th Pagan Christ

[rdhopeca]

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?

May I suggest, Rus, before you judge this, that you actually read the material? I'd hate for you to make any snap judgments about an author's works or form an opinion on what he's trying to say or what he means, or the accuracy of his writings, without actually reading it yourself first, eh? Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, is the author...as a professor of the New Testament, no less, he is deserving of some respect for his authority?

www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christ-Recovering- ... 0802714498

[rusmeister]

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?

You said "correct you if you're wrong"...

The reference to this person by dozens of other historical personages centuries before the Bible existed is one of them. We accept, from historical documents, their historical claims, especially when they are verified from other sources. Aside from the various books and letters comprising the New testament, we have numerous other letters, documents and encyclicals which reference Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personage long before the Bible as we know it was canonized. never mind Paul, from Ignatius to Iraneus we have claims of Christ's historical existence. We have the indirect evidence of pagan reports that this sect had indeed risen up within only a couple of decades after his (claimed) death. It is undeniable that a significant number of people, within that same time period, gave themselves up to torture and death, insisting on not only his historical existence, but his death and resurrection, something that gives the lie to the idea that the latter events were deliberately falsified and certainly confirming that these people who claimed to be eyewitnesses firmly believed what they were reporting. If that is not historical evidence then there is no such thing as historical evidence of anything at all.

[Cambo]

Yes, I did say to correct me, and I meant it. Thank you for allaying my ignorance.

Of course, now I plan to look at this "Pagan Jesus" guy's evidence, and make my own judgement.

[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?

May I suggest, Rus, before you judge this, that you actually read the material? I'd hate for you to make any snap judgments about an author's works or form an opinion on what he's trying to say or what he means, or the accuracy of his writings, without actually reading it yourself first, eh? Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, is the author...as a professor of the New Testament, no less, he is deserving of some respect for his authority?

www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christ-Recovering- ... 0802714498

This sounds so reasonable on the surface, Rob.

May I suggest that you take the time to read xxx works by leading creationists and ID supporters? But heck, most of you here won't even read my recommendations, and are proud of it, or having read a paragraph or a chapter, write it off as nonsense.

The reasonable explanation, like so many of your reasonable explanations for not reading what I recommend, is that one does not need to read every single book on the topic to know what an idea represents. And if it happens to be on something that you have learned a good deal about, then you are going to know things the average Joe doesn't know, like evolutionist scientists claim to know about evolutionary theory, or a historian about the Middle Ages.

Now it is obvious to me from what Drew has posted that his champion author knows next to nothing about Church history, yet has published a book on it anyway. One of the greatest thing to learn is Church history is the struggle for orthodoxy - to get it right - and the heresiarchs, and what they were, what they championed, why the orthodox opposed it and why orthodoxy reigned in the end.

I have said that GK Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" to be 'eye-opening', (and it has been praised by many more, and much greater men) in demonstrating precisely how Christ DIFFERS from all other world religions. Not that y'all here care, when, as I have said, most of you would benefit (as you understand benefit) from seeing orthodox Christianity proved wrong, or merely as just another religion.

And as has been pointed out by others, simply being an Anglican minister and professor is no special credential, especially when he teaches the contrary of what the Anglican Church had taught for centuries.

So when you guys are as fair-minded as you want me to be, and all pick up and read TEM, a truly great book, then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, this book being obviously full of resounding lies (with grains of truth, as all successful lies have), and a direct attack on my faith, I'll blast its claims without hesitation.

Its popularity depends entirely on it being an attack on orthodox Christianity (small 'o'). If it were a defence of the same, then it would be highly unpopular here and this would be a dead thread.

[rusmeister]

Yes, I did say to correct me, and I meant it. Thank you for allaying my ignorance.

Of course, now I plan to look at this "Pagan Jesus" guy's evidence, and make my own judgement.

Go right ahead - just make sure that the evidence that he offers is considered in light of all the evidence that he doesn't that counters his claims - which means you're going to have to be able to tell us about Iraneus and Chrysostom and the formation of Scriptural canon in detail, and not from that source. Otherwise, it's like someone reading a fundamentalist work and considering themselves sufficiently informed on evolution or eschatology, which is what y'all are in danger of here.

