Moses of Chorene. For the first time since the Christian priesthood gained an ascendency over the learning of the world, more than thirteen hundred years ago, has a ray of light been thrown upon the nature of the Ebionite religion. In their efforts to conceal the fact that the Ebionites were worshippers of the Hindoo Saviour, Krishna, and not of Jesus Christ, everything relating to them as a sect has been thrown into the greatest confusion. But now that a thoroughly informed Jewish spirit returns and testifies to that fact, all confusion and difficulty disappears; and the erroneousness of the Christian statements regarding them becomes plain and unquestionable. [...]

   [Pg 354] We may here reach several rational conclusions. 1st. That the Ebionites were in no other sense Christians, except that they regarded the Hindoo Krishna with religious veneration. This is made very apparent by the admission that Essenism “modified greatly” Ebionism. Ebionism was manifestly only a modified Gymnosophism older than the Nazarite or Nazarene, and the subsequent Essenian modification of Ebionism. 2d. We may rationally conclude that the Ebionites, the Nazarites and the Essenes were but Graecised versions of the Gymnosophism of India, and had nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. 3rd. We may conclude that the priestly founders of Christianity could not avoid the necessity of claiming the Ebionites, the Nazarites and the Essenes as Christians, because they were the only persons in existence who during the first one hundred and fifty years of the Christian era, could with any show of excuse or reason be called Christians; and they were no better off when for the next one hundred and fifty years they were compelled to recognize the Gnostic and Eclectic philosophies as Christian heresies. What has since been called orthodox Christianity had no existence until the time of Eusebius of Caesarea, in the forepart of the fourth century. 4th. We may conclude that the Ebionites were not Christians, but followers of the Hindoo teachings attributed to Krishna, the incarnation of the spirit Brahma, the Hindoo Saviour of men. It is just this that the testimony of Rabba Joseph shows. He says the Ebionites of the time of Gamaliel and Josephus were all tainted with Gymnosophism. They were Jews who had become acquainted with the Indian philosophy, through Apollonius of Tyana. We hope yet to be able to find some direct reference to Rabba Joseph, or Joseph the Blind.
   The spirit says that he has felt it his duty in connection with many spirits of the sixth century, to bring to light the Armenian, Pythagorean, Judean, Gnostic and Eclectic systems, the writings concerning which are sufficiently extant to overthrow the scheme of the Christian priests to conceal or destroy them. From which we infer that it was in the sixth century that the wholesale destruction of the literature of the philosophies named was entered upon; and further, that those who were engaged in that destruction are yet to testify in corroboration of what spirit Rabba Joseph had said.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 355

   “Peace be with you: — My teacher in the mortal life was a follower of the Alexandrian or Aristotelian philosophic principles. His name was Averroes. I became deeply interested in what he showed to me in writings that were then extant. But owing to the fanaticisms of my countrymen who were Mohammedans, I was obliged to disguise my real views through life. In reality I was a follower of Aristotle and Apollonius of Tyana. There were two Apollonian systems; one that passed toward the East, and the other toward the West. The Western system passed through the hands of Potamon, Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus and other men of that school. It was a strange position that I occupied — an Eclectic philosopher in a Mohammedan country. But my school was private. Our investigations had to be carried on very much as your investigations of Spiritualism are carried on now, in private apartments of our own. In Cordova, in my time, about A. D, 1200, our investigation of alchemy and science, although not interfered with by the government, could not be openly exposed. There is one point on which I want to enlighten you. There are thousands of spirits who would kill me this instant if they could prevent what I am about to tell you. It is this. The Augian Codex, which is claimed to have been written in the 9th century, and which is now in the Cambridge Library, affords the clearest and most positive proofs that Apollonius was St. Paul. Another thing I want to tell you is, that the Alexandrian Codex was well known and read among the Moors of my time, and was believed by many of them. That will have to close my communication.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 356 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Chambers’ Encyclopaedia for account of Moses Maimonides. [...]

   [Pg 356] The spirit tells us what is undoubtedly true, but what has not been known for several centuries; that is, that there were two Apollonian systems, one of which took root in the East, the other in the West; and that the Western system was modified by Potamon, Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, and others of the Alexandrian school. The natural inference is, that the Apollonian system of the East was more nearly what Apollonius taught. It was no doubt owing to that divergence in the respective Apollonian systems that ever since it has been impossible to reconcile the Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic churches, and unite them under one theological system. Maimonides, as a spirit, tells us that he was an adherent of the Western Apollonian system, or that system that underwent the Eclectic modifications of the Alexandrian school.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 358

   “I greet you, sir: — My name when on earth was Procopius. I was the Greek secretary of Belisarius. The principal period of my life was, from A. D. 534 to 565. I wrote a history of the emperor Justinian, and this is the only part of my writings that has not been concealed or destroyed. But I also wrote on many religious topics. I was a follower of the emperor Julian, that is I was a Pythagorean or Platonist, those two systems of philosophy being nearly the same. I did not feel inclined to embrace either of the other religions of my time. There were none that seemed so sensible as the writings of Pythagoras and Plato. I think the Eclectics by their amalgamation of religious and philosophical doctrines, ruined the beauty of the text of Plato. I had no sympathy with either of the parties in the contention that was carried on by Eusebius Pamphilus and others of the disputants of that and subsequent times. The Krishna of India which had been worshipped before the time of Eusebius, was a black man, and it was Eusebius who changed him into a Jew instead of a Hindoo. He thought that more followers could be obtained for a white Christ than for a Hindoo one. But prior to that time, in all the temples erected for the worship of Krishna, he was represented as a Hindoo. The words put into the mouth of Julian in relation to deifying the Judean Saviour, in his dying hour, are not true in any sense whatever. He defied all the gods. He was in fact a Deist or believer in one overruling power, or God. But in my time gods were not looked upon as spirits. The god idea meant something great — immeasurable; something that mortals could not comprehend, and with whom only spirits could converse with. I knew that mortals could converse with spirits. I conversed with them myself, when in the mortal form; and I was told many things by them that were both true and false, as I have found as a spirit. But it is due that I should say this for many spirits; they do not lie wilfully — they know no better. When I lived everything relating to religion was in a fearful chaotic state, and many spirits were as much confused as mortals, especially in relation to such matters.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 359 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography for account of Procopius. [...]

   [Pg 361] If what the spirit of Procopius says is true, then for the first time the fact becomes known that many, if not most of his writings, have been concealed or destroyed; for he says that in addition to his history, he also wrote on many religious topics. Nothing is more probable than that such was the fact. As to the doubtful question of Procopius’s religious and philosophical views, the spirit leaves no doubt whatever. He tells us that he was a follower of the Emperor Julian, (the “Apostate,” as he is called); in other words, a Pythagorean or Platonist which he says were nearly similar. We have here a clearer exposition of the philosophical views of Julian than can be found in any extant account of him. His writings certainly show that he was even more of a Pythagorean than a Platonist. In other words, he was a Spiritualist, if not a developed spiritual medium; for Pythagoreanism was nothing less than a very thorough knowledge of spirit intercourse with mortals and the secret propagation of that knowledge and its proper uses. [...]

   [Pg 362] Procopius, speaking of what he had every opportunity to know, says, that the Krishna of India, who had been worshipped in the Roman provinces before the time of Eusebius, was a black man, and that it was Eusebius who changed him into a Jew; because he, Eusebius, thought that more followers could be obtained for a white Christ than a Hindoo one. If this can be shown, by existing antiquities, to have been true, as we believe it can be, then have we very certain data to show what pre-Eusebian Christianity was, and what its post-Eusebian spurious imitation is.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 364

   The guide of the medium, introduced this spirit by saying:

   “This spirit seems to have great trouble to give his name. He is very much opposed by spirits that are unfriendly to him, and to his purpose in coming here. He was an Arian. His name is Eunomius, and he wants me to say this to you.” “I will salute you, sir, by saying, that there can be no peace while Christianity exists, for it is the religion of persecution and death. Instead of Jesus being entitled to the designation, ‘The Prince of Peace,’ he should have been designated ‘The Prince of Errors.’ But all this is as nothing. It was only the doctrines of Apollonius of Tyana, promulgated in his day as the highest morality that men could conceive of. But to-day, before the light of advancing knowledge, it sinks into utter insignificance. Moral principles can be utilized under such conditions as they meet. When I lived on this mortal plane, I was a rabid Arian. What fools we mortals were to fight over the respective tenets of our ideal creeds! for there is no creed now extant, but is based upon ideal presumption. All that I have to comfort me in spirit life is this, that I took the course I did, thinking that I was doing right. You must remember that it is a strictly spiritual principle that if you are enthusiastic and honest in what you teach, you are never condemned in spirit life for it. In relation to my mortal contests and contentions with the bishops of my time, I have simply this to say, that we never fought about Jesus. The Arian and Athanasian controversy was simply a fight over the Kristos of the East and the Hesus of the West. This was the real subject of controversy between Arius and Athanasius.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 364 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Here the communication abruptly terminated, the guide of the medium stating that the spirit was so opposed that he could hold the medium no longer.

   We refer to Smith’s Greek and Roman Biographical Dictionary for account of Eunomius. In the account of Eunomius as referred to, is related that all his works were destroyed by imperial edict. Is it not a most significant fact that such special pains were taken by the Christian priests and emperors of Rome to destroy the works of Eunomius? Not only were the works of Eunomius destroyed but also the works of those orthodox Christian writers who attempted to answer his reasoning against the so-called orthodox Christianity. Why were the latter destroyed, if not because they disclosed just what it was that Eunomius was contending for? The boasted established Catholic Christian Church, as late as the beginning of the fifth century, could not afford to have the Arian views of Eunomius, even remotely understood; and so, by decree, the imperial and priestly rulers of Rome sought to destroy all trace of the great secret that the writings of Eunomius disclosed. [....]

   [Pg 367] It must never be forgotten that the Arian controversy began at Alexandria, in Egypt, in the early part of the fourth century, at a time when the learning of the world had met at that great literary centre, through the commercial intercourse between Europe and Asia by way of Alexandria. Prior to that time, while there is frequent and general mention of Kristos and the worship of that Hindoo deity throughout the provinces of the Roman Empire, by Jew as well as Gentile writers, there is no where to be found any authenticated mention of Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Son of God, Jesus the Son of Mary, or any such person as the Christian’s God. It was not until after the meeting of the Council of Nice, that the name of Jesus was given to the god, who up to that time had been known to the Armenians, the inhabitants of Asia Minor, and the Greeks as Kristos, and to the Latins as Christos. Why is the name Jesus coupled with Kristos or Christos, from that time forward? That is the question which the communication we are considering solves.
   Eunomius, whose spirit purports to give that communication was a most decided and persecuted Arian, who lived and adhered to the opinions of Arius, so ably and renownedly, shortly after the death of the latter, and must have known just what the difference between Arius and his enemies was. [...]

   [Pg 368] Who, then, was the Kristos of the East? He was the incarnated spirit of the Hindoo god Brahm, who in course of time became the Abraham of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the name signifying Father Brahm, or Father God. We must add some facts that will show that, in truth, up to the time when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History, between A. D. 325 and 340, the name of Christian, was little known, if known at all, and the religion called Christianity was much older than either the Jewish or Christian religions. We cite the following from the seventy-second chapter of Dr. Lardner’s Works. He says:

   “The title of the fourth chapter of the first book of Ecclesiastical History” [of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea] “is to this purpose: ‘That the religion published by Jesus Christ to all nations, is neither new nor strange.’ ‘For though,’ says he, ‘without controversy, we are of late, and the name of Christians is indeed new, and has not long obtained over the world; yet our manner of life and the principles of our religion have not been lately devised by us, but were instituted and observed, if I may so say from the beginning of the world, by good men, accepted of God, from those natural notions, which are implanted in men’s minds. This I shall show in the following manner: It is well known that the nation of the Hebrews is not new, but distinguished by its antiquity. They have writings containing accounts of ancient men; few indeed in number, but very eminent for piety, justice and every other virtue. Of whom some lived before the flood, others since, sons and grandsons of Noah; particularly Abraham, whom the Hebrews glory in as the father and founder of their nation. And if any one, ascending from Abraham to the first man, should affirm, that all of them who were celebrated for virtue, were Christians in reality, though not in name, he would not speak much beside the truth. For what else does the name of Christian denote, but a man, who by the knowledge and doctrine of Jesus Christ, is brought to the practice of sobriety, righteousness, patience, fortitude, and the religious worship of the one and only God over all. About these things they were no less solicitous than we are; but they practiced not circumcision, nor observed Sabbaths any more than we; nor had they distinction of meats, nor other ordinances, which were first appointed by Moses. Whence it is apparent that that ought to br esteemed the first and most ancient institution of religion, which was observed by the pious about the time of Abraham, and has been of late published to all nations, by the direction and authority of Jesus Christ.’”

   We have here the admission by the originator of what is called orthodox Christianity, that the Christian religion did not originate with Jesus Christ, and that Christianity, as such, was new as late as three hundred and twenty-five years after the pretended birth of Jesus Christ. In that admission, Eusebius concedes that what he called the Christianity of the preceding three hundred and twenty-five years, was the religion that was instituted before or about the time of Abraham, the Ab-Brahm or Father Brahni of the Hindoos. Here we have the founder of orthodox Christianity conceding that the Christianity attributed to Jesus Christ, was not the religion of that Jesus Christ, but merely adopted and promulgated in his name by Eusebius and his Christian coadjutors, at the time, or after the Council of Nice. Is it any wonder that the teachings that were attributed to Crishna, more than thirteen hundred years before that time were called Christian teachings; and that the Ebionite, Nazarite, Essenian, Apollonian, Gnostic, Eclectic, and Neo-Platonic followers of the Hindoo Crishna should be regarded and treated by subsequent Christian writers as heretical Christians; as if it were possible for the originals to be the heresies of that which, at a later period of the world’s development, grew out of those original tenets and doctrines! [...]

