Symbolic act of Christ
-
A few other pointers for those interested in this topic:
Jesus Neither God Nor Man by Earl Doherty. Doherty isn't a biblical scholar, but he is a qualified classicist and can read the texts in their original language. This is an update of his earlier book, The Jesus Puzzle, which caused a minor stir in academia when it was published. Of all positive mythicist takes, this is probably the one that's most highly respected academically (not amongst biblical scholars, of course, but some historians have taken note).
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Deconstructing Jesus and Jesus is Dead, by Robert M. Price. Price is an ex-fundie hardcore biblical scholar, so he's probably the most "heavyweight" mythicist around, he can duke it out with any traditional biblical scholar (and has done, there are some amusing seminar clips floating around).
There are also books by G.A. Wells (probably the first writer in this revived tradition of mythicism - he started writing about this back in the 60s, when nobody else was at that time - he's since retreated a little bit from a pure mythicist position, but he's still pretty close to full mythicism); and G.M. Murdockas above (who is actually a *she *- Acharya S is her other nom-de-plume) and a few others (watch out for Murdock - her earlier books are pretty poor, scholarship-wise, but she has improved, and her recent books have drawn praise from Robert Price, who absolutely slated one of her earlier books).
One other writer who's more a traditional biblical scholar, but is pretty close to mythicism so far as standard biblical scholarship goes, is a good writer per se, and also very good to read to get a "feel" for the field of biblical scholarship, is Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities is one of his best in this area).
And of course there's Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's books. They're great books to read for someone interested in Crowley, magick and mysticism generally; and I'd say they probably *do *have generally the right idea about what went on then (their ideas are *very *close to Crowley's and Motta's take), but their books have been heavily criticized for their (relatively) poor scholarship (not that they're absolutely crap scholars, but they haven't been as meticulous as they ought to have been, given the boldness of their claims).
-
Oops meant to include this in the previous post, but I got back to it too late to edit it. Doherty's earlier book, the Jesus Puzzle, is online more or less intact, plus loads of supplementary material arising from debates: here. I would say this is probably the best way someone here could get a handle on the whole thing without buying a book.
-
@gurugeorge said
"...and G.M. Murdockas above (who is actually a *she *- Acharya S is her other nom-de-plume) and a few others (watch out for Murdock - her earlier books are pretty poor, scholarship-wise, but she has improved, and her recent books have drawn praise from Robert Price, who absolutely slated one of her earlier books). "
I'm a big fan of DM Murdock. Her work introduced me to the astro-mythic aspect of religion and ignited an interest in occult symbolism. Yeah, Price wrote a scathing review of her first book, "The Christ Conspiracy". The most substantial criticism was that Mudock cited extremely controversial claims of parallels between Christ and other Gods without qualification (iirc). Much of her later work has investigated those claims in detail. I'd recommend "The Christ Conspiracy" as part of a larger body of work, but it could be misleading if read alone.
Frater LR, she does often frame things in terms of a conspiracy. That might turn some people off (the word 'conspiracy' is an allergen these days). I don't think Mudock totally discounts the influence of "natural synchretism" either, just that those natural currents were harnessed and brought to heel under the auspices of the Church. The political maneuvering didn't start at Nicea.
You mention how these stories are inwardly true; I'm guessing Murdock would say they are outwardly true as well, if seen through the lens of astrotheology for example. But if we're talking about literal history, it didn't happen.
Personally, I think the mythicist position has the potential to help reinvigorate Christianity.
-
" But if we're talking about literal history, it didn't happen."
There are a lot of stories that where added, but I think it's likely some of "it" happened. In that place and time, the Jews were in the business of birthing messiahs. The Romans were in the business of killing them. Usually, the messiahs that sprang up were warrior "kings." One, wasn't. The peaceful ones are the ones people pay attention to. Any angry teenager can use brute force and preach war.
Don't know why that part is so hard for some people to believe. "It" almost happened again with Gandhi, but by then, the "Empire" understood the power of a peaceful martyr and was more circumspect.
"It" did happen again with Martin Luther King Jr. in the U.S.
It's just that when "it" happened 2000 years ago in Judaism in the Middle East, it was religious in nature, and the archetype was already bursting forth into the consciousness of the people.
Eh... doesn't matter anyway. This is a different time and place.
