IV. Theosophy and Christianity

Let us ask ourselves, if we take one or the other of these concepts of Christ, are we still somehow standing on the ground of the Gospels? I cannot explain today why I cannot share the view of many learned theologians that the fourth Gospel is less authoritative and less authentic than the first three. Anyone who clearly and distinctly examines and investigates the course of events sees no reason why the Gospel of John, which is precisely the one that uplifts us so much, should be set aside, so to speak, in the pursuit of pure factuality. It is believed that the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—represent more the man, the pure, simple man from Nazareth, while the Gospel of John claims to recognize the Word made flesh in Jesus. Here, the unconscious desire that lives in the soul became the father of the idea. But if the Gospel of John has less claim to authenticity, it is impossible to maintain Christianity. Then it is impossible to say anything else about the Christian teaching of the personality of Jesus other than that he was the simple man from Nazareth. But no one, neither I nor others who keep the old confessional writings in mind, can say anything other than that those who originally spoke of Jesus Christ were really speaking of God incarnate, of the higher spirit of God, which was realized in this personality of Jesus of Nazareth.