[Cambo]

Jeez- I can tell you're a school teacher...when is that assignment due, professor?

You don't have to tell me about claims and counter claims, evidence and counter-evidence, Rus. I'm a student of religion. I know how murky it is.

I will look into the people you suggest, but I have a strong suspicion that if I end up disagreeing with them I will get an "F".

[rusmeister]

Jeez- I can tell you're a school teacher...when is that assignment due, professor?

You don't have to tell me about claims and counter claims, evidence and counter-evidence, Rus. I'm a student of religion. I know how murky it is.

I will look into the people you suggest, but I have a strong suspicion that if I end up disagreeing with them I will get an "F".

That'd depend on your basis for disagreeing.

[drew]

With all due to respect to you, rusmeister, and I mean that sincerely; your extreme devotion should be applauded, and your long and thoughtful responses show how well you have thought up your rebuttals...which in essence is what I was looking for, a discussion, rather than pure praise... BUT...I *did* read the book, I know what point the author was trying to convey.
He was NOT trying to say we should look at Christianity as a haux.
He is NOT trying to say Christianity is wrong.

What he is trying to convey, as he quotes from St Augustine in the opening of his book, is that Christianity was around before Jesus. The teachings, the lessons, even some of the dogma, have been around in teachings for thousands of years previous.

He is trying to say that we are ALL Christ-like within ourselves, and that the teachings of Jesus through the gospels can open our eyes to this.

I can assure you, that this book is not a bunch of clap-trap intended to sell books and make him poular and rich...for one thing; he's a Canadian Author, and its a Canadian published book.... believe me, with very few exceptions, this is synonym for obscurity!!

As far as his reaserch, this is not his first, nor his last book on the subject, and the bibliography is five full pages, which I myself and too lazy to copy and print here

I'll tell you though two of his main authors that he had reaserched are Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn...if that helps.

[aliantha]

Rus -- has it occurred to you that you're treating this author exactly the same way you claim that the rest of us treat GKC?

If the author is a priest, then it follows that he's been through seminary. I have no idea what the curriculum is for a degree in religious studies at an Anglican seminary -- but I would bet at least one course on early church history was required somewhere along the way. So I would also bet, rus, that this guy not only knows the names you're bandying about, but that his knowledge of them exceeds yours.

And I'm pretty sure that *any* minister -- for all that he's a Protestant -- is interested in destroying Christianity.

[rdhopeca]

Rus -- has it occurred to you that you're treating this author exactly the same way you claim that the rest of us treat GKC?

That was exactly the point of my post above, although I think my slight sarcasm failed to show through.

Pardon me while I go remove my tongue from my cheek...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

you're going to have to be able to tell us about Iraneus and Chrysostom and the formation of Scriptural canon in detail, and not from that source

I wonder why you think the rest of us should conform your standards?

If we wanted to be experts on the History of the Church or the minutiae of theology then we would do so. You are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, for which you are to be commended. That being said, I have to admit that the way you present material and the way you criticize other people reminds me of an ex-girlfriend from college who was also extremely intelligent and well-read; unfortunately, the way she condescendingly spoke to people who disagreed with her made people roll their eyes and wonder why they were friends with her in the first place.

Why is your faith so tenuous that you feel this man's book amounts to an "attack" on Christianity? Religion, being a matter of faith, is beyond proof; hence, Christianity cannot be "disproven".

Did Christ exist? Yes.
Is there any archeological evidence of this? Not anymore.
Are there parallels in Christianity with other religions? Yes.
Do some pieces of Christianity derive themselves from earlier religions? Of course they do.
Does this invalidate Christianity? Of course not.

[rusmeister]

you're going to have to be able to tell us about Iraneus and Chrysostom and the formation of Scriptural canon in detail, and not from that source

I wonder why you think the rest of us should conform your standards?

