Mithra – Plagiarized Christ

mithras_small

In my long quest to find the origins of Christianity, I believe I now know that the myth was a composite of other man-gods, (of which there were many, though we’ll focus on Mithras today), and created from Old Testament “prophecies” of a coming Messiah, the name Christ coming from Krishna. Emperor Constantine worked 10 years to invent this new religion, his aim was to squash Jewish rebellion while at the same time “taking the Jewishness” out of the religion. He hired Eusebius,  who was himself practically a Flavian and a paid Roman political propagandist (also known as the first thoroughly corrupt historian). As I state later in this post, mythical doesn’t mean lie. Jesus represents all of us, and Gnostics believed we were all potential Christs. Neither does it mean “no Jesus, no God.” Tried as they did to alter texts, there’s still much gnosis scattered through the orthodox scriptures. They did take away the Goddess and reincarnation, but these are recoverable thanks to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, Dead Sea Scrolls, other findings and hard work by dedicated scholars. We can stay in the matrix fiction and serve Roman politics,  or soar as Christ Conscious Divine and Sovereign human Beings, which is our birth right. Granted religious debate can be a futile exercise in mental masturbation. Everyone is right, and bad logic is used to prove it.  Well, everyone does indeed possess their own truth, but not everyone has the facts right. The Jesus Puzzle is a great book to start a search for some fabulous hidden facts, and truthbeknown.com with Acharya S is excellent too. This is the matrix, the system. They keep the truth hidden, it’s what they do best.

God is so far removed from words or description, the only possible way to convey anything about it is the use of myths, allegories, alchemy, parables, kabbalah, and symbolism. Mankind has always been attracted to these man-god stories that are based on Astrotheology. It is the story of ourselves. As above, so below.

 

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita


The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds


He was considered a great traveling teacher and master


He had 12 companions or “disciples”


He performed miracles


As the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace


He ascended to heaven


Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah


Mithra is omniscient, as he “hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him”


He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb


His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ


His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”


Mithra “sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers”


Mithraism emphasized baptism.


The similarities between Mithraism and christianity have included their chapels, the term “father” for priest, celibacy and, it is notoriously claimed, the December 25th birthdate. Regarding the birth in caves likewise common to pre-Christian gods, and present in the early legends of Jesus, Weigall relates:


”…the cave shown at Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus was actually a rock shrine in which the god Tammuz or Adonis was worshipped, as the early Christian father Jerome tells us; and its adoption as the scene of the birth of our Lord was one of those frequent instances of the taking over by Christians of a pagan sacred site.


”The propriety of this appropriation was increased by the fact that the worship of a god in a cave was commonplace in paganism:
Apollo, Cybele, Demeter, Herakles, Hermes, Mithra and Poseidon were all adored in caves.”


Hermes, the Greek Logos, being actually born of Maia in a cave, and Mithra being “rock-born”


As the “rock-born,” Mithras was called “Theos ek Petras,” or the “God from the Rock.”

As Weigall also relates:
Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian “Rock,” was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

Santos Bonacci, Astrotheologist, has claimed ‘the Jew Peter’ is symbolic of ‘Jupiter.’ There is little doubt the characters in the bible represent the planets and stars in the sky. It takes very little OPEN MINDED research to understand the biblical allegories. Saying Jesus was a mythical character is in no way the same as saying there is no God. All main religions are based on Astrotheology, and the myths are  ever pregnant with deeper, amazing and beautiful meanings. The Gnostics considered all of us potential Christs. To give one man this Divine attribute that we all have is cheating ourselves of our Divine Sovereign  birth right. It’s perverted Roman nonsense to control the masses. Religious debate is mental masturbation without a climax. Everyone wants to be right, especially the inventors and churches of the religion of Constantine. That my friend is Ego based bullshit, not spirituality.


“Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, which proves the Mithra cult was there first.”

“The worship of Mithra and Anahita, the virgin mother of Mithra, was well-known in the Achaemenian period.”

”For reasons which they doubtless considered sufficient, those who chronicled the life and acts of Jesus found it advisable to metamorphose him into a solar deity. The historical Jesus was forgotten; nearly all the salient incidents recorded in the four Gospels have their correlations in the movements, phases, or functions of the heavenly bodies. Among other allegories borrowed by Christianity from pagan antiquity is the story of the beautiful, blue-eyed Sun God, with His golden hair falling upon His shoulders, robed from head to foot in spotless white and carrying in His arms the Lamb of God, symbolic of the vernal equinox. This handsome youth is a composite of Apollo, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, and Bacchus, for He has certain characteristics in common with each of these pagan deities.


”Not only is Jesus often referred to as the Fisher of Men, but as John P. Lundy writes: “The word Fish is an abbreviation of this whole title, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, and Cross; or as St. Augustine expresses it, ‘If you join together the initial letters of the five Greek words, Ἰησοῦς Χριστος Θεου Υιὸσ Σωτήρ, which mean Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, they will make ΙΧΘΥΣ, Fish, in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters, that is, without sin.'” (Monumental Christianity.) Many Christians observe Friday, which is sacred to the Virgin (Venus), upon which day they shall eat fish and not meat. The sign of the fish was one of the earliest symbols of Christianity; and when drawn upon the sand, it informed one Christian that another of the same faith was near. Aquarius is called the Sign of the Water Bearer, or the man with a jug of water on his shoulder mentioned in the New Testament”. ~ Hall, Manly P.

”Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions have become increasingly hostile and destructive. They cling to outdated belief systems, constantly stricken by such pathological concepts as information bias and cognitive dissonance. Civilization is at the brink. However, through more allegorical and psychological lenses, one can still distill the great teachings of their past masters, as Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and even the Gnostics illustrated. We throw the dirty bathwater of literalism out and keep the baby that is the inner Savior residing inside each one of us” – Migual Conner.

12250

 

PONDER THIS:

If you’re a Christian who does believe the Genesis account of original sin, then you also believe that mankind is tainted as a direct result of Adam’s fall from grace. We’re contaminated by sin regardless of our consent or our belief. Enter Jesus. He supposedly was crucified to save us. If our contamination via Adam was passive — it happened regardless of our consent or our belief — then to set the scales of eternal justice in balance again, musn’t Jesus’ redemption also be passive? Shouldn’t his sacrifice cancel out all sin — whether we consent to it or not and whether we believe it or not? To argue otherwise is to say that God has condemned us unconditionally but has made redemption conditional. The implication of the Christian argument is that Adam’s original sin was superior to Jesus’ sacrifice, because Adam’s fall condemned us all whereas Jesus’ redemption can only save some of us. Wasn’t Jesus’ death greater than (or at least equal to) Adam’s mistake? If the crucifixion and resurrection trumped original sin, then the debt for all sin is paid for all time, regardless of our consent, regardless of our belief, regardless of our faith. There is no need to be a Christian to benefit from forgiveness of sin, just as there is no need to be a Christian to inherit Adam’s sinful nature. Either Jesus paid all sin-debt for all time, or he didn’t. So which is it?

hqdefault

Lost Sayings of Jesus; Fragment of a Lost Gospel

the-gnostic-soul-universe

The oldest wisdom in the world tells us we can consciously unite with the divine while in this body; for this man is really born. If he misses his destiny, Nature is not in a hurry; she will catch him up someday, and compel him to fulfill her secret purpose.

~ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Here are some little known sayings attributed to the Jesus character of Christian mythology. Fragments of Sayings of Jesus from The Logia discovered in 1897. (These Sayings are not from the excellent Gospel of Thomas). More can be learned here: http://archive.org/stream/newsayingsofjesu00unknuoft/newsayingsofjesu00unknuoft_djvu.txt

These were once considered precious by early Christians, and some of the sayings are mind blowing. That we are all ‘christ’s’ is a running theme in mystical Gnostic writings. Why the Church felt it needed to destroy these important texts that were at one time widely read by original Christians, before Rome’s political hijacking and subsequences fabrication of this treasure full of gnosis, is actually not a mystery. They wanted to control the masses. The Inquisition was designed to kill anyone who did not believe in the literal exoteric story.

Numerous other Logoi could be added from Gnostic literature, especially from the contents of the Coptic Codices; but what is given here proves that the Sayings-material has regrettably been rejected and forgotten. The ancient papyrus-fragment discovered at the site of Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, in 1897, preserves for us the most primitive form of the Logoi known to us. If the proportion of now unknown to known sayings was as high in the rest of the MS. as in the solitary leaf which has reached us, then we have indeed lost more by the Canon than we have gained.

LOST SAYING OF JESUS:

Be merciful that ye may obtain mercy; forgive that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do so shall it be done to you; as ye give so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge so shall ye be judged; as ye do service so shall service be done to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same shall it be measured to you in return.

Wisdom sendeth forth her children.

He who is near Me is near the fire; and he who is far from Me is far from the kingdom.

If ye observe not the little mystery, who will give you the great?

Good must come, but blessed is he by whom it cometh; in like manner also evil must come, but woe unto him by whom it cometh.

The weak shall be saved by the strong.

Guard the mysteries for Me and for the sons of My house.

Cleave to the holy ones, for they who cleave to them are made holy.

The configuration (σχῆμα) of this world passeth away.

There is a mingling that leadeth to death, and there is a mingling that leadeth to life.

When the Lord was asked by a certain man, When should His kingdom come, He saith unto him: When two shall be one, and the without as the within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.

Call not any one “Father” on earth, for on earth there are rulers [only]; in heaven is the Father from whom is every descent both in heaven and on earth.

Grieve not the Holy Spirit which is in you, and put not out the Light which hath shone forth in you.

As ye see yourselves in water or mirror, so see ye Me in yourselves.

Seek for the great mysteries and the little shall be added to you; seek for the heavenly and the earthly shall be added to you.

Because of the sick I was sick; because of the hungry I was ahungered; because of the thirsty I was athirst.

Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or fist for fist, or curse for curse.

Love hideth a multitude of sins.

There are false christs and false teachers who have blasphemed the Spirit of Grace, and have spit forth its gift of grace; these shall not be forgiven either in this æon or in the æon to come.

[Grace is the “power above,” the power of the Logos which makes a man a “christ.” Charis or Grace is the consort of the Logos, His power or shakti. The false “christs” are those who have been “initiated” and broken their vows. The æon is a certain time-period.]

Keep that which thou hast, and it shall be increased into more.

Behold, I make the last as the first.

Woe unto him who hath made sad the spirit of his brother.

And never rejoice unless ye see your brother also happy.

My mother, the Holy Spirit, even now took me by one of the hairs of my head and carried me to the great mountain Tabor.

He who seeketh me shall find me in children for hidden in them I am manifested.

Pray for your enemies; blessed are they who mourn over the destruction of the unbelievers.

May thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us [From a very ancient version of the Lord’s Prayer, instead of the clause “Thy kingdom come.”]

Possess nothing upon the earth.

Gain for yourselves, ye sons of Adam, by means of these transitory things which are not yours, that which is your own, and passeth not away.

If ye make not the below into the above and the above into the below, the right into the left and the left into the right, the before into the behind [and the behind into the before], ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God.

What ye preach with words before the people, do ye in deeds before every man.

Thou art the key who openest for every man, and shuttest for every man.

Jesus saith: I stood in the midst of the world, and in flesh was I seen of them, and I found all drunken, and none found I athirst among them. And My soul grieveth over the souls of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not. . . .

Jesus saith: Wheresoever there be two, they are not without God; and wherever there is one alone, I say, I am with him. Raise the stone, and there thou shalt find Me; cleave the wood, and there am I.

Jesus saith: A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither doth a physician work cures upon those that know him.

Jesus saith: A city built on the top of a high hill and stablished can neither fall nor be hid.

Jesus saith: Thou hearest with one ear (but the other thou hast closed).

These are the . . . words which Jesus the Living (One) spake to . . . and Thomas, and He said unto them: Every one who hearkeneth to these words shall never taste of death.

Jesus saith: Let not him who seeketh . . . cease until he findeth, and when he findeth he shall wonder; wondering he shall reign, and reigning shall rest.

Jesus saith: Ye ask? Who are these that draw us to the kingdom if the kingdom is in Heaven? . . … the fowls of the air, and all beasts that are under the earth or upon the earth, and the fishes of the sea these are they that draw you; and the Kingdom of Heaven is within you; and whosoever shall know himself shall find it. Strive therefore to know yourselves, and ye shall be aware that ye are the sons of the . . . Father; and ye shall know that ye are in the City of God, and ye are the City.

Jesus saith: Everything that is not before thy face and that which is hidden from thee shall be revealed to thee. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which shall not be raised.

Source: (New Sayings of Jesus; London, 1904)

Rescuing the Bible from Literalism

As you can probably tell, saving Christianity and Christ Consciousness from religion is very important to me. Sometimes it feels like it was my mission before being born. Maybe I was burned as a heretic in a past life…

04

By RICHARD SMOLEY

“The world,” wrote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “is the totality of facts, not of things.” So it is, but facts take many forms. The hard-edged events of ordinary reality are only one form, and not always the most important.

This insight can be hard to accept in the positivist world of mainstream Western thought. In these terms, either an event took place or it did not. Truth and falsehood are judged by this criterion alone. And yet such a stance has only a limited value. It is indispensable in history and journalism and perhaps in science (although the anomalous discoveries of twentieth-century physics have blurred the picture somewhat). But in the spiritual dimension, even though there are facts here as well, they are not of this kind. To overlook this truth is to mistake one reality for another.

Conventional Christianity has often made this mistake. Practically from the start, it has presented its case in literalistic terms: the Bible is true; moreover it is literally true. Its facts must be historical facts, and its record of the past must be a true one. At first these claims fostered Christianity’s rapid success in the ancient world. By the early centuries of the Common Era, Greco-Roman civilisation could no longer take its own myths seriously, so it was persuaded to adopt the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians on the grounds that these presented not only sacred truths but an accurate record of the past.

Since the Enlightenment, such claims have been more of an embarrassment than an advertisement for the faith. Over the last 250 years, scholars in many fields have taken Christianity at its word and investigated in great depth just how much the Bible jibes with science and history. The findings have not exactly vindicated the Good Book. Indeed the trend over time has been to call more and more of the Bible into question as a historical record.

From a scientific point of view, the tide began to turn in the early nineteenth century. In 1830–32, the British scientist Charles Lyell published his classic Principles of Geology, arguing that geological changes that are recorded in rocks could not possibly have taken place in the mere 6,000 years that Genesis assigned to the earth’s lifetime, but had occurred over a much longer period. A generation later, another, even more famous scientist, Charles Darwin, suggested that animal species had not been created by the Almighty on a single day of creation in 4004 BCE, but had evolved over much longer periods by what he called “natural selection.” (In fact, when Darwin had finished his magnum opus, The Origin of Species, he sent it to Lyell for comments.)

