th Pagan Christ

[Fist and Faith]

It's certainly odd in my mind, too. Even I believe Jesus existed. I assume that the most influential person in human history was an actual person. As opposed to a bunch of people who said similar things, and were grouped together into one amalgamation. I imagine that kind of thing has happened with some historical figures. Possibly Lao Tzu. But I don't think THE biggest name in human history is one of them.

[Vraith]

Heh...Even I...who think God possible but barely, and if real is certainly not as described by any particular religion...think it's extremely likely Jesus the person existed. I even believe it's likely he said some reasonably similar things to what we're told he said...was a wise man and gifted teacher/story teller. The ideas/themes [and sometimes the actual parables as told] pre-date him, though...
And it's all the son-of-god/miracles/my way or the highway stuff I don't believe.

[Cambo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there very little historical evidence that Jesus actually existed, not counting the Bible? Same with Lao Tzu. If that is the case, then it really comes down to your instinct when looking at the stories surrounding Jesus. My instinct is that they both existed as an individual. I find it hard to imagine that a story that started out as a myth would have as much impact as an actual person doing and saying at least some of what he is supposed to have done and said.

But I will be interested to learn why the author of this book doesn't think he did exist. It is certainly an odd position for a Christian. But then, so is secular Christianity, which claims that God didn't create us, we create him. Hey, who am I to argue?

[Vraith]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there very little historical evidence that Jesus actually existed, not counting the Bible?

I've seen that claim...but I didn't find the reasoning/methodology/sources convincing. Maybe this guy did a better job...but look at all the arguments about who Shakespeare really was, if he wrote all that stuff...and he's only 500 years behind us, not 2000 [among a slew of other things besides sheer time that happened in between us and them]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

There is not supposed to be any evidence of Christ existing. This is something that should be determined by faith alone: either you believe it or you don't. Looking for evidence serves only to show that the searcher doesn't believe.

[Horrim Carabal]

this author, who speaks of himself, as a Christian, and notes that he was an Anglican minister. Yet, the author admits he doesn't believe Jesus even existed.

Trust me, there are plenty of Anglicans who don't believe Jesus existed. Even some Anglican ministers.

In fact, didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury say something ambiguous about the ressurection a few years ago? I remember some small kerfuffle about it.

Anglicanism in general is in trouble. They are losing whole congregations to the Catholic church.

[drew]

Can you be a Christian without believing in Jesus??

Again, it depends on how you define Christian.

THis book is not trying to simply say, be a good person, try to act like Jesus acted, and you will be a Christian.

It goes much further than that.

Its trying to say that Jesus, or at least A Jesus type figure has ever been around in teachings since the dawn of civilization.
Any Christ like figures were often looked upon as mythical. This includes Horus in Egypt and Mithras in Persia.

He goes on to explore the allegories present throughout all of Jesus' life; including where he was born, when he was born, why his parents are who they are, why he was twelve when he snuck away from his parents into the temple, why he turned water into wine, why most of his miracles happened. He explores the Allegories in his ministry, his life, his decipalls, his Name, his trial and method of execution and resurrection.

What he is NOT trying to say, is that the ancient Christians ripped off ancient myths and made them their own...what he basically says, is that these myths that pre date Jesus were around for a reason; the allegories of his his life and times were around for a reason. They are all there to teach us how to be, for lack of a better word, Christians.

Its Not just about being nice to our neighbours; but deep, spiritual, God-Loving, Neighbour-loving, praying, Christians.

Its his belief, that we are ALL Christs. Were are all Gods Children, and through learning about what the gospels have to say, we can truly embrace this.

[Fist and Faith]

Nice explanation of the book, drew.

And, along the lines of "we are ALL Christs", this is from Conversations with God:

The great teachers of your Christian religion understood this. They know that Jesus was not perturbed by the crucifixion, but expected it. He could have walked away, but he did not. He could have stopped the process at any point. He had that power. Yet he did not. He allowed himself to be crucified in order that he might stand as man's eternal salvation. Look, he said, at what I can do. Look at what is true. And know that these things, and more, shall you also do. For have I not said ye are gods? Yet you do not believe. If you cannot, then, believe in yourself, believe in me.

[Cambo]

There is not supposed to be any evidence of Christ existing. This is something that should be determined by faith alone: either you believe it or you don't. Looking for evidence serves only to show that the searcher doesn't believe.

