Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Antlerman]

I'd say that yes, mythicism is like every other variety of position in the world. There's all variety of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists within those general titles and a wide range of disagreement created all of the sub-sects addressed to each main category.

No, something doesn't sit right with that. I think it's because it's not a positive belief. What I mean by that is that it is defined, like atheism as a 'not-that' belief. Any of the above religions are something that people believe in, not, not-believe in. In other words, mythicism begins by looking at traditional belief and offers a 'not-that' view of it. What I see 'mythicism' really as is a simple subset of non-traditionalist views.

 

The long list you linked to that that site owner compiled of a 'history of mythicism', I noticed had broken down the names in there as skeptics, semi-mythicisit, mythicist, etc. Many of these were German theologians who were part of modernity. I feel it is unwarranted for a mythicist to claim them as 'one of us', as in fact they were Christians, and Bible scholars (who according to many in this thread only believe Jesus was real because their jobs depended on it)! It's like every group in the world claiming Albert Eisenstein was one of them. I see Karl Marx is in their supporting history as well.

 

What doesn't set right is that it starts with mythicism as the defining position and puts everyone in relation to themselves, whereas I see mythicism is one extreme. It's like calling an agnostic a "semi-atheist". I would not put the German theologians, or myself for that matter as a "semi-mythicist", any more than I would accept being called a "semi-atheist". And the misuse of the label "skeptic' is another term I hate and an example of this. It is one of those terms co-opted as a symbolic badge of honor of those who reject religious beliefs of any kind, whereas in reality to be skeptical is to simply use critical thinking in examining whatever you're being presented. It has nothing to do with "unbelief". You have skepticism within religious circles as well, and it doesn't mean they are 'semi-skeptical' if they still 'believe' at the end of the day.

 

I think the best and easiest way to look at mythicism is to see it as a subset of non-traditionalist views on Jesus. It is not THE view, and all the rest are subsets of it, as it is beyond too messy to try to paint everyone against that. The term itself carries the connotation of AcyhraS and the solar-gods type theories with it, and to try to say someone like Hegel somehow fits in that camp is, well, ridiculous. It's like trying to see where you fit on the scale of being a Jehovah's Witness, or a Moonie, since they don't believe Christian orthodox views either.

[qadeshet]

As I said earlier... "I think the mythicists are becoming confused about who they are as they continue to look at this." Who is making up these definitions here? Will the real mythicists please stand up?

 

Even Christians are confused about who or what Jesus was. Scholars have their own ideas. Mythists are only united in the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is a Myth.

 

Apocalyptic Prophet: Albert Schweitzer and Bart Ehrman

Cynic philosopher: Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Gerald Downing

Liberal Pharisee: historian Harvey Falk

Charismatic Hasid: Dead Sea Scroll authority Geza Vermes

Violent Zealot Revolutionary: Robert Eisler, S. G. F. Brandon, Hugh J. Schonfield, Hyam Maccoby, and Robert Eisenman

Radical Social Reformer: John Dominic Crossan and Richard Horsley

Magician/Exorcist/Faith Healer: Morton Smith

Conservative Rabbi

Antinomian Iconoclast

Nonviolent Pacificist Resister

Early Feminist

 

Please read my post previous to this one.

 

P.S. I think you are confused what Christians believe. Many of these names here are Christians, and believe what you see in the Gospels portraying Jesus is in fact myth. I've gone out to coffee with one of the Jesus Seminar scholars. She understands the mythological elements quite clearly.

 

Of course I am confused about what Christians believe. There are a thousand different sects and denominations. As a former Southern Baptist I was going to Hell because I wasn't a member of the Church of Christ. About the only thing most Christians agree on is that the Gospels are accurate Historical accounts of the life of Jesus. I don't see how someone who declares that the Gospel accounts are Mythical, in whole or in part, can even consider themselves Christian. If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he? Is it enough to believe that someone named Jesus taught a few good things and got himself executed, and then call yourself a Christian? Your Jesus Scholar recognizes the Mythical elements and still calls herself a Christian?

[Ouroboros]

Of course I am confused about what Christians believe. There are a thousand different sects and denominations. As a former Southern Baptist I was going to Hell because I wasn't a member of the Church of Christ. About the only thing most Christians agree on is that the Gospels are accurate Historical accounts of the life of Jesus. I don't see how someone who declares that the Gospel accounts are Mythical, in whole or in part, can even consider themselves Christian. If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he? Is it enough to believe that someone named Jesus taught a few good things and got himself executed, and then call yourself a Christian? Your Jesus Scholar recognizes the Mythical elements and still calls herself a Christian?

That all depends on how a person defines what "Christian" means. If someone takes it as a mysticism and allegorical and that being a Christian is something else than the traditional (150 years old) literal interpretation, then yeah, I suspect they can.

 

From Joshpantera:

 

• (Semi-Myth) RENÉ SALM. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. Presents an exhaustive review of the primary archaeological evidence from the Nazareth basin and concludes that the town came into existence between the two Jewish revolts. Salm received undergraduate degrees in Music and German, and was active as a composer and keyboardist for a number of years. Interest in religion began in early adulthood and led to independent study of Buddhism and then Christianity, including occasional post-graduate coursework. Salm considers himself an Atheist, a Buddhist, and (in an ethical rather than doctrinal sense) a Christian . He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and maintains several websites

[Joshpantera]

I'd say that yes, mythicism is like every other variety of position in the world. There's all variety of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists within those general titles and a wide range of disagreement created all of the sub-sects addressed to each main category.

No, something doesn't sit right with that. I think it's because it's not a positive belief. What I mean by that is that it is defined, like atheism as a 'not-that' belief. Any of the above religions are something that people believe in, not, not-believe in. In other words, mythicism begins by looking at traditional belief and offers a 'not-that' view of it. What I see 'mythicism' really as is a simple subset of non-traditionalist views.

That may be the easiest way of looking at it. I can agree to agree on that point.

 

I see that you skipped over my second example of the diversity in freethinking in favor of isolating the quote only to the positive belief's I mentioned as diverse. That was just a way of setting up for the next consideration which is the diversity in freethinking negative areas of thought. We have hard atheists, soft atheists, anti-theists, Natural or Scientific Pantheists, Spiritual Atheists (a new variety which I see as merely Pantheist when all is said and done) etc. My point is that this is also true of mythicism. There are Christians who think that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth, such as Tom Harpur. There are agnostics, atheists, pantheists, deists, and others who are types of mythicists. There's a lot of diversity. It involves mythicist and semi-mythicist views.