Historicity of the Bible Questioned

In recent decades, archaeology has cast doubt even on parts of the Bible that had seemed more or less factual, such as the history of Israel in the Old Testament. To take one example, a generation ago most scholars accepted the historicity of the Exodus from Egypt, believing at least that some migration of this kind happened, even if the narrative had to be stripped of its miraculous festoonings. Since then, the picture has changed considerably. Summarising recent findings in their 2001 book The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman contend that the Exodus did not happen in any form that is recognisable from the archaeological record. The first mention of Israel in any known inscription, they note, dates from the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah in 1207 BCE. While this is around the time traditionally assigned to the Exodus, the inscription speaks not of a flight of Israelites (or even an expulsion), but of Merneptah’s successful incursion into Canaan, where Israel is reckoned among the peoples subdued. In any case, the Israelites could not have escaped to Canaan out of the hands of the Egyptians, because Canaan was part of Egyptian territory at the time; Merneptah’s invasion would have been to quiet a troublesome province.

Instead, Finkelstein and Silberman suggest that the biblical account of the Exodus is a composite of folk memories of the Hyksos – a Semitic people who ruled Egypt from c.1670 to c.1570 BCE before being expelled by the Egyptians. The Exodus story as we know it was framed in the seventh century BCE, when the national ideology of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah was beginning to crystallise – and Egypt was a powerful and aggressive neighbour.

Other scholars have come up with equally revolutionary insights. In her work The Great Angel, the British biblical scholar Margaret Barker points out that originally the Israelites worshipped a female goddess, known as Asherah (or sometimes as Hokhmah or “Wisdom”), as the consort of Yahweh, alongside El, the Most High God, and Yahweh himself, who was essentially a national deity allocated to Israel alone. Barker suggests that the famous Deuteronomic reform under the Judahite King Josiah – in which Josiah purges the Temple of these other gods and restores the worship of Yahweh alone (2 Kings 22-23) – was not a reform but an innovation, a purge of time-honoured traditions in an attempt to create a “Yahweh-alone movement.” This movement eventually took over Judaism after the Babylonian Exile and imposed its own agenda on the past.

One could make similar points about much of the rest of the Bible. The “quest of the historical Jesus,” as Albert Schweitzer so famously dubbed it, has gone on for over two centuries now without any really conclusive results. Most scholars are convinced that there is some admixture of myth and legend in the life of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament, but they differ enormously about just what was legend and what was not. The panel of liberal New Testament scholars known as the Jesus Seminar has won some notoriety for contending that Jesus neither said nor did most of the things attributed to him in the Gospels. As shocking as some may find this claim, it is hardly new: an array of German New Testament scholars reached much the same conclusions in the nineteenth century. A still more radical view holds that Jesus never existed at all: his story was merely a Jewish equivalent of the numerous death-and-resurrection myths circulating in the ancient world. Since there is no archaeological evidence for Christ’s life, and the textual evidence is elusive (none of the Gospels, canonical or apocryphal, even claims to be an eyewitness account), this position, as extreme as it is, is hard to definitively refute.

Biblical Stories as Allegory, Not History

What, then, are we to do with the Bible as history? Some will no doubt cling to it. The literary critic Harold Bloom has noted that in evangelical Christianity, the “limp leather Bible,” waved at the audience by the preacher, has itself become a totem. But others are unlikely to find refuge in a simplistic bibliolatry. They may be drawn to another approach – one that is equally ancient, and possibly more profound. It is that the Bible is not, and never was, meant to be taken literally, but has deeper meanings that are to be unearthed by those are capable of doing so.

This idea goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity and has always existed side by side with narrow literalism. Ironically, it was a major impetus for the creation of Christianity as a separate religion from Judaism. The nascent Christian movement often had to allegorise the Hebrew Scriptures to make use of them for its own purposes. The Apostle Paul writes about one biblical passage:

It is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:22–26).

Paul is saying that the real meaning of the story of Abraham and his two sons lies in the relationship of the Jews and the Christians. Ishmael, the older son, born to Hagar (or Agar), “the bondwoman,” is the Jews, who are in “bondage” to the Law of Moses. Isaac, the younger, born to Sarah, the “freewoman,” represents the Christians, who are freed from having to follow the Law. The story is an “allegory.”

The first authority to use the word “allegory” in this sense (the Greek is allegoria) – and the first to expound the Hebrew Bible in this way – was a philosopher who lived at the same time as both Jesus and Paul: Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BCE–c.50 CE). Although there is no reference to Jesus or Paul in his works or to Philo in the New Testament, it would be hard to overstate Philo’s influence on Christianity. To take one example, it was he who first used the Greek word logos (often translated as “word”) to mean the creative, structuring element in consciousness and to contend that this principle had engendered the world. Philo’s view was prevalent in the Judaism of the first century CE, in which the logos was often seen as a kind of deuteros theos or “second god.” The Christians appropriated this theology, especially in the Gospel of John, whose prologue “In the beginning was the Word” etc. is almost a programmatic statement of Philo’s thought. Philo, of course, never equated this logos with Jesus, as the Christians did, and once the Christian view had spread throughout the ancient world, the Jews dropped the concept of the logos entirely.

In any event, Philo viewed the Hebrew Bible through the lens of allegory. Here is Philo on Genesis:

“And on the sixth day God finished his work which he made.” It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed all in time…. But… it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence as a consequence of the world….. When, therefore, Moses says, “God completed his works on the sixth day,” we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.

Philo goes on to explain what he means by a perfect number. Obviously this is a far richer and more sophisticated understanding of a sacred text than the simplistic idea that the world was made in six literal days.

The Christian theologian who is most indebted to Philo was the third-century Church Father Origen. Origen went further than Philo, however, in being much more eager to discard the literal truth of passages that seemed contrary to reason. Here is Origen on Genesis:

Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, “planted a paradise eastward in Eden,” and set in it a visible and palpable “tree of life,” of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life: and again that one could partake of “good and evil” by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to “walk in the paradise in the cool of the day” and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.

Origen does not spare the Gospels or the writings of the Apostles, “for,” he writes, “the history even of these is not everywhere pure, events being woven together in the bodily sense without having actually happened; nor do the law and the commandments contained therein entirely declare what is reasonable.”

Such an attitude seems strikingly modern – and yet these are the words of a third-century Church Father. Origen spoke of three levels of meaning to Scripture (body, soul, and spirit, in accordance with the tripartite division of human nature accepted by early Christianity). This view would be tremendously influential. The scholar Beryl Smalley has written that “to write a history of Origenist influence on the West would be tantamount to writing a history of Western [biblical] exegesis.”

By the Middle Ages, Origen’s three levels of meaning for Scripture would be expanded to four. They were called the literal, allegorical, moral, and “anagogical” or mystical senses. Dante, writing in the early fourteenth century, refers to them in his Letter to Can Grande, where he says of the Exodus:

If we look at it from the letter alone it means to us the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if from allegory, it means for us our redemption done by Christ; if from the moral sense, it means to us the conversion of the soul from the struggle and misery of sin to the status of grace; if from the anagogical, it means the leavetaking of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory. And though these mystical senses are called by various names, in general all can be called allegorical, because they are different from the literal or the historical.

Origen, who is evasive about actually setting out the hidden meaning of Scripture (“it was the method of the Holy Spirit rather to conceal these truths and to hide them deeply,” he writes), makes reference to Egypt as well. He speaks of “the descent of the holy fathers into Egypt, that is, into this world.” For Origen as for Dante, then, the Exodus ultimately presents an allegory of spiritual liberation.