I don't see how that follows. Jesus as the Son of God is a matter of faith, yes. It's certainly pointless to look for evidence on that score. But Jesus as a man who walked the Earth with the rest of us? Surely that's, in theory, provable. Surely there was evidence of that at some point, even if there isn't now. If you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, why do you have to take a strong stance of belief or unbelief on his historical existence?

[Cambo]

Nice explanation of the book, drew.

And, along the lines of "we are ALL Christs", this is from Conversations with God:

The great teachers of your Christian religion understood this. They know that Jesus was not perturbed by the crucifixion, but expected it. He could have walked away, but he did not. He could have stopped the process at any point. He had that power. Yet he did not. He allowed himself to be crucified in order that he might stand as man's eternal salvation. Look, he said, at what I can do. Look at what is true. And know that these things, and more, shall you also do. For have I not said ye are gods? Yet you do not believe. If you cannot, then, believe in yourself, believe in me.

I must, must, get my hands on that book. My list is getting longer. Good thing it's uni holidays...

[Fist and Faith]

I don't believe there is any god, God, soul, afterlife, or anything else that might be considered supernatural or religious. But I love CWG. It has a fantastic outlook on everything. And it has intelligent, beautiful explanations for many things I didn't like.

[Cybrweez]

I think the evidence of Jesus is the eyewitness writings that we call the Gospels, but no need to get started on that again in this thread.

And I would agree all the themes that we associate w/Jesus were not new w/Jesus. I mean, they're all spoken of in the Old Testament, going back to the days of Genesis (clearest example Abraham and Issac). Much like all the flood stories from different civilizations, these similar but different stories arise b/c they're based on truth. Its why even today, stories where someone gives up their life for another strikes a cord w/in us, b/c we're created by a God that did the same.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I don't see how that follows. Jesus as the Son of God is a matter of faith, yes. It's certainly pointless to look for evidence on that score. But Jesus as a man who walked the Earth with the rest of us? Surely that's, in theory, provable. Surely there was evidence of that at some point, even if there isn't now. If you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, why do you have to take a strong stance of belief or unbelief on his historical existence?

For those who do not believe, they don't have to take a "strong" stance either way.

What I was trying to say is that some people who do believe try to find archaeological proof of the physical existence of Christ. Looking for this kind of proof when you are a believer contradicts faith, in my opinion. If you accept something by faith, why do you need to prove it? Are these people trying to prove it themselves to justify their faith?

[Vraith]

I don't see how that follows. Jesus as the Son of God is a matter of faith, yes. It's certainly pointless to look for evidence on that score. But Jesus as a man who walked the Earth with the rest of us? Surely that's, in theory, provable. Surely there was evidence of that at some point, even if there isn't now. If you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, why do you have to take a strong stance of belief or unbelief on his historical existence?

For those who do not believe, they don't have to take a "strong" stance either way.

What I was trying to say is that some people who do believe try to find archaeological proof of the physical existence of Christ. Looking for this kind of proof when you are a believer contradicts faith, in my opinion. If you accept something by faith, why do you need to prove it? Are these people trying to prove it themselves to justify their faith?

Interesting question. I have a couple friends that are both Christian and scientists by profession...we don't talk religion much anymore, but we did when I first met them. Both of them accept by faith...but both are interested in "historical" Jesus. One just because it's interesting to him, the other says the proof/non-proof doesn't affect his faith, but thinks knowing for sure that he was a real person might positively affect non-believers and/or waverers. But my friends are a pretty small sample size [2 out of what? a billion?....and both white, male, middle class, too]...so statistically insignificant.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I, myself, have always been more interested in the early Church (how it moved its way from being an underground subculture of Rome into its dominating force) and the older belief systems that coalesced into Christianity, including older versions of the Sacrifice-of-the-King-to-save-the-world story.

I am also of the opinion that Christianity is a sun religion at its core but that doesn't mean that I don't believe. What it does mean is that I call things like I see them.

[drew]

THis book talks a great deal about the early years, of Christianity. The years before the bible was put together.

In fact, the author has lots of evidence that the Gospels SUPPORT his theroy of Jesus' story being mostly allegorical; especially Paul, the earliest Gospel.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Then perhaps you will be glad to know that I already put it on my short list of books to acquire this year.

[rusmeister]

I have just read a wonderful book called The Pagan Christ, by Tom Harpur.

It juxtaposes the stories of Jesus with earlier Egyptian, Sumerian, and Persian stories. It also compares the life of Jesus with the Life of Buhda and other profits and saviors.

