Yogi Ramacharaka

We trust that the reader will reserve his decision until the consideration of the matter in this lesson is completed. We think that it will be found that the Occult Teachings give the Key to the Mystery and furnish the Reconciliation between the opposing theological views which threaten to divide the churches into two camps, i.e., (1) the adherents of the established orthodox theology, and (2) the adherents of the views of the Rationalists and the Higher Critics.

The school of theology which clings to the old orthodox teachings regarding the Virgin Birth and which teachings are commonly accepted without question by the mass of church-goers, hold as follows:

     Mary, a young Jewish maiden, or virgin, was betrothed to
     Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth in Galilee. Before her
     marriage, she was informed by an angelic vision that she
     would miraculously conceive a son, to whom she would give
     birth, and who would reign on the Throne of David and be
     called the Son of the Highest. This teaching is based solely
     upon certain statements contained in the Gospels of Matthew
     and Luke.

Matthew's account is as follows:

     "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as
     his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
     together, she was found with the child of the Holy Ghost.
     Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing
     to make her a public example, was minded to put her away
     privily. But while he thought on these things, behold the
     angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,
     'Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary
     thy wife - for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
     Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
     his name JESUS - for he shall save his people from their
     sins.' And now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled
     which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold,
     a virgin shall be with a child and shall bring forth a son,
     and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
     interpreted is, God with us.' Then Joseph, being raised from
     sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took
     unto him his wife and knew her not, until she had brought
     forth her firstborn son - and he called his name 'Jesus.'"
     (Matt. 1:18-25.)

Luke's account is as follows:

     "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God
     unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused
     to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and
     the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her
     and said, 'Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is
     with thee: blessed art thou among women.' And when she saw
     him, she was troubled at his saying and cast in her mind
     what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said
     unto her, 'Fear not, Mary - for thou hast found favor with
     God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring
     forth a son and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be
     great and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the
     Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.
     And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of
     his kingdom there shall be no end.' Then said Mary unto the
     angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' And the
     angel answered and said unto her, 'The Holy Ghost shall come
     upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
     thee - therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
     thee shall be called the Son of God.'" (Luke 1:26-33.)

     (1) That the story of the Divine Conception - that is the
     conception by a woman of a child without a human father, and
     by means of a miraculous act on the part of Deity - is one
     found among the traditions, legends and beliefs of many
     heathen and pagan nations. Nearly all of the old Oriental
     religions, antedating Christianity by many centuries,
     contain stories of this kind concerning their gods, prophets
     and great leaders. The critics hold that the story of the
     Virgin Birth and Divine Conception were borrowed outright
     from these pagan legends and incorporated into the Christian
     Writings after the death of Christ;

     (2) that the idea of the Virgin Birth was not an original
     Christian Doctrine but was injected into the Teachings at a
     date about one hundred years, or nearly so, after the
     beginning of the Christian Era - this view being corroborated
     by the fact that the New Testament Writings themselves
     contain very little mention of the idea, the only mention of
     it being in two of the Gospels; those of St. Matthew and St.
     Luke--St. Mark and St. John containing no mention of the
     matter, which would not likely be the case, had it been an
     accepted belief in the early days of Christianity--and no
     mention being made of it in the Epistles, even Paul being
     utterly silent on the question. They claim that the Virgin
     Birth was unknown to the primitive Christians and was not
     heard of until its "borrowing" from pagan beliefs many years
     after. In support of their idea, as above stated, they call
     attention to the fact that the New Testament writings, known
     to Biblical students as the oldest and earliest, make no
     mention of the idea - and that Paul ignores it completely, as
     well as the other writers;

     (3) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke bear
     internal evidences of the introduction of the story at a
     later date. This matter we shall now consider from the
     point of view of the Higher Criticism within the body of the
     Church.

     "Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 'Ask thee a
     sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in
     the height above.' But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, neither
     will I tempt the Lord.' And he said, 'Hear ye now, O house of
     David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye
     weary my God also?'" (Isaiah 6:13.)