-
@Frater LR said
"It's just that when "it" happened 2000 years ago in Judaism in the Middle East, it was religious in nature, and the archetype was already bursting forth into the consciousness of the people."
Here's a quote from Murdock's blog:
"Although many people believe evemerism to be a "reasonable" position, often expressing that, while they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, they do believe he was a "real person," the fact is that there simply exists no valid, scientific evidence for this "real person," such as any historical record or archaeological remains. Moreover, when the mythological layers are peeled, there remains no "historical" core to the onion. To paraphrase Massey, a composite of 20 people is no one."
-
Yeah, I got no evidence at all... at the end of the discussion, though, it comes down to whether you look backward in time and see spiritual revolutions being affected by secret collusions or by unusual individuals. If it happens today, it probably happened back then. If it doesn't happen today, it probably didn't happen back then. What still happens today is that individuals occasionally appear who revolutionize the status quo. What still happens today is that they get persecuted and at times assassinated for it.
There are many details from Jesus' life that are drawn from other stories. However, there also exists in the teachings of Jesus a unique and revolutionary divergence of spirit from the form of Judaism practiced in that time and location. Whether or not you believe the man Jesus existed, you absolutely have to admit that the spread of the so-called "teachings of Jesus," caused a theological revolution of the same magnitude as Buddha's revolution of Hinduism. [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]
Please feel free to cite an example, but in all my other studies, I have never seen any other historic report of a theological/spiritual revolution of such magnitude that did not center around one central figure and fountainhead of that new strain of thought. Spiritual revolutions don't happen in committee.
Since, in my opinion, the "complete collusion" hypothesis is the abnormality in the historical record, I'm the one asking for a record of anyone crying "Phony!" Christianity was a radical Jewish heresy! And in the Middle East, to this very day, they kill heretics. What archaeological evidence exists of any Jew reporting that the man Jesus never actually existed or was crucified? Where is the historic accusation of collusion on the part of the Jews? They're still around. They still have their records from those times... Where's the accusation?
In the absence of such evidence, I say stick with what normally happens. Revolutionaries appear and get crucified. Then they get sainted.
I don't know, man. That's just what happens. Seems simple to me.
-
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Nope.
Christ could have been based on a single man. Or he could have been based on a group of men. Perhaps he embodied some groups concept of the HGA. Perhaps Jesus was based on Philo or Apollonius. Or a melding of the two and/or others. Was Mithra a historical person? Was Hercules? It's all speculative.
I don't think it matters that much, except that a mythical Christ takes Christianity firmly out of the literal realm and into the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric.
-
@JNV33 said
"
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Nope.Christ could have been based on a single man. Or he could have been based on a group of men. Perhaps he embodied some groups concept of the HGA. Perhaps Jesus was based on Philo or Apollonius. Or a melding of the two and/or others. Was Mithra a historical person? Was Hercules? It's all speculative.
I don't think it matters that much, except that a mythical Christ takes Christianity firmly out of the literal realm and into the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric."
lol... awesome.
I think that the freedom provided by reducing Christ/Buddha completely to the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric realm is precisely that we completely lose any sense of the literal. It's not an allegory for anything real if no one lives it or *has ever *lived it. It's just empty ideas with no basis in reality.
But if a story exists as an analogy because spiritual people commonly experience these things as psycho-spiritual functions of the ego and the Self, I can't see why it's even mildly unlikely that at least one or two have lived out these transformational processes publicly. I think you have a real problem interpretting *any *significance to the life of Crowley if you don't allow for that to happen once in a while.
Next, you'll tell me there was no Shakespeare.
-
A beautiful little bit of irony...
I was having a smoke out in the brother-in-law's workshop, and I stumbled upon a spiral he sometimes writes in. He's a bit of an herbal mystic, you see. Couldn't help but read that first page...
On it were written three new "scenes" in which Jesus speaks to his disciples.
...lol...
Here's to the "Twelve" and the "One" that unifies and guides them all...!
-
@Frater LR said
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Actually even that is debatable (although the consensus is that he did, there's actually very little in the way of historical backing).
Another figure that's currently under some *severe *doubt in academia is Laozi.
There's even something fishy about Mohammed.