Origen died around 253 CE, crippled by torture during the persecution of the Christians by the Roman Emperor Decius. Since then, Origen has had an ambiguous destiny in the mainstream church. Revered in his own day, in later centuries he fell into disrepute among the orthodox. This happened for a number of reasons, but it was largely because his views on the relationship between the Father and the Son did not jibe with the doctrine of the Trinity as it would evolve in the fourth and fifth centuries. Furthermore, later theologians did not feel entirely comfortable with Origen’s assertion that much of Scripture was not meant to be taken as literally true. Although the churchmen were generally content to accept his idea that there were other meanings in addition to the literal one, they did not like to think the literal sense was wrong or even (as we’ve seen Origen say about the myth of Eden) ridiculous.

Protestantism and Literalism

If the Catholic and Orthodox churches were always comfortable with a symbolic meaning to the Bible, where did today’s excruciating biblical literalism come from? Partly from Protestantism. Catholicism and Orthodoxy always regarded the Bible as an authority, but never as the authority: the teachings and practices of the Church itself were held to be of at least equal weight. The Catholic Church always insisted that the Bible could be easily misunderstood by those who lacked the proper training; this was why the Church discouraged Bible reading by laypeople until comparatively recently.

By the early modern era, however, the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that some Christian leaders (and many of the ordinary faithful) realised that the church was keeping an exclusive monopoly on spiritual power largely to suit its own worldly ends. In breaking with the church, these leaders – the Protestant Reformers – decided to return to the Bible as the only proper authority: sola scriptura, “Scripture only,” as the formula had it.

This in itself might not have been so problematic, but the Protestantism that reached the American frontier in the nineteenth century was dominated by men who had little education and little idea of any other literature than the Bible. Such people have always existed: Thomas Aquinas, the medieval Catholic theologian, was alluding to them when he said, “Timeo hominem unius libri”: “I fear a man of one book.” In the United States, and, I suspect, in much of the rest of the English-speaking world, evangelical Christianity has become co-opted by these “men of one book.” Today in many parts of the US, it is possible to go into people’s houses and see no other book than the Bible. It is this element in Christianity that has made its presence felt in the rise of fundamentalism.

As a result, the Bible’s inner meaning has increasingly become the province of esotericism. Regarding the story of Christ, in her book Esoteric Christianity the Theosophist Annie Besant speaks of “the Christ of the human Spirit, the Christ who is in every one of us, is born and lives, is crucified, rises from the dead, and ascends into heaven, in every suffering and triumphant ‘Son of Man.’” The story of Christ is thus the story of each of us; the Incarnation symbolises our own descent into the world of materiality, where we pass across the stage for a short while before being crucified on the cross of time and space. But this suffering and death is only transitory or even illusory, since the Logos – the principle of consciousness – in ourselves cannot die. It will be resurrected again in other forms, recognisable or otherwise. (In the Gospels the risen Christ is sometimes recognised by his disciples, sometimes not.)

Some may find themselves impatient with these ideas, insisting that they are nothing more than a way of skirting the issue of historical factuality that must supposedly serve as the bedrock of faith. But what, might one ask, is being dismissed as mere allegory? Viewed in the way sketched out above, the stories of the Exodus and the passion of Christ are not mere edifying tales of the past. Nor are they creeds for blind belief or flags around which to rally the faithful. Rather they are deep expressions of what is going on inside us now. To know from inner experience what it is to be spiritually in “the land of Egypt, the house of bondage,” to see the Logos in ourselves crucified on the cross of time and space, is not evasion but among the most profound insights a human being can have.

I would even take the argument a step further. An allegorical reading of the Bible can actually be more demanding than merely dwelling on the meaning of the letter. Acknowledging “Pharaoh,” “Moses,” the “scribes and Pharisees,” even Christ as parts of ourselves can be unsettling. Few are eager to come to grips with their inner tyrants and hypocrites, and there are possibly even fewer who can bear to see their own higher natures. After all, to know that Moses the lawgiver exists in oneself is already a step out of the house of bondage. To see the Christ within is already to experience a resurrection. Such realisations confer a responsibility upon us that we are not always delighted to face.

As a result, it is often easier to keep these things at the safe remove of antiquity – to follow the disputes about who was the Pharaoh of Exodus; to pore over accounts of recent excavations in Biblical Archaeology Review; to thrill over the latest news feature that breathlessly proffers some allegedly new fact about the historical Jesus. In such a way we can keep these issues alive, but at a comfortable distance: they remain ineluctably “other,” about people who lived long ago. I suspect that this dynamic helps explain the unshakable thirst for biblical archaeology among the American public.

All this said, there is admittedly a problem with leaning too heavily on allegorical readings of Scripture. To be no longer able to take one’s own myths literally – even while accepting them in a figurative sense – does strip them of their power. This is due to the limits of our own understanding; we as a civilisation seem unable to hear the message “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed” (John 20:29). This is not a call to blind, stupid faith; it is an appeal to recognise realities that do not present themselves to our physical eyes and hands – the “evidence of things unseen.” But, trusting as we do in the Gradgrindian world of cold, hard facts, we put more trust in texts than in our own inner experience. We discover that the texts are not telling the exact truth about history, and we lose our faith.

Despite the noise (much of it overstated) about rising fundamentalism in the Western world, this loss of faith is likely to accelerate. What will happen when the news sinks in and we collectively understand that much, perhaps most, of the Bible is not literally true? We may continue to see their beauty and power as myths, just as we do with the tales of the Olympian gods, but they will have lost their numinous force for us. We will see the old gods mocked and derided, as they were in antiquity in the satyr plays of the classical Athenian stage and the satires of Lucian, and as we see today in films like Dogma and Jesus Christ Superstar.

In such instances, new myths, new versions of eternal truths arise. What these will be in the future remains to be seen; it is hard to imagine that they will come from any religion now existing. Of the models of reality now available, it is above all the one provided by science that has most captured the imagination of the thinking public. Like Christianity in ancient times, it seems to offer truth in place of myth, actualities in place of legend. And then we are left with a question that, I suspect, will not be answered in the lifetime of anyone reading these pages now: what will happen when the facts of science, implacably hard and substantial as they now seem, are proved to be myths in turn?

If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

Bibliography

Dante Alighieri, Letter to Can Grande della Scala, Translated by James Marchand, http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/20B/Can.Grande.html

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity, or the Lesser Mysteries, Reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Quest, 2006.

Harold Bloom, The American Religion, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Touchstone, 2001.

Susan A. Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982.

Origen, On First Principles, Translated by G.W. Butterworth, Reprint, New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Philo, The Works of Philo, Translated by C.D. Yonge, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Translated by W. Montgomery, Reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, 2nd edition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.

.

RICHARD SMOLEY is author of Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition; Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner Traditions (with Jay Kinney); and The Essential Nostradamus. His latest book is Conscious Love: Insights from Mystical Christianity. He is editor of Quest Books and is executive editor of Quest magazine. His web site is www.innerchristianity.com.

The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 110 (September-October 2008).

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice.

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions. This notice must accompany all re-posting.

Jesus Myth – The Case Against Historical Christ

I came across this website in my search for the beginnings of Christianity. I have since become convinced that Jesus was first a symbol of the sun, as is the case for all main religions. They are all first based on Astrotheology, and then go deeper from that starting point. I differ  with some of the anti-historical Jesus thinking about the Christ figure. Many of them are Atheists,  I am not. I think Atheism is a reaction to finding out the church has been lying to you for almost 2,000 friggin years! I understand it. BUT, if one would become able to read the allegory with the spiritual eye and see the meanings of the symbolism, you would see that myth is the best way to teach the nature of reality.  I certainly dig it. It is ever pregnant with deeper meaning and was designed to confuse the ‘profane.” In modern times we have quantum physics, which speaks in modern language (non mythical),  and yet mirrors precisely what the ancients said in their scriptures about nature of reality and our interconnectedness with creation.