It may be well to add here that many of the best authorities hold that the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "almah" into the equivalent of "virgin" in the usual sense of the word is incorrect. The Hebrew word "almah" used in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah does not mean "virgin," as the term is usually employed - but rather "a young woman of marriageable age--a maiden," the Hebrews having an entirely different word for the idea of "virginity," as the term is generally used. The word "almah" is used in other parts of the Old Testament to indicate a "young woman--a maiden," notably in Proverbs 30:19, in the reference to "the way of a man with a maid."

"But we need not enter into discussions of this kind," say the Higher Critics, "for the so-called 'prophecy' refers to an entirely different matter. It appears," say they, "that Ahaz, a weakling king of Judea, was in sore distress, because Rezin the Syrian king and Pekah, the ruler of Northern Israel had formed an offensive alliance against him and were moving their combined forces toward Jerusalem.

In his fear he sought an alliance with Assyria, which alliance was disapproved of by Isaiah - who remonstrated with Ahaz about the proposed move. The king was too much unnerved by fear to listen to Isaiah's arguments, and so the latter dropped into prophecy.

He prophesied, after the manner of the Oriental seer, that the land would be laid waste and misery entailed upon Israel, should the suicidal policy be adopted. But he held out a hope for a brighter future, after the clouds of adversity had rolled by. A new and wise prince would arise who would bring Israel to her former glory.

That prince would be born of a young mother, and his name would be Immanuel - which means "God with us." All this had reference to things of a reasonably near future and had no reference to the birth of Jesus some seven hundred years after, who was not a prince sitting upon the throne of Israel - and who did not bring national glory and renown to Israel; for such was not his mission. Hebrew scholars and churchmen have often claimed that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Hezekiah.

There is no evidence whatever in the Jewish history of the seven hundred years between Isaiah and Jesus, that the Hebrews regarded Isaiah's prophecy as relating to the expected Messiah - but on the contrary, it was thought to relate to a minor event in their history. As a Jewish writer has truly said, "Throughout the wide extent of Jewish literature, there is not a single passage which can bear the construction that the Messiah should be miraculously conceived."

Other writers along this line have stated the same thing, showing that the idea of a Virgin Birth was foreign to the Jewish mind, the Hebrews having always respected and highly honored married life and human parentage, regarding their children as blessings and gifts from God.

Another writer in the Church has said, "Such a fable as the birth of the Messiah from a virgin could have arisen anywhere else easier than among the Jews. Their doctrine of the divine unity placed an impassable gulf between God and the world - their high regard for the marriage relation," etc., would have rendered the idea obnoxious.

Other authorities agree with this idea and insist that the idea of the Virgin Birth never originated in Hebrew prophecy but was injected into the Christian Doctrine from pagan sources, toward the end of the first century - and received credence, owing to the influx of converts from the "heathen" peoples, who found in the idea a correspondence with their former beliefs.

As Rev. R.J. Campbell, minister of the City Temple, London, says in his "New Theology," "No New Testament passage whatever is directly or indirectly a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus. To insist upon this may seem to many like beating a man of straw, but if so, the man of straw still retains a good deal of vitality."

Let us now turn to the second account of the Virgin Birth, in the Gospels--the only other place that it is mentioned, outside of the story in Matthew, above considered. We find this second mention in Luke (1:26-35), the verses having been quoted in the first part of this lesson.

There has been much dispute regarding the real authorship of the Gospel commonly accredited to Luke, but it is generally agreed upon by Biblical scholars that it was the latest of the first three Gospels (generally known as "the Synoptic Gospels").

It is also generally agreed upon by such scholars that the author, whoever he may have been, was not an eye-witness of the events in the Life of Christ. Some of the best authorities hold that he was a Gentile (non-Hebrew), probably a Greek - for his Greek literary style is far above the average - his vocabulary being very rich and his diction admirable. It is also generally believed that the same hand wrote the Book of Acts.

Tradition holds that the author was one Luke - a Christian convert after the death of Jesus who was one of Paul's missionary band, which traveled from Troas to Macedonia, and who shared Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea - and who shared Paul's shipwreck experiences on the voyage to Rome. He is thought to have written his Gospel long after the death of Paul, for the benefit and instruction of one Theophilus, a man of rank residing in Antioch.

It is held by writers of the Higher Criticism that the account of the Virgin Birth was either injected in Luke's narrative by some later writer, or else that Luke, in his old age, adopted this view, which was beginning to gain credence among the converted Christians of pagan origin - Luke himself being of this class.