 

But regardless, you are correct in calling all of this as non-traditionalist views

[Joshpantera]

Of course I am confused about what Christians believe. There are a thousand different sects and denominations. As a former Southern Baptist I was going to Hell because I wasn't a member of the Church of Christ. About the only thing most Christians agree on is that the Gospels are accurate Historical accounts of the life of Jesus. I don't see how someone who declares that the Gospel accounts are Mythical, in whole or in part, can even consider themselves Christian. If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he? Is it enough to believe that someone named Jesus taught a few good things and got himself executed, and then call yourself a Christian? Your Jesus Scholar recognizes the Mythical elements and still calls herself a Christian?

That all depends on how a person defines what "Christian" means. If someone takes it as a mysticism and allegorical and that being a Christian is something else than the traditional (150 years old) literal interpretation, then yeah, I suspect they can.

 

From Joshpantera:

 

• (Semi-Myth) RENÉ SALM. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. Presents an exhaustive review of the primary archaeological evidence from the Nazareth basin and concludes that the town came into existence between the two Jewish revolts. Salm received undergraduate degrees in Music and German, and was active as a composer and keyboardist for a number of years. Interest in religion began in early adulthood and led to independent study of Buddhism and then Christianity, including occasional post-graduate coursework. Salm considers himself an Atheist, a Buddhist, and (in an ethical rather than doctrinal sense) a Christian . He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and maintains several websites

You're correct. Tom Harpur still considers himself Christian too, even after writing a book in support of Gerald Massey's full myth views. I'd say that the mystical way is a Gnostic way and these peoples are more or less Gnostic Christians. What do you think?

[Ouroboros]

You're correct. Tom Harpur still considers himself Christian too, even after writing a book in support of Gerald Massey's full myth views. I'd say that the mystical way is a Gnostic way and these peoples are more or less Gnostic Christians. What do you think?

Very possible. Gnosticism is a little confusing to me (just like all other labels ). There seems to be different kinds there too, I think.

 

I can't help to think about Philo from Alexandria (the very little I know). He was an early influence on Christians, and he argued the old stories should be taken allegorical rather than literal. At least that's how I understand his view. So if the early Christians liked the idea of allegorical reading of the creation story and the flood... then why is it a requirement (in Americans' view) that literalism is the only way?

 

The problem we have is that we're so focused on our culture and the most outspoken Christian groups. What do Greek Orthodox think? What do Armenian Church believe? What do Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists (of the old kind), Methodists, Pietists, Gnostic, etc really think about what is literal or not? I met several different kinds growing up, and some of them openly admitted that they did not believe all stories in the Bible to be true, not even all the things in the Gospels. Some I met did consider the Gospels to be more symbolic and "spiritual" than literal. This is a serious problem with labels in general. The definitions are very arbitrary.

[Antlerman]

P.S. I think you are confused what Christians believe. Many of these names here are Christians, and believe what you see in the Gospels portraying Jesus is in fact myth. I've gone out to coffee with one of the Jesus Seminar scholars. She understands the mythological elements quite clearly.

 

Of course I am confused about what Christians believe. There are a thousand different sects and denominations. As a former Southern Baptist I was going to Hell because I wasn't a member of the Church of Christ. About the only thing most Christians agree on is that the Gospels are accurate Historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Wrong. And I think that's where our disconnect occurs. If you mean American Evangelical Conservative Christians, than yes this is true. But you take everyone who holds Christians views as having a monological, literalistic belief, and therefore any scholar who calls himself Christian is automatically suspect in your mind. I don't share that narrow view. It's not realistic.

 

The only thing that really defines all of those who call themselves Christian is that they see value in the examples in the stories and teachings of "Jesus". They follow that message contained in that symbol, whether or not there was an actual person who was that. And it is my opinion, when a Christian, even a fundamentalist argues and fights to defend "Jesus" its those beliefs symbolized by Jesus they are defending. Why do you think people like this will typically respond to an atheist saying he doesn't believe in God by saying, "What's to stop you from just murdering someone then"? It's because God is a symbol of morality to them. To deny the symbol, is to threaten what it stands for to them. I could go on at length about this, but digest that for a little first. You need to understand that these are not just black and white truths here.

 

I don't see how someone who declares that the Gospel accounts are Mythical, in whole or in part, can even consider themselves Christian.

See? This is where you need to expand your understanding to match the real world, no offense meant.

 

If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he?

A great teacher? A spiritual guide? The realization of God in humanity? A representation of our own potentials?

 

These are all things I've seen Christians who are not literalists, who find the whole 'died for sins' business taken literally as some blood sacrifice to be primitive and stupid, embrace in the 'person' of Jesus as they understand that. Yet they consider themselves Christian. I have respect for these people, even if it's not my chosen system for myself. You should read some authors like Cynthia Bourgeault for instance. She's hardly the sort of Christian you imagine all Christians to be.

 

Is it enough to believe that someone named Jesus taught a few good things and got himself executed, and then call yourself a Christian?

Sure. It is for them. Jesus is very central to them in the practice of their religion and spiritual path.

 

Your Jesus Scholar recognizes the Mythical elements and still calls herself a Christian?

Yes she does. She is hardly a rarity either. She put it this way, "Is the Nativity story true? Yes, it speaks of truth to me of our humanity. Is it historically true? Probably not, but that's not the point".

 

Now she understands a great deal more than your literalist Christians about religion and faith, and the opposite the "skeptic" who thinks religion is crap because its not literally true. There is as much of a lack of understanding on that side of the coin as it's opposite.

[Ouroboros]

I once asked a Jesus Seminar Anglican priest and scholar what he thought might be potential consequences for Christianity should we learn that Jesus was a mythical construct after all. After a moment’s thought he suggested that “If Judaism can survive without a literal Abraham . . . “

Neil Godfrey @ Vridar (http://vridar.wordpr...e-christianity/)

[Antlerman]

I see that you skipped over my second example of the diversity in freethinking in favor of isolating the quote only to the positive belief's I mentioned as diverse. That was just a way of setting up for the next consideration which is the diversity in freethinking negative areas of thought. We have hard atheists, soft atheists, anti-theists, Natural or Scientific Pantheists, Spiritual Atheists (a new variety which I see as merely Pantheist when all is said and done) etc.

I didn't omit it for any reason other than trying to be brief. I used to call myself an atheist but ended up dropping that as it became confusing, especially using that as my defining position. I had a good friend of mine say to me, "I don't know why you call yourself an atheist. You're really not. You're a mystic". And that is true. What defines atheism in our culture is largely created by the gnu-atheists (as opposed to the traditional atheists like Sartre and Camus). To say I'm a "no-literal anthropomorphic God" believer is like calling myself a sock-wearer to define myself. So what? That's like the first step of stepping away from mythic-literal thinking, hardly arriving at anything. To me questions about a literal external God are both answered and made moot within the practice of mysticism. The only challenge is how to speak of that outside it. As Meister Ekhart said, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language". So I define myself by the core of who I am, not by theologies or 'isms.