By researching certain scientific test results and comparing it to ancient mythological wisdom,  I’m convinced that we are PARTICIPANTS and CO-CREATORS of reality. That was the essence of Jesus’s message. And of Buddha, Krishna and the now lesser known mythical figures.  The exoteric story, cloaked as history, is quite meaningless unless you can grasp the esoteric meaning.  That’s why I believe it’s important to know Jesus was a mythical person and Christ a form of Consciousness, symbolic of ourselves and other things ordinary language doesn’t convey. Thus the use of mythology. Myth doesn’t mean LIE, it doesn’t negate the existence of God, but rather better explains it. Perhaps the Gnostics were the fist Christians. (It is known Jewish Gnosticism goes back further than Christianity). The details have intentionally been lost, and as much as I’d like to know the facts, ultimately it’s not really important. It’s fascinating to know our core beliefs shape our reality. Notice the new paradigm since 9/11? FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! Even the weather is sensationalized to sound worse than it is. But Love conquers fear, we need to have love as part of our core belief, deep in our hearts, because it has been proven that our belief co-creates reality. We are truly Divine Spirits having a human experience. We are entangled with the whole universe, essential to it’s very existence, so much so that the Cosmos is actually a mirror of ourselves and could not exist without us, as above so below.

1970514_270108469832000_1404697898_n

 By – January 03, 2007

The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn’t really “the Messiah”, perhaps he was not “The Son of God”, and perhaps he didn’t actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of “Jesus Christ” is what we call “mythology”. The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any “Jesus Christ” nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of “Jesus Christ”. Like many other religious figures, “Jesus Christ” began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal “human” Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the “flesh” and “blood” of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.

What is the basis for the claim that “Jesus never existed”?

Actually, there are many important facts that support this conclusion. First let’s look at an outline of some of the major points in this case:

None of these points are meant to stand on their own, but collectively they provide a very strong argument against the story of Jesus Christ being based on a real person.

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels. The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we “know” about “him” depends on these sources.

There are two basic views of the Biblical Jesus as a real person today, the religious Christian view and the secular historical view. The religious Christian view takes the Gospels as accurate and reliable accounts of the life of Jesus, including all of the miracles. The religious Christian view demands that Jesus Christ was a popular and well known figure in the region, who drew crowds of thousands of people and performed great miracles, who was such a revolutionary figure that the Jewish priesthood was compelled to have him arrested and put to death in dramatic fashion before hundreds or thousands of witnesses.

The secular historical view, which may also be held by some Christians,  takes the Gospels as exaggerated accounts of the life of a real Jesus. The secular historical view basically starts with the Gospels and then removes the fantastic or “supernatural” claims in the Gospels and accepts what is left as history. The secular historical view tends to minimize the role of Jesus in the region, stating instead that he was barely noticed by others. Secular historians who believe that Jesus existed rely on the Gospels as essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of his life.

But are the Gospels reliable historical accounts?

via Jesus Myth – The Case Against Historical Christ.

Jesusmania

Amen-Ra

The history of Jesus and the history of Christianity that we know today is the dogma that the Roman empire forced on all its provinces. When Rome became the center of power for Christianity any challenging center was wiped out. If there ever was an historical teacher or real living person who was the Jesus character, what he may have said and done will probably never be known. One thing he most definitely is not is the character in the bible. I don’t think he ever was a person, and it really doesn’t even matter at this point. I KNOW there was never a King David, or a Solomon, and keeping with the mythical midrash tradition of religious writing of it’s time, I’m sure Jesus never existed. These mythical characters are extensions of our Oneself and are pregnant with deeper levels of amazing meanings. There are remnants of gnosis scattered throughout the bible if you know what to look for. Jesus’s story was based on the sun. He also represents our higher Self. He exists as an idea, an energy. His teachings mirror older teachings in other scriptures. He was constructed from many personas.

There were many gospels were written besides the four official ones. These four official gospels were written in Greece in Greek and cannot be accurately dated in an unadulterated form before the 2nd century, or 250 years after the ”events.” The Beatles hit America 50 years ago, and already a mythical history is growing up around them. What would happen if in 250 years a King or President ordered all writings and recordings of The Beatles to be destroyed so a new history could be written as a religion? A council could be convened declaring The Beatles were Gods. Four songs could be picked from the over 200 written and called the only official songs they wrote. This could go on and on, you know? I won’t, it would quickly dissolve into a comedy, which wouldn’t be bad, but people don’t think their Christian beliefs are funny, so it wouldn’t be appropriate. St John, St Paul, St George and St Ringo (all born in a Cavern) would probably be pissed as well. We can only deduce this from what Brian Eusebius Epstien reportedly said. (And of course the ‘history’ attributed to George Irenaeus Martin). OK, enough!

The Roman dogma is a mixture of historical and pre-existing themes. Mithraism, a religion derived from Zoroastrism, was very popular in Rome at the same time that Christianity was spreading. Mithras was believed to be the son of the sun, sent to the earth to rescue humankind. Two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithras held that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras sacrificed himself and the last day had a supper with twelve of his followers. At that supper Mithras invited his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. Mithras’ festival coincided with the Christian Easter. This legend dates from at least one century before Jesus. It was absorbed in the Roman dogma. Jesus’ attitude often resembles the legendary greek philosopher Socrates (eg, the way he refuses to respond to Pilate; the cup of poison).

The Egyptian god Osiris was also born on the 25th of December, died on a friday and resurrected after spending three days in the underworld.
The Roman god Dionysus was hailed as `The Saviour of Mankind’ and `The Son of God’. Dionysus was born (on December 25) when Zeus visited Persephone. Therefore, his father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. Announced by a star, he is born in a cowshed and visited by three Magis. He turns water into wine and raises people from the dead. He is followed by twelve apostles. Dionysus’ resurrection was a popular myth throughout the Roman empire, although his name was different in each country. The rituals in honor of Dionysus included a meal of bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. An amulet of the 3rd century has been found that depicts a crucified man (unmistakably Jesus) but bears the inscription “Orpheus Bacchus,” which was yet another name for Dionysus.

Pre-existing legends and current events influenced the way the official gospels were selected and doctored. Some scholars have even suggested the entire history of Jesus is a myth, based on pre-existing myths that were assembled by “gnostic” jews.
The official gospels were carefully chosen and edited to reflect a view acceptable to the Roman authorities and audience.  It’s getting so we can’t tell The Rolling Stones from The Beatles!

I actually want to write a satirical gospel of The Beatles. It could be a lot of fun. How would that go?

….paul-is-dead-hoax

The beginning of the cool news about The Beatles;  there was recorded on Blues records and early Rock n Roll recordings by black artists that were heardeth not by most whites in the Land of Odd, as it was sang:

“Well, since my baby left me,

I found a new place to dwell.

It’s down at the end of lonely street at Heartbreak Hotel.”

And so Elvis the Pelvis appeareth on the TV and shewn only from the waist up and this was his message: “After me comes the Fab 4, even more awesome than I, their guitar straps I am not worthy wear. I move you with music, but they will rock your world.” And upon that rock they would built their mansion. If this wasn’t so I would not have said it was so. Because just because.