It is pointed out that, as Paul, who was Luke's close friend and teacher made no mention of the Virgin Birth and taught nothing of the kind - Luke must have acquired the legend later, if indeed the narrative was written by him at all in his Gospel.

It is likewise noted that Luke also gives a genealogy of Jesus, from Adam, through Abraham, and David, and Joseph. The words in parenthesis "as was supposed," in Luke (3:23) are supposed to have been inserted in the text by a later writer, as there would be no sense or reason in tracing the genealogy of Jesus through a "supposed" father.

The verse in question reads thusly: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," etc. (Students, of course, notice that the line of descent given by Luke differs very materially from that given by Matthew - showing a lack of knowledge on the part of one or the other writer.)

On the whole, scholars consider it most remarkable that this account of the Virgin Birth should be given by Luke - who was a most ardent Pauline student and follower - in view of the fact that Paul ignored the whole legend, if indeed, he had ever heard of it.

Surely a man like Paul would have laid great stress upon this wonderful event - had he believed in it, or had it formed a part of the Christian Doctrine of his time. That Luke should have written this account is a great mystery--and many feel that it is much easier to accept the theory of the later interpolation of the story into Luke's Gospel, particularly in view of the corroborative indications.

Summing up the views of the Higher Criticism, we may say that the general position taken by the opponents and deniers of the Virgin Birth of Jesus is about as follows:

     1. The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the
     introductory portion of two of the four Gospels--Matthew and
     Luke--and even in these the story bears the appearance of
     having been "fitted in" by later writers.

     2. Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after
     the statements in the introductory part of their Gospels,
     which could scarcely occur had the story been written by and
     believed in by the writers - such action on their part being
     contrary to human custom and probability.

     3. The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the
     subject; the oldest of the Gospels--that of Mark--bears no
     trace of the legend; and the latest Gospel--that of
     John--being equally free from its mention.

     4. The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the
     story or doctrine. The Book of Acts, generally accepted as
     having also been written by Luke, ignores the subject
     completely. Paul, the teacher of Luke and the great writer
     of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
     the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely - the
     latter being unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First
     Apostle, makes no mention of the story or doctrine in his
     great Epistles - which fact is inconceivable if he knew of
     and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is
     likewise silent upon this doctrine which played so important
     a part in the later history of the Church. The great
     writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
     story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke,
     alluded to above.

     5. There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which
     go to prove, either that the story was unknown to the
     writers, or else not accepted by them. The genealogies of
     Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David,
     which depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph's actual
     parentage. Jesus is repeatedly and freely mentioned as the
     son of Joseph. Paul and the other Apostles hold firmly to
     the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of Jesus, his
     Rising from the Dead and his Ascension into Heaven, etc.
     But they had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his
     Virgin Birth or the necessity for the acceptance of any
     such doctrine. They are absolutely silent on this point,
     although they were careful men, omitting no important detail
     of doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as "of the seed of
     David." (Rom. 1:3.)

     6. The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions
     or doctrine of the Church - but was unknown to it. And it is
     not referred to in the preaching and teaching of the
     Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of
     Acts. This book, which relates the Acts and Teachings of the
     Apostles, could not have inadvertently omitted such an
     important doctrine or point of teaching. It is urged by
     careful and conscientious Christian scholars that the
     multitudes converted to Christianity in the early days must
     have been ignorant of, or uninformed on, this miraculous
     event - which would seem inexcusable on the part of the
     Apostles, had they known of it and believed in its truth.
     This condition of affairs must have lasted until nearly the
     second century, when the pagan beliefs began to filter in by
     reason of the great influx of pagan converts.

     7. There is every reason for believing that the legend arose
     from other pagan legends, the religions of other peoples
     being filled with accounts of miraculous births of heroes,
     gods, and prophets, kings and sages.