If we wanted to be experts on the History of the Church or the minutiae of theology then we would do so. You are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, for which you are to be commended. That being said, I have to admit that the way you present material and the way you criticize other people reminds me of an ex-girlfriend from college who was also extremely intelligent and well-read; unfortunately, the way she condescendingly spoke to people who disagreed with her made people roll their eyes and wonder why they were friends with her in the first place.

Why is your faith so tenuous that you feel this man's book amounts to an "attack" on Christianity? Religion, being a matter of faith, is beyond proof; hence, Christianity cannot be "disproven".

Did Christ exist? Yes.
Is there any archeological evidence of this? Not anymore.
Are there parallels in Christianity with other religions? Yes.
Do some pieces of Christianity derive themselves from earlier religions? Of course they do.
Does this invalidate Christianity? Of course not.

Hi, Hashi,
There are a number of things here; the first I would raise is the curious fact that there is a minority opinion at all. Is it of no interest how and why such an opinion could be held - even fiercely?

It is no necessary indication of tenuosity of faith to perceive an attack on something one values and defend it. If someone attempts to get your mother publicly painted as a prostitute - or worse - you would not think your love of her tenuous for wanting to defend her.

Why should we bother with learning and scholarship? Why should we trouble to distinguish between views on the origin of man? As soon as we shift the topic to evolution and creationism, I see a general reversal of positions here, and all the demands made to accept scholarship, learning and authority, which I make regarding knowledge of objective things like Church history, suddenly are demanded regarding a theory that I think a passing (in the long term) fashion of science, and the encouragement of a variety of teachings in, say, public school strongly discouraged. This seems to me a form of unintended hypocrisy. It says "We accept scholarship when it works in our favor; when it works against what we want we say 'away with it!' Individual opinions are all equal!"

I do not propose "proving Christianity" (which obviously no longer has an accepted definition - here at least, and so is whatever we make of it - but if that is the case, what I make of it is just as 'valid' as what you all make of it - only we can not have intelligent discussion at that point.) I do, however, propose proving Church history, which CAN be examined. My views do have an enormous weight of authority behind them which is not my own, just as the defender of evolutionary science can point to the authority of all of the scientists - the priests of our time - in support of that theory. He is not putting forth an idea as a loner, but right or wrong, as part of a large scholarly tradition. So why should 'you conform to "my" standards'? Because that is the only way we can talk at all. There is no reason on earth for me to engage in discussion with people who are hypo-critical in regards to their own position. I'm ready to accept criticism of my position and answer to it - to respond to the objections. Only it seems the other side is not equally willing to do the same.

I don't expect to be friends with people here - although courtesy is always appreciated - but I do find, and hope to find here, at least some people genuinely interested in truth and who think it important enough to fight for. It's the people who think truth unimportant that I don't want to have anything to do with, and I am honored to associate with people who do think it important, even if we disagree strongly enough to fight. I'd rather be friends with a Muslim warrior than a subjectivist professor. At least the Muslim knows that truth is worth fighting for, and even dying for.

I'd probably have to ask what you mean by "valid", "invalidate". Since I see things in terms of "true" and "false", with the proviso that views that are not true may still have truth in them. Valid, to me, only makes sense in terms of being true or not.

I realize that my POV may be something of a shock, but I also try to show it to be reasonable, in the sense of using reason, rather in the sense of insisting on compromising on truth. I never intend personal offence; I do not apologize for what I think true, although may be guilty sometimes in delivery, and I apologize when that happens.

[rusmeister]

Rus -- has it occurred to you that you're treating this author exactly the same way you claim that the rest of us treat GKC?

If the author is a priest, then it follows that he's been through seminary. I have no idea what the curriculum is for a degree in religious studies at an Anglican seminary -- but I would bet at least one course on early church history was required somewhere along the way. So I would also bet, rus, that this guy not only knows the names you're bandying about, but that his knowledge of them exceeds yours.

And I'm pretty sure that *any* minister -- for all that he's a Protestant -- is interested in destroying Christianity.

Hi, Ali,
What has occurred to me is that people want to diss my writers with hardly a cursory glance (I hold you as a big exception there, at least in one case), and yet are shocked that I should propose doing exactly the same with another writer. Puts the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it?