   [Pg 371] We will add in this connection a word in relation to what the Hindoo Crishtau, who slew so many monsters (as did the Greek Hercules) was. Sir William Jones tells us that Col. Valiancy, who was thoroughly conversant with ancient Irish literature, told him that in Irish, Crishna means the Sun; and “we find,” he says, “Apollo and Sol considered by the Roman poets as the same deity,” the Sun. In this undoubtedly true statement of the learned and pious Sir William Jones, we have the key by which to solve the whole riddle concerning the so-called New Testament The whole story of the life and labors of the Hindoo Crishna, from whom the Irish derived the name and its meaning, had relation to the Sun in its yearly revolution, as its track was marked by the constellated stars through the sidereal heavens. Apollonius who brought the religion of the Hindoos into the Roman empire, was known by a name that meant the Son of Apollo — Apollo in turn meaning the Sun. The name Apollo meant the same as Sol, and was frequently abbreviated into Pol. In the book of Acts, these names are changed in the spelling, by the author of that fiction, into Saul and Paul, both those names being thus modified to conceal the fact that they were of the same meaning, and related to Apollonius, the great propagator of the religion of Crishna in the first century, and beyond all question, the writer, expounder, and advocate of the Hindoo theology, set forth in the so-called Christian Scriptures, no part of which has any relation to any Jew whatever. But we must not delay further upon this point. We have shown clearly enough who and what the Kristos or Christos of the East was, of whom the spirit of Eunomius speaks.
   Now who was the Hesus of the West? So particular were the priestly founders of the present Christian religion to conceal everything relating to the god Hesus of the Celtic Druids, that we can find but little mention of him, and that little in that learned and invaluable book, the Celtic Druids by Godfrey Higgins, London, 1826. At page 130 under the head “The Druids Adored the Cross,” he says:

   “Having shown that the cross was in common use before the time of Christ, by the continental nations of the world, it is now only necessary to show that it was equally in use by the Celtic Druids in Britain, to overthrow the arguments used to prove certain monuments, Christian from the circumstances alone of their bearing the figure of a cross. The very learned Shedius, (in his treatise de Mor. Germ, xxiv.) speaking of the Druids, confirms all that I have said on this head. He writes that they (the Druids) seek studiously for an oak tree, large and* handsome, growing up with two principal arms, in form of a cross, beside the main stem upright. If the two horizontal arms are not sufficiently adapted to the figure, they fasten a cross beam to it. This tree they consecrate in this manner. Upon the right branch they cut in the bark, in fair characters, the word HESUS: upon the middle or upright stem the word TARAMIS; upon the left branch BELENUS; over this, above the going off of the arms they cut the name of God, THAU (The Tau of Ezekiel ix. 4.); under all, the same repeated THAU. This tree so inscribed, they make their kebla, in the grove cathedral, or summer church, toward which they direct their faces in the offices of religion, as to the amber stone or the cove in the temples of Abury; like as the Christians do to any symbol or picture at the Altar.”

   We deeply regret that Schedius did not inform us from whence he derived the information he therein sets forth. But we cannot doubt that, as he was a devout Christian, he had the most conclusive authority for making it. But here the fact is rendered plain that the Druids of Germany, Gaul and Britain, had a divine trinity, of which Thau was the Supreme god, Hesus the human executor of the will of the first, and Belenus, the solar light and heat through which all life was originated and preserved, were the three personified beings of the Divine Trinity. In that trinity we have the incarnated second person, in the Druid God and Saviour, Hesus, the Hesus occupying the same position, and representing the same theological functions, as the Crishna of India in the Hindoo Trinity, and Jesus in the Christian Trinity. This is not all; but we have this Druid Hesus connected with and attached to a natural not an artificial cross, so much nearer were the Druids to the worship of the True God — the God of Nature — than the Christian idolators who bow in adoration before the carved crucifix. There is every reason to believe that the Druid religion was derived largely if not solely from India, whether by way of the interior of the continents of Asia and Europe, or by way of the Mediterranean, or both, we will not undertake to decide. The god Thau of the Druids is in all probability derived from the God Thot of the ancient Egyptians; the god Belenus, to whom the Beal, Baal or Bel fires of Bealtine, (or the day of Belan’s fires) were lighted, was the Chaldean or Phoenician god Baal, or the Sun in the sign of the Bull; while the god Hesus was almost certaintly derived by the Druids from the Phoenician god IES or JES, the Phoenician Bacchus, or the Sun in the Season of the vintage and harvest time.
   There are an infinite number of known facts which all concur in showing that there was an intimate commercial intercourse kept up between the people of Western Europe and the highly civilized nations of the east, which was largely if not mainly carried on by way of Gaul, Africa and the Mediterranean, by the Phoenicians, long before the Romans overrun Africa, Greece and Asia Minor. It was through that commercial intercourse that the religions of Asia and Africa became transferred to Western and Northern Europe, long before the Roman conquests of Gaul, Germany and Britain, and long before any Christianity was taught in that country. This adopted Oriental religion was everywhere prevalent when the Roman legions first invaded those countries, and the influence it exerted upon the minds of these children of nature was so great and lasting, that it has never been entirely eradicated, but is kept up by the uncultivated masses, in ceremonies and observances, the origin of which but few of the educated classes understand. Who then, was the Hesus of the West, of whom Eunomius speaks? He was the Saviour of the Celtic and Gallic Druids, for Hesus was a god especially venerated by the Gauls as their protector and preserver as Mr. Higgins says in the following words:

   “The Gauls had a god called Hesus; was this from the Greek word zoo, or the Hebrew word iso, or both? In the Hebrew, if the e were the emphatic article, then the word would be literally The Preserver. He was also often the destroyer: in Gaul, Mars.”

   We would suggest in reply to Mr. Higgins’ question, that the word was not derived from the Greek nor the Hebrew, but from the Phoenician word ies or jes which meant the Sun and nothing else. Strong as is the temptation to protract these comments, we must hasten to a conclusion of them. We find, then, that at the time of the Roman conquests of Britain, Germany and Gaul, that the Druid god Hesus was the great object of worship throughout those vast regions of the world. It was ever the policy and practice for the all conquering Romans to allow the conquered people to enjoy their religions, whether in accordance with the Roman religion or not. Never did this policy serve the Roman rulers to a better purpose than among the conquered nations who were under the religious leadership of the Druid priests, for, but for this toleration the Roman sway over them could not have been maintained; as it was for three hundred and seventy-five years, from the time of Julius Csesar to the reign of Constantine, in the first half of the fourth century. Up to that time there were almost constant local rebellions, which would have become general but for the tolerance of the Romans in the matter of religion.
   For some time the Roman Empire had been divided into the Eastern and Western provinces; governed respectively by independent rulers, at Rome and Niccomedia; when Constantine the Great having overthrown his imperial colleagues, became sole master of the Roman world, and established the seat of empire at Byzantium, the name of which he changed to Constantinople. Prior to that time A. D. 323, the rival worship of the Roman mythology, throughout the Greek speaking provinces of the Empire, was the sects which adhered more or less tenaciously to the Gymnosophic tenets and doctrines of the Hindoo theology, of which the life and teachings of the Indian Saviour, Crishna, were the main foundation. By the Greek gymnosophist sects he was called Kristos, and his followers were called by various names, such as Ebionites, Nazarites, Essenes, Gnostics, &c. Little if anything had been known, up to that time of the god Hesus of the Druids of the Western Empire. Constantine was with his father, Constantius Chlorus, at York in Britain when the latter died, and he succeeded to the government of Gaul, Germany and Britain. He was fully acquainted with the popularity in those provinces of the god Hesus, the second person of the Druidical Trinity. He conceived the idea of conciliating the subjects of his Western provinces, by adopting their god as well as the Kristos of the East, and with that view, no doubt, broached the subject to some of the leading Gnostics or Eclectics, at Alexandria, then the centre of the learning of the world. Among those to whom he submitted his plans were Alexander and Arius. The former desiring to curry favor with the emperor, readily lent himself to the plan and became its strenuous supporter. Arius on the other hand set his face firmly against the impious suggestion, and hence the breaking out of a controversy which has never ceased to create disturbance in whatever shape it has been revived. To carry his point, Constantine summoned the recognized leaders of various sects of the worshippers of Kristos to meet at Nicaea, where he assembled them in his palace, to the number of more than 300 and submitted his scheme of adopting the Saviours of the Eastern and Western sects, in the person of one god, to be called Hesus Kristos, who was to take the place and combine the characteristics of the Kristos of the East and the Hesus of the West. Under the lead of Athanasius, who was made bishop of Alexandria next year for his services, the assembled bishops (so-called) voted to adopt the scheme of Constantine, at the Council of Nice. Arius and a few others who refused to submit to the theological scheme, were excommunicated and banished. This, the spirit of Eunomius tells us, was the real issue between Arius and Athanasius, and this was the question which was settled in the first Christian council that was ever held; for Eusebius was forced to admit shortly thereafter that the name Christian was then (after A. D. 325), only recently known.

[...]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 376

   The guide of the medium announced the presence of Carneades, Greek philosopher, who, B. C. 155, founded the New Academic School. He said that the spirit was one who had so little interest in mundane matters, that it was with the greatest difficulty he could remain to give his communication, and so, to save time, requested him, to announce his name and place in history.

   “I greet you, SIR: — Strong, positive, and brief, must be my testimony, on account of my spirit having little or no affinity for the present mortal life. Therefore, what has been said by the guide of the medium, must suffice for my introduction. aI ttempted, in my day, from B. C. 165 to 155, to combine the Christism or Christosism of that time, with the Pythagorean and Platonic systems of philosophy, and met with great success, simply because Pythagoras was a worshipper of Prometheus, and the life, character and career of Prometheus were almost identical with those of the Christos of India — the story of Prometheus being nothing more than a plagiarism by the Greeks of that relating to Christos. The Platonic philosophy was derived from, and was a combination of, the doctrines regarding Christos in the East and Prometheus in t he West. As far as I was concerned, I knew that all the god-systems, or Christs born in the flesh grew out of the heathen idea of sacrifice as a propitiation for sin. Man in his primitive state, first offered up the lowest reptiles for this purpose; i n time he substituted beasts as offerings; a nd finally ended by human sacrifices as the noblest offering to offended deity. I so instructed the inner circle or school of my philosophy. After I was transferred to the spirit life, I found that Christosism was changed into Christianity between the 4th and 5th centuries by different bishops of the Christosite churches. The reason why they made this change was to meet the wave of western doubt which flowed upon their teachings through the Hesus element of Western Europe, the two teachings meeting in Rome and Alexandria, about A. D. 250. I have made my statement as clearly as I could under the circumstances and thank you for this hearing.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 377 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Smith’s Greek and Roman Biography for account of Carneades. [...]

   [Pg 378] But we have another surprise in the statement of the spirit that the philosophy of Plato was nothing more than a combination and reconciliation of the doctrines concerning Christos in Jhe East and Prometheus in the West. It is very certain that the philosophy of Plato was an essentially spiritual system, as contradistinguished from the more or less materialistic philosophical systems of Greece and Rome. No one had a better opportunity to know what the philosophical system of Plato was than Carneades, and we therefore are inclined to accept his construction of it as correct.

   [Pg 378] The spirit of Carneades tells us that the Christosism of his time, as he had learned as a spirit, had been converted into the Christianity of Constantine and Eusebius, in the fourth century. He tells us that the Bishops of the Christosite churches found it necessary to make that conversion of Christosism, to resist the wave of Hesusism from the West. This is very certain, it being a necessity to Constantine to reconcile the warring elements of Christosism and Hesusism in his dominions, and hence he joined the politic bishops in blending the opposing waves of interest and thought in one Hesus Christos, which has been imposed upon the nations ever since, by the combined power of tyrannical rulers and impiously selfish priests, and which has come down through the centuries to us modified by Christian writers to Jesus Christ. It is very certain that about A. D. 250 this was the great question of agitation throughout the Roman Empire. We regard this communication not only as authentic, but as showing the Hindu origin of Christianity, beyond all reasonable doubt.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 379

   “We meet in peace only to prepare for war. In my mortal life I was a philosopher and grammarian, in the School of Alexandria; and was the teacher and preceptor of Seneca. I was of the school of Potamon, although I lived before his time — that is, I helped to begin that which he carried out. I was engaged in the active affairs of this life, principally from between A. D. 15 to A. D. 40. I am here to-day for a special purpose, and that is, to prove that before the time of Eusebius, Christianity was Christosism, and that Christos of India was the god known as the Saviour of men throughout the period I have named. You have heard it said that, ‘Great was Diana of the Ephesians.’ This Diana, in my time, was supposed to be the Virgin who brought Christos into the world. The advent of this belief in Greece took place after the Indian conquests of Alexander the Great, and after B. C. 325. Diana was supposed to occupy the same relation to the incarnate god Crishna, that the Virgin Mary occupies in your Roman Catholic Church, of to-day, towards Jesus Christ. But, as for myself, I was not a believer in such doctrines. I was a Peripatetic philosopher, and a follower of the great Gymnosophist Calanus; and if you will read the moral essays of my pupil Seneca, you will find them full of Gymnosophic doctrines. The learned men of my time all believed about the same as do your Modern Spiritualists; but with the fatal mistake that they supposed they walked and talked with God, and not with human spirits. This has been fatal to Spiritualism in all past ages; and even to-day, through the machination of spirits, some of your most trusted lights are likely to ruin your cause by thinking they have a special mission to enlighten the world. Special missions have been the curse of Spiritualism in all countries and in all ages. I was known as Sotion.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 380 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   We take the following concerning Sotion from Smith’s Greek and Roman Biography.

   “Sotion. There appear to have been three or four philosophers of this name. The following alone are worth noticing: 1. A native of Alexandria, who nourished at the close of the third century B. C. (Clinton, Fasti Hellen, vol. iii, p. 526.) Nothing is known of his personal history. He is chiefly remarkable as t he author of a work entitled Diadochia, on the successive teachers in the different philosophical schools. It is quoted very frequently by Diogenes Laertius, and Athenseus. It consisted of at least twenty-three books. He was also, apparently, the author of a work, periton Timonos sillon, and of a work entitled Diokleioi elegchoi. 2. Also a native of Alexandria, who lived in the age of Tiberius. He was the instructor of Seneca, who derived from him his admiration of Pythagoras (Seneca, Epist. 108). It was perhaps this Sotion who was the author of a treatise on anger, quoted by Stobseus. Plutarch also quotes him, as the authority for certain statements respecting towns founded by Alexander the Great in India, which he had heard from his contemporary Potamon the Lesbian. Vossius conjectures that it is the same Sotion who is quoted by Tzetzes as the authority for some other statements relating to India, which he probably drew from the same source. 3. The Peripatetic philosopher, mentioned by A. Gellius (N. A. i, 8) as the author of a miscellaneous work entitled Keras Amaltheias, is probably a different person from either of the preceding.”

   In the historic doubts conerning these several philosophers, or rather supposed philosophers, we have one of those singular coincidental surprises that we have met with in inquiring into the authenticity of these most remarkable and important communications. The spirit of Sotion, by a single statement, clears up every doubt concerning himself and his labors. He does not mention any other philosopher by the name of Sotion, which he would certainly have done if there had been a philosopher Sotion previous to himself. We therefore incline to believe that the first Sotion, mentioned above, was identical with the second. If it is true, as the spirit stated, and we have no question of it, he sought to reconcile the various philosophical systems of his time, in the spirit of the Eclectic school of philosophers. [...]