     8. That acceptance of the legend is not, nor should it be, a
     proof of belief in Christ and Christianity. This view is
     well voiced by Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his "New Theology,"
     when he says "The credibility and significance of
     Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the
     Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a
     barrier between Jesus and the race, and to make him
     something that cannot properly be called human.... Like many
     others, I used to take the position that acceptance or
     non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was
     immaterial, because Christianity was quite independent of it;
     but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact
     it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real
     living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is
     that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an
     uneventful childhood." The German theologian, Soltau, says,
     "Whoever makes the further demand that an evangelical
     Christian shall believe in the words 'conceived by the Holy
     Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' wittingly constitutes
     himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit and the
     true Gospel, as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their
     school in the Apostolic Age."

And this then is the summing up of the contention between the conservative school of Christian theologians on the one side - and the liberal and radical schools on the other side. We have given you a statement of the positions, merely that you may understand the problem.

But, before we pass to the consideration of the Occult Teachings, let us ask one question: How do the Higher Critics account for the undoubted doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, as clearly stated all through the New Testament, in view of the proofs against the Virgin Birth? Why the frequent and repeated mention of Jesus as "the Son of God?" What was the Secret Doctrine underlying the Divine Parentage of Jesus - which the pagan legends corrupted into the story of the Virgin Birth of theology?

We fear that the answer is not to be found in the books and preachments of the Higher Criticism, nor yet in those of the Conservative Theologians. Let us now see what light the Occult Teachings can throw on this dark subject! There is an Inner Doctrine which explains the mystery.

Now in the first place, there is no reference in the Occult Teaching to any miraculous features connected with the physical birth of Jesus. It is not expressly denied, it is true - but the Teachings contain no reference to the matter. And all the references to the subject of Jesus' parentage speak of Joseph as being His father - and Mary His mother.

In other words, the family is treated as being composed of father, mother and child - just as is the case with any family. The Occult Teachings go into great detail concerning the Spiritual Sonship of Jesus, as we shall see presently - but there is no mention of any miraculous physical conception and birth.

We can readily understand why the Virgin Birth legend would not appeal to the Occultists, if we will but consider the doctrines of the latter. The Occultists pay but little attention to the physical body - except as a Temple of the Spirit and a habitation of the soul. The physical body, to the Occultist, is a mere material shell, constantly changing its constituent cells, serving to house the soul of the individual, and which when cast off and discarded is no more than any other bit of disintegrating material.

They know of the existence of the soul separate from the body, both after the death of the latter and even during its life, in the case of Astral Travel, etc. And in many other ways it becomes natural for the Occultist to regard his body, and the bodies of others, as mere "shells" to be treated well, used properly, and then willingly discarded - or exchanged for another.

In view of the above facts, you may readily see that any theory or doctrine which made the Absolute--God--overshadow a human woman's body and cause her to physically conceive a child, would appear crude, barbarous, unnecessary and in defiance of the natural laws established by the Cause of Causes.

The Occultist sees in the conception of every child, the work of the Divine Will--every conception and birth a miracle. But he sees Natural Law underlying each, and he believes that the Divine Will always operates under Natural Laws--the seeming miracles and exceptions thereto resulting from the mastery and operation of some law not generally known. But the Occultist knows of no law that will operate to produce conception by other than the physiological process.

In short, the Occultist does not regard the physical body of Jesus as Jesus Himself--he knows that the Real Jesus is something much greater than His body, and consequently, he sees no more necessity for a miraculous conception of His body than he would for a miraculous creation of His robe. The body of Jesus was only material substance--the Real Jesus was Spirit.

The Occultists do not regard Joseph as the father of the Real Jesus--no human being can produce or create a soul. And so, the Occultist sees no reason for accepting the old pagan doctrine of the physical Virgin Birth which has crept into Christianity from outside sources. To the Occultist, there is a real Virgin Birth of an entirely different nature, as we shall see presently.

But not so with the people who flocked to the ranks of Christianity toward the close of the first century--coming from pagan people and bringing with them their pagan legends and doctrines. These people believed that the Body was the Real Man - and consequently attached the greatest importance to it. These people were almost materialists as the result of their pagan views of life. They began to exert an influence on the small body of original Christians, and soon the original teachings were smothered by the weight of the pagan doctrines.

For instance, they failed to grasp the beautiful ideas of Immortality held by the original Christians, which held that the soul survived the death and disintegration of the body. They could not grasp this transcendental truth--they did not know what was meant by the term "the soul," and so they substituted their pagan doctrine of the resurrection of the physical body.