In order of academic dubitability, from what I can gather from my amateur researches I'd say it goes:
- Laozi (*extremely *dubious - the DDJ is seen as more like a collection of Late Neolithic "old folks' wisdom" from the Kingdom of Chu, that's been reworked a few times, than the work of one hand - if you look at it objectively, it really is a bit of a jumble, with very little coherence)
- Jesus (pretty doubtful)
- Buddha (meh, could go either way)
- Mohammed (fairly secure, but not entirely without doubt)
Now bear in mind, this is according to strict canons of historical authenticity, as used by contemporary historians. According to these canons, you don't take a cult's tales for granted, and you don't explain the existence of the cult, or the cult's main figurehead, solely on internal evidence, you look outside - to archaeological artefacts, to cross-referencing from other known historical writers who have a certain known percentage of accuracy wrt other historical facts, etc., etc. For example, Julius Caesar is secure because we have numerous writers from different arenas who are known to be historically reliable talking about him as a man, and we have archaeological artefacts, coins, etc., that reference him.
For Jesus, the simple fact is that there's a bit of a dilemma - if he was big enough to cause a stir, then his non-mention by *any *contemporary writer (and there were quite a few of them at the time whom we might have expected to have mentioned either a political revolutionary or a religious revolutionary - e.g. Seneca) is odd; otoh, if he was some obscure fellow who got blown up immediately after his life into some kind of god-man, that too is odd.
Again, looking at it another way, when you have an evident myth, like the myth of the god-man Jesus as we have it, euhemerism is NOT necessarily the default position (i.e. that he was a real person whose story got blown out of all proportion). It has only been the default position because of a sort of half-life of Christian influence, and because biblical scholars (who are, understandably, most of them Christian) just think that way naturally.
But things are changing - just as he was towards the end of the 19th century, he's coming under the scrutiny of real historians (or, more charitably, historians who are secular and unconnected with the Christian faith) who previously might have taken for granted that the requisite donkey-work had been done by biblical scholars (which it actually hasn't). The previous burst of mythicism was interrupted by WW1, and then the fundies circled the wagons. The current burst of mythicist activity doesn't look like it's going to abate any time soon, and it's getting taken more and more seriously in academia (and generally, the standards of scholarship in biblical studies are coming under stricter scrutiny too).
-
Yeah, I know. For me, it's not so much about historical evidence. It's more about probability and the appearance of geniuses.
So many people need to free themselves from the damnable chains of contemporary Christianity. They have my blessing. May they free themselves...! I agree with the proposition that without any more objective historical or archaeological evidence, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a completely debatable point, and is in no way binding on anyone anywhere, here or in any hereafter they may imagine.
But beyond all the debate and the struggling to be free of an ingrained way of thinking... I just picture a Ghandi in the Middle East instead of in India, or an MLK Jr. in in the Middle East instead of in America, or even a Crowley in the Middle East instead of in England. It's easy to picture. And the story ends the same way. Crowley was the only one not hauled before the court for his actions...
I just like the possibility. I like to leave it open-ended. I like that it makes some people uncomfortable. I like that it allows some people a method of transitioning from older beliefs. I like the idea that The Beloved lived that response to Love as well. I like that the door of certainty can't be closed on the matter. I like that it still forces people to struggle with what it might mean for the Logos to "incarnate" in a specific time, space, and culture - and how it can appear completely opposed to itself and yet not be - given the specific time, space, and culture.
For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.
Why not...?
-
Oh sure, there was definitely (at least!) one genius involved - but if the mythicist case is correct, that religious genius was "Paul" (who may or may not have been the same as "Simon Magus"), and "Jesus Christ" was his HGA, or at the very least an entity seen and heard by "Paul", and spoken to, in astral vision.
IOW, in place of a *hypothesized *historical entity (the real human being hypothesized to be at the root of the prima facie "Jesus" myth, the god-man myth), you have an *actual *historical person, a religious genius (which you can see there are flashes of in "Paul" writings, even though they are also heavily Catholicized), someone who actually did kick-start the religion (spread it through various parts of the world at that time).
Again, IOW, if nothing can be identified as uniquely the words of a human Jesus, if it all melts away as midrash, Cynic and Stoic maxims, etc., etc., then at least we *do *have the words of this "Paul" fellow, and it's pretty clear from the "Pauline" writings, that what they practiced in their congregatations was spirit vision, prophecy, tongues, etc., etc. - pukka stuff.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Foolster said
"I don't see thelema proper catching on, ever. It's too "dungeons and dragons" for the typical laymen. Also It comes across as anti-thetical to the message or major religions so it only appeals to the few who can dig deep and see the golden path Liber AL is advocating."It's only D&D because of some elements of its contemporary culture. That, of course, would have to change, i.e., a different element of Thelemic culture (currently more quiet) needs to be its mainstream face.