 

Personally, and I'm just thinking aloud here, that terms like atheism and defining oneself somewhere along that spectrum, "hard, soft, spiritual, A+, friendly, whatever, etc," is to remain stuck married to Christianity. Atheism, notably in the West, is defined as not the Christian God. To me it's like calling myself an Ex-husband while in a new love relationship, or somewhere along that scale. Or a not-12-years-old on some scale to adulthood. No, I'm just an adult. I'm not a hard-adult, because I think being 12 is stupid, or a soft-adult because I think being 12 is possible, but I don't see myself being one. You see? You mention seeing Spiritual Atheists as essentially pantheists. Then why not call themselves pantheists? (actually I think those who are "spiritual atheists" are not just limited to pantheism. I called myself a spiritual atheist for a while, but pantheism didn't cut it for me, so that definition falls short as well).

 

 

I'd say that the mystical way is a Gnostic way and these peoples are more or less Gnostic Christians. What do you think?

As a technical point the term Gnostic is often misapplied to all Christian mystics. That's another discussion but thought I'd mention it here. As far mystical Christians, well back to my quote from Eckhart, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language". People who are mystics look at questions of objective, scientific and historical facticity as utterly beneath the point. You can't use the same set of criteria as 'belief' or even 'faith' when trying to probe the mystical understanding. I can read words from Christian mystics, Sufi's, Buddhists, Hindu's etc, and it is all the same thing, and all beyond some quibble of arguing God like it were some Yeti that either does or does not exist.

 

Anyway, these can be another discussion later should you wish.

[Ouroboros]

I'm an a-yeti-ist. I don't believe in the Yeti (as defined by the international organization of ayetists).

[Antlerman]

I once asked a Jesus Seminar Anglican priest and scholar what he thought might be potential consequences for Christianity should we learn that Jesus was a mythical construct after all. After a moment’s thought he suggested that “If Judaism can survive without a literal Abraham . . . “

Neil Godfrey @ Vridar (http://vridar.wordpr...e-christianity/)

That's perfect! Nice.

[Antlerman]

I'm an a-yeti-ist. I don't believe in the Yeti (as defined by the international organization of ayetists).

[Joshpantera]

I once asked a Jesus Seminar Anglican priest and scholar what he thought might be potential consequences for Christianity should we learn that Jesus was a mythical construct after all. After a moment’s thought he suggested that “If Judaism can survive without a literal Abraham . . . “

Neil Godfrey @ Vridar (http://vridar.wordpr...e-christianity/)

That's perfect! Nice.

Vridar is a great blog, even though I've had some inhouse mythicist quarreling with Godfrey at times. It's still a nice gathering spot with people like Rene Salm (semi-myth) and Earl Doherty (myth) as active participants.

 

And yes, Judaism has had to survive the findings of modern archaeology so in order for Christianity to press on forward the symbolic meanings will have to be emphasized and the literal left alone. I'm sure that will slowly choke out the remaining literalists all in good time. Sounds harsh, but yeah, they're a dying breed world wide and even here in the states the fundie numbers seem in steady decline as people like myself who were raised literalist eventually come to and jump ship....

 

When it comes to mystics, you're preaching to the choir Antlerman. You see that picture of Joseph Campbell as my avatar? Nuff said. But yes, that is an off topic direction to get into here. I actually have an unanswered post on the Hinduism thread about the primacy of consciousness if you'd like to take the mysticism conversation that way...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/48325-religious-mysticism-hinduism/page__st__80

[Antlerman]

And yes, Judaism has had to survive the findings of modern archaeology so in order for Christianity to press on forward the symbolic meanings will have to be emphasized and the literal left alone. I'm sure that will slowly choke out the remaining literalists all in good time. Sounds harsh, but yeah, they're a dying breed world wide and even here in the states the fundie numbers seem in steady decline as people like myself who were raised literalist eventually come to and jump ship....

Yes, that's my hope. Get beyond literalism then we can get on to the business of understanding ourselves.... Here's to that day!

 

When it comes to mystics, you're preaching to the choir Antlerman. You see that picture of Joseph Campbell as my avatar?

Oh for goodness sake. I saw that picture and wondered who that was. Now I looked closer! Yes, it's Joseph Campbell. Wonderful!

 

Nuff said. But yes, that is an off topic direction to get into here. I actually have an unanswered post on the Hinduism thread about the primacy of consciousness if you'd like to take the mysticism conversation that way...

Where is that? I'll see if I can't find it. Yes, I'll offer some response when I find it.

[Joshpantera]

I added the link to the bottom of my last post.

 

I've been a member of jcf.org for years but I haven't posted there in quite a while. It was my exploration of the literal verses metaphor issue that led into discovering the mythicist movement. The mythicists are largely in support of Campbell's analysis about mythology as metaphor. I have the book "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: metaphor as myth and as religion. And "Thou Art That: transforming religious metaphor," and "Myths of Light: eastern metaphors of the eternal" among many others. But those alone outline where I'm at with the metaphorical issue.

 

So I'm not sure how different we'd be in that respect, if different at all.

 

The only difference I see is that you may see me and others as too radical in supposing that mythical concept like that of Philos "Logos" that was not personified as of the early to mid 1st century, eventually became personified over time in order to appeal to the general masses that needed something more fleshy and down to earth (exoteric) instead of the abstract philosophical ideas of Philo and perhaps even Paul with his similar celestial savior (Jesus). Or that you can detect an evolution between Philo's "Logos" and Pauls "Cosmic Christ" which goes from abstract esotericism to more being-like as a celestial figure up above. And then Marks allegory becomes even more historical-like furthering the carnalization of what had been an abstract and esoteric mythological concept. Our perception of the historical seeding of the myth comes in response to the need to make this abstract concept more palatable to the masses. So various biographies of savior figures who could be found in the existing historical records like that of Josephus's and others were drawn upon in the carnalization process to graft together an exoteric psuedo-historical surface story line whose esoteric inner meaning actually appealed to spiritual teachings clothed in the symbolism of the allegory and metaphor of the surface story lines.

 

That's what I know of the esoteric and the exoteric through people like Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, and even Manly P. Hall. There was an exoteric surface story line structure as an introductory to the inner teachings. The initiate would learn and memorize the stories at surface level and then gradually penetrate the symbolism to the actual spiritual meaning that nothing to do with historicity, or pseudo-history. The exoteric is the literal and the esoteric is the spiritual. I knew about that distinction that before I ever encountered the mythicst argument.