   [Pg 381] The spirit speaks of himself as having been a Peripatetic philosopher, and a follower of the great Gyrnnosophist, Calanus. This would show that Sotion was what he claims to have been, an independent philosophical thinker, and that he was a teacher of philosophy, as early as A. D. 15, fully acquainted with the Gymnosophic teachings of Calanus, as well as with the Aristotelean, Pythagorean, and other philosophical systems of Greece.
   But, the spirit, after taking the method he did to identify himself, states that the special object of his return to earth was to show that Christianity before the time of Eusebius, was Christosism, and that Christos of India was the god known as the Saviour of men throughout the Greek provinces of the Roman Empire during the period from A. D. 15 to A. D. 40. If any one was likely to know this fact, it was Sotion, who, as a student of all known religious and philosophies, tried to reconcile them one with another. He significantly speaks of Diana of the Ephesians as the supposed Virgin who had brought Christos into the world. It is certainly the fact, that “Diana of the Ephesians” was a very different divinity from Diana of the Romans, who was considered of no great account, on account of her being the goddess of the plebeians. From the account of the goddess Diana of Ephesus and her temple, by Rev. Frank S. Dobbins in his False Gods or the Idol Worship of the World, page 171, it is very plain to see that she was regarded by her votaries in precisely the same light as the Freya of the Scandinavians, the Isis of the Egyptians, and the Virgin Mary of the Christians, or as the mother of the incarnated god a nd saviour of mankind. Why she was called Diana we do not know, but from the fact that the pillars of her temple were furnished by 127 kings, shows that her worship was very extensive, and no doubt extended over all the countries of the East. That she was regarded as the virgin mother of Christos has not been permitted to be known to us; but, since that fact is communicated by so well informed a follower of the great Gymnosophist Calanus, as Sotion, when taken in connection with the collateral facts of history, which all tend to confirm it, there can hardly be a doubt of the fact. At Mathura on the Jumna, in India, the supposed birth-place of Crishna, there is a representation of this same goddess, suckling the infant Crishna, on the walls of the temple, erected long ages before the alleged birth of Jesus Christ, in that sacred town, in honor of the Hindu Saviour Crishna. In view of all the facts, can there be a reasonable doubt that the worship of the Hindu Christos was the only Christ worship of the time of which spirit Sotion speaks, and for three hundred years afterwards?
   Sotion tells us that he was a follower of the teachings of Calanus, but that lie did not believe in the Brahmanical theology. He alludes to the fact that Seneca, his pupil, was also a great admirer of the precepts taught by Calanus, and that he, Seneca, incorporated many of Calanus’s ideas in his writings. He tells us that the learned men of his time were all Spiritualists.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 383

   “I will salute you, sir, by saying: You are a man after my own heart. I loved my friends and opposed my enemies. I was known in my mortal life as Septimius Geta, son of Septimins Severus. I was murdered by my brother Caracalla. There is one thing that I now know, and that is that my brother would never have murdered me had it not been for the meddlesome priests of my time. About from A. D. 200 to 212, there was a fight between what the spirit who proceeded me (Sotion), calls Christosism and the worship of Apollo the pagan God of Rome. The followers of the first using the word Maia to designate the mother of Christos, which was afterwards by the Christians changed into Mary. The followers of Apollo, regarding him as identical with Horus the Egyptian Saviour recognized the great Isis as his virgin mother. I said, when appealed to decide between the two parties, during my brief reign, that they were both too ridiculous to be worthy of any official recognition. In doing this I sealed my fate. I gave offence to both parties. And finding my brother a more pliable tool in their hands, the priests helped him to murder me. As far as I was myself concerned, I was a fully initiated member of what was called in my time the Diamond or Mountain of Light Circle. I was a believer in and a follower of the Eclectic system of philosophy. I think that one Photian wrote a history of my life. It is now in the hands of the Maronite Christians of Mt. Lebanon in Syria.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 383 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to the Biographie Universelle for account of Geta. The spirit of Geta mentions the fact that the worshippers of Christos in Rome, at the commencement of the third century, used the word Maia to designate the mother of Christos which was afterwards changed in to Mary by the Christians. In relation to the name Maia we take the following from “A Dissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabiri,” by George Stanley Faber, A. M., (Oxford, 1803. Vol. i, page 298):

   “Atlas, the allegorical astronomer, At-El-As, the Solar god; and Maia, who was feigned to be one of his seven daughters, borrowed her name from the ancient word Maia, a mother. If we recur to the Brahmanical theology, we shall learn, that the mother of Buddha, the Hindoo Mercury, was called Maha- Maya. She was feigned to be the wife of the rajah Sootah Dannah; but this rajah nevertheless was not the father of Buddha, who was esteemed on the contrary to be an incarnation of the god Vishnu. Maha-Maya is literally the great mother, and she was no doubt the same mythological character as Cybele, or the Ark, the magna mater of classical antiquity. Her husband Dannah I take to be the Grecian Danaus, or Da-Naw, and consequently, like Buddha, the great diluvian patriarch; f or Noah, as I have already intimated, is indifferently described, as the father, the son, or the husband, of the vessel which he constructed; the father, as having built the Ark, the Son, as having issued from it, and the husband as being closely connected with it. As the allegorical parent of Mercury was denominated Maia, and that of Buddha Maha- Maya, so the mother of the Chinese Fohi was called Moye, or Maia. Ratramnus mentions, that the Brahmins believed Buddha to have been born of a virgin. This is merely the counterpart of the Chinese tradition, that Fohi was born without a father, and of the Greek legend, that a virgin was the mother of Perseus.”

   It is true that Faber says, on the authority of Maurice’s History of India, that Buddha was esteemed an incarnation of Vishnu, but he was equally esteemed as the latter avater of Brahm, and as an incarnation of Krishna or Crishna. It would seem that the Greek Gymnosophists worshipped less the Buddha incarnation of Crishna than the God himself, and hence instead of claiming to be the followers or worshippers of Buddha, as did the Buddhists of India, they claimed to be worshippers of Crishna, by the Geeks changed into Christos or Kristos. As Buddha was regarded as the son of Maha- Maya, the great mother virgin, the Greeks changed that name into Maia, and the Indian virgin mother of the incarnated Christos was venerated and worshipped by the Christosites of Rome in A. D. 212, as testified to by the spirit of Geta. It is thus seen that the story of a virgin begotten divine man is not original as attributed to the fabulous Jesus Christ and his equally fabulous virgin mother, Mary. The whole theological fiction was borrowed from the Hindus, names as well as incidents, as all the facts plainly show.
   Geta tells us that the Romans regarded their Apollo as identical with the Egyptian god Horus, and recognized the virgin goddess Isis as his mother. It would thus appear that the Greeks and Romans having no religion, but such as they stole or borrowed from India and Egypt, divided among themselves as to which system of those foreign mythologies they would adopt, and they fought over the matter until a third element of dissension was introduced in the mythological systems of the Scandinavians and Celtic Druids, which after the Roman conquests of Germany, Britain and Gaul, were brought to Rome and Alexandria. With these widely divergent priestinterests in full play, there must have been lively times in the Roman Empire during the first three hundred years of the socalled Christian era. Poor Geta was made aware of that at the cost of his life and his empire.

[....]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 387

   “Good day, sir:— It seems to be the misfortune of Germans that they have names that are very hard to force through mediums who speak a foreign tongue. My name was Jacob Joseph Von Gorres. Although I wrote on all the topics of my day, the principal point of my communication will have relation to my work Die Christliche Mystik. It is upon this that I wish particularly to dwell. I was a mystic follower of Boehme, Agrippa, and such writers on mysticism; but I tried to reconcile the mysticism of the 16th century with the mysticism of my time, about all of which I would have told the truth had not prejudice prevented me from doing so. All mysticism of that and previous times, centered in the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus and Christos of India. I use the Greek word Christos instead of the Indian name Crishna or Christau. Now, that was the central or commencement point of all modern Christianity, as it was taught by Apollonius of Tyana, Potamon, Plotinus and the Alexandrian School in general; but afterwards it was greatly altered at the Council of Nice, to suit the views of Eusebius and those of his school. There is only one direction in which you must look for the evidence that will substantiate the truth of these communications, and that is among the Catholics, for Protestantism is only a bastard Catholicism. The bishops and priests of the Catholic church know that what I here assert is positively true; and they have, in different parts of the world, the documentary evidence to prove what I here assert. But they have thrown the responsibility of most of their sacred writings upon the Jews, because they claimed to be God’s chosen people, and that their prophets had direct communication with the deity, Jehovah; and as none but the learned few could read their Hebrew text, so Eusebius and his followers thought it a sharp stroke of policy to conceal the fraudulent proceedings in which they were engaged, in founding the Christian church. Almost the whole of the books that make up what is called the Bible, or the ancient Jewish history, is taken from the writings of the elder Zoroaster, and were taught by the Armenians, Chaldeans, Moabites and Samaritans. There is no Jewish Rabbi of any learning, to-day, who could prove from any works I met with, that they had a literature extending beyond the Babylonish captivity of the Jews. All tradition prior to that time shows that the Jewish narratives were taken from the legends of the people I have named. As a spirit I have investigated all kinds of sectarianism, and I find that the one common mistake of mankind in all ages has been in mistaking the communications of spirits for the outgivings of God. If they will, now and hereafter, correctly understand this, all sects will come together in the fatherhood of truth and the brotherhood of men. Other spirits here may have something more important to say to you, than what I have given. I thank you for this hearing. Farewell.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 391 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Chambers’ Encyclopaedia for account of Von Gorres. [...]

   [Pg 388] It has ever been an unexplained history how the founders of Roman Catholic Christianity came to base their theological fraud upon the theological fraud of the Jews, and to make Judea the source from which the former fraud was derived. This spirit explains this in a singularly clear and satisfactory manner. In substance he tells us that the Jews were a peculiar people in the one particular, that they claimed to be the chosen people of God, and that the language in which their religion was explained, the Hebrew tongue, was little known outside of the Jewish priesthood, or the territorial limits of Judea. To tack the Roman Catholic Christianity upon this pretentious, but little known theological system, says Von Gorres, was considered by Eusebius and his followers as a sharp stroke of policy in launching their new scheme of ecclesiasticism. Hence the anomaly of having the bigoted, intolerant, and notoriously immoral inculcations of the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, as it is called, blended with the peaceful, tolerant, benevolent, humanitarian and ethical inculcations of the Gymnosophical teachings of Apollonius of Tyana, in the so-called New Testament, compiled by Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth century. The so-called Christian religion is the one anomalous religion, the traditions or scriptures of which are a mass of the most irreconcilable contradictions. In all other religions the leading objects, whatever they may have been respectively, are consistently maintained throughout, and this was even the case with Judaism, with which the founders of Christianity so inconsistently and fatally connected their heirarchical as well as ecclesiastical schemes. But Eusebius and his Christianizing followers had another object in view than that which the spirit of Von Gorres mentions, and that was to divert attention as far as was possible from the source of the Gymnosophic oriental teachings of Apollonius of Tyana which Eusebius sought to appropriate as the basis of an original religion, or a religion that would be so regarded. Thanks to the spirits of those who have lived in the past, and who made these matters an object of special attention, the scheme of those mental tyrants is destined to be brought to naught.

[....]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 390

   “I will salute you, sir, by saying: — Fools always oppose the truth, and as the fools are in the majority, and those who are willing and trying to learn the truth in the minority, you may get nothing but kicks for trying to enlighten mankind. It was so in my day, and, as a spirit, I see it is the same in yours. The Hebrew language is nothing more than the ancient Chaldean tongue. I know this as a spirit, and I knew it when here. The proof of this may be had by a comparison of Chaldean and Hebrew alphabets; and in making such a comparison, to use one of their scripture terms, the wayfaring man though a fool cannot err therein. The whole of the Jewish traditions in the Old Testament were revised and placed in their present shape, about B. C. 650, and were taken from the Chaldean traditions, and you have the proof of this when you see that the ancestor of these Jews was Abraham or Ibrahm as the name was in the Chaldean tongue, or I the one, and brahm the soul — the one soul of all things. This man, we are told, was a native of Ur of Chaldea, and not a Hebrew at all. This was all set forth by Zoroaster the Younger, or Daniel, as the Jews have called him, at the courts of three or four Chaldean or Assyrian kings. But Ezra, sometime later, made a revision of the account of Daniel or Zoroaster; and while the tradition in relation to Daniel, before the time of Ezra, is adhered to, today, by the Greek Church, the revised version of the same tradition by Ezra is adhered toby the Roman Catholic Church. So much for the Old Testament, and now for the New. The Rabbies of the time when the latter Testament was in course of taking shape, such as Gamaliel, Akiba and Onkelos, were so superstitious, and imbued with the idea of what they termed Moses, that they regarded the Jews as the lineal descendants of Abraham, or Ibrahm. But Moses was only a combination of two names, Moab and Sesostris; Mo meaning the man, and ab meaning the father, or Moab the father man; and the other, Sesostris, a king of a people, known in ancient times as Sethites. This seems to have been the derivation of the name Moses. These people looked upon the combination of those names, and the traditions connected with them, as showing that they were lineal descendants from Ibrahm, or Abraham, as the name has been called by the Hebrews; so that, when Apollonius disputed with the learned Rabbies, when he rode into Jerusalem on an ass — and when he discoursed with them about their traditions, and defeated them in arguments, he had to fly from Jerusalem to Tarsus, where he became the celebrated Paul of Tarsus. My communication needs no other corroboration, than the penetration of a critical scholarship and clear sound sense, to determine the truth of what I have here set forth. My name is Frederich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius. [We will do what we can to corroborate your testimony by the facts of history.] I think you are the man to do it well. You may rely upon my help in your efforts to get the truth before the world.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 391 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Chambers’ Encyclopaedia for account of Gesenius. [...]