And it is the very fact that it is antithetical to the message of historic major religions is the whole point. It represents a quantum leap in social perspective. That quantum leap is the important issue in the long run, not its religious forms.
I do think, though, that the mainstreaming of Thelema into human society over the next few centuries will not necessarily include any mention of either Aleister Crowley or The Book of the Law. It is the underlying ideas that are inseminating mass consciousness. For decades, they've been emerging with increasing prominence, and are active elements of the cultural wars currently occurring (both the quiet ones and the noisy ones).
"I was speaking of creating something more tangential and dresses itself in the guise of Islam, Judaism and xianity, while being more explicit in the precepts laid out in AL, armed with the fire of gnosis."
I have said for decades that if Christianity caught on to the archetypal change and placed the emphasis primarily on the Christ Child as the path of new promise, they could buy an extra few centuries for themselves as the dominant paradigm."
I want to thank the original poster for starting this talk. A lot of my own concerns and frustrations that I was worried to address to a Thelemic crowd were brought up. I'm a relatively new Thelemite. I've followed the GD systems of magick prior, and have been a member of a variety of religions. I only mention that to give a bit of background and where i'm coming from.
I'll be honest, I feel like I think Foolster is saying (Forgive me if I misrepresent), that Thelema (as he put it) is too "Dungeons and Dragons" but as I would say - it's fringe. I consider myself a Thelemite, but I'm comfortable with being Fringe. I'm pretty "average" except when it comes to spirituality. But one thing I see time and time again, is pockets of Thelemites who want to express Thelema to the mass of humanity. To get more people interested in it... and I just can't see how that's possible. Foolster is hitting it on the head... even if all the rituals were done away... the robes removed... ritual tools and "wepaons" taken away... and we made it very conforming to where people are at today (I say this as I think few people today give any interest in the Egyptian Mythos)... even then you have to interpret everything. People will read The Book of the Law and fixate on some real bloody, agressive and harsh words and freak out. These same people are revolted by modern religion for it's same use of harshness in the Bible, Quran, etc.
Even if you get past all the ritual trappings, you have the Holy Books of Thelema that offer yet another "us vs. them" mentality - which is expressed in Thelema quite often (and very clearly in The Book of the Law, chapter III) Then if you can get someone past the Holy Books and help them understand them not on their face value but on some deeper meaning... you run into Crowley's own character. His love of offending and shocking people... throwing out casual comments of "child sacrifice" and whatnot to incite people. While he never meant real child sacrifice... it's enough to block most from going further... they'll just think "what nutters are these?" If you could get someone past that... then you have the common conception that Drugs, narcotics, and other taboo's are embraced in Thelema. Crowley advises Jane Wolfe (in her diaries) to try a bit of Cocain to help her concentrate.... Beyond that, we see Crowley advising some of his female students to take up prostitution at local cat houses in italy.
The very fact the prostitute, drugs, etc. are embraced - will turn off most of the rest of humanity. At the same time it will attract the criminal elements of society. While the term whore has some positive interpretation in a spiritualized sense in thelema, in the real sense it refers to a person living in fear... living with STD's... being abused... being treated violently... and not being a happy well adjusted person. Who here would say "I want my kid to grow up addicted to heroin and be a hooker." Probably none of us...
Get past all that... and you have the beauty of Thelema.
But how many people will do that? well out of the world's population... evidently about 4,000 people. that's us.
Someone here mentioned that Christianity had time to "cook" and Grow... and Thelema hasn't had enough time... I don't believe it. There have been countless religions that are less then 60 years old, who are over 10x larger then Thelema. I'll name one: Scientology. No matter one's views on it... it started well after Crowley took control of the OTO, and has 10x the membership body. There are new religions every day... and they grow fast. One thing they have in common is this:
No embrace of self destructive behavior (or so it will appear to the new converts)
Self Improvement is often bantered about
Love of othersWhether new religions succeed at those 3 points above isn't the point - what's the point is, that is what people are looking for. That's what I'm looking for. That's why I'm interested in Thelema... but I had to look over a lot of crap to get where I am. I sat in countless discussions with "normal" thelemites, to get over many of my fears. But I don't consider myself "normal" or a normal representation of humanity. The normal person wouldn't get past the Holy Books...