 

So from my perspective of how mysticism works in secret societies and in ancient times I could see how very possible it was that Christianity could have arisen out of esoteric abstract teaching that gradually incorporated a surface story line for exoteric presentation for proselytizing new initiates and such. That would explain the wide diversity of Jesus ideas floating around all through the first and second centuries that were in some cases in stark contrast to one another. The historical angles are choppy and contradictory. People would have been trying to carnalize a formerly abstract esoteric mystery school type of concept and playing off of one another, changes things aroud to suit different needs, and so on.

 

Then there's early Christian persecution. The profaning of the ancient mysteries was a capital punishment. These Christians were viewed as profaning the ancient mysteries because their theology was more or less a mystery school along the lines of others that dealt with similar mysteries. That may have added pressure to organize an exoteric and orthodox tradition in order to keep the mysteries hidden enough to where they weren't accused of profaning them by the state. One way or another the addition of an orthodox tradition which railed against the more esoteric Gnosticism served to bring the religion to a place where it was eventually acceptable as something that could be used as an empire wide religion. The historical angle appealed to the exoteric presentation which was more acceptable in public, apparently, than the esoteric.

 

This is speculation but how crazy is it?

 

Is it really too radical to suspect such a thing when analyzing the situation from the mystical, symbolic, esotericism that I suspect was at the very origins of it all?

[Antlerman]

I added the link to the bottom of my last post.

 

I've been a member of jcf.org for years but I haven't posted there in quite a while. It was my exploration of the literal verses metaphor issue that led into discovering the mythicist movement. The mythicists are largely in support of Campbell's analysis about mythology as metaphor. I have the book "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: metaphor as myth and as religion. And "Thou Art That: transforming religious metaphor," and "Myths of Light: eastern metaphors of the eternal" among many others. But those alone outline where I'm at with the metaphorical issue.

 

So I'm not sure how different we'd be in that respect, if different at all.

Probably not too different. My Christmas gift last year was Jung's Red Book. It is displayed like a sacred book in my home.

 

The only difference I see is that you may see me and others as too radical in supposing that mythical concept like that of Philos "Logos" that was not personified as of the early to mid 1st century, eventually became personified over time in order to appeal to the general masses that needed something more fleshy and down to earth instead of the abstract philosophical ideas of Philo and perhaps even Paul with his similar celestial savior (Jesus).

Not necessarily that different. I realize the Logos was adopted to the Jesus story from Philo's logos. My understanding for 30 years has been that John used the concept of the Logos in the manner he did to bridge the gap between the Greek understanding of the Logos, and the Jewish concept of the Memra of Jehovah, as active manifestor or mediator of the unknowable God. Jesus as a man was a continuation of that role of Manifestor in creation, now 'in the flesh'; "The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".

 

Where our discussion will get interesting is surrounding some of the points you raise. I do agree I think we're very close in a lot of our understanding.

 

Or that you can detect an evolution between Philo's "Logos" and Pauls "Cosmic Christ" which goes from abstract to more being like as a celestial figure up above.

I obviously see John using Philo's Logos, but not so sure about Paul's Cosmic Christ being an adaptation of it. That Paul had mystical experiences is hardly debatable. Certainly it's understandable why the "Gnostics" claimed Paul. But I see John as much later and of a different sort of Wisdom tradition school which blended some of the forms of the proto-orthodoxy sufficiently enough to be adopted by them at a later point. I think Paul was an interesting blend of a very Jewish, very charismatic driven personality, who had some deep existential angst which led to certain existential peak experiences (his Damascus Road experience), which was then translated into his Jewish religious context and modified to fit that for him.

 

And then Marks allegory becomes even more historical-like furthering the carnalization of what had been an abstract mythological concept. Our perception of historical seeding comes in response to the need to make this abstract concept more palatable to the masses.

Here's where I somewhat agree, and not so sure about it. I'm not sure I would believe that the Jesus movement entirely began as a mystical school, but that mystical schools of thought found a home within it. Iif the theory of it being a progressive social movement were true, than the transformative nature of mysticism would easily find a home there. Stale social/religious view would be revitalized from inner wisdom. Mysticism is all about breaking the molds of accepted norms of reality. However, and to your point, let's go with the carnalization of the abstract.

 

I think what you say has validity, but I don't see it driven as much by the mystics trying to dumb it down for the masses. That's the job of administrators, those like Irenaeus who argued that the esoteric schools were too difficult to penetrate for the average person. He argued all you need to do is believe and be baptized. The esoteric schools chaffed against this mentality. They did not support it, other than perhaps acknowledging it got them in the door. I can't imagine them specifically dumbing it down as saying "believe this", as any mystic knows that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself.

 

Where I do see this carnalizing happening though is something like this. Let's argue that some great teacher of Wisdom comes along. For argument sake lets call him Jesus. This Jesus teaches esoteric knowledge using simply object lessons, things like parables, and reveals the 'mysteries' to those in the inner circle of his students, to others outside he speaks in object lessons, taking familiar symbols and adding interesting twists to them to 'jar' their thinking in ways to 'open' them beyond their normal mode of thinking, to expand their consciousness. But of course lacking any inner knowledge of this sort themselves, they take these provocative ideas and trying to fit it within their frameworks of understanding. They then, even if they gained some small degree of insight, speak of these things to others, who then interpret them as new literal truths. This then begins your religion.

 

Visionaries always see beyond the constructed truths of their cultural realities. They have a few who interpret them, but never quite see as far into the heavens as them and try to translate it in their words to their audiences, who then can't hear it at all other than just surface features. They then argue and scramble against each other about the right understanding, all the while none of them get it themselves. Then a new visionary comes along and breaks that mold and the whole cycle starts again. There are many 'Jesuses" throughout history like this.

 

IMO, anytime mystical insight is read by those lacking sufficient context, they will take it in far more concrete terms. I just read this last night reading some Meister Eckhart and it really resonated with me as to the inner content of what he was saying. It's very true, and a realization I myself have had in recent meditations. But someone reading this without that context would take what he says quite literally and fail to understand the inner truth of it, seeing only the outer symbols. Read this and I can tell you right now how many would hear this:

 

“Whatever we may discover in ourselves, be it strength or weakness, love of sorrow, or any other inclination, we should get rid of it, for the truth is that if we discover all to him, he will discover his all to us and conceal nothing over which he holds control, neither wisdom, nor truth, nor holiness, nor Godhead, nor any other thing. This is as much a fact as that God exists. We must discover everything to him. If we fail to do so, it will be no wonder if he does not reveal anything to us; for it must be an equal exchange, we to him and he to us”

 

All of the objects in here are replaceable with whatever symbol you wish. But the 'carnalization' of it says this is a literal person out there we have to appease. In reality, it's a symbolic expression of what happens within us on a deep, deep interior level of hanging onto our hold of the cares and concerns of this life, focused around our ego-identity, rather than our existential nature, our essential being itself. Even those more academic terms sound foreign until you are able to break that mode of normal mind and expand your consciousness far enough to see above or beyond what appears as reality to us.