At the time The Beatles were coming from Liverpool and wrapped with moptop hair. Virgins were everywhere and the whole town of Liverpool followed them.

The Beatles, filled with the plant of the leaf of life, left Liverpool and was led by the Angel Eppie unto the Ed Sullivan Show, before which they ate nothing but honey pie and became horny.

The one that had sympathy for the devil, Mick Jagger, said to them, “If you are the Beatles, tell my stoned guitarist Keith to work for some bread.” Thereby causing a laughter to go up into the sky like a dove, sounding like this: “Hahaha.” And it did reach the ceiling, and the evening and the morning were now 8 days a week.

And it came to pass that the one they called Jesus, a baseball player from Puerto Rico, claimed he was bigger than the Beatles. Dr Roberts conducteth a measurement proving him wrong, but the stank did rise. It seemed too late.

“Verily verily I sing unto you

And in my hour of darkness

She is standing right in front of me

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be

Let it be, let it be

Whisper words of wisdom, let it be”

And the crowd did marvel. And they followed them.

 Hey! I totally want keep this up. Who knows? Could have St Ringo walking on water, wearing skis or something, then  Nixon and Watergate!! We could have a blast at Yoko’s expense.  Woodstock. Vietnam, Sgt Pepper. Wow. lol

Amen Ra everyone ~~~  “Write your own gospel, live your own myth…”

Random Notes On The Jesus Myth – Part One

last-supper-astrotheology

Connecting the dots concerning the fabricated “history” of Jesus has been eye opening to me. There’s overwhelming evidence the whole story of Jesus was invented by the political powers of Rome. Since so many people assume there was an historical Jesus, fear of the truth overcomes their reason, and they immediately defend their ego based false beliefs. I don’t want to convince anyone of what I’ve learned as the truth. My mother was indoctrinated into believing Jesus was a real person. I don’t want to kick her crutch out from under her. I have no reason to convince anyone who believes in Constantine’s cult that they are wrong. Their defenses range from childish to downright dangerous. Many immediately assume that if Jesus wasn’t real then there’s no God. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason there have been so many god-man heroes based on Astrotheology is because mankind is obviously attracted to it. Even if in it’s ignorance (ignore-ance) mankind blindly follows the saga of the Sun, the planets and other signs in the cosmos as historical events taking place in history, it is the opposite of Spiritual. Myth is a way of teaching ever deeper meanings. An historical superman is a dead end. It’s blind faith (requires no critical thinking), it is ignorance that goes nowhere. The shock of learning that this story is untrue historically is a slap in the face of one’s completely brainwashed stupidity, and it’s not pleasant at first. But it does wake one up! But it’s not my job to awake anyone but myself. If a person finds comfort in a lie, who am I to interfere? I’m interested in truth no matter where it leads. I have found the truth will absolutely set us free, and also enlighten us in a way the church doesn’t want. They have their agenda and it has nothing to do with what’s in our best interest. The Gnostics were destroyed, but amazingly some of their writings have been found, and at a time in history where they wouldn’t be burned again. And I’m living in a time where I won’t be burned at the stake  for speaking the truth. The mystical side of various religions I find quite beautiful. The fundamental and literal part is 100% worthless hogwash. It’s embarrassing to me to be a part of such an ignorant and easily tricked group of zombie-like sheeple. If they use fake history to prove their point, they are fake people, living in a fake reality, and are as if already dead. The truth is hidden but can be discovered by anyone open minded enough to look for it. Yes, much of history has been altered for this myth, you do have to dig a bit. You cannot look up an early Church Father and quote them, because early pro-Christian quotes were interpolated centuries later. Hisorians have proven this. Hey, the built the town of Nazareth just to make the gospels literally true! They’ll stoop very low for this lie, because it is the lie upon which all other lies have been built upon. Rome lives on, trust me. Our laws and banks are made from Roman legalisms and Vatican maxims. They learned long ago to never inform or educate slaves.

“Osiris’s coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris’s star in the east, Sirius (Sothis), significator of his birth.”

Barbara Walker, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (749)

“So this was the harbinger of the annual inundation of the Nile through her appearance with the rising sun at the time when the inundation was due to begin. The bright star would therefore naturally become, together with the conjoined constellation of Orion, the sign and symbol of new vegetation which the Year then beginning would infallibly bring with it.”

Dr. John Gwyn Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult (157)

The three stars in the middle of the constellation form an asterism known as The Three Kings, or Orion’s Belt.

Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Killed and Resurrected after Three Days

The goddesses have stories to tell. One such story—far too long ignored—is that, in their original, unadulterated form, they were parthenogenetic. The word parthenogenesis comes from the Greek parthenos, ‘virgin’ more or less, and gignesthai, ‘to be born.’ It means, essentially, to be born of a virgin—that is, without the participation of a male. For a goddess to be ‘parthenogenetic’ thus means that she stands as a primordial creatrix, who requires no male partner to produce the cosmos, earth, life, matter and even other gods out of her own essence. Plentiful evidence shows that in their earliest cults, before they were subsumed under patriarchal pantheons as the wives, sisters and daughters of male gods, various female deities of the ancient Mediterranean world were indeed considered self-generating, virgin creatrixes.”

Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso, Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity (1)

“Let our Christian readers bear in mind that the worship of the virgin and her child was common in the East, ages before the generally received account of Christ’s appearance in the flesh.”

Existence of Christ Disproved

“Crishna was born of a chaste virgin, called Devaki, who, on account of her purity, was selected to become the ‘mother of God.'”

Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions

The Virgin Mary is called not only the Mother of God, but the Queen of Heaven. This connects her directly with astronomic lore. The ornamentation of many continental churches often includes a representation of the Sun and Moon “in conjunction,” the Moon being therein emblematical of the Virgin and Child.

As the Moon is the symbol of Mary, Queen of Heaven, so also a bright Star sometimes symbolizes him whose star was seen over Jerusalem by the Wise Men from the East.

Regarding the astrotheological nature of the gospel story, including the virgin birth/immaculate conception, the famous Christian theologian and saint Albertus Magnus, or Albert the Great, (1193?-1280) admitted:

“We know that the sign of the celestial Virgin did come to the horizon at the moment where we have fixed the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. All the mysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; and all the circumstances of his marvellous life, from his conception to his ascension, are to be traced out in the constellations, and are figured in the stars.” – Hackwood

Again, the Christian virgin birth is no more historical or believable than that of these numerous other gods. Moreover, as Robertson says, “The idea of a Virgin-Mother-Goddess is practically universal.” The list of Pagan virgin mothers includes the following:

Alcmene, mother of Hercules who gave birth on December 25th

Alitta, Babylonian Madonna and Child

Anat, Syrian wife of “the earlier Supreme God El,” called “Virgin Goddess”

Cavillaca, Peruvian huaca (divine spirit) impregnated by the “son of the sun god” through eating his semen in the shape of a fruit

Chimalman, mother of Kukulcan

Chinese mother of Foe (Buddha)

Coatlicue, mother of the Mexican god Huitzilopochtli

Cybele, “Queen of Heaven and Mother of God”

Danae, mother of Perseus

Demeter/Ceres, “Holy Virgin” mother of Persephone/Kore and Dionysus

Devaki, mother of Krishna

Frigga, mother of the Scandinavian god Balder

Hera, mother of Zeus’s children

Hertha, Teutonic goddess

Isis, who gave birth to Horus on December 25th

Juno, mother of Mars/Ares, called “Matrona” and “Virginalis,” the Mother and Virgin

Mandana, mother of Cyrus/Koresh

Maya, mother of Buddha

Mother of Lao-kiun, “Chinese philosopher and teacher, born in 604 B.C.”

