To: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.occult
From: richard sprigg <kteis@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: QBL, Kabbalah and History (was English Qaballa and ....)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:11:48 -0500

Matthew Golec wrote:
> 
> >> Though my interest in Kaballah is fairly recent I understand that most of
> it's teaching and wisdom was handed down verbally for centuries before being
> written down.
> >
> >Anecdotal evidence is a poor witness. The earliest known materials are
> >fairly late in history. The tendency of individuals to claim "lineage"
> >for their methods makes any such unsupported claim suspect.
> 
> But what if their lineage is correct?  Sometimes it is acknowledged that one religion or system began at a certain time that predates all written texts pertaining to this religion.

Indeed: the problem, however, is that to make historical assertions,
some early form of the writings should be available.
The fact that the OT mentions places that are known now to have existed
in the third millenium does not provide proof that those descriptions
were not borrowed from other sources.

This is the reason why faith is required. 
To the truly faithful historical authority is irrelevant.

  Christianity didn't begin when the bible was
> published it began with the birth of christ.  That's one example that's almost always agreed upon by scholars.

Few "scholars" accept that any proof exists for the existence of the
individual referred to as "Christ".
Christianity began with the faith associated with the alleged JHSVH.
Within 100 years there were thousands of "True Gospels" that were
winnowed by Iranaeus to form the basis of the Book (Biblos) used by the
christian sects until the formation of the church a couple hundred years
or so later.

  How can it be so for one religion and not another?

The academic credentials are the same. 
The major difference is some 3500 years in time, and the tendency of
clay to disintegrate.

END