 

In summary, I see the carnalization as happening naturally, not some choosing to dumb it down to be taken literally instead. It's a group dynamics sorts of thing, standard normal distribution curve, the bell curve, where your small percentage, leading edge is the mystics, the large percentage, bulging center is the average mode consciousness, beginning to maybe lean towards that leading edge, and the hard-core literalist traditionalists on the trailing edge, trying to keep the organic blob from move to fast and letting them slide right off the end and wither and die unprotected in the blazing sun of the desert. Now I could really flesh that out more, but we'll save that for later.

 

This is speculation but how crazy is it?

 

Is it really too radical to suspect such a thing when analyzing the situation from the mystical, symbolic, esotericism that I suspect was at the very origins of it all?

This resonates to a good extent, and serves as a good platform for further discussion.

[qadeshet]

The only thing that really defines all of those who call themselves Christian is that they see value in the examples in the stories and teachings of "Jesus". They follow that message contained in that symbol, whether or not there was an actual person who was that. And it is my opinion, when a Christian, even a fundamentalist argues and fights to defend "Jesus" its those beliefs symbolized by Jesus they are defending. Why do you think people like this will typically respond to an atheist saying he doesn't believe in God by saying, "What's to stop you from just murdering someone then"? It's because God is a symbol of morality to them. To deny the symbol, is to threaten what it stands for to them. I could go on at length about this, but digest that for a little first. You need to understand that these are not just black and white truths here.

 

From now on we can stick with the Dictionary defination of Christian, which is fine with me.

 

Chris·tian (krschn)

adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

 

Then most of us, including many Atheists, are Christians whether we know it or not. Richard Carrier is certainly humane and shows concern for others. I certainly believe we should turn the other cheek and do unto others. Perhaps we are only ex-Christian Fundamentalists. If a Christian holding a Bible knocks on our door, should we just say "I'm already a Christian." and close the door? Sure saves a lot of argument.

 

See? This is where you need to expand your understanding to match the real world, no offense meant.

 

I live in the real world of North Texas, surrounded on all sides by Funadmentalists. If someone asks if you're a Christian, they are not asking number 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane. I never take offense. Non Believers have to grow a thick skin in Texas.

 

If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he?

A great teacher? A spiritual guide? The realization of God in humanity? A representation of our own potentials?

 

Some recent posts have been delving into the Mystical side of the question. I have CG Jung, MP Hall, Joseph Campbell, Aleister Crowley, and many other esoteric texts and have been a Mystic for 30 years. Someone should start a new Thread where Mystics can share their experiences, if they wish. I really thought we were discussing Did Jesus Exist? and the question of a Historical "Jesus"?

 

Your Jesus Scholar recognizes the Mythical elements and still calls herself a Christian?

Yes she does. She is hardly a rarity either. She put it this way, "Is the Nativity story true? Yes, it speaks of truth to me of our humanity. Is it historically true? Probably not, but that's not the point".

 

Now she understands a great deal more than your literalist Christians about religion and faith, and the opposite the "skeptic" who thinks religion is crap because its not literally true. There is as much of a lack of understanding on that side of the coin as it's opposite.

 

She may not be a rarity but I'm not sure that her Liberal position is all that common. At least not in the USA.

[Antlerman]

The only thing that really defines all of those who call themselves Christian is that they see value in the examples in the stories and teachings of "Jesus". They follow that message contained in that symbol, whether or not there was an actual person who was that. And it is my opinion, when a Christian, even a fundamentalist argues and fights to defend "Jesus" its those beliefs symbolized by Jesus they are defending. Why do you think people like this will typically respond to an atheist saying he doesn't believe in God by saying, "What's to stop you from just murdering someone then"? It's because God is a symbol of morality to them. To deny the symbol, is to threaten what it stands for to them. I could go on at length about this, but digest that for a little first. You need to understand that these are not just black and white truths here.

 

From now on we can stick with the Dictionary defination of Christian, which is fine with me.

I always take a deep sigh when someone pulls out the dictionary like it was the Holy Bible, supposedly to make their argument for them. The dictionary is not the end all definition of words that we are then supposed to speak like some sort of binary language: on/off, on/off, on/off, etc. The dictionary is a slice in time showing how the words are currently used. Which means, language evolves. How people uses the words changes in subtle ways as the contexts change. They evolve, and the use I offered fits how people use it. There are cold, static definitions, and then there is reality. This too stands as a great example of literalism interpreting subtle and abstract realities, taking them and reducing them to cold, easy to process "facts".

 

Nothing in your quote of God's Holy Webster goes against what I said, but it sure doesn't go the distance in expressing the subtitles of it.

 

Chris·tian (krschn)

adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

 

Then most of us, including many Atheists, are Christians whether we know it or not. Richard Carrier is certainly humane and shows concern for others. I certainly believe we should turn the other cheek and do unto others. Perhaps we are only ex-Christian Fundamentalists. If a Christian holding a Bible knocks on our door, should we just say "I'm already a Christian." and close the door? Sure saves a lot of argument.

Well, in one sense of the word, yes you are Christians. We all are. Not of course in the sense of professing a devotional faith to Jesus as a symbol of religious faith, but certainly as being products of the West. It is the Christian ethos that serves as that invisible backdrop of reality that all of us have been programmed by. This is why Eastern modes of thinking are nigh impossible for us to grasp most of the time. We didn't grow up with that mode of thought. This is why to you as an atheist, you see God as how the Christian sees it, and your understanding of it begins and ends there.

 

But to my actual point, again, nothing in this Dictionary as the Bible definition of Christian above is inconsistent with what I said. However, it doesn't really apply to Richard Carrier as adopting Jesus as the symbol of their faith. That's what I was talking about, and no, those I'm talking about as Christians are not the same as Richard Carrier. They are devoted to Jesus, as a symbol of their faith. These concepts are hard for you?

 

I live in the real world of North Texas, surrounded on all sides by Funadmentalists. If someone asks if you're a Christian, they are not asking number 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane. I never take offense. Non Believers have to grow a thick skin in Texas.

And the real world of North Texas represents the whole world? I think this is where another disconnect occurs for you in these discussions. I see it as a tiny sliver of the whole, you see it as representing the whole.

 

If a Christian doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died for his sins, then who or what was he?

A great teacher? A spiritual guide? The realization of God in humanity? A representation of our own potentials?

 

Some recent posts have been delving into the Mystical side of the question. I have CG Jung, MP Hall, Joseph Campbell, Aleister Crowley, and many other esoteric texts and have been a Mystic for 30 years. Someone should start a new Thread where Mystics can share their experiences, if they wish. I really thought we were discussing Did Jesus Exist? and the question of a Historical "Jesus"?

