Did Jesus Write This Book? is a book by Dr.Charles F. Potter. The book referred to in this provocative title is not Dr. Potter’s book. It is The Book Of
The Secrets Of Enoch, that is the subject of this interest-attracting title. The
“Secrets” is apocryphal. Early Christianity had many scriptures from various
sects and sources. Too many. There were squabbles and much dissension
among the numerous, early church fathers and Christian cults. What was to
become the Christian Church, wanted unity and standardization. Councils
were convened by the Church fathers to determine what was to be the official
Christian doctrine. The councils were contentious, to say the least. Eventually, among other things, it was decided that fourteen books were deemed official, though later, the New Testament came to the twenty-seven it has today
in the Catholic Bible. All other books were called apocryphal, and most came
to be ignored, except by a few scholars from time to time. It was even considered heretical to refer to the apocrypha during some eras. Standardization
was helpful for the establishment and growth of Christianity. Unification,
and the power that comes with it, is enhanced when everyone in a congregation is worshipping in the same way. Nonetheless, doctrinal unification is
nowhere near as complete and powerful, as when the unification is in spirit,
not form.
Important things about Jesus and Christianity were lost, or put into hibernation, with the standardization of Christianity. Some of the apocrypha gave
the viewpoint of the children of fire, instead of the viewpoint in the Bible
that we now have, which is mostly from the children of water. General interest in the apocrypha dramatically increased with the discovery of the “Dead
Sea Scrolls” (the Qumran manuscripts), and the Chenoboskin manuscripts
of the Nag Hammadi library. Dr. Potter became fascinated with The Book Of
The Secrets of Enoch, which is older than the New Testament, because this
book seems to tie together most of the Apocrypha, and the accepted scriptures. He spent most of his theological career researching this book and other pseudepigrapha. He was convinced, as were other scholars, that Jesus was
connected with the Qumran community of Nazarene Essenes, as was John
the Baptist. He eventually came to believe that it was possible, and even likely, that Jesus contributed to this book. His view was marginalized by other
authorities. This may have been because it was theologically volatile. Only
a search of the Memory of Nature could give a definitive determination of
167
this issue, and few theologians are capable of that. Besides, it is likely moot
anyway. Scriptures are touchstones, an excellent lingua franca, and a source
of inspiration for us, but as a practical sourcebook for how to proceed on the
path for modern spiritual seekers, The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, and other similar books are more suitable. We want to be near the living Christ to proceed safely and scientifically today.
Today there are a few contemporary books in circulation purported to have
been written by Jesus. The methods for accomplishing this feat vary. In
some cases it is by automatic writing, in others by mediumship, channeling,
over-shadowing, and other similar practices. All of these means involve submission to a being outside of the agent, which makes the spiritual ethics of
the activity questionable. Since this is a sensitive topic for many, clarification
is required. First, to be clear, this essay is not about the internal dialog between the higher Self and the personal ego. The internal dialog is a method
used by Thomas á Kempis, and other mystics, to share insights gained in
prayer or meditation. Such a dialog is evidence of high and holy, spiritual unfoldment. It is not the purpose of this essay to disparage the information given by spiritualism, or the people who use the information, though its validity is called questionable. There are many people who claim to benefit from
the information provided by these means, though spirituality is much more
about life than it is about information. This essay is about the larger, longrun, philosophical picture if spiritual ethics, and how the means harmonize
with ends. It is more about principles than pragmatism.
Different people adopt different views about means and ends. To many, the
ends are more important than the means, which are only adopted to attain
the ends. Hence there is the old saw: “the ends justify the means.” Others
believe the means are all-important. For them, if one is careful and correct
about the means, the ends will take care of themselves. Many books, lofty
and prosaic, have been written about these two philosophies. In true spiritual things, both the means and the ends are important. This is so because
spiritual things are whole—the ends are within the means, and the means are
part of the ends. Christian mystical aspirants “live the life” while they seek
union with Christ. This outlook is true in large, and in small, though it most
often helps to look at things in the larger perspective—the big picture—lest
we lose perspective in the petty things of our little lives.
The big picture for Rosicrucian aspirants is found in the scheme of the evolutionary creation, in which we are exceedingly fortunate to participate. The
creation to us, is in two major stages, involution and evolution. Involution is
the time of the materialization of spirit, and evolution is for the spiritualization of matter. During involution the threefold spirit, the Self, is linked together and activated, while coetaneously, indirectly building vehicles of consciousness (bodies), by reflective projection. Involution becomes evolution in
humans, when the spirit enters its bodies, and awakes to self-consciousness.
During evolution the Self unfolds divine potential by spiritualizing matter
through creativity. Most of the spiritualization takes place in the bodies in an
activity called epigenesis. We also participate in the spiritualization of the
world around us with our creativity. During involution were were creatures.
Our body building was directed by divine beings (creative hierarchies from
without) and our spiritual being was linked, and brought to activity by even
higher creative hierarchies. A healthy involutionary attitude was to receive,
respond, and adapt, to the myriad conditions we were brought through. We
were brought to us experiences to we bring out many of the infinite possible
facets of spirit. Recalcitrance produced straggling. Receptivity and responsiveness are involutionary watchwords.
Our humanity is just past the central, turning point of the evolutionary creation. Most of us are self-conscious, though many are only dimly so—it is a
slow process. We were not doing so well, because we lost sight of the big picture when our inner vision dimmed, and finally closed, in most of humanity.