   [Pg 302] The spirit of the learned Hebrew and biblical scholar, Gesenius, tells us that the whole of the Jewish traditions, in the Old Testament, were taken from the Chaldean traditions, and put in their present shape about B. C. 650, and as proof of this he referred to the fact that Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, was a Chaldean. From that fact, which the Jews themselves admit, they very consistently, claimed that as the posterity of a Chaldean, they had a common right of inheritance to the Chaldean traditions, which related to the pre-Abrahamic age. Claiming their descent from the Chaldeans, nothing was more natural than that the Jews should claim the Chaldaic language as well as the Chaldaic traditions, as of right belonging to themselves. The spirit of Gesenius tells us that the Jewish Abraham, was but a modification of the Supreme Intelligence, Ibrahm, the etymology of which was I the one, and brahm the soul, or the one soul of all things, and that this was taught at the courts of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus, by Zoroaster the Younger, who was called Daniel by the Jews. By these explanations of the spirit, we have the matter made plain that the Chaldeans were an older people than the Jews; and that whatever was held in common by them, was derived by the latter from the former, and not by the former from the latter. This was the case with the Chaldean traditions, the Chaldean alphabet, and much of the Chaldean literature, which the Jews undoubtedly adopted, when they sought to establish a history and literature of their own.
   We have another most curious fact explained, and that is, why the Book of Daniel varies, as between the version of it adopted by the Greek Church, and that adopted by the Romish Church. The first is the original Jewish version of the Chaldean Daniel, while the latter is the modified Jewish version of Ezra the Scribe. This, no doubt, is as consistent with all the collateral facts as the other statements of this most intelligent and thoroughly informed spirit; but time will not admit of our looking the evidence of it up.
   The etymology of the name Moses, as being made up of the two names Moab and Sesostris, or rather the first syllables of those two names is certainly very astounding, as it is so foreign to any heretofore suggested etymology of the name Moses. We can very well understand how the first syllable Mo would be derived from Moab, the supposed Father of the Moabites, as their vicinity to and relation with the land of Canaan, would intimately connect them with the Jews; but the ses which terminates the name, is in its derivation much more obscure, and hence the surprise with which we found the identification of Sesostris as a Sethite, instead of an Egyptian king, as we always supposed him to be.
   We will close this critique by briefly noticing what Gesenius says in relation to Apollonius’s visit to Jerusalem. It appears that the offence that he, Apollonius, committed, was to demonstrate to the Jewish priests that he knew the fraudulent and deceptive nature of their so-called sacred writings. It was for this offence he was tried before Felix, Festus and Agrippa, as Paulos or Polionus. As this was a religious, and not a civil offence, and not prohibited by the Roman laws, he was finally discharged, when he no doubt fled to Tarsus, as Gesenius states. We feel it proper to say, that during the most of the time we were engaged in making this investigation, we were made sensible of the assistance of a spirit or spirits, who accompanied us.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 394

   “Good-day sir: — Are ecclesiastics and theologians of any benefit to humanity, whatever? This is the question that is uppermost in my mind to-day. After thousands of years of contention about the truth of their respective systems, whether Pagan, Jewish, Mohammedan or Christian, what real benefit have those various systems of theology conferred upon mankind? To me, all those systems blend together and amount to one thing, and this is misundertood spirit-control. Men and women of all nations of the world, have, throughout all time, been mediums for spirit control, but their minds were so confused with the superstitions of their day, that they could not give what the controlling spirits really intended to give to the world through them. You will never obtain the unadulterated truth through mediums whose minds are prejudiced. If the mediums leaned toward error, no matter how wise and truthful the controlling spirits were, the utterance became tinctured with their own thoughts, as the thoughts of the spirits flowed through their brains. But here and there, among the mediums of antiquity, there have been minds that were unbiased, and it has been through these mediums that you have received the gems of truth that constitute your treasures of knowledge to-day. In my mortal life all was confusion and strife, and the conflict was fierce and heated — not as to how much truth there was in religion — but upon such useless topics as the Trinity, Baptism, &c, which I call foolish by-paths. There has been so many spirits here who have given their testimony as t o the history of Jesus, that it seems like a repetition for me to testify upon that point. But I will say this, upon all my hopes of an immortal life and the happiness to come from it, that the real Jesus was Apollonius of Tyana. This I know, and I will at some future time wTrite a pamphlet, any one of the statements, of which, I will challenge the Christian Church to disprove. In it, I will prove conclusively, that there was no Jew named Jesus Christ, nor any such person as Jesus of Nazareth. The document that will prove this, is the Epistle sent to the Emperor Trajan by Potamon of Alexandria, which is in existence to-day, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, but the Roman Catholic priesthood are far too cunning to let its existence be known. Why then, you may ask, do they preserve it? I will tell you why. Every pupil of the Roman Catholic Church that becomes a priest, is entrusted with these secrets of that church, and is sworn to keep them with strictest good faith, under the penalty of death if he betrays them. By such means they compel them to cling together. I come here to-day, only because I want to do something toward emancipating mortal man from superstition. I lived at the time the Christian religion first took shape, and helped to found it. I think I am a competent witness as to its merits, if it has any, and as to its demerits which are many. I passed to spirit-life in A. D. 406, and my name was Chrysostom.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 395 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to the American Cyclopsedia foraccount of Chrysostom. [...]

   [Pg 398] In order that the reader may be able to judge of the probable correctness of this very positive statement of the spirit of Chrysostom, I cite the following in relation to the Ambrosian library from the Encyclopaedia Americana:

   “This collection of books at Milan, famous in modern times, on account of the discoveries made by Angelo Maio, was opened to the public, in 1609, by Cardinal Frederick Borromeo, a relation of St. Charles Borromeo. The cardinal archbishop of Milan, a lover of knowledge, caused the books to be purchased by learned men whom he sent through Europe, and even Asia. At the opening of the library, it contained about 35,000 printed books, and about 15,000 manuscripts in all languages. It now contains 60,000 printed books (according to Millan, 140- 000.) It was called the Ambrosian Library, in honor of St. Ambrose, the patron saint of Milan. Angelo Maio, in his preface to the fragments of the Iliad, which he obtained from the treasures of this library, has shown how the collection has been improved, particularly by the addition of the Pinellian manuscripts.”

   It is to this precious repository of ancient literature that the spirit of Chrysostom refers, as containing the proof positive that no such persons as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. It seems hardly possible that any spirit, much less the spirit of the good and benevolent Chrysostom would invent such a statement untruthfully. It is no doubt so far correct, as it was possible for the spirit to communicate the information through the brain of the medium. It was no doubt the principal object of his communication, to make known the facts, that Potamon of Alexandria wrote an epistle to the emperor Trajan, in which he disclosed facts, which showed that Apollonius of Tyana was the real author or founder of the Christian religion, and that Jesus of Nazareth was not. It is not a little significant, in this connection, that the whole book of Diogenes Laertius, in which he gave an account of the life and teachings of Potamon of Alexandria, has been suppressed intentionally, while the history of all the Greek Philosophers, down to the time of Potamon, by the same author, have been preserved intact. Indeed, but for the fact that Diogenes Laertius mentioned, in the preface to the Lives of the Philosophers, that he had devoted a special book to the treatment of Potamon and his philosophical teachings, we would not have been permitted to know that such a man ever lived. Notwithstanding the time when Potamon lived and Diogenes Laertius wrote concerning him has been concealed, and the impression has been promoted, that he lived late in the second century at the latest. If what the spirit of St. Chrysostom says is true, and it be a fact that Potamon wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan, who was himself a philosopher, he must have flourished in the reign of that learned and liberal emperor, which extended from A. D. 97 to 117. Now, it is a well known fact, that Potamon, in his Eclectic system of philosophy mainly followed the spiritual teachings of Apollonius of Tyana, and was in all probability a contemporary of the latter, who died at the advanced age of nearly a hundred years in the beginning of the reign of Trajan. It is therefore in the highest degree probable that Potamon did write just such an epistle to Trajan as Chrysostom says was extant in his time on earth, and which is still extant in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. As Diogenes Laertius closed his Lives of the Philosophers with that of Potamon of Alexandria, the probability is, that he was his contemporary, and lived and wrote in the early part of the second century.

[....]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 400

   “I salute you, sir: — I was born in Jerusalem, in the year 2 B. C, as it is now called. I was the highpriest of the Jews, from A. D. 45 to A. D. 65. My name was Ananias. You will find a brief account of my doings in the twenty-fourth chapter of Acts. I was one of the accusers of Apollonius before Felix. The name ought to have been Apollos, instead of Paul. The charge that was there set down against him was, that he was a seditious and pestilent fellow. That was not the charge made against him at all. The charge was that he had attempted to enter the Holy of Holies, claiming the divine right to do so. When the priests and populace attempted to restrain him, and keep him from entering there, such was his power that he entered the Holy of Holies, and none present could stop him. We called this power, the power of God, but you people call it mediumship. It was for this I accused him before Felix. He had violated and profaned the temple, and I accused him of it. As a spirit I must confess that I was more governed in this by a feeling of jealousy than anything else. The Jews had sworn to destroy him, but he had proselyted a great number of them to his faith. [What faith was that?] It was the faith of Christos or Chrishna. You read of Paul or Apollos having been let down from the walls of Damascus, in a basket; but that occurred at Jerusalem and not at Damascus. From A. D. 35 to A. D. 65, the only Christ that was preached in Judea was the Christos of Apollonius. [Of what faith by name was Apollonius?] He belonged to the Essenes. The Essenes were not Jews, as has been wrongly supposed. Any person who followed their teachings could join the Essenes, no matter what his or her nationality. This Apollos or Apollonius, was summoned before Felix and his wife Drusilla, where he produced such extraordinary spirit manifestations, that as he [Felix] could not let him go, not having the power to do so, he did the next best thing for Apollos, and kept him in prison until his successor arrived, where he was sent to Rome where he was liberated. I am Ananias son of Nebedus. I am particular in telling you this, because there was another highpriest of the Jews about that time who was named Ananias.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 401 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Nouvelle Biographie Generalefor account of Ananias.
   The spirit who gave the above communication represents himself to have been the pontifical accuser of Apollonius before Felix, the procurator of Judea, and says the story of that event is to be found in the 24th chapter of Acts. If this statement is true, and the facts are such as to demonstrate it to be so, then all pretence that there is anything especially divine about the alleged outgivings and teachings, of Jesus Christ and St. Paul, must fall to the ground and the whole religious system that has been erected thereon must also fall to the ground, never again to furnish materials for any similar structure of error and imposture. In this connection, the first point to be considered is, that outside of the Book of Acts, and the Pauline Epistles, there is no historical mention whatever of such a person as Paul, the Christian convert from Judaism. No one knows who wrote the Book of Acts, nor is it known just when it was written, but certainly not until long after the four Gospels, the Epistles and Revelations, and in all probability, not until the early part of the fourth century. The author of that book, whoever he was, does not refer to a single author or book as authority for any of the statements herein contained. Why this should have been so, if he desired to have the truth of his statements known, I cannot well conceive. I can however see very clearly why, if he was not recording the truth, he would write just as he has done, without giving a clue to the real nature of his production. Through the communication under review, we are enabled to show just what the Book of Acts is, and what purpose it was written for. That purpose was to conceal the fact, that the real author of the Pauline Epistles was no other person than Apollonius of Tyana, the Apostle of Essenianism to the Greeks, Romans and Jews, who was born just at the date fixed as the birth time of the founder of Christianity, and who for fully three quarters of a century from A. D. 25 to A. D. 100, devoted his life to propagating the doctrines, which in a modified and corrupted form were made the foundation of Orthodox Christian Ecclesiasticism. In the account of the accusation of Paul before Felix, which begins in chapter twenty-four of Acts, to which we refer our readers, we find Paul represented to have been a Jew, and in his defence before Agrippa he is made to say that which will be found in Acts xxvi, 4-32. [...]

   [Pg 402] Such is the story of the accusation by the Jews, under the lead of Ananias the high priest, against Paul, before Felix. A greater farce than the trial was, as it is described in Acts, could hardly be imagined. That it is a bungling account of a real occurrence we have reason to infer; but what that occurrence was is a question that is by no means settled by the narrative itself. View it in any light we may say it is a bungling attempt to conceal the real occurrences, to which, whatever facts it contains relate. That it has no reference to any person that was ever a Jew, or upon whom the Jewish law has any operation, is very clear. Lysias, the chief captain, took him out of the hands of the authorities of the Jewish religion, on the ground that he, Paul, was a Roman and not a Jew; and this claim Paul himself made in his defense before King Agrippa — a claim that Agrippa regarded as conclusive. Now, if Paul had been a Jew, and had “gone about to profane the temple,” the proper tribunal to have adjudged him, would have been the Jewish Sanhedrim or council, from before which body chief captain Lysias took him by force while he was being tried. [....]

   [Pg 403] In the first place the spirit tells us that the person whom he accused before Felix, was Apollonius, a Greek Essene, orNazarite follower of Christos or Christina, and who was called Apollos instead of Paul. If this be true, it is very evident that the intention was to so change the name of the accused, in the Book of Acts, as to prevent the real person from being identified. This will be shown to be the fact by all the circumstances as they are therein related. Ananias tells us that he did not charge Apollonius with being a seditious and pestilent fellow, as alleged in Acts; but that he did charge, him with profaning the temple, and committing, what was in the eyes of the Jews, the crime of all crimes, that of invading the Holy of Holies in the temple. The truth of this statement is singularly sustained by Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana, which life was largely devoted to making himself acquainted with all the secret doctrines and ceremonies of the various religions and mystical systems of his time. [...]

   [Pg 405] Ananias says that Apollonius had proselyted a great number of the Jews to his faith, and in reply to my question, stated distinctly that his faith was the faith of Christos or Crishna; and subsequently he adds: “He” Apollonius, “belonged to the Essenes.” Here we have three points repeated, that had been testified to most positively by other spirits who had previously communicated. Ananias says that Apollonius was an Essene, this was undoubtedly the fact. Now on the other hand, Tertullus, when arraigning Paul before Felix, charged him with being a “ring leader of the Nazarenes.” Who then were the Nazarenes? There was certainly never any sect of the followers of Jesus Christ who were called Nazarenes. In the Old Testament, there are but two mentions made of Nazarites, who were distinguished as a religious sect; and, in the New Testament no mention is made of them whatever, while it is certainly known that there was a sect of communistic ascetics, who were known to be especially hated by the Jews, who were called Nazarites. It is also a fact, clearly ascertained, that the Nazarites, in their religious doctrines and ceremonial observances were very analogous to the Essenes, who seem to have swallowed up the older sect about the middle of the first century A. D. The word Nazarite was manifestly changed to Nazarene, for the same purpose of concealment of the identity of the person alluded to, and in the same manner that Apollos was changed to Paulus. Now, Apollonius, being an Essene and a ringleader of them, as was the fact, Tertullus no doubt, charged him with being a ringleader of the Nazarites, the name by which their opponents, the Jews, designated them. Now, no one has ever pretended that the Paul of Acts was a Nazarite or an Essene and such a charge against him would have been preposterous. The person accused before Felix was no doubt a ringleader of the Nazarites, as he does not appear to have made any denial of the charge. It is therefore rendered almost certain, even from the account in Acts itself, that the person there accused, was Apollonius of Tyana, as Ananias, himself testifies positively was the case.