You have been a mystic for 30 years? What are your practices? What are your realizations? How do you define mystic (using your own words)? Why is what I'm saying hard for you to follow?

 

But regarding this topic, talking about the mystical absolutely relates to the topic! If the mystical experience of early Christians led to the use of mythical symbols in their descriptions of this inner realization, then the potential literalization of this into a historical person has absolute bearing on the topic, in fact, probably central to the whole thing. I see it as more than germane to the topic. We're not getting off topic talking about how awesome mystical experience is, or something like that. Sorry you can't see this for some reason. Maybe you haven't read the posts?

 

Yes she does. She is hardly a rarity either. She put it this way, "Is the Nativity story true? Yes, it speaks of truth to me of our humanity. Is it historically true? Probably not, but that's not the point".

 

Now she understands a great deal more than your literalist Christians about religion and faith, and the opposite the "skeptic" who thinks religion is crap because its not literally true. There is as much of a lack of understanding on that side of the coin as it's opposite.

 

She may not be a rarity but I'm not sure that her Liberal position is all that common. At least not in the USA.

Based on what? North Texas life? Besides, it doesn't matter. The point is that there are many Christians who are not this image you imagine they all are.

[Joshpantera]

The mysticism is very central to the debate. Because the possibility of Christianity starting from a non-historical core necessarily involves mythical teaching carnalized and turned into a fleshy storyline over time. But of course this doesn't exclude the possibility of some obscure teacher who taugh abstract esotericism which was gradually mistaken at literal face value. It could have gone either way. But first here's MP Hall from the secret teachings of all ages:

The Secret Teachings of All Ages

 

“There are, however, but few mature minds in the world; and thus it was that the philosophic-religious doctrines of the pagans were divided to meet the needs of these two fundamental groups of human intellect -- one philosophic, the other incapable of appreciating the deeper mysteries of life. To the discerning few were revealed the esoteric or spiritual teachings, while the unqualified many received only the literal, or exoteric, interpretations. In order to make simple the great truths of Nature and the abstract principles of natural law, the vital forces of the universe were personified, becoming the Gods and Goddesses of the ancient mythologies. While the ignorant multitudes brought their offerings to the altars of Priapus and Pan (deities representing the procreative energies of the universe), the wise recognized in these marble statues only symbolic concretions of great abstract truths.” – (Manly P. Hall)

This is a good starting point. I can only assume that a similar division would have been set forward in Christianity as a type of mystery religion that could appeal to both types of human intellect. And if at first it was too esoteric with not enough exoteric appeal for the masses I'm sure that it was gradually modified to fall in line with the traditional pagan mysteries that were arranged to appeal to both levels. And the state would have favored an appeal to both levels in order to be allowed in public domain.

 

Campbell speaks very similiar:

"THOU ART THAT: transforming religious metaphor"

 

Joseph Campbell

 

Chapter III

 

Our Notions of God

 

"When you think about what you have experienced in the apprehension of forms in time and space' date=' you employ the grammar of thought, the ultimate categories of which are: being and nonbeing. Is there a God? If the word "God" means anything, it must mean nothing. God is not a fact. A fact is an object in the field of time and space, an image in the dream field. God is no dream, God is no fact - "God" is a word referring us past anything that can be thought of or named. Yet people think of their God as having sentiments as we do, liking these people better than those, and having certain rules for their lives. Moses received a great deal of information from what we might call this nonfact. As understood particularly in the Judeo-christian tradition, God is a final term.

 

In almost all other systems, the gods are agents, manifestations, or imagined functionaries of an energy that transcends all conceptualization. They are not the source of the energy but are rather agents of it. Put it this way: Is the god the source, or is the god a human manner of conceiving of the force and energy that supports the world? In our tradition God is a male. This male and female differentiation is made, however, with in the field of time and space, the field of duality. If God is beyond duality, you can not say God is a "He". You can not say God is a "She". You cannot say God is an "It."

 

Let us examine some familiar religious imagery. One of the great themes in both Judaism and Christianity is the End of the World. What is the meaning of the End of the World? The denotation is that there is a going to be a terrific cosmic calamity and the physical world is going to end. That, as we know, is the denotation. What is the connotation of the End of the World? In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13, Jesus tells about the End of the World. He describes it as a terrible, terrible time with fire and brimstone devouring the earth. He says, "Better not to be alive at that time." He also says, "This generation will not pass away, but these things will have come to pass." These things did not, however, come to pass. And the Church, which interprets everything concretely, taking the denotation instead of the connotation as the term of the message, said that, no, this did not come to pass but it is going to come to pass, because what Jesus meant by generation is the generation of Man.

 

Now in the gospel of Thomas, part of the great midcentury discovery of ancient texts, Jesus says, "The Kingdom will not come by expectation. The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it." Not seeing it, we live in the world as though it were not the Kingdom. Seeing the Kingdom - that is "the End of the World." The connotation is transcendent of the denotation. You are not to interpret the phrase, "the End of the World" concretely. [b']Jesus used the same kind of vocabulary that Eastern gurus use. In their full-fledged teaching mode they speak as though they were themselves what they are speaking about; that is to say, they have in their minds identified themselves with a mode of consciousness that then speaks through them.

 

So when Jesus says, "I am the all," he means: "I have identified myself with the all." That is what he means when he says, in the Gospel of Thomas, "Split the stick, you will find me there." This does not refer to the one who is talking to you, not to that physical body; it refers instead to that which he indeed, and you indeed, in fact, are. Thou Art That.[/b]

 

In any of the orthodox biblical traditions, one cannot identify oneself with God. Jesus identified himself with God in this sense. But God is a metaphor, as he also is a metaphor for that which we all are. And he says in this Thomas Gospel, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Not the "I" standing here, talking to his disciples, physically present before them. It is the "I" of the dimension out of which he is speaking. "Split the stick, you will find me there; lift the stone, there am I." And of course, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Is it above? If so, the birds will be there before you. Is it below? The fish will be there before you. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Who and what is in Heaven? God is in Heaven. Where is God? WITHIN YOU.

 

This idea is the sense of Zen Buddhism. You must find it in yourself. You are it: "Thou Art That. Tat Tvam Asi." That message from India electrifies us, but, sadly, the churches are not preaching it."

I can see Jesus as a pure mouth piece figure for different schools of thought like the Buddha's or anything else. I was going a bit beyond Campbell and considering this possibility about Jesus before I discovered that there's an entire body of work called mythicism and devoted to exploring the same question that I though was original at the time.