Mother of the Indian solar god Rudra

Nana, mother of Attis

Neith, mother of Osiris, who was “worshipped as the Holy Virgin, the Great Mother, yet an Immaculate Virgin.”

Nutria, mother of an Etruscan Son of God

Ostara, the German goddess

Rohini, mother of Indian “son of God”

Semele, mother of Dionysus/Bacchus, who was born on December 25th

Shin-Moo, Chinese Holy Mother

Siamese mother of Somonocodom (Buddha)

Sochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl

Vari, Polynesian “First Mother,” who created her children “by plucking pieces out of her sides.”

Venus, the “Virgo Coelestis” depicted as carrying a child

“Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as ‘the Way,’ ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ ‘the Life,’ ‘the Word,’ ‘the Son of God,’ ‘the Good Shepherd.’ The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother…was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church.”

Gerald Berry, Religions of the World

“Mithra or Mitra is…worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun’s disciples…. [The Sun’s] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb….”

Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.

The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.

He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

He had 12 companions or “disciples.”

He performed miracles.

As the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

He ascended to heaven.

Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.

Mithra is omniscient, as he “hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him.”

He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.

His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”

Mithra “sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers.”

Mithraism emphasized baptism.

“In the ancient world there was a very widespread belief in the sufferings and deaths of gods as being beneficial to man. Adonis, Attis, Dionysos, Herakles, Mithra, Osiris, and other deities, were all saviour-gods whose deaths were regarded as sacrifices made on behalf of mankind; and it is to be noticed that in almost every case there is clear evidence that the god sacrificed himself to himself.”

Sir Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity

“Osiris…was successively god of the Nile, a life-giver, a sun-god, god of justice and love, and finally a resurrected god who ruled in the afterlife…. The most popular legend about Osiris is one of a resurrected god. He was killed by Set, the god of darkness… Osiris was then resurrected and went to live on high. Osiris became the first of a long line of resurrected deities—Tammuz, Mithras, Balder, Christ. Every spring the life of Osiris was re-enacted at Abydos in a stirring passion play, dating back to the eighteenth or nineteenth century before Christ. This play is the earliest record in history of drama.”

Gerald L. Berry, Religions of the World

“Osiris or the sun was now worshipped throughout the whole world, though under different names. He was the Mithra of the Persians, the Brahma of India, the Baal or Adonis of the Phoenicians, the Apollo of the Greeks, the Odin Of Scandinavia, the Hu of the Britons, and the Baiwe of the Laplanders.”

W. Winwood Reade, The Veil of Isis; Or, Mysteries of the Druids

Christ Myth

what-if-jesus-was-fake-and-god-is-real-thumb

I found the following in my notes. I cannot source any of it, I just found it and decided to put it on my blog. I encourage open minded investigation into the well proven and sensible fact that Jesus never existed as anything more than a religious mythical idea, an energy if you will,  but not a person in history. It’s very important to realize this fact in order to grow spiritually. The “Jesus As History” has become a religion unto itself, it is a doctrine of men, and not very good men at that. Myth doesn’t mean lie. It is a way of teaching something that is other wise beyond words. It’s Jewish Midrash and like all religions is based on Astrotheology (The Holy Science of ‘As Above, So Below’). The fact is that Rome actually did take the writings and artifacts from the earlier Jewish Gnostic Christian sect in 325CE and had a new story written and the original stories destroyed. It was a clever political move, however it’s very cleverness depended on the stupidity of the masses. Then as now, the stupidity of the masses is solid and reliable. Ignorant people are easy to control. It was a Roman legal maxim that read: “Let he who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.” My love of the bible and the mystical teachings of Christianity (and other religions) is not in question. I am not an Atheist. I am a Free-Thinker, a Mythicist, and a modern Gnostic. I see symbolism and allegory everywhere, and the biblical allegories and symbolism is amazing if read with the spiritual eye, which resides in the right side of the brain. ”Cast your net to the right side and catch more fish.” Part the Red Sea and enter the right brain. Meditate and activate the Single Eye, the Pineal gland and release the Christified Light from the kingdom of heaven. Where is this kingdom? ”The kingdom of heaven is within you.” Myth teaches spiritual truths, history is a whole other subject.

The idea that Jesus may not have existed is still very controversial. It is difficult to raise the subject and present argument and evidence because frankly, few people are willing to listen. ・Everybody has always believed in the historical Jesus・ or ・No serious scholars doubt that Jesus really lived・ or ・how can so many people be wrong?・ are usual responses.

1. There is no evidence for the Christ Myth theory.

The Christ Myth theory is considered groundless speculation because there is no physical evidence that Jesus Christ did not exist. This is like arguing that, because there is no physical evidence that a giant purple monster is not standing on my head, I cannot prove that there is not one there. It is based on a logical rule that you can’t prove a negative, or can’t prove something that wasn’t there.

The flip-side of this criticism, however, is usually that there is evidence for a historical Jesus. This is nonsense. If there were such evidence, there would be no controversy – it would be ridiculous to claim that Jesus Christ was a myth if there were irrefutable evidence that he actually existed. In actuality, there is no evidence for Jesus whatsoever that is not hotly contested, which only shows that both theories are equally based on groundless speculation; the Christ Myth theory, however, is able to explain and answer a great many questions and historical factors which proponents of the historical Jesus are forced to ignore.

2. The Christ Myth is just a “proof from silence”.

A common attack on Christ Myth theory is that it often starts from a “proof from silence” argument. Many Christ Mythers try to show that there are few historical references to Jesus, and insinuate that,had Jesus existed, there would have been more. Critics argue that silence alone proves nothing; there were no TV or news casters in those days, and anyway, Jesus “flew under the radar” by staying mostlyin the countryside. While I agree that the lack of historical references cannot prove anything about Jesus, I feel that critics miss the overall significance of this point. If there were any solid historical references to Jesus, then the Christ Myth theory is obviously untenable.While Christians have been, for at least 1,000 years, adamantly affirming the historical reliability of a few selected texts which they claim verify the historical Jesus, a Christ Myther, as well as any historianor secular scholar, (even those who believe that Jesus was historical,) can point out that these same historical documents are not reliable; their authorship and genuineness are continuing subjects of debate. Therefore, to even begin a Christ Myth hypothesis, it is highly relevant to show that the assumption of Jesus’ ministry being the “mostheavily documented event in the history of the world” is blatantly false. Only after we have cleared away the assumptions surrounding the historical Jesus can we begin to look for the Mythical Jesus.

3. Christ-Mythers are not scholars.

There have been only a small handful of marginally academic writers who have published on the Christ Myth theory, and critics point out that they are “out of their field.” They don’t have Ph.D’s inrelevant studies, they may not be trained in the rigorous investigation, clear logic and referencing that is now demanded in intellectual circles, and they may allow their passion for the subject to a) quote from sources they haven’t personally checked or b) make comparisons and assumptions that can’t beproved empirically. They may even (heaven forbid!) self-publish, or publish with an ill-reputed publishing company.

I’ll admit, as a “Christ Myther,” or someone who doesn’t believe in the historical Jesus, I can be accused of all the same flaws. I’m inexperienced, and sometimes don’t care enough to back up every statement with irrefutable evidence, because I have seen that there is no evidence that is irrefutable – whoever does not agree with your conclusions will begin by questioning your research methods, and after that, attacking your character.