The loss, which was unintended, came about when we insecurely chose material experience over insight, in a quest for physical immortality. We were
more than struggling. We were in danger of bringing the process to a halt for
ourselves. We needed a boost. The boost was given in the extraordinary sacrifice of Christ becoming one of us, and bringing many things to us, most of
which are beyond the scope of this essay. Among these things, Christ initialized an entirely new type of religion, the religion of the Son. This new, unifying religion takes us out of undo self-centeredness (egoism) by sacrificing the Self for the sake of the other, and the all, in altruistic love.
So it is, that we find ourselves in the early stages of the ascent to divinity in a
process called spiritual evolution. Evolution is a mirror image of involution,
across the axis of the turning point—the first will be last, the second will be
second last and so on. Evolution entails dematerialization by spiritualization through soul development, where involution was about materialization.
During involution we were led from without, during evolution our guidance
comes from within, through a voluntary reestablishment of inner vision. The
attitude of evolution is strikingly different from the attitude of involution.
Self-reliance and creativity are watchwords of evolution. The gift of Christ
does not counter this attitude, it strengthens it. In the Gospels we have admonitions like “Be ye therefor perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect.” This is no mean task, and it is not likely to be accomplished by
passivity. Even the attitude of Christ toward his intimate disciples, who were
to carry out the beginnings of his work after he left, is an attitude of self-reliance and positivity: “Henceforth I call you not servants … but I have called you friends….”
As Rosicrucian aspirants, we are admonished to live the life of Christ. This is
not to be taken literally, such as wearing robes and sandals. The saints, such
as Thomas á Kempis, did marvelously in this, by living out the spirit and the
principles of the Gospel Christ, in their everyday lives. Living the life, means
to do it as Thomas á Kempis did. The life of the Gospel Christ is an abstract
pattern, an initiatory formula, for healthy evolutionary development. From
mathematics we know that abstract things are exact in a way, that material
measurements and estimations are not. When we attune ourselves to the life
of Christ, we know it without a doubt, like proving a theorem. We know we
are in sync with the evolutionary arc, of which the life of Christ is an example.
There seem to be other ways. For example, by performing retrospection and
other Rosicrucian exercises, one can make great spiritual progress seemingly
without the Gospel Christ. However, the perception that comes with progress in spiritual exercises, leads to the living Christ. The living Christ is a
spiritual fact. The place of Christ, and the religion of the Son, are cosmic
realities, even if the given names for them are different. The life of Christ is
not a barren abstraction. It is a rich spiritual reality. The cosmos, in which
we are lucky to live, is spiritually alive in every respect. Everything in it has
character, authentic, living character. In recognizing this and living by it,
there is true progress.
How does this relate to the contemporary books purported to be written by
Jesus or Christ? Automatic writing, mediumship, channeling, overshadowing, and similar practices are not based on positive control and self-reliance.
170
They are based on passivity. They depend on direct external influence outside of the agent, not on the Christ within. The part of the agent is to assume
a psychologically passive state. They are definitely not the same has having a
mouth-closed conversation telepathically, such as Max Heindel had with the
Teacher. We are told clearly, several times, that the candidate must self-consciously rise to the pitch necessary to match, in sympathetic vibration, the
pitch of the Teacher, to have such a communication. Positive, visionary communications are always in an elevated state. In light of the character of evolution, versus that of involution, the claim that Jesus would communicate
through psychic passivity, cannot be in accordance with the principles of the
scheme of the creation. Christ is the most positive being to have taken human form. The notion that a positive being, teaching positive living, would
take advantage someone of a passive disposition is preposterous. One cannot sacrifice principle to strengthen principle.
What do movements based on such communications mean in the greater
scheme of things? We can begin to answer this question with an understanding of the relative scope of things. The moment Christ left the body of Jesus
via the flowing blood is precise. The earth seemed to go dark to the senses, when juxtaposed with the spiritual light released in that moment. The
turnaround from involution to evolution in humanity is not as precise on
the same scale. It requires millennia. Some have not involved sufficiently yet
to have awakened self-consciousness. Many have some degree of involuntary clairvoyance. All have spiritual needs but of differing kinds. All spiritual
needs are met in one way or another. All experience is valuable. In spiritual
nature, as in material nature, nothing is wasted. Different religions serve different spiritual needs. Thus, though some rely on passive means to contact
the spiritual worlds, does not mean they are false, or sinister, or anything
evil. It merely means they are not yet in perfect synchronization with the
principles of the evolutionary creation. This writer has friends who apply to
outlooks like these. They are fine people. There is no doubt about their sincerity. There is no doubt about their love. There is no doubt about their spiritual future. It only means that theirs is likely to be a more circuitous route,
suring when time is of the essence.
What is a healthy stance toward these activities? Max Heindel advised avoiding passive and spiritualistic practices lest, being sensitive, one become
caught up in them. St. John said “try the spirits whether they are of God.” St.
Paul says “Prove all things.” Understanding the place of these practices in the
grand scheme of things, is not to condone them. It is merely to see them for
what they are. It would seem best to neither commend nor condemn, but to
strengthen the good when it is found.
Did Jesus write this essay? No, but its writer, while confident about its content, is not free from either commendation or condemnation.
This web page has been edited and/or excerpted from reference material, has been modified from it's original version, and is in conformance with the web host's Members Terms & Conditions. This website is offered to the public by students of The Rosicrucian Teachings, and has no official affiliation with any organization.