They believed that at some future time there would come a great Day in which the Dead would arise from their graves and become again alive. The crudeness of this idea, when compared to the beautiful doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul of the original Christians and by the advanced Christians today, is quite painful. And yet these pagan converts actually smothered out the true teachings by their crude doctrine of resurrection of the body.

These people could not understand how a man could live without his physical body - and to them "future life" meant a resurrection of their dead bodies, which would again become alive. To them the dead bodies would remain dead until the Great Day, when they would be made alive again. There is no teaching among these people regarding the soul, which passes out of the body and lives again on higher planes.

No, nothing of this kind was known to these people. They were incapable of such high ideas and ideals. They were materialists and were wedded to their beloved animal bodies and believed that their dead bodies would, in some miraculous way, be made alive again at some time in the future, when they would again live on earth.

In view of modern knowledge regarding the nature of matter, and the fact that what is one person's body today may be a part of another's tomorrow... that matter is constantly being converted and reconverted... that the universal material is used to form bodies of animals, plants, men - or else dwell in chemical gases, or combinations in inorganic things... in view of these accepted truths, the "resurrection of the body" seems a pitiful invention of the minds of a primitive and ignorant people and not a high spiritual teaching.

In fact, there may be many of you who would doubt that the Christians of that day so taught, were it not for the undisputed historical records, and the remnant of the doctrine itself, embalmed in the "Apostle's Creed" in the passage "I believe in the resurrection of the body," which is read in the Churches daily - but which doctrine is scarcely ever taught in these days and is believed in by but few Christians - in fact, is ignored or even denied by the majority.

Dr. James Beattie has written, "Though mankind have at all times had a persuasion of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body was a doctrine peculiar to early Christianity." S.T. Coleridge has written, "Some of the most influential of the early Christian writers were materialists, holding the soul to be material--corporeal.

It appears that in those days some few held the soul to be incorporeal, according to the views of Plato and others, but that the orthodox Christian divines looked upon this as an impious, unscriptural opinion. Justin Martyr argued against the Platonic nature of the soul. And even some latter-day writers have not hesitated to express their views on the subject, agreeing with the earlier orthodox brethren.

For instance, Dr. R.S. Candlish has said,

     "You live again in the body--in the very body, as to all
     essential properties, and to all practical intents and
     purposes, in which you live now. I am not to live as a
     ghost, a spectre, a spirit - I am to live then as I live now -
     in the body."

The reason that the early Church laid so much stress on this doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body was because an inner sect - the Gnostics - held to the contrary. And the partisan spirit of the majority swung them to the other extreme, until they utterly denied any other idea and insisted upon the resurrection and re-vitalizing of the physical body.

But, in spite of the official fostering of this crude theory, it gradually sank into actual insignificance, although its shadow still persists in creed and word. Its spirit has retreated and passed away before the advancing idea of the Immortality of the Soul, which returned again and again to Christianity until it won the victory.

And as Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt has said, in his article on the subject in a leading encyclopaedia, "... The doctrine of the natural immortality of the human soul became so important a part of Christian thought that the resurrection naturally lost its vital significance, and it has practically held no place in the great systems of philosophy elaborated by the Christian thinkers in modern times."

And yet the Church continues to repeat the now meaningless words, "I believe in the Resurrection of the Body." And while practically no one now believes it, still the recital of the words and the statement of one's belief in them, forms a necessary requisite for admission into the Christian Church today. Such is the persistent hold of dead forms and thoughts upon living people.

And so you can readily see from what has been said why the early Christians, about the close of the first century A.D., attached so much importance to the physical conception and birth of Jesus. To them the physical body of Jesus was Jesus Himself. The rest follows naturally, including the Virgin Birth and the Physical Resurrection.

We trust that you now understand this part of the subject.

We have heard devout Christians shocked at the idea that Jesus was born of a human father and mother, in the natural way of the race. They seemed to think that it savored of impurity. Such a notion is the result of a perverted idea of the sacredness of natural functions--a seeing of impurity--where all is pure.