In an attempt to tear apart the Christ Myth theory some critics will demonstrate that all of its proponents are uneducated attention seekers – and yet, the largest claims of the Christ Myth theory opens windows into Christian tradition which refuse to be shut again. In the proverbial “finger at the moon” story, a Zen master points at the moon and says “don’t focus on the finger – look at what I’m pointing to.”  Criticism based on undermining professional experience simply cuts off the finger, hoping that without it, the moon will disappear. As more and more people become familiar with the Christ Myth theory, and recognize in it some questions that cannot be swept away by criticizing the author’s biography, there may eventually be too many people looking at the moon to cut off all the fingers.

4. No “real” scholars agree with the Christ Myth.

I find this unfortunate, but can guess several reasons why traditional scholars have not yet supported the Christ Myth theory. First of all, the tendency of the academia is to focus on and study the specific, not the general. They may begin with a B.A. in Philosophy, then an M.A. in Religious Literature, and finally get a Ph.D. in “The Influence of Paul’s Theology on the Writing of Mark’s Gospel.” They may be the experts of the details, but the Christ Myth theory is really about the big picture – comparing and making relationships between many historical and literary documents, from many cultures and time periods, and analyzing their similarities and possible influences.

For example, a scholar might find the remains of a Roman crucifixion, analyze the wood and the nails,and determine with certainty exactly how the punishment was inflicted; these could be interpreted by other researchers as applicable to the death of Jesus Christ. The Christ Myther, on the other hand, will search into mythology and religious traditions to find stories that echo the biblical description of Christ’s passion, and then, finding an underlying spiritual theme, try to interpret the story as a metaphor and release its original meaning.  It is unfair to compare a historian with a Christ Myther because they aren’t really in the same field; Christ Mythers are primarily concerned with textual analysis and literary criticism. When placed in the field of “World Literature” or “Sociology”, their methods no longer stand out as being unempirical.

Further, it is ridiculous to dismiss the Christ Myth theory by trying to separate it from the Academic Community, because almost all scholars do agree that nearly everything in the gospels and in Christian tradition came from Pagan tradition. All professors of Religion or Theology recognize that Christianity developed out of previous traditions and that many of its ideas and symbols are not new.

Most scholars also agree that when we cut out all of the Pagan influences, there is virtually nothing left to be said about the historical Jesus. The only difference between Christ Mythers and the average scholar is that, faced with a complete lack of evidence concerning the historical Jesus, scholars engage in sorting through the wreckage, dusting off the pieces, and trying to imagine what the historical Jesus would have been like. If he was a carpenter, what would his shop have been like? If he was married, what would his relationship have been like?

In short, taking the Biblical testimony as a starting ground, they form a hypothesis and then try and support it through historical research. Allowing that their foundation is nothing more than the assumed historical Christ, is the Christ Myther any less credible? Lastly, I want to point out that the academia is not necessarily the best birthing ground for Truth. Being a researcher or a professor at a University is a public career, and depends on both innovative research and peer review. Backing a controversial theory is not a good idea for most scholars, who are concerned with career, status and nice things, just like everyone else.

5. Christ-Mythers make comparisons and connections that cannot be verified.

I find it amazing that Christians can discredit Christ Mythers as fanatics, whose theories are absolutely without basis, because they see similarities between Jesus and other miraculous, dying and resurrecting sons of god. Even if we ignore every modern attempt to compare Jesus with other traditions, it is more than enough to provide just one quote from Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist who acknowledged the similarities between Jesus and Pagan gods around 1800 years ago.

“When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter(Zeus).” Justin Martyr, First Apology

If, as Justin testifies, Christianity’s central articles of faith (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) areidentical to Pagan mythology, is it any wonder Christ Mythers seek out more similarities, or questionwhere these similarities came from? And while it is the overwhelming conclusion of modern scholars that Jesus was a historical person, there is plenty of evidence, especially from the first several centuries BC, that there has always been a debate over the historical Jesus. There were many heresies, decades after the alleged death of Jesus, that claimed Jesus had been born in appearanceonly, and was never an actual human being. Why should we believe the tradition of our Christian heritage, rather than investigating the claims of those other communities? Is it irrational, or crazy, to try to understand history from another point of view? Everyone knows that history is written by the winners; is there any reason to assume that in this case alone, the history written was absolutely free from prejudice?

The Christ Myth theory is not a modern idea; it is a revival of a very ancient and very common criticism of Christianity: that Jesus did and said some things that other, earlier, Pagan god-men didand said. Critics try to knock down these similarities by either questioning the source, or calling them “coincidences” by playing up their differences. While Jesus was born of a Virgin, some other savior was born “without sexual union”.  While Jesus was crucified on a cross, some other savior was nailed to a tree, or a rock, or a T-shaped bar, or somewhere in the skies. The problem with focusing on the differences rather than the similarities is that, while it may work in one or two isolated cases, it cannot be applied to absolutely every proposed similarity without weakening in effect. And it also doesn’t work on more specific cases; like Jesus was called “son of God”, as were others, or born on December25th, as were others.

In response to these claims, critics will say that many of the so-called similarities really were added onto the story of Jesus by Pagan influences, but that these don’t change the core Christian message. Firstoff, if you agree that Christianity absorbed some of its symbols from mythological traditions, then you are a Christ Myther. Relegating our position to a simple “Jesus did not exist” is too easy:  what we intend to show is that the person worshiped by Christians, along with all of his miraculous titles and abilities, is indebted to earlier traditions. It is meaningless to argue that Jesus was a historical person, but that motifs like his birth date, the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, his role as son of god and savior were added into the tradition (and into the Bible!) by Pagans, and also that Jesus is still the Way, Truth and Life. What good is using this argument against Christ Mythers, and ending up with a human Jesus with no divine attributes?

Critics will also argue that mythology may have prefigured Jesus in some way, but the things said about those Pagan gods were just stories, while Jesus was a real, physical human being. This doesn’t answer why there should be any similarities at all. The only argument ever used to explain the similarities between Jesus and early Pagan saviors, which is continued by Christians in many ways today,  is called “Diabolical Mimicry”. This argument can only be accepted through a faith-based Christian paradigm that believes in a struggle between God and Satan, and for a non-Christian, it doesn’t go far explain how a historical person mistakenly acted out the precise details of hundreds of diverse cultural mythologies.

6.) Christ mythers have an agenda: to disprove the existence of Jesus. They already thought of the end result and take material and twist it to fit into their hypothesis. All historians should know this is not how research is conducted. Again, this is an easy way to dismiss Christ myth theory without actually looking at the evidence it presents. Criticizing the methodology, the intention, and the characters of the people challenging traditional Christian history is like a magician’s sleight of hand – great at keeping your eyes focused on the wrong thing entirely because, if you were to look at the truth, the illusion would disappear.

I’m not beyond accepting that the Christ Myth theory may turn out to be wrong. It seems to me, given the available evidence, to be a very reasonable and highly probable version of Christian history, but I won’t be upset if further evidence later induces me to change my ideas. However, what I find both disturbing and dangerous, is any attempt to disprove or vilify a hypothesis without referring to the argument itself or the evidence provided. To assume that the Christ Myth theory is false, because it wasn’t convincing the first time it was given, and that every subsequent version of it is likewise false, shows an aversion to truth that is difficult to respond to.

This is not an attemptat trying to disprove God. Some things may really be beyond our ability to comprehend – but Jesus Christ was either there, historically, or not. This is not one of those unfathomable mysteries. There is convincing evidence that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person, and it is possible to discover in the history of Christianity the process by which a mythical figure was accidentally mistaken for a real human being. Or perhaps, worse, intentional literalizing of gnostic Christian science.