[....]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 409

   “I will salute you by saying:— I hope the truth will triumph although it has many opponents. I was a warrior— not a priest. I am known as Charles Martel. I was the grandfather of Charlemagne, and secretly— not openly— a materialist in my belief. I overcame the Saracens in battle; for which I am heartily sorry as a spirit, for I believe that my victory over them kept Spiritualism back, for a thousand years. And what a singular army it was that I commanded! It was in three divisions, each of which had to be kept entirely separated from the others, or they would have killed each other about their different religious beliefs. The first division was composed of troops drawn from what you term Italy, Greece, and in fact from all the countries along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Their religion was the worship of Jupiter and their standard an imitation of your plow. The second division was drawn from Gaul and Germany, and they were worshippers of Christos. Their battle standard bore the figure of a lamb. The third division came from Britain and Scandinavia and their standard had upon it a pine or some other evergreen tree. They were worshippers of Hesus. Those were the principal religions of my time; and there was much similarity between the last two mentioned. The followers of Jupiter were distinguished for their multiplicity of gods, as every force in nature and every human passion had its presiding god or goddess. You may imagine the difficulty that I labored under to have to control these three hostile forces and to use them without allowing them to intermingle. Their religious hatred of each other would have overcame them much sooner than the enemy could have done it. The spirit who will follow me, will be Radbod. We always fought against each other when we happened to meet; but as spirits we are endeavoring to pave the way for a true knowledge of the past, in relation to the Christian Church. As I before said, as a. spirit, I have one grand regret, and that is, that I ever stopped the advance of the Saracens. — Fraternally, Charles Martel.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 409 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Nouvelle Biographie Generale for account of Charles Martel.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 410

   “I will greet you for the spirit for whom I will speak. I will also greet you for myself — Aronamar. The spirit for whom I will speak, drove out from his domains a disciple of Boniface’s who came there to convert his people from Hesusism to Christosism. He says his name was Swivert. He says he heard all that this Swivert had to say, and he became convinced from that that he had originally gotten his religion from Hesusism, and Christosism was only an offshoot of Hesusism; but as a spirit he has found that the reverse of this is true. On his driving out this Swivert, he went back to Charles Martel and eillisted him in his favor, and this finally brought on a war that had for its object the establishment in Friesland of the religion that was taught by Boniface. But finally it became the desire of Charles Martel to possess the whole of the territory of Friesland, and they contended for the remainder of their lives for the supremacy over it, sometimes one gaining and sometimes the other. This Radbod says that Hesus, as he understood the matter, was not the god of their religion. He acted in the same capacity for them that Apollonius did for the Greeks and Romans in bringing the Hindoo gospels into the Roman provinces. Hesus brought the same gospels to Marseilles about B. C. 800. He was a merchant, or trader, but became a propagator of the doctrines of Hesusism. The book from which he taught was called Arjouna, after Arjun the disciple of Christos. As the name of Pauline Epistles was given to the writings of Apollonius, so they gave the name of Hesus to similar writings which were given to his disciples and carried all over Northern Europe. Therefore, Hesusism began eight hundred years before the Christian era; Christosism did not begin in Western Europe until seven hundred years after that era. Hesusism had gained a great ascendency there and had some of the finest schools in Ireland and Gaul, and was ardently taught by St. Patrick and others. The communicating spirit says this is given you to be published, so that there can be some light as to his times to those who are not too blind to see. His name is Radbod.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 410 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Biographie Universelle, article Charles Martel, for account of Radbod.
   We deem it best before commenting upon this communication from Radbod to give the communication of Winfred, or St Boniface, as the two communications are so intimately connected with the same points of ancient history as to make their joint consideration most desirable.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 411

   “I greet you sir:— It is strange that the Catholics of today claim me as having been one of the expounders of their doctrines. They are wide of their mark. I was a priest of Christos. I was born in 680 A. D. and died about 734 or 736. I had three disciples. One of them went to Britain, another through Germany, and Swivert, the third, went to Friesland, with what success the king of that country (Radbod) has informed you. The other two met with failures. I had a good deal to do with influencing the zeal of the Christosite division of Charles Martel’s army. In fact my position in that matter was similar to that of Peter the Hermit toward the Crusade in after years. I belonged to the religious faith which I called reformed Christosism, and, as it was taught by me, it was set forth in the books that were rejected at the Council of Nice. In that way I was at war, spiritually speaking, with the teachers of the original Christosism — my position being about the same toward them as Martin Luther’s position was towards Catholicism. About the only remnants of my teachings now extant, as they were before they were changed and interpolated, are to be found among the Maronites of Mt. Lebanon. I believe, and in fact I may say that I know, that the books rejected at the Council of Nice were of more importance as truly defining Christosism, than those which were adopted. My original name was Winfred. It was afterwards changed to Boniface. I was a Briton. I was born in the vicinity of what is called Durham.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 411 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Encyclopaedia Americana for account of St. Boniface.
   In the three communications of Charles Martel, Radbod, and St. Boniface, we have a concurrence of testimony such as is most rare on any point of ancient history. The first of the three spirits to communicate, Charles Martel, tells us that the army he collected to drive back the Saracen invaders of France, was composed of three divisions, two of. which, he says, were made up respectively of the followers of Christos, and the worshippers of Hesus. And further, that there was much similarity between those two classes of religionists. If this is true, then it is certainly a fact that as late as A. D. 741, when Charles Martel, died, the followers of Christos were not worshippers of Hesus, nor the worshippers of Hesus the followers of C hristos, and that these two classes of religionists of Charles Martel’s army were so hostile towards each other that if they had been allowed to come together, they would have set to cutting each other’s throats. More than this it becomes very evident that Christianity as it was established by the Council of Nice, had no place in any of the countries whence Charles Martel drew his forces to drive back the Saracen Mahommedanism that advanced upon France from Spain. This is absolutely corroborated by the testimony of Radbod, king of Friesland, who, through the spirit interpreter of his message, tells us that Hesusism was the religion of his country as late as A. D. 700, and that Christosism was not only not accepted by the Frisians, but its introduction was resisted even to a resort to arms, to prevent it. The spirit testifies upon this point with surprising clearness. [...]

   [Pg 413 ] It is enough for our present purpose to know that Hesusism and Christosism were regarded by their followers as being not the same religious faith, however analogous they may have been, and that they were so far antagonistic to each other as to justify war to prevent the one religion from overcoming the other. It would seem to have been merely a conflict between priestly factions who were unwilling to blend their interests and thus have ended their bloody strife. [...]

   [Pg 414] He tells us that Hesus was not worshipped by the Frisians as a god, nor as the object of the religious worship that was conducted in his name. He says, he, Hesus, acted in the same capacity in relation to that religion that Apollonius did in relation to the Hindoo gospels which he preached to the Greeks. In other words he was the introducer of the religion of Christina of the Hindoos among the barbarous people of Western and Northern Europe. Radbod, through his very intelligent spirit interpreter, tells us that he, Hesus, brought the same gospels to Marseilles, about B. C. 800. It would thus seem that many centuries before Chrishnaism or Christosism obtained a foothold in Greece or Rome, the religion of the Hindoo Chrishna had been carried into Western Europe by way of Marseilles. Whether by a person by the name of Hesus or not, may admit of reasonable question. [...]

   [Pg 415] It was, without doubt, at the time of the introduction of the Hindoo gospels at Marseilles that Druidism took its rise as a theological organization, in as much as it is a historically known fact that Hesus was, with the Gallic Druids, especially a venerated character, and it was, no doubt, from the Gallic Druids that the worship of Hesus spread over Germany, Scandinavia, Friesland, Britain and Ireland. I am of the opinion, however, that Hesus was not so much a man, as a general name of the Phoenician worshiphers for the Sun-god, by the Greeks called Bacchus, and by the Phoenicians called Ies, Yes, or Jes, which may have been modified by Greek transmission into Hesos, or by the Latin transmission into Hesus, as the name was written or spoken by the Gallic Druids. In the course of so many hundred years the belief may have become general that Hesus was a merchant or trader who abandoned his business to become the founder of the Druid worship of Hesos or Hesus. This is a point, however, that is of no material importance in this connection. It is enough to know that the Hesusism of the Gallic Druids was essentially an offshoot of the Oriental religions of India and Phoenicia, in which the Sun, under the personifications of C hrishna and Ies, or Jes, was the central object of veneration. But the spirit did not stop there, but says: “The book from which he ‘(Hesus)’ taught was called Arjouna after Arjun, the disciple of Christos.” He then adds: “As the name of the Pauline Epistles was given to the writings of Apollonius, so they gave the name of Hesus to similar writings which were given to his disciples and carried all over Northern Europe.” Whether this is true or not as to the facts, it is sufficient for us to have so much reason to believe that such was the general belief in relation to the origin and nature of the worship of Hesus, in the time of Radbod.
   It is hardly likely that such a history of Hesusism prevailed at that time without either a more or less reliable historical or traditionary basis existed for it. Indeed, it is wonderfully in accord with ail historical probability. If Hesusism had been so long established in Western and Northern Europe as fifteen hundred years, under the management of the Druids, at the time of Radbod, it was natural that this Frisian king should have regarded it as much older than the Christosism which found its way there, and just as natural that as a spirit he should have found that Hesusism sprang from Christosism, in as much as it was certainly several hundred years younger than the Brahmanical religion of Chrishnaism, from which it was almost certainly derived. [...]

   [Pg 417] It seems that all three of those pioneers, in teaching the Christosism of Boniface, failed, not only as these spirits testify, but as history shows. Why they failed, is stated by the spirit of Radbod, when he said that Swivert convinced him that the Christosism of Boniface was but a later and corrupt version of the Druidical Hesusism which prevailed in his dominions. These followers of Hesus were unwilling that their ancient religion should be superseded by a younger version of the same religious doctrines. [...]

   [Pg 418] But let us now come to the spirit’s testimony in regard to the religious doctrines he taught. He says: “I belonged to the religious faith which I called Reformed Christosism, and, as it was taught by me, it was set forth in the books that were rejected at the Council of Nice. In that way I was at war, spiritually speaking, with the teachers of the original Christosism— my position being about the same toward them that Martin Luther’s position was toward Catholicism.” If this is true then the real history of Boniface has been lost, or designedly concealed. [...]

   [Pg 419] The spirit then throws a blaze of light on the Orthodox Christian doings of the Council of Nice. Boniface tells us that he knows “that the books rejected at the Council of Nice, were of more importance, as truly defining Christosism, than those which were adopted. “What were those rejected books? Why were they rejected? In what did they differ from the books adopted? Who voted their rejection? These and scores of other questions that force themselves upon us, the Orthodox Christian Church has never answered, nor have they allowed Boniface or any other person, who adhered to them to answer any one of them. If those rejected books could be reproduced, (as they may be if the power of spirits continues to increase as it has done) the religious fraud called Orthodox Christianity would soon be a thing of the past never again to be repeated in any other form. Boniface thinks there may be some fragments of his teachings, as a priest of Christos, still extant, but if so, they will be found among the Maronite Christians of Mt. Lebanon. This is most probably the fact for the Maronites are the nearest approach to the Essenian Christosites of the first century that are anywhere to be found on earth at the present time.
   Here must close these comments. The vastness of the import of the testimonies of Charles Martel, Radbod and Boniface, it is impossible to over-estimate. They furnish in themselves the materials for a special essay of considerable extent. We cannot more than skim over the ground that they open to the view, and must leave elaboration for a more fitting opportunity.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 420

   “Peace be with you:— My name, in the mortal life was Lucius of Cyrene. I was the disciple of Apollonius and one of the greatest propagators of the Apollonian Christosite religion. I had three different names, owing to the different languages in which it was written — Lucius, Lucas and Luke. I was the writer or transcriber of the Life of Apollonius, as dictated by Damis or Demas. It was I, who helped him to write all those epistles in the New Covenant. The four Gospels were translated from the Sanscrit by Apollonius, and they were sent out by him in four different languages — the Greek, the Roman, the Armenian, and the Syriac Hebraic. The Apocalypse was written by Apollonius himself. The other books were in the form they were dictated to me by Damis and as transcribed by me. I copied them in the Cappadocian tongue, which was a mixture of Greek and Syriac. I am referred to at first as Lucius of Cyrene, in Acts xiii, 1. The second place I am referred to is, in Rom. xvi, 21. I am also referred to in Col. iv, 13, as, “Luke the beloved physician,” and Phil, verse 24, as Lucas. I have been called by those different names. It was Lucian the Satirist who afterwards placed these things in their present shape. Lucian and Marcion were the St. Luke and St. Mark of the Christian Scriptures. Apollonius was deified by the Romans and his statue was set up in the Temple of Jupiter. That is all I can now say. I thank you for the privilege.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 420 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature for account of Lucius of Cyrene.
   Is it not a most significant fact that, if there was an established Christian Church from the era called the Apostolic age, that nothing certain should be known by the Greek and Roman fathers of that church about any of the persons who were said by them to have had a hand in founding that church; and is it not an equally significant fact that there is not a single version of what is called the New Testament that is older than the latter half of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century? If there were older versions of it, what have become of them? That the oldest versions now extant were derived from an earlier source is evident, but how nearly they follow the older versions from which they were derived we may never know [...]

   [Pg 422] Lucius tells us that Apollonius translated his four gospels from the Sanscrit, and rendered them in four languages, Greek, Roman, Armenian and Syriac-Hebraic. If this is true, then it is very certain that these translated Sanscrit gospels were the originals from which the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John were compiled, no matter when or by whom. [...]