 

What I discovered is the mythicism does not take away from or destroy the mystical value which is the real teaching, and, if anything, abruptly bulldozing the historicity may in fact serve to draw proper attention to the mystical meanings that were intended in the first place and greatly overlooked by the majority due to the exoteric 'blocking shield' which promotes denotative public interprestation of the mythological symbols. With the historicity cast in doubt, or at least pushed so far into obscurity that it's of little value now, the door has opened for esoteric connotative interpretation to enter into public awareness. I'd say that the world is now at a level of advancement to where the old mystery school preservation and secrecy methods and techniques which were oriented towards guarding the inner mysteries from the profane masses is coming to a close. The dark ages are behind us and knowledge and wisdom, as it were, both appear to be in steady incline. How the public will perceive the symbolism will adjust accordingly, IMO. It's already happening all around us due to the very existence of the historical debate.

 

This very debate now reaching into mainsteam NT scholarship quarters cries out as a paradigm shift well underway. Just look at the changes in even Richard Dawkns regarding the question of Jesus' existence. We can only say that maybe some obscure prophet type started the movement, but then again maybe it didn't require one fixed founder but rather many schools of thought eventually brought together by various pseuodo-historical presentations force fit to read as one story. That's a big shift in public awareness. Certainties are out the window. And that's Bart's current problem. He's trying to be more certain about this thing than truth will allow. And his book failure is aiding the paradigm shift as a result...

[qadeshet]

I think that the subject of eary Christian origins is even more important than whether or not one or several Jesuses existed who may have inspired the Myth of Jesus of Nazareth. If Christianity began from the teachings of one particular individual, I believe that person might have been John the Baptist, perhaps the first of the Qumran Teachers of Rightousness. The Dead Sea Schrolls may have belonged to the Jerusalem group led by Cephas, James, and john. James the Just may have been the second Teacher of Righteousness, and Paul(Simon Magus?) the Teller of Lies. Paul's Mystical Christ and Mystery Drama became fused with the teachings of the Jerusalem group and was allegorized by "Mark". If this is true, a strange story in the Book of Acts makes more sense.

 

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

 

Apollos was preaching Christianity without even knowing of Jesus. He had not heard of the second Baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is this how John's cult became fused with Paul's Mystery teaching? And, if true, would this make John the Baptist the Historical Jesus? Did he only recieve the name "Jesus" after his death?

 

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

 

Just another speculative theory.

 

Nothing in your quote of God's Holy Webster goes against what I said, but it sure doesn't go the distance in expressing the subtitles of it.

 

Kind of like expressing the subtitles of the various Mythicist positions.

 

But to my actual point, again, nothing in this Dictionary as the Bible definition of Christian above is inconsistent with what I said. However, it doesn't really apply to Richard Carrier as adopting Jesus as the symbol of their faith. That's what I was talking about, and no, those I'm talking about as Christians are not the same as Richard Carrier.

 

Good. As long as I just keep the teachings I like and don't adopt Jesus as the symbol of my faith, I'm safe from being labled as a Christian.

 

You have been a mystic for 30 years? What are your practices? What are your realizations? How do you define mystic (using your own words)? Why is what I'm saying hard for you to follow?

 

Primarily the Western Mystery Tradition, Golden Dawn practices, the Mystical Qabala, the Tree of Life. I have been discussing evidence for the Historical Jesus, not the higher understanding of what "Jesus" may represent. Mystical understanding was reserved for the higher grade Initiates . Most don't know there are three levels of understanding: the Literal, the Mythical, and the Mystical. As Paul said, the Kingdom of Heaven is within us.

 

The point is that there are many Christians who are not this image you imagine they all are.

 

One defination of Christian is no more fair than one defination of Mythicist. Diverse opinions should be welcomed.

[Antlerman]

Campbell speaks very similiar:

"THOU ART THAT: transforming religious metaphor"

 

Joseph Campbell

 

Chapter III

 

Our Notions of God

 

"When you think about what you have experienced in the apprehension of forms in time and space' date=' you employ the grammar of thought, the ultimate categories of which are: being and nonbeing. Is there a God? If the word "God" means anything, it must mean nothing. God is not a fact. A fact is an object in the field of time and space, an image in the dream field. God is no dream, God is no fact - "God" is a word referring us past anything that can be thought of or named. Yet people think of their God as having sentiments as we do, liking these people better than those, and having certain rules for their lives. Moses received a great deal of information from what we might call this nonfact. As understood particularly in the Judeo-christian tradition, God is a final term.

 

In almost all other systems, the gods are agents, manifestations, or imagined functionaries of an energy that transcends all conceptualization. They are not the source of the energy but are rather agents of it. Put it this way: Is the god the source, or is the god a human manner of conceiving of the force and energy that supports the world? In our tradition God is a male. This male and female differentiation is made, however, with in the field of time and space, the field of duality. If God is beyond duality, you can not say God is a "He". You can not say God is a "She". You cannot say God is an "It."

 

Let us examine some familiar religious imagery. One of the great themes in both Judaism and Christianity is the End of the World. What is the meaning of the End of the World? The denotation is that there is a going to be a terrific cosmic calamity and the physical world is going to end. That, as we know, is the denotation. What is the connotation of the End of the World? In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13, Jesus tells about the End of the World. He describes it as a terrible, terrible time with fire and brimstone devouring the earth. He says, "Better not to be alive at that time." He also says, "This generation will not pass away, but these things will have come to pass." These things did not, however, come to pass. And the Church, which interprets everything concretely, taking the denotation instead of the connotation as the term of the message, said that, no, this did not come to pass but it is going to come to pass, because what Jesus meant by generation is the generation of Man.

 

Now in the gospel of Thomas, part of the great midcentury discovery of ancient texts, Jesus says, "The Kingdom will not come by expectation. The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it." Not seeing it, we live in the world as though it were not the Kingdom. Seeing the Kingdom - that is "the End of the World." The connotation is transcendent of the denotation. You are not to interpret the phrase, "the End of the World" concretely. [b']Jesus used the same kind of vocabulary that Eastern gurus use. In their full-fledged teaching mode they speak as though they were themselves what they are speaking about; that is to say, they have in their minds identified themselves with a mode of consciousness that then speaks through them.

 

So when Jesus says, "I am the all," he means: "I have identified myself with the all." That is what he means when he says, in the Gospel of Thomas, "Split the stick, you will find me there." This does not refer to the one who is talking to you, not to that physical body; it refers instead to that which he indeed, and you indeed, in fact, are. Thou Art That.[/b]

 

In any of the orthodox biblical traditions, one cannot identify oneself with God. Jesus identified himself with God in this sense. But God is a metaphor, as he also is a metaphor for that which we all are. And he says in this Thomas Gospel, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Not the "I" standing here, talking to his disciples, physically present before them. It is the "I" of the dimension out of which he is speaking. "Split the stick, you will find me there; lift the stone, there am I." And of course, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Is it above? If so, the birds will be there before you. Is it below? The fish will be there before you. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Who and what is in Heaven? God is in Heaven. Where is God? WITHIN YOU.