This one modern priest has a million priests who have gone before him who ALL disagree with him, and only a few hundred - or even thousand at most - that actually agree. That makes his credentials rather worthless to me. They are credentials from an institution that he is now defying. Why on earth should I take someone seriously for his credentials when he is bent on contradicting the teachings of the institution that gave them to him?

Heretics always want to do good - only they make one aspect of Truth to be the entire Truth, as Tolstoy did non-resistance to evil, or as the Communists made the equality of men to be their entire gospel. (Of course, it helps to understand the term 'heresy' as I do - it would clarify my meaning for some.)

Of course, I am seen no doubt as the local heretic on the Watch for refusing to accept modern pluralism, with its watchwords of diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism, the meaning of all which I question as being unquestioned...

As long as words remain undefined, we will always misunderstand each other when we use them.

[Vraith]

I'm not christian, so in most ways this doesn't matter to me except as a curiosity.
But I've gotta say...IF there is Absolute Truth, One God, and this One is the Christian One, and Truth the Christian Truth, Rus is right. Belief in an actual, literal, physical Jesus is required for real Christianity. His words may be metaphorical, parab-olic, allegorical, wisdom partly borrowed and/or reiterated and/or reinterpreted from historical wisdom in some or many ways...but Jesus can't be.
Not to be too flippant, but you can take the sugar out of my coke and still make it Sweet. But you can't claim it's the same drink.

[Cybrweez]

rus, I do see a difference b/w the majority here not bothering to read your recommendations, and you not reading drew's. Altho I may be wrong, I don't believe people bash the books/articles/whatever you recommend, they instead argue points that your recs have already spoken to, and better than you can speak to.

However, that's different than assuming what this author is saying based on drew's review, and blowing him out of the water. You may be attacking strawmen, I don't know, I would have to read the book to know what he's really saying.

In any case, much like most here aren't enticed by your recommendations to read them, I'm not enticed by drew's to read this, for similar reasons as to what you've said in this thread, its not new. And also, whenever someone says I'm a Christian and I also don't believe Jesus existed, then I'll immediately discount anything they have to say about Christianity. As vraith said, they're calling carbonated water "coke" (or something to that effect ).

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It is no necessary indication of tenuosity of faith to perceive an attack on something one values and defend it. If someone attempts to get your mother publicly painted as a prostitute - or worse - you would not think your love of her tenuous for wanting to defend her.

I wouldn't have to defend my mother. Her behavior itself would prove that such claims are false.

So why should 'you conform to "my" standards'? Because that is the only way we can talk at all. There is no reason on earth for me to engage in discussion with people who are hypo-critical in regards to their own position. I'm ready to accept criticism of my position and answer to it - to respond to the objections. Only it seems the other side is not equally willing to do the same.

So rational discussions are to be on your terms only? Wow...and I thought I was an elitist. Fortunately, I do not suffer from hypocrisy.

I don't expect to be friends with people here - although courtesy is always appreciated - but I do find, and hope to find here, at least some people genuinely interested in truth and who think it important enough to fight for. It's the people who think truth unimportant that I don't want to have anything to do with, and I am honored to associate with people who do think it important, even if we disagree strongly enough to fight. I'd rather be friends with a Muslim warrior than a subjectivist professor. At least the Muslim knows that truth is worth fighting for, and even dying for.

What I have seen here, though, is that you automatically consider anyone who disagrees with Chesterson as being "wrong", regardless of their reasons for holding this position. I will be honest--I have never even heard of Chesterson, which highlights how unimportant he is.

I realize that my POV may be something of a shock, but I also try to show it to be reasonable, in the sense of using reason, rather in the sense of insisting on compromising on truth. I never intend personal offence; I do not apologize for what I think true, although may be guilty sometimes in delivery, and I apologize when that happens.

I cannot be shocked by someone's point of view. Similarly, I cannot be offended by someone unless I choose to be.

I agree that no one should ever apologize for defending what they think is true. I, myself, do this, but the manner in which I do this is a little different: what I know to be true is true and if someone disagrees with me then it isn't my problem if they choose to be incorrect.