What a perversion, this regarding the sacredness of human Fatherhood and Motherhood as impure! The man of true spirituality sees in the Divine Trinity of Father, Mother and Child something most pure and sacred--something that brings man very close, indeed, to God. Is the beautiful babe... held close in its mother's fond embrace... a symbol and type of impurity? Is the watchful care and love of the Father of the babe an impure result of an impure cause? Does not one's own heart tell him the contrary?

Look at the well-known picture of the Journey to Egypt, with Mary carrying the babe and both guarded and protected by the husband and father, Joseph. Is this not a beautiful symbol of the sacredness of Parenthood? We trust that the majority of those who read these pages have advanced spiritually beyond the point where the Family is a thing of impure suggestion and relationship.

And now, what are the Occult Teachings - the Secret Doctrine - regarding the Real Virgin Birth of Jesus? Just this: that the Spirit of Jesus was fresh from the bosom of the Absolute--Spirit of SPIRIT--a Virgin Birth of Spirit. His Spirit had not traveled the weary upward path of Reincarnation and repeated Rebirth - but was Virgin Spirit fresh from the SPIRIT--a very Son of the Father, begotten, not created.

This Virgin Spirit was incarnated in His body, and there began the life of Man - not fully aware of His own nature - but gradually awakening into knowledge; just as does every human soul, until at last the true nature of His Being burst upon him, and he saw that he indeed was God incarnate.

In his short life of thirty-three years - thirty years of preparation and three years of ministry - Jesus typified and symbolized the Life of the Race. Just as he awakened into a perception of his Divine Nature, so shall the race awaken in time.

Every act in the Life of Jesus typified and symbolized the life of every individual soul and of the race. We all have our Garden of Gethsemane--each is Crucified and Ascends to Higher Planes. This is the Occult Doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Is it not a worthy one? Is it not at least a higher conception of the human mind than the physical Virgin Birth legend?

As we proceed with our lessons, we shall bring out the details of the Occult Teachings concerning the Divine Nature of Christ--the Spirit within the Human Form. And in these references and instruction, you will see even more clearly that nature of the Spiritual Virgin Birth of Jesus.

The original Christians were instructed in the Truth concerning the Virgin Birth - that is, those who were sufficiently intelligent to grasp it. But after the great Teachers passed away and their successors became overzealous in their desire to convert the outside peoples, the influx of the latter gradually overcame the original teachings, and the physical Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of the Body became Doctrines and Articles of Faith, held of vital importance by the new orthodox leaders.

It has taken centuries of mental struggle and spiritual unfoldment to bring the Light of the Truth to bear upon this dark corner of the Faith, but the work is now fairly underway, and the great minds in the Church - as well as those out of the Church - are beginning to lay the old legend aside as a worn-out relic of primitive days, when the cloud of Ignorance overshadowed the Light of Truth.

In concluding this lesson, let us glance once more at the words of the eminent divine, Dr. Campbell, in his New Theology, in which he states:

     "But why hesitate about the question? The greatness of Jesus
     and the value of his revelation to mankind are in no way
     either assisted or diminished by the manner of his entry
     into the world. Every birth is just as wonderful as a virgin
     birth could possibly be - and just as much a direct act of
     God. A supernatural conception bears no relation whatever to
     the moral and spiritual worth of the person who is supposed
     to enter the world in this abnormal way.... Those who insist
     on the doctrine will find themselves in danger of proving
     too much; for pressed to its logical conclusion, it removes
     Jesus altogether from the category of humanity in any real
     sense."

Let us trust that these Higher Critics may become informed upon the truths of the Occult Teachings which supply the Missing Key, and afford the Reconciliation, and which show how and why Jesus is, in all and very truth, THE SON OF GOD; begotten and not created; of one substance from the Father--a particle of Purest Spirit, fresh from the Ocean of Spirit and free from the Karma of past Incarnations--how He was human, and yet more than human.

In our next lesson we shall take up the narrative of the secret life of Jesus from the time of his appearance as a child at the Temple among the Elders, until when - at the age of thirty years - he appeared at the scene of the ministry of John the Baptist and began his own brief ministry of three years, which was closed by the Crucifixion and Ascension. This is a phase of the subject of intense interest and startling nature, because of the lack of knowledge of the Occult traditions on the part of the general public.

~  End of Lesson 2 ~