   [Pg 423] We may infer from what the spirit says, that Damis, after he became the Petra, or rock on which rested the system called by these spirit witnesses “Apollonian Christosism,” had a version of the New Testament as it then was, rendered into the Cappadocian tongue, by Lucius of Cyrene, and it is not at all unlikely that it was this version which has been alluded to as the Gospel of Peter, which, as is suppossed, came into the hands of Marcion and Lucian, or St. Mark and St. Luke, as the Christians have designated the Gnostic Heretic and heathen Satirist. It must not be lost sight of that one and the same person is meant under the several designations of Damis, Petra or Peter, and Timotheus, the latter name being equivalent to master or patriarch. It is the fact oft repeated, that one and the same person has been designated by several different names, and rarely by the real one, in the New Testament, that has thrown that whole compilation into inextricable confusion. If this is not what was designed by those who helped to do it, it is singular how they could have so completely effected it. The spirit very clearly shows that he was not the Evangelist Luke, or the Luke who wrote the book “Acts of the Apostles,” and in this his statement is confirmed by Christian critics. How long will it be before every barrier will be swept away before it? Not long we opine.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 424

   “I greet you, sir, by saying:— Our efforts are directed towards such points as we think will be likely to attract attention and cause thought. In this mortal life I bore the name of Severus. I was the founder of a sect of Monophysites— a foolish sect, continually in my time and afterwards contending about the Trinity. We were then trying to shape the Christian religion as it now stands. The greatest difficulty that I found at Antioch was when we undertook to make Hesus Christos a Jew. When we taught that, we were frequently mocked and ridiculed. Even the most ignorant people of those times had their traditions and it was difficult to make them relinquish the teachings of their forefathers. When in the mortal form I never thought that this Christian system would gain the foothold it has to-day. I used it in my earth life simply because I thought it was better than the religions of the numerous gods that were worshipped by the people. There was one Jacob, a Syrian, who did much more than myself to place the Monophysites in power; but they lost all they had gained in a short time after his death. One Felix II, a pope or bishop, I think, finally exterminated them. And so ended, when my sect ended, my connection as a spirit with this mortal plane. Since that time I have never returned to this earth until you see me here to-day. Myself and all my followers now belong to the school of Plotinus in the spirit life. We are Spiritualists in this way: We do not think spirits have any right to meddle in mortal affairs for evil, and try to intercept all meddling spirits who bring nothing but confusion to earth’s people; and in this way we hope to help you. There is nothing worse for mortals than babbling and foolish spirits. That all of us may be blessed with the sunlight of truth is my greatest hope and most earnest desire.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 424 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography for account of Severus.
   “Of the numerous works of Severus only fragments remain.” In these references to Severus and the part he had to shaping the Christian religion, to which we refer our readers, we have all that his orthodox Christian enemies have permitted to come down to us concerning these interesting subjects. Read by the light thrown upon them by the foregoing communication, we can well understand why so little has been permitted to reach us concerning Severus and his times. It is questionable whether Severus could properly claim to be the founder of the doctrine of Monophysites, as he says he was. It is, however, very certain that he was the founder of that phase of Monophysitism which refused all toleration of the orthodox Christian doctrine. It is an important point of the testimony of Spirit Severus when he tells us that, at Antioch, as late as A. D. 513 and perhaps as late as 538 that the idea of Hesus Christos being a Jew was ridiculed by the Syrian descendants of the Phoenicians who were worshippers of IES or JES, the sun god. This was no doubt the fact, and it shows that such a thing as orthodox Christianity had not at that late date been firmly established. The pretence that it had prevailed five hundred years earlier is wholly untenable.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 425

   “I salute you, sir: — My name was Agabus. In Acts xi, 27, 28, you have an account of me as fortelling a famine in Judaea. In reading that chapter you are lead to suppose that I came from Jerusalem, which was not the case. I was an Armenian and a proselyte to the doctrines of Apollonius the Cappadocian. I was won to that faith through the logic or teachings of Damis or Demas. Our meetings in those days were simply for the brethren to give way to the spirit; and you will notice that after all those meetings, some who attended were sent in one direction and some in another, but in all cases the most powerful mediums were sent to the most skeptical people. In this laid the success of the Apollonian religion. Apollonius, as well as Damis and his other disciples knew that success was to be won by evidence. Apollonius learned this from the Gymnosophists of India; and for that reason, in the first and second centuries, they used mediums to propagate their system. The followers of the religion of Apollonius, treating of Christos or the Indian Christ, was made up of nearly all the nations that he could then reach, and in fact had very little to do with the Jews, who are made to appear, by the Christian books, to have been the principal adherents of that religion. The fact is that the most powerful propagators of it were Greeks and Romans: and that is why you find most of the epistles written in Greek or Latin. These two nations and those tributary to them were the most powerful adherents of the Christosite Apollonian system. You will notice that I do not call any of these movements religions, but only systems, because there can be no religion, as I have found out as a spirit, but that which is founded on the scientific book of nature. This idea of a descent of God among men, or of men being god-made, is something that all humanity will have to get rid of, and the sooner they do it the better. I passed to spirit life in about A. D. 97.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 426 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopsedia of Theological Literature for account of Agabus. [...]

   It was only after Apollonius returned from his visit to the Gynmosophist followers of Christos in India that he set about founding the system which the Christian hierarchy and Church fraudulently appropriated in the fourth century, as something that specially belonged to them, and not to Apollonius, the real creator of that system. Agabus certainly states what was the fact when he says that the Jews were least of all concerned with the Christosism from which Christianity was borrowed or stolen. We prefer to say stolen, because the efforts which have been made by the Christian Church to deprive Apollonius of the credit of his theological teachings, show that the appropriation of his labors was dishonest and criminal from the outset. Agabus has manifestly learned the folly of religion as a means to spirit happiness; and we fully agree with him that the idea of a god descending among men, or of any man being god-made must be abandoned, and the sooner it is done the better for all humanity.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 427

   “Good day, sir:— During my mortal life I was a Socinian writer. My name was John Biddle. I was many times in jail for denying the truth of the Trinity; and I finally died in jail, of what is termed jail fever, and all because I could not raise one hundred pounds sterling. To convey to your mind any idea of the indignation I feel at the way I was treated by the Christians would be utterly impossible. They knew, as did President Bradshaw, my most bitter opponent, that what I asserted was the truth. My doctrines were founded upon the same facts that your Modern Spiritualism rests upon, with this exception that what you call spirits, I called angels. All this drew upon me the hatred and malice of the priests of my time, who petitioned parliament and the king to have my teachings suppressed. My writings were burned. But since I entered spirit life I gathered around me a force of congenial spirits, and if I do not succeed in making my mark upon the Christian Church before long, it will not be because I have not tried hard enough to do it. I would say to you, foster skepticism wherever you can, for it is the axe that will cut down the tree of superstition. I am sorry to see your difficulties, sir, and that you find so few helpers in your battle for truth. I was thrown into prison in May, and died there in September 1662.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 428 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to Biographie Universelle for account of John Biddle. [...]

   [Pg 428] There is no mention of Biddle having been confined, at the time of his death for the non-payment of one hundred pounds sterling. With that exception the communication is in remarkable accord with what has been recorded concerning him. It is a demonstrated fact, that by their persecutions in the past, the Christian Churches, Catholic and Protestant, have been filling the spirit world with enemies who will yet see the utter over throw of the power that they have so cruelly and unscrupulously labored to perpetuate.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 429

   “I greet you Sir:— When here, I never hesitated to preach the truth in the presence of heretics. I wish to ask you how you, a small body of people and in so small a minority, expect, successfully, to beard the powerful Catholic Church? What does it matter, even if you know the truth in relation to Apollonius of Tyana, or in regard to Crishna Hesus, or the other gods? You forget that all the valuable manuscripts concerning them are in possession of our church. You will need proof to show that your standpoint is correct; and like many of the Protestant Churches (all of which are nothing more than bastard churches) it will appear that it has nothing more to support it but the sayings and doings of a lecherous monk. You may know, when I tried to convert the famous Theodore Beza, on his death bed, to the Catholic faith, that I was in earnest about propagating my religion when here, and I am yet so in spirit life. The priests of my church have hidden their tracks well, and it will cost an immense outlay of time and money to prove that these apostate spirits have been communicating to you the truth. You cannot do it, and I challenge you to the trial.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 429 J.M. Roberts Commentary & Compiler

   [Pg 429] Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature for account of St. Francis de Sales. The spirit of St. Francis de Sales could in no manner have more pointedly identified himself than by giving an account of his efforts to win the aged Beza to the Roman Catholic Church. St. Francis evidently considered that particular service as being the most meritorious of his zealous and certainly most remarkable efforts on behalf of his religion. Even he could not deny the correctness of the spirit information which had been given to us in relation to Apollonius of Tyana, the God Christos of the Hindoos, and the God Hesus of the Gallic Druids. His lame attempt to take comfort from the fact that so much of evidence in support of those things had been destroyed, or was in the private keeping of the Roman Church, showed most clearly what a desperate strait has been forced upon the spirit defenders of Christianity by these remarkable spirit testimonies. I will only add that the name of this spirit was given by the guide of the medium, or we would never have known from what spirit it came.
   [The character, purposes and unscrupulous nature of St. Francis de Sales as an individual, are fully set forth in his characteristic communication. The admissions he makes as to the priests of his church covering their tracks well is true to life, also to the fact that the valuable manuscripts bearing uppn the true history of so-called Christianity are in the possession of the Church, except what have been destroyed. This Spirit is a fair representative of the Church at large. -Compiler.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 431

   “I greet you, sir: — I was one of the most intimate disciples of Apollonius of Tyana, sometimes called Paulinus, Paul and Apollos, according to the different dialects of the various countries which he visited. About the first mention of me, you will find in the 15th Chapter of Acts, 22d verse. You will also find mention of me in the 1st verse of 1st Thessalonians. The book of Acts, is set down by the best commentators as having been written about A. D. 59, while the Epistle of the Thessalonians is set down for A. D. 52. Both of these statements are wrong. The 1st Thessalonians was written about A. D. 40; and portions of Acts about A. D. 60 — other parts of it later. It never assumed its present shape until the time of Lucian. The 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first ever written by Apollonius; and you will note, if you examine that epistle, that he does not charge the Thessalonians with those vices that are named in the other epistles. The reason for this is very simple when understood. It was because the Thessalonians were Chrestus-Christosites, Thessalonica being the capital of ancient Macedonia, and he, Apollonius, had made a few converts there. He had to write to them very kindly, fearing that they would go back to their old teacher, Chrestus. The propagation of the Apollonian system of Christosism was opposed by the Greek Promethean system, and by the teachings of Chrestus concerning Christos; and also by an Ethiopian version, of which you will hear more hereafter, from the spirits. I think I have said all that can be of benefit or that I can now recall this morning. Yours for the truth, Silvanus, surnamed Silas.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 431 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Ecclesiastical Literature for account of Silas.
   We refer our readers to the passages in which Silas or Silvanus is mentioned in the New Testament in Acts xv, 22-41.
   This passage of Acts shows very clearly, that Silas, whose real name was Silvanus, was the chosen and, no doubt, intimate, if not the most intimate friend of Paul, whose real name it appears was Apollonius. [...]

   [Pg 433] He tells us that he was one of the most intimate disciples of Apollonius of Tyana, who was sometimes called Paulinus, Paulus and Apollos in the different countries which he visited. He expressly claims to have been the person called Silas, in the Acts of the Apostles; but who is rightly called Silvanus in 2 Cor. i, 19; in 2 Thessalonians i1,; and in 1 Peter v, 12. If this is true, then it is certain that those three epistles were written by one and the same person, and that person Apollonius of Tyana, also called Paulinus, Paulus and Apollos. It is a circumstance strongly indicating this, that the chosen friend of Paul, was in all those epistles called Silvanus, while in Acts he is in no instance called Silvanus, but always Silas. It is true the spirit said he had the name of Silas, but we have a right to infer that he had that surname given to him long after those epistles were written, by some person who had a reason for substituting the name Silas for Silvanus; and it is not a very violent presumption to presume that the object was the same that led the writer of Acts, to substitute the name of Paul for Apollonius, in those stories concerning these two intimate Christosite friends.
   The spirit then proceeds to throw a new light on the respective dates of Acts and 1 Thessalonians. He says: “The book of Acts is set down by the best commentators as having been written about A. D. 59, while the Epistle to the Thessalonians is set down for A. D. 52.” Both of these statements” he says: “are wrong. The First Thessalonians was written about A. D. 40; and portions of Acts about A. D. 60 — other parts of it later. It never assumed its present shape until the time of Lucian.” This, so far as Acts is concerned, is most probable; and affords the only way of accounting for the confusion that has prevailed concerning it. The whole of the difficulty seems to have arisen from the fact, that much of what is related must have been written by an eye-witness of the events described; while other portions of it were manifestly related to events that occurred subsequently to what is called the apostolic age. Another mistake has been that Lucian or Luke, who was its real compiler, (as we have the book now) was a contemporary and travelling companion of the person called Paul in Acts. No greater mistake could have been made, for that compiler of Acts was the contemporary of Marcion, or Mark, as he is called, and did not live until after the reign of Trajan, and did not compile the book of Acts until A. D. 150 when he and Marcion were rivaling each other in trying to rob Apollonius of Tyana of his theological labors by appropriating them to their respective theological schemes. That Lucianus the Greek Satirist and St. Luke of the New Testament were one and the same person, is most probable if not absolutely certain. It is true he has had the credit of having satirized the Christian religion; but if this was so, then the Christianity which he satirized was the Christosism of Chrestus, if not also that of Apollonius of Tyana as well. [...]

   [Pg 436] He tells us it was because the Thessalonians were Chrestus-Christosites, meaning that they were Christosite followers of Chrestus, the Macedonian Gymnosophist, who, with his followers, was expelled from Rome by Claudius, some time between A. D. 42 and 50. He says at the time Apollonius wrote that epistle to the Thessalonians he had but few converts or followers there, and he was afraid to write dogmatically to them, lest they should go back to their old teacher Chrestus. [...]

   [Pg 436] Now, it must be remembered that the people of whom the author of that epistle was speaking, lived in Macedonia in the reign of Claudius. Who were they? Certainly not worshippers of the Greek and Roman gods; for had they been, what “sins did they fill up alway,” and what “wrath” was it “that had come upon them to the uttermost?” Claudius certainly did not visit his wrath upon the worshippers of the heathen gods, for they were but following the Roman laws. He certainly had reference to some other class of Macedonian or Thessalonian subjects of Claudius. Who then were they who incurred the wrath of Claudius? Suetonius, the Roman historian, has recorded the fact that Chrestus and his followers were driven from Rome under an edict issued by Claudius. Why? Because we are told he was engaged in exciting his followers to disturb the public peace by the propagation of his religious doctrines. Those religious doctrines were not heathen, nor yet were they Judaical. For we are told that Aquila and Priscilla were followers of Chrestus, and were driven from Rome by that decree of Claudius against Chrestus and his converts. It was to find Aquila and Priscilla, the banished followers of Chrestus, the Macedonian, that Paul or Apollonius went to Corinth. Why would he have sought them out if they had been Jews? and still more, why would they, if they were such fanatical Jews as to suffer banishment on account of their religious zeal, have been so ready not only to adopt the Christosite (or Christian if you please) doctrine of Apollonius or Paul, but to assume to expound them, as we see in Acts, xviii, 26? The fact is they were not Jews, as any one may see by their purely Greek names. They were Chrestosites, or Chrestians, when Apollonius or Paul converted them to his Christian views.