It is quite well written, and very eye opening, especially when you see how similar Jesus's life story compares to others, whom the Christian world has deemed *Pagan*.

The most interesting part of the book however, is that the author is not trying to dis-prove Christianity in any way what-so-ever.
He is *not* trying to say that Christians are incorrect in their beliefs. Far from it.

In fact, the author is a former Anglican minister and professor of Religious studies.
He states, over and over again, throughout the book that his faith in God, or even in Jesus has not diminished at all.

Though he goes on to try and prove in historical inaccuracies of the Gospels; and goes into great detail, to show that the life story of Jesus is something that has been recorded for a good two thousand years before Jesus' time, his goal is to show that it is the story, rather than the man, that is important. He even explains where the name specific name *Jesus* was derived.

He states, that he does not believe that the Man Jesus Christ ever walked the Earth, but he says that going to Christmas Mass and Easter Mass hold even deeper meaning for him because of it.

The author believes that the story of Jesus should never have been taken as actual history; just as most people don't look at the story of Adam an Eve as actual history.

He believes that the story should have a deeper meaning for everyone, and it pertains to the Christ, or messiah, or savior that is within all of us. That everyone, or everyone's soul, is born into poverty. That everyone's soul has a chance to be opened up, and eventually reborn.

I believe that his main point was to say, that instead of worshiping Jesus (or any other earthbound Deity throughout history) for the simple reason that he (they) deserves our worship, he says that we should all try to live our lives by the teachings, and strive to awaken the inner Christ/messiah in all of us.

As I stated, this book is not ant-religion. It is not Anti-Christian. It simply tries to say that Christians should not dwell on the Life and Times of Jesus, which are fairly historically inaccurate, and instead try to realize what the deeper meaning of the Gospels are, and what they mean for us individually.

I still attend Church nearly every week after reading this book, I still wear a Cross around my neck. I am trying to convince my father and mother (an Anglican minister and his assistant) to read this book for inspiration to further justify their calling.

I would encourage anyone, Christian, non-Christian, and even Atheist to read this book, for the same reason.

Uh, yes it IS anti-Christian. (You appear to hold a private, non-objective meaning to the term "Christian" - I'll refer you to the Nicene Creed).

There are a million books by people who in one way or another, are opposed to that creed, and would do anything to destroy it, and will applaud anything at all, however intellectually weak, and self-contradictory to do so, as is the case here.

These kinds of claims have been raised and refuted for two thousand years. Which of the previous refutations does the author bring up and refute? Where is his knowledge of Nicholas of Myra, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, even Thomas Aquinas? I'd bet none. Zip. Zilch. At best a mention of the names and no mention at all of anything any of them had to say. No knowledge that the heresies he brings out are much older than he, just another person like Dan Brown who thinks they've made a new discovery.

Before reading any new book, I'll ask who's read the old books that dealt with this stuff long before any of us were born?

[Avatar]

Because, of course, we're all out to destroy christianity.

--A

[rusmeister]

Because, of course, we're all out to destroy christianity.

--A

Well, actually, yes, Av - although I certainly don't think you see it in that light.

But here I'll stick to the simple fact that the author cannot possibly have a deep and accurate knowledge of historical Christianity and say what he does. Only a person broken off from that huge tradition, inventing his own imagination of it, could talk like that. I'm not sure which ignorance is greater - that of the pre-Constantine era, when there are fewer records - or the post-Constantine era, when records overflow. The knowledge of the great heresies, how each appeared, how it was a threat to both Orthodox Christianity (in the ancient sense) and to itself; ie, that each was a fatal flaw that made nonsense of the doctrine, even its own, is largely absent from the modern mind. Who knows anything about Arius and the Manichees - which really did almost tear the Church apart in its first phase of freedom, and how Augustine and Nicholas stood against it? Of Montanus, of iconoclasm, and so on? Probably few to none, yet all are eager to grab a new book by a new author ignorant of those things, which, surprise surprise, teaches contrary to what had always been held in common, even in the Great Schism, and still maintained important shreds in the so-called Reformation? (Although the Albigensians and the Reformation do not touch the Eastern Church). Certainly, few things could be more pleasing to many here than to find a final proof that that great world religion is a fraud, just one of many frauds, and few things more catastrophically upsetting than the discovery that it is actually the truth. So, yes, I'd say there are motivating factors here.