Don't apologize for you delivery, either. Say things the way you say them and don't mince words.

[Fist and Faith]

This one modern priest has a million priests who have gone before him who ALL disagree with him, and only a few hundred - or even thousand at most - that actually agree. That makes his credentials rather worthless to me. They are credentials from an institution that he is now defying. Why on earth should I take someone seriously for his credentials when he is bent on contradicting the teachings of the institution that gave them to him?

Hmmm... Maybe for the same reason you might want us to take seriously someone who has gone through the public education system, become a part of that system, then defied that system?

Now you can tell me why that's different. You have discovered a greater truth about pub ed. We should all assume your wisdom on this is accurate, and, at the very least, read all about it. But Harpur shouldn't get the same consideration from you. Yes, you have put the shoe on the other foot! Harpur supporters are steamed at you for doing to them what they do to you regarding pub ed. You have the last laugh. Which is, of course, the very best reason for not reading Harpur!

[rdhopeca]

Harpur supporters are steamed at you for doing to them what they do to you regarding pub ed. You have the last laugh. Which is, of course, the very best reason for not reading Harpur!

Heck, I'm not even a supporter of Harpur, and I'm steamed!

Ok I'm going to stop now. It's really beneath me to pile on.

[drew]

This is directly from the book

Remember, our ultimate goal is a renewed spirituality focused upon and fuelled by the "Christ in you, the hope of glory" to quote St Paul. AS he says, we can do all things through the Christ consciousness, which "strengthens us within." Out bodies are indeed the temples of God, whose Holy Spirit Dwells in us always, no matter how we feel on any given day.

This is noted in his notes also, as coming from 1 Corinthians 3:16, written by St Paul,

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the spirit of God dwells in you

It is not an Anti-Christian book.

He also uses the Nicene creed to support his work.

Nicene Creed:

Who for us Men and for our salvation, came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man

I'm going to paraphrase the next page or so, but he says that this belief, being the core of Christianity, of God being incarnate in Man is the

central teaching of all ancient belief systems, everywhere

He goes on to say, that he researched many ancient cults, or Mystery Religions, who all teach that God is Within man. And the Allegory of this theme was taught by, the Sumerians, the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians. It is at the core of nearly all Pagan religions. (which I imagine is where he got the title)

I'm not saying the this book is the be-all an end-all of all Christian, or any religious literature. In fact, there are things that he talks about that go beyond my own personal beliefs, and his writing was not able to sway me.
but it is an interesting topic I thought. And he is not the first person to bring forth this idea...it is largely a collection of research done by the afore mentioned, Khun and Massey.

Since this is a Stephen R Donaldson fan forum, I'd like to put it another way:

In the End of The Power That Preserves, Thomas came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if the Land was real or not; it didn't matter if there was ever a Mhoram or an Andelain; what mattered is that he Loved the Land, and would fight for it.

This book is trying to convey that its not the Historical Jesus that is important. Its the Christ within us, that the Gospels try to open up for us.

Does that make any sense?

Does that really convey an Anti-Christianity attitude?

[Vraith]

This book is trying to convey that its not the Historical Jesus that is important. Its the Christ within us, that the Gospels try to open up for us.

Does that make any sense?

Does that really convey an Anti-Christianity attitude?

But [and as I said, I ain't got a dog in this fight] that is not how True christianity [in Rus's sense] can work.
It isn't necessarily anti-christian in attitude, but it is non-christian in fact.

Buddhism has had [and still does] precisely the same problem from the opposite direction. Buddha himself said he was NOT any sort of diety, just a teacher basically...yet there are numerous sects, and actual battles and killing have happened due to those who claim he was.
Buddhism is not Buddhism if you think Buddha was a literal Divine being different from what ordinary people CAN be if they act right. Any person can be a Buddha, potentially...this is the direction no-Christ christianity points.
On the contrary, Jesus IS a divine entity, is not something we can be/become no matter what we do. We can only be Jesus-like, imperfectly emulate, partake of a small portion. Not be. Even in heavenly spiritual perfection we will be less than Christ's/Gods.