   [Pg 437] Those of our readers who carefully read the communication of Chrestus, will take note that in reply to our question as to whether he knew ought of Damis, the intimate friend and trusted companion of Apollonius, his reply was that he had not met him, but had received threatening letters from him, commanding him to cease preaching his Gymnosophic Christosism in Macedonia. Damis, himself, as a spirit, testified, as the reader may remember, that he was called Timotheus, by the Thessalonians, that being as much a title as a name. The Macedonian opponents and persecutors of the converts of Paul or Apollonius, in that country, were, as spirit Silvanus or Silas states, followers of Chrestus, and those converts of Paul or Apollonius were from a rival sect of Christosites, and not from those adhering to the Jewish faith, or who had been followers of the Greek or Roman religions. It is only on this supposition that we can see any analogy between the opposition to the doctrines of Paul or Apollonius in Thessalonica, and the alleged opposition to the teachings of the same Paul or Apollonius in Judea by the Jews, supposing wrongfully, that he, Paul or Apollonius, was a Jew and not a Greek. View the whole matter as we may, we reach the natural conclusion that what the spirit of Silas or Silvanus says about himself, and the book of Acts and the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, is true in every essential particular. That being so, the identity of the Saul or Paul of Acts with Apollonius, the Nazarite-Essenian teacher of Buddhistic Christosism in the Roman Empire, from A. D. 30 to A. D. 102, is made indisputably plain and irrefutable. The spirit then closes his communication with a disclosure which, until that moment, we had not looked for; and that is, that the opposition to the Apollonian or Pauline system of Christosism was threefold, and not dual, as we had been led to imagine and believe. Not only was it opposed by the Gymnosophic or Brahmanizing Christosism of Chrestus, and by the Greek Jupiterian and Promethean systems of theology; but, from what the spirit of Silvanus says, it was also opposed by an Ethiopian Christosism. We have had many intimations from time to time, that we now see point to such an Ethiopic Christosism, but which when they were given we did not perceive could have any relation to an anti- Apollonian Christosism of that nature.
   We do not know how these things appear to those who read them; but to myself, to whom they come through the lips of the unconscious medium, are astounding. We know, as certainly as mortal man can know anything, that these revelations come from the spirit world; and have every possible reason to believe they come from the learned, influential and thoroughly informed spirits, ancient as well as modern, from whom they purport to come.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 439

   “I salute you, sir: — My name is Frumentius. I was an Abyssinian bishop in the fourth century, and the original writer of the Ethiopic version of Christosism, as contained in the four gospels received by a pagan priest of the sun, not historically named, from Calanus, in the days of Alexander the Great. I was a sun worshipper myself and so understood the matter that I regarded Christos as the Child of the Sun. In my day it was a common thing to believe that all the pure spirits of the dead upon this earth passed to the sun. Consequently, I wrote this Ethiopian version to show that the god of the sun, in his kindness, sent his son here, to die for the sins of mortals. If my version had been left intact this would clearly have appeared to those who read it; but as will be explained by a spirit who will come after me, and by tricks well known to Christians, they left just so much of my record stand as suited the propagation of their own faith. The rest was destroyed; how, will be explained by a spirit before these sittings are ended. Bless you for the good work you are doing; but you will find that none are so blind as those who will not see.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 439 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Refer to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature for account of Frumentius. [...]

   [Pg 440] The Ethiopic version of Christosism, as it was translated from the Sanscrit of Calanus, has not been allowed to come down to us, and for the very good reason that had it been permitted to do so, the sun-worshipping heathen origin and meaning of what is called orthodox Christianity would be understood, and the prevailing superstition in regard to it would be brought to a speedy end. Frumentius referred to Ephraim, bishop of Odessa, as the spirit who would explain the method used to suppress those portions of his Ethiopic version of the New Testament, which were in the way of the ecclesiastics who founded Christianity. View this communication as we may and it will stand every test as to its authenticity and truthfulness.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 441

   At my weekly sitting with the medium and before the communication from Chrestus was given the guide of the medium took control and said — “Mr. Roberts, the spirit who is here to communicate is oue who has something very important to say to you, and Aronomar is so anxious that you should understand this, that he will take control of the medium himself for a moment.” Aronomar through the medium, addressed me as follows:

   “I greet you:— In this work in which we are both engaged, you doing your part and I mine, I have now to show you that we do not wish to set Apollonius up as a god or christ; and the spirit I am about to introduce to you, will show you that his claim for special consideration was the fearless advocacy and maintenance of his ideas. The spirit who is about to take control of the medium will give you the particulars concerning the doings of himself and Apollonius. He was opposed by Apollonius, and can tell you about him, as well as about himself. You can ask him any questions you desire to have answered, because I have concentrated a very strong force around the medium, and I think we can sustain the spirit until you have done with questioning him.”

   Here Aronomar yielded the control to the spirit, and the following astonishing communication was given:

   “I salute you, sir: — In the time of Claudius Ceesar, I was at Rome, engaged in propagating the Gymnosophic ideas in relation to the Indian Christos in contradistinction to the ideas of Apollonius of Tyana, in relation to him. He taught the reformed Buddhist doctrines concerning him, while I taught the Brahmanical doctrines. The difference between the two doctrines were simply, that according to Apollonius’s way of teaching, mankind were to depend mainly, or solely, upon Christos as their Saviour; in my way of teaching, Christos could only be their Saviour provided their good works and deeds accompanied a belief in him. My idea was the same as that of genuine Christianity, to-day, in relation to salvation. Apollonius taught the doctrines of Universalism. In order to stop all progress in the direction of my teachings, Apollonius, Paulinus or Apollos, went and stopped with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them, while his agents or followers worked against me at Rome. At the time this agitation occurred, there was an edict issued by the emperor Claudius which ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Rome, as Suetonius has been made to record it; but this is an interpolation by Christian writers to conceal my historical identity. This passage in Suetonius has greatly bothered your modern theologians, Adam Clark, Dr. Lardner, and other commentators, to know whether Christ, so-called, was ever at Rome. I was the man who was at that time in Rome, and I was the opponent of Apollonius. My name was Chrestus, and it seems strange that with such a name, learned theologians should ever have mistaken me for a Jew. In their zeal to find some evidence to prove that their Christ had an existence, they are ready to accept anything, however irrational and improbable. I was a Macedonian, and a slave to Claudius, but was set free by him on the account of the appeals of my friends and followers. At length I acquired such power and influence by my preaching and teaching the doctrines of Christos, and by my mediumship, which was manifested in support of my teachings, that Claudius expelled myself and all my followers from Rome. It is important that you should thoroughly know what the name Chrestus meant. I was named after what I taught. In the contest between myself and Apollonius, he had more friends than I had; and mainly among the patrician order. He being a freeborn citizen and I having been a slave, of course the whole patrician order worked against me. In order that you may thoroughly understand the import of this communication, I will say that Apollonius received his gospels from India through Iarchus; I received mine directly from Calanus, the teacher of Alexander the Great. When I say I received my gospels directly from Calanus, I mean they came down to me through my ancestors from the time of Alexander, one of whom was with Alexander, and was personally acquainted with Calanus. I was born about A. D. 6, and lived until A. D. 92. [Where did you go on being expelled from Rome?] I went back to my home in Macedonia. [Did you ever meet Damis, the friend and disciple of Apollonius?] I never met him, but I knew of him. He sent me threatening letters commanding me to cease teaching my doctrines. He was then in Thessalonica. [What was your occupation in Macedonia?] I was a scribe to the Macedonian priests, but I was not a follower of the Macedonian religion. I adhered to the Christos religion, as did my ancestors before me. [What was your Macedonian name?] I will have to spell it for you. Ruthalia. ] want further to say that the edict against myself and followers was said to be issued against us as Jews, but that term was applied to all persons who we regarded as vagrants or disturbers of the peace and good order of Rome, and not as designating the followers of Judaism. That is why the interpolator of Suetonius chose the term Jews for those people against whom the edict of Claudius was issued. You will find me called Chrestus in Suetonius.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 443 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   Here the communication ended, the spirit being unable to hold the control longer. Curious to know whether Suetonius had made any reference to this man, I went, immediately after the close of the sitting, to see whether that author’s writings contained any such passage as that to which the spirit had referred. Judge of my surprise when, on turning to the “Life of Claudius” by Suetonius, I found this sentence: “Judaeos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit.”
   The sentence which immediately precedes it, and that which follows it have no connection with it, and it has every appearance of being an interpolation, as the spirit thought it was. In order to show what confusion this brief sentence in Suetonius has occasioned, I here quote the following account of Chrestus from McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Theological Literature:

   “Chrestus, a person named by Suetonius (Claud. 25) as having incited a sedition among the Jews at Rome, which led to their expulsion from the city (comp. Acts xviii, 2). There have been two different opinions as to whom Suetonius meant by Chrestus (see Kuinol, ad Act. in loc.); whether some Hellenist, who had excited political disturbances, as Meyer and DeWette suppose; (see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul i, 386), the name Chrestus (Greek, Chrestos, useful) frequently occurring as borne by manumitted slaves: [...]

   [Pg 444] Who can read that conflict of opinion, and not see that the real nature and cause of the edict being issued by Claudius has been suppressed, and in all human probability, by the author of the book of the Acts of the Apostles? Upon this point I will have something special to say further on. Dr. Lardner in his Credibility of the Gospel History, says:

   “I conclude with the banishment of the Jews from Rome. ‘After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And found a certain Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome,’ Acts xviii, 1, 2.

   “Dio says, that Claudius did not banish the Jews from Rome, but only prohibited their assemblies. But Suetonius who lived nearer the time, says, ‘He expelled the Jews from Rome, who were constantly raising disturbances, Chrestus being their leader.”

   “It is disputed by learned men whether by Chrestus, Suetonius means Christ. I need not concern myself with that point here. This passage proves what I bring it for. [...]

   So says Dr. Lardner. It is not perfectly manifest that what the spirit says concerning the cause and nature of the edict issued by Claudius is true, and hence the confusion that afterwards arose, as to who the real disturbers of the peace of Rome were. Dio was certainly right in saying that Claudius did not banish the Jews from Rome; nor is there a particle of evidence outside the passage of Suetonius, which we have cited, that says any thing about the Jews having been driven from Rome in the time of Claudius; and it is more than questionable whether Suetonius mentioned the Jews at all in his reference to the edict. He no doubt did mention something about the decree against Chrestus and his followers; b ut the term he applied to them has no doubt been changed by some transcriber of Suetonius who doubtless had more than one object in view. There was an absolute necessity for that transcriber to conceal the identity of Chrestus and his theological doctrines in relation to the Brahmanical Christos, if he was a Christian zealot; and at the same time he no doubt sought to disgrace the Jews, the hated opponents of the Christian religion, by m aking them appear to have been the enemies of peace and good order at Rome. The absurdity of such a pretence is apparent, in as much as the number of Jews at Rome was very inconsiderable, at that time, and they would not have been allowed to raise a single disturbance without a liability of being exterminated instead of being expelled from Rome. How would the interests of Roman subjects have been advanced by s ending such lawless people to other parts of the Empire? The pretence is inconsistent with all probability. That there was something not fully elucidated as to this question is m ade very certain by the mention of Dr. Lardner that, “It is disputed by learned men whether by Chrestus, Suetonius means Christ,” and it is not a little laughable to see how complacently the learned Doctor evaded that very important question. Says he: “I need not concern myself with that point here.” He forgot to add “Or anywhere else,” for he never alluded to the matter afterward. As the spirit suggests, it never occurred to any of these learned men to recognize in the Latin name Chrestus the Greek Christos, which no Jew ever bore. Even if the Greek Jesu could be traced to the Jewish Jeshua or Joshua, the Greek Christos can in no manner be traced to any analogous Jewish name. When therefore, the founders of Orthodox Christianity coupled the Greek Christos with the Latin Jesus, as having any relation to any Jew whomsoever, they committed a blunder from which they can never escape. But the Latin Jesus was not derived from the Jewish name Joshua at all, but from the Phoenician Jes, the designation of their sun-god, Bacchus; and thus it becomes plain, that, in no other than a sun-worshipping sense, were the two names Jesus and Christos ever applied to the same object of worship, whether god, man or myth. The spirit tells us He was called Chrestus by the Romans, because he taught the Brahmanical doctrines concerning the Indian god Christos. The truth of all the points we have been examining will be strongly supported by what we will adduce hereafter in connection with what the spirit says of himself. [...]

   [Pg 447] It is therein admitted that the edict of Claudius against Chrestus. and his followers was principally against Christians, or Chrestians, and not against Jews at all, the very fact which Chrestus, as a returning spirit, testifies to. To call these Christians, or Chrestians, a Jewish sect, is a singular inconsistency, that could be only accounted for by the necessity there was to maintain the interpolated untruth that the edict of Claudius was issued against Jews. This same writer admitted that the Jews in Asia and Egypt were treated by Claudius with indulgence. If this was so, why would he have treated them with less indulgence at Rome? That he did not do so, becomes certain, as appears by the testimony of Chrestus and the corroborating facts that we have hastily thrown together, bearing upon this point. Not only have we the errors of history and Christian theology here set at rest, in a most remarkable and unexpected manner; but we have the identity of a most important historical personage, which has long been unknown to the most skillful critics, established beyond question or cavil. Having thus established the identity of the spirit witness and his entire veracity, in relation to the matters we have noticed, we will now proceed to the critical consideration of the other statements contained in his communication.
   The spirit tells us that when at Rome, in the reign of Claudius, he was a teacher of the Gymnosophic doctrines or ideas in relation to the Indian Christos, in contradistinction to the ideas of Apollonius of Tyana in relation to the same Christos; and he adds: “He, (Apollonius) taught the reformed Buddhist doctrines concerning Christos, while I (Chrestus) taught the Brahmanical doctrines.” And then he proceeds to state:

   “The difference between the two doctrines were simply, that according to Apollonius’s way of teaching, mankind was to depend mainly, or solely, upon Christos as their Saviour; in my way of teaching, Christos could only be their Saviour, provided their good works and deeds accompanied a belief in him.”

   Of the correctness of this statement we can only judge from the further statements of the spirit, and the collateral facts which corroborate them. It seems certain, however, that Chrestus was an agitator of certain sectarian doctrines which created a great ferment and excitement among the inhabitants of Rome, which finally led Claudius to banish him and his secretaries from that city. His opponents were not the Roman pagan priesthood, for in that case it is hardly likely that any of them would have been permitted to go forth to propagate their disturbing doctrines throughout the Roman Empire. The nature of the edict shows two things: 1st, that the controversy between Chrestus and his opponents was one, the result of which, was local in its character; and 2d, that the opposing party was not identified with the national religion. Who, then, was the opposing party? Chrestus tells us it was Apollonius of Tyana and his Essenian followers. We now approach a point which shows in a very positive manner that this Apollonius was no other person than the Paul of The Acts of the Apostles, and the real author of the Christian Epistles (wrongfully denied to be his work); and which were certainly the work of no other person than Apollonius. Chrestus tells us that Apollonius, otherwise called Paulinus and Apollos at Rome, sought to put a stop to the teachings of himself, and to accomplish this, went away from Rome and stopped with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them, while his followers remained at Rome, to work against him, Chrestus. It seems certain, in view of all the facts, that it was the hot dissension between the rival parties or sects of Christosites that led to the expulsion of the party or sect that was headed by Chrestus. [...]