 

This idea is the sense of Zen Buddhism. You must find it in yourself. You are it: "Thou Art That. Tat Tvam Asi." That message from India electrifies us, but, sadly, the churches are not preaching it."

Oh my, I need to read this book. These are exactly my thoughts.

 

I can see Jesus as a pure mouth piece figure for different schools of thought like the Buddha's or anything else. I was going a bit beyond Campbell and considering this possibility about Jesus before I discovered that there's an entire body of work called mythicism and devoted to exploring the same question that I though was original at the time.

Yes, and it's kind of what I was getting at that what became "Jesus", the body of the teachings, is for all intents and purposes Jesus. A collective Wisdom of many voices. And this is not inconsistent with what I said before about the appropriateness of attribution, embodying the teachings of a master, or a school even, and speaking as that school.

 

What I discovered is the mythicism does not take away from or destroy the mystical value which is the real teaching, and, if anything, abruptly bulldozing the historicity may in fact serve to draw proper attention to the mystical meanings that were intended in the first place and greatly overlooked by the majority due to the exoteric 'blocking shield' which promotes denotative public interprestation of the mythological symbols.

Now this, this is something I can get behind! What has annoyed me so thoroughly is the whole debunking, deconstructionism that simply ends saying "It's not real!". Oh no, there is substance there in these traditions, but you have to empty the bathwater to see the baby. You don't just say it's all a big fiction and leave it at that. Typically when I hear the mythicist argument it says nothing more than Jesus never existed. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

 

With the historicity cast in doubt, or at least pushed so far into obscurity that it's of little value now, the door has opened for esoteric connotative interpretation to enter into public awareness. I'd say that the world is now at a level of advancement to where the old mystery school preservation and secrecy methods and techniques which were oriented towards guarding the inner mysteries from the profane masses is coming to a close. The dark ages are behind us and knowledge and wisdom, as it were, both appear to be in steady incline. How the public will perceive the symbolism will adjust accordingly, IMO. It's already happening all around us due to the very existence of the historical debate.

I'm not going to think necessarily that having advances in information and education is the ground for the inner journey, just yet. Where I might say that is true is only in that as we have engorged ourselves on information and the sciences, the humanities have taken a back seat and we're finding that genuine nourishment of our humanness doesn't come through getting smarter. Wisdom has nothing to do with information. Reason and rationality are necessary and good, but only tools, not what takes us to the next level of our evolution. That's the inner path. Getting rid of the bathwater is the easy part....

 

This very debate now reaching into mainsteam NT scholarship quarters cries out as a paradigm shift well underway. Just look at the changes in even Richard Dawkns regarding the question of Jesus' existence. We can only say that maybe some obscure prophet type started the movement, but then again maybe it didn't require one fixed founder but rather many schools of thought eventually brought together by various pseuodo-historical presentations force fit to read as one story. That's a big shift in public awareness. Certainties are out the window. And that's Bart's current problem. He's trying to be more certain about this thing than truth will allow. And his book failure is aiding the paradigm shift as a result...

Alright, I think you're beginning to convince me.

[Ouroboros]

Now this, this is something I can get behind! What has annoyed me so thoroughly is the whole debunking, deconstructionism that simply ends saying "It's not real!". Oh no, there is substance there in these traditions, but you have to empty the bathwater to see the baby. You don't just say it's all a big fiction and leave it at that. Typically when I hear the mythicist argument it says nothing more than Jesus never existed. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

A lot of the strong action of debunking and deconstructing is the response to fundamentalism and extremism. It's unfortunate, but the whole literalism movement got the pendulum swinging. At some point, as I think we're starting to see, people can reconnect with the inner "divinity" and be spiritual in a healthy way.

 

I wanted to share with you a thought I had earlier today. Myths work as traffic lights or traffic signs. They're the symbols for guiding or helping us avoid pitfalls and dangers, and showing us where we can take a turn if we so want, while we're moving in our own path to find who we are. It's not the symbol (or sign) that's the road. But it's helpful for our journey. Anyway...

[Joshpantera]

^ I'm very thankful to have crossed paths with you guys and to have the opportunity for a dialogue that will allow penetrating this deep into the issue.

 

I'd like to address this quote from Antlerman:

I'm not going to think necessarily that having advances in information and education is the ground for the inner journey, just yet. Where I might say that is true is only in that as we have engorged ourselves on information and the sciences, the humanities have taken a back seat and we're finding that genuine nourishment of our humanness doesn't come through getting smarter. Wisdom has nothing to do with information. Reason and rationality are necessary and good, but only tools, not what takes us to the next level of our evolution. That's the inner path. Getting rid of the bathwater is the easy part....

I'll make myself the example. The only reason I've gained inner wisdom at all is because of my information quest and truth seeking. That's why I said knowledge and wisdom because more people seem to be coming around to understand inner wisdom nowadays as the result of the information age. So I don't see it as all that bad I guess.

 

Now this, this is something I can get behind! What has annoyed me so thoroughly is the whole debunking, deconstructionism that simply ends saying "It's not real!". Oh no, there is substance there in these traditions, but you have to empty the bathwater to see the baby. You don't just say it's all a big fiction and leave it at that. Typically when I hear the mythicist argument it says nothing more than Jesus never existed. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

There are modern Jesus deniers that go as mythicists but haven't any real interest in the mythologies themselves, and there are mythicists in the traditional sense of those who think that the symbolism has some value, just not literalistic oriented value. I'd say that Price and Harpur are good examples. Rene salm is very open about his mystical views and he is not out to destroy the symbolism even though he demolishes the Nazareth myth.

Murdock has agreed to this many times and Freke and Gandy are basically modern Gnostics. Most of the main voices of this movement are mainly ex-Christians like those of us here who have explored eastern mythicism as part of their comparative mythological research and have gained whatever values can be gained from that area of study.

[Antlerman]

Well you've had to cut through a lot of the barriers to get to here. Kudos for that. For me, this expresses pretty much my entire ExChristian path to find a way to embrace reason and spirit without conflict. What I was asked to do in the church was to sever my rational mind and just 'believe', and of course this was extolled as virtuous, and doubt was the dark one trying to steal your salvation. So in finally extricating myself from that, I went the path of deconstruction to disarm that power over me. That allowed my rational mind to flourish as it needed to, but I soon found the limits of that when it came to that inner self. Long story short, if this is what most mythicists are hoping to do, than count me in. I see things the same way. To me, as I strip away the crap, I'm free to let all these voices speak. They are fingers pointing at the moon; not the moon itself.

[mwc]

I think if you can appreciate the following image you can understand mythicism (at least as I see it):

 

"This is not a pipe."

 

mwc