   [Pg 450] The particular point to which we invite the reader in that connection is, that Aquila and Priscilla were banished from Rome, under the edict of Claudius, which was mentioned by Suetonius as having been directed against Chrestus and his followers. It is therefore certain that Paul, whether Apollonius of Tyana or not, became the religious partisan of two of the chief supporters of Chrestus at Rome, they having abandoned the sect of Chrestus and attached themselves to that of Paul, as his converts. In this the spirit statement of Chrestus is shown to be literally true. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that he equally testified to the truth when he said he was not a Jew, and that Aquila and Priscilla were not Jews but Christosites, and that Paul who was none other than Apollonius knew they were Christosites and not Jews before he went to hunt them up at Corinth. Chrestus, it is plain, must have felt quite aggrieved at the course of Aquila and Priscilla in abandoning his Gynmosophic version of Christosism and adopting the Buddhistic version of the same Christosism as proclaimed and taught by Apollonius. Otherwise he would not have mentioned them as he did in his communication. Indeed it would seem that the movement which Chrestus had set on foot at Rome, began to decline from the time of the banishment of h imself and followers from Rome, and the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla to the doctrines of Apollonius or Paul was no doubt largely due to the fact that the latter doctrines were not proscribed as were those of Chrestus; and they could adopt and teach them without subjecting themselves to further persecution at the hands of the Roman authorities. Be this as it may, we have given enough and more than enough to establish, not only the authenticity of the communication, but its surprising correctness and instructiveness. We have a right therefore, to claim that unless there is some manifest untruth in the other parts of the communication, that it is equally entitled to credit throughout.
   Now, the spirit tells us that Apollonius taught the one especial and distinctive doctrine of a dependence upon Christos as their Saviour, making faith in that doctrine the essential principle of religious duty. If this is true, as we have not a doubt it is, then it is certain that Apollonius of Tyana was the person called St. Paul in the Christian Scriptures, and that the Christian Scriptures are nothing more than plagiarisms of the writings and teachings of Apollonius concerning the Hindoo Saviour, by him called Christos. The one aim of the founders and upholders of what is called the Christian religion has been, to pervert, conceal, suppress or destroy all reliable information in relation to Apollonius of Tyana, his teachings and his followers. In this one fact we have sufficient proof that Christianity could not afford to have the truth known concerning these things. In the light of such spirit communications as this one from Chrestus, and scores of other spirits who have testified to what they personally knew about the origin, nature, and objects of Christianity, we can well understand why everything concerning Apollonius and his Christosite teachings, as well as Chrestus and his Christosite teachings, in the reign of Claudius, have been designedly, systematically and fraudulently suppressed, by a class of men who have made a trade of concealing the truth concerning the theological fraud called, or rather miscalled Christianity.
   The spirit then tells us how he came to have a knowledge of Gymnosophic Christosism, and in this, his statement is surprisingly consistent with all the collateral historical facts. Not only does he tells us how he received his knowledge of Christosism, but he tells us with unmistakable clearness how Apollonius received his knowledge of the same theological system, and why the latter differed from his own. He says: “In order that you may thoroughly understand the import of this communication I will say that Apollonius received his gospels from India through Iarchus; I received mine directly from Calanus, the teacher of Alexander the Great * * * I mean they came down to me through my ancestors from the time of Alexander, one of whom was with Alexander and who was personally acquainted with Calanus.” This statement of the spirit is singularly explanatory of the call of Paul to go to Macedonia. If we may believe spirit Chrestus, which the writer does not hesitate to say he does, it would seem that Caftmus placed a copy of the Gymnosophic gospels concerning the Hindoo Christos, in the hands of Alexander, or some of his generals, after his return to Babylon from his conquest of India. By the latter, these gospels seem to have been taken into Macedonia, after the death of Alexander, and were there secretly taught by the ancestors of Ruthalia, the Macedonian slave of a Roman master, at Rome called Chrestus. The latter tells us that in Macedonia his occupation was that of a scribe to the Macedonian or Roman priesthood of his native country, that he was not their follower, but an adherent to the Christosite or Gymnosophic religion of his ancestors. It seems, furthermore that when taken from Macedonia to Rome, he, Chrestus, began to propagate his Gymnosophic Christosism either secretly or openly, and soon gained a following of sufficient influence with the emperor Claudius to procure his freedom. Chrestus had, no doubt, heard of Apollonius’s visits to India, and his adoption of the Hindoo gospels concerning Christos, which the latter had procured from Iarchus, the Buddhistic patriarch. Thinking to procure the co-operation of Apollonius in his Christosizing scheme at Rome, he sent to him in Asia asking him to come to his help. Apollonius, it seems, from what the spirit says, and from what is said in Acts xvii., about the visionary call to Paul, went not to Macedonia, but to the Macedonian who had called for his help, who was then propagating his Christosite doctrines at Rome. The help that Chrestus received from Apollonius is very clearly set forth in the communication from the former. Apollonius, instead of becoming a helper and follower of Chrestus, became his sectarian enemy and the leader of a party or sect that supplanted the religious movement which he had fairly inaugurated. From that time forward but little was known or heard of Chrestus and his followers, while the Apollonian or Pauline party came into such prominence in the European provinces of the Roman Empire, as to challenge the Roman religion throughout the vast area of the civilized world. Never was there a spirit communication given which was more calculated to lay bare the awful crimes and deeds of those who perpetrated the theological fraud called Christianity than the communication we have been considering; and never was a communication more strongly corroborated by apparently remote and wholly disconnected facts.[...]

   [Pg 453] Reader, remember that but for the fact that the Christian enemies of truth omitted to erase the name of Chrestus from that one sentence of Suetonius, it would have been impossible to have established the authenticity and credibility of that most important spirit communication. We say important communication meaning all that the word important can imply. We hold that nothing is more important than the establishment of truth and the banishment of error, in all that in any way is calculated to promote human welfare and prevent human misery. It is for this we labor, as few men have ever labored, in order to accomplish these necessary conditions for human progress. We know how few the number is, comparatively, who sympathize with us in this our purpose; but this does not lessen the importance of these great objects in our sight. As time passes, and the light of supernal wisdom streams upon this world of ignorance, of selfishness, and of mental and moral cowardice, the truth will become more lovely and welcome and error more hideous and forbidding, until all mankind will joyfully partake of the blessings which truth alone brings.

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 454

   On the morning of April 23d, 1885, I had a brief sitting with the medium at which he was first controlled by his guide, who told me that Aronomar, the supervising control of the medium, desired to speak with me. In a few moments I received the following communication from Aronomar:

   “I salute you, sir:— I will say to you, that ever since these communications were first given to you, I have done everything to guard them from interference that was possible for me to do; but I have labored under four disadvantages: 1st, to secure the communications against interruptions; 2d, to have the communications as clear, lucid, and as true as possible 3; d, to overcome the psychological, spirit forces who know of my intentions, and the mean material conditions that I am compelled to meet, and who use their forces to prevent me from carrying out my plans; and 4th, and lastly, to compel the controlling spirit, when hostile, to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. It is, therefore, for yourself to watch the communications with a critical eye, and where they contain manifest untruth, or will not stand the test of strict analysis by the light of every collateral fact, then reject them as useless for any other purpose than to show what difficulties attend the propagation of truth from the spirit side of life. I will now communicate in relation to the Chaldean paraphrases. I had, as you perhaps well know, four names, by which I am known to history. Aronomar, which was Persian; Belteshazzar, which was Chaldean; Daniel, which was Samarito Judsean (after my time) and Zoroaster, which was also Persian. At the time in which I lived at Babylon, there was, what you might call, a Council, called together by Nabopolasser, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, of all the learned men of the neighboring nations of the Chaldean empire. The object of this assembly of learned men was to record the traditions or unwritten histories of these various countries. I was the president or head of that Council. I understood seventeen different languages. The Chaldean, Egyptian and Phoenician languages were the most important of these. It was at this Council that the Talmud was first made. The Jews had nothing to do with it except to carry that compilation away with them when they returned from their Babylonian captivity. It is this Talmud of Babylon, that is so revered by the Jews of to-day, which their ancestors bore away with them in the reign of Cyrus. Now the most remarkable fact you will find to test the truth of my testimony, is, that, while you will find Targums of all the other books of the Septuagint, you will find none, of the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah. The reason for this was that to have written Targums of those books would have shown the Chaldean origin of all of them, the point the Targum writers aimed to conceal. From my time to the time of the history of Aristobulus, the tutor of Ptolemy Physon, there were seventy-two mishnaical doctors, but the Jews make them run down to the time of Juda or Jehuda, the Holy, the compiler of the Mishna, but this is only done to conceal the Septuagint of A ristobulus, which was afterwards revised by that learned man, Demetrius Phalerius, the distinguished librarian of Ptolemy Philadelphus. What I have said here refers to various other communications you have and will receive. I merely give you the above at this time as corroborative, of what has been given as well as a part of the testimony relating to those matters yet to follow.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 455 J.M. Roberts Commentary & Compiler

   [Pg 456] It would require an essay to show the vast importance of this communication by way of explaining what the Jewish Scriptures really are. That the spirit was Zoroaster, the great Persian sage and seer, I have had too much proof to rationally doubt. [Aronomar gave other communications in this series previous to the one above, but it has been deemed proper to insert his principal testimony in the latter part of this work, under the title of Zoroaster, to which we call the special attention of our readers, and as the history of Aronomar is therein fully set forth and commented upon, it is not deemed expedient to enlarge upon the same here. — Compiler.]

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 457

   “May the light of truth — the sun — ever shine:— In the spirit controlling this man (the medium) you have before you one of the so-called Christian Saints. Yet I was no saint. I was only made to be one through ignorance and superstition by Catholic Christians after my time on earth. My name was Declan — Saint Declan. The place where I principally flourished was Ardmore, in the county of Waterford, Ireland. I lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. The doctrines that were taught by me embraced the secret meaning of all the round towers in Ireland. Our religion was the Druidic. Our books were all written upon scrolls, and embraced some of the finest specimens of illuminated writings that there were then in the world. Our whole religious teachings and practices had their origin among the Phoenicians, from whom we derived them. The Phoenicians visited and traded in Ireland and Britain one thousand years before the Christian era. The sun was designated by us IES, a designation we received from the Phoenicians, but it was corrupted by the Scandinavians into HES, meaning fire, fire-man, or sun-man, who afterwards figured as the sungod, or Son of God. It was not until nearly three hundred years later that some of Augustin's followers introduced into Ireland the Christos religion of the East. St. Patrick taught the same sun-worshipping Druidical religion that I taught. When the Christosite priests gained a foothold in Ireland and Britain, finding that they could not destroy the respect of the people for ourselves and for our religious teachings, they called us saints and said that our sanctification had all come from Rome. By reference to the writings of Herodotus and Pliny you will find that the Phoenicians were trading with Britain long before their times, and went there to obtain tin, on which account they called Britain the Tin Island. You can, I think, by a very straight line of historical facts prove the truth of what I have said here to-day.”

EXCERPT Notes | Pg 458 J.M. Roberts Commentary

   In this communication we have, not only, the most absolute proof of the truth of Spiritualism, but of the power of ancient spirits to return and impart the most important historical facts. I have not been able to find any mention of St. Declan in any of the English or French Encyclopaedias or Biographical Dictionaries. It was only after much searching that I at length succeeded in finding the following mention of St. Declan in a History of Ireland written in French by M. l’ Abbe Ma-Geoghegan (Paris, 1758) vol. 1, 159:

   “Usserius, Colgan Wareus and others make mention of four holy bishops, whom Usserius calls the precursors of St. Patrick, because they had preached the gospel in Ireland, some years before Pope Celestine charged him, St. Patrick, with the conversion of the people of Ireland. These saints were Declan, Ailbe, Kieran, and Ibar. [...]

   [Pg 459] This is all that we have been able to find in relation to St. Declan, but it is more than enough to establish the authenticity and credibility of the communication which purported to come from his spirit. It is impossible to conceive how any personating spirit could have given that communication, or why such a spirit should have sought to deceive us as to the identity of St. Declan. What then are the salient points of this unexpected Druidic testimony? 1st. That St. Declan was a Druid follower of IESUS or HESUS, the designation of the Sun personified, and that he was not a Christian or a follower of Jesus Christ, as the latter was set forth by the Roman Catholic Church. 2nd. That Christianity was not established in Ireland in the time of St. Declan, St. Kieran, St. Albe and their contemporaries, and not until perhaps more than a hundred years later by some of the assistants of St. Augustin; and 3d. That Druidism was derived from and was based upon the sunworshipping theology of the Phoenicians, who first propagated those theological doctrines in Western Europe, and notably in Spain and Gaul, whence it spread to Germany, Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland. That the Catholic Church should have canonized the Druid priest and leader Declan, and his successors in Ireland, as Christian saints, shows as nothing else could show, the close and intimate connection of Catholic Christianity with Druidical heathenism; and we are thus led to a certain indication that Christianity, if anything at all, is, essentially, nothing more or less than the aijcient heathen worship of the sun called by another name. It is seen that the spirit gave his name correctly, his place of residence and the time when he lived. [...]

   [Pg 460] St. Declan declares that St. Patrick taught the same sun-worshipping religion in Ireland that he did, which is most probably, if not certainly, true. It is a fact that nearly everything relating to St. Patrick is thrown into the greatest uncertainty because of the almost total destruction of the history of his labors and theological teachings. Declan speaks of the Christosite priests having at first sought to destroy the worship of Hesus under the teachings of the Druid priests, but having totally failed to make any impression upon the minds of the Irish people, they made a virtue of necessity and set about making Christosite saints out of the Druid priestly teachers of Hesusism and claiming them as good orthodox Christians. This communication of Declan very plainly shows that the Hesusism of the Druids existed in Ireland long before Christosism was heard of there; and that when Christosism at last succeeded in gaining a foothold there, it was only by adopting the ancient Druid priesthood and the sun-worship of the Irish people — christening their new venture, in the way of theological adoption, Hesus- Christosism; they, even, being content to put Hesus before their Chris tos in order to carry their point. Surely the truth is breaking through the clouds of theological duplicity and falsehood with which the world has been so long enveloped. We call upon the Christian destroyers of ancient Druidism to account for the absence of all historical evidence of what that religion was, and what became of it. Unless they do this we must regard the testimony of the spirit of Declan as irrefutable. It has been falsely pretended by Christian writers that the Druids had no written doctrines or history, and that they entrusted everything to the memory of their teachers and pupils. If this were true, it would make the Druids an exception to all other ancient teachers of religion. That they had a written language, an advanced literature, and largely attended schools, is sufficiently shown by the grovetemples, in the open air, where vast assemblies convened to receive instruction, and to worship Hesus their sun god many hundred years before the returning soldiers of Alexander the Great brought a knowledge of the Hindoo religion concerning Christos among the Greeks and Romans in Europe. We are promised ample corroborative evidence, not only from spirit but mortal sources, of the truth of this most interesting and indeed important testimony of spirit Declan.