When I was a GD magickian, I used to be nervous about going to OTO events... why? because the OTO and other thelemic groups are one of the few spiritual groups around that have to stress in writing, "Please do not bring any illegal narcotics/drugs with you..." or "please refrain from getting high before the event." I mean, come on.... wtf. That's a clear sign of a problem. They might as well post, "Please... please, do not harm or otherwise maim guests at our events." that's how that comes across to an outsider who's not drug friendly.
You all are talking about the incerneration of the old aeon... i'm thinking we need to incinerate all the stuff that is keeping Thelema back - All that self destructive stuff - drug addiction for one.
I think the only real way to even consider an idea of growing the principals of Thelema globally is to call it something else, distance it from Crowley and yet teach it's core principals.
Sorry if what I wrote comes off as harsh, it's me trying to get my feelings out. I've felt this way for several years and this post seemed to address some of what I was thinking myself. To end this reply on a positive note... I've read the writings of Soror Meral... she's great. she's exactly what I would want to be like some day. Her views are calm... collected... and dare i say "normal." She's well grounded.
Maybe you're right James... I just can't see it. There's so much that has to change, ou might as well just start over and call it something new.
-
@JPF said
"
"That is, whatever the potential (and actuality!) of these symbols and ideas in the beginning, it seems to me that their worship now, today, 2,000 years later is black magick. "Having grown up in a strict Fundamanetalist family, I can attest to this fact. Christianity today has progressed far from the "love thy neighbor" ideal espoused by Jesus and his disciples. The majority of Christians are bound to their "faith" by fear and convention.
"Does this change how any of you see Xianity? You see, I believe to destroy Xianity we must do so from the inside and that will take a radical new interpretation that chops at the knees of the current establishment, paving the way for something more suitable."
I'm not sure any "radical new interpretation" will be sufficient to destroy Christianity. Most Christians, when approached with an intitiated interpretation of the Gospel, respond with the same fear and convention that drove them to a literal interpretation in the first place."
There's a lot of talk in Thelemic circles of "destroying" Christianity or "fighting it." A lot of feelings of Thelemites are very antagonistic to Christianity. I get the vibe... I was raised by a minister.... and my family has had a hard time embracing my own spiritual life as a Buddhist, then pagan, then Scientologist, then finally a Thelemite... in fact they dont know the last 3.
Last they heard I was a Buddhist.But all this talk of "destroying" or "fighting" Christianity... i think is misplaced.
I'm thinking of Liber LXV and I'm going to quote a bit of Chapter II:
Behold! the Abyss of the Great Deep. Therein is a mighty dolphin, lashing his sides with the force of the waves.
There is also an harper of gold, playing infinite tunes.
Then the dolphin delighted therein, and put off his body, and became a bird.
The harper also laid aside his harp, and played infinite tunes upon the Pan-pipe.
Then the bird desired exceedingly this bliss, and laying down its wings became a faun of the forest.
The harper also laid down his Pan-pipe, and with the human voice sang his infinite tunes.
Then the faun was enraptured, and followed far; at last the harper was silent, and the faun became Pan in the midst of the primal forest of Eternity.
Thou canst not charm the dolphin with silence, O my prophet!To me, and frankly I am aware I'm a dolt, but to me it's telling that to get the dolphin to become pan, you don't start off with the last phase... silence. Rather you start off with something the dolphin likes... then the dolphin changes... and you give it a taste of something the bird likes... and so on, till you reach the end result.
In other words - it sounds like to me, if you want to change Christianity or "end it" you would actually start with talking to said membership in a way they understand and respect and like.
What I see a lot of online in various forums around, is this: "Yo! Christians in this forum are stupid. their god never existed. Jesus was a myth! ha!" It's as bad as the Christian going into a Hindu forum shouting how they can only be saved by the grace of Jesus.
Why not start with talking to the Christian with the proverbial harp... and then progress from there? Why fight it to the last state of silence? You'll never get there.
just my two cents.
-
As Hitler said, "The reason men hate new moons is either their inferiority or evil intent. A genuinely blissful renovation builds upon the place the last foundation ends. It isn't ashamed to use existing truths. The new building stones should not wreck the old building, but rather take away unsuitable stuff which was badly fitted and then add on to that spot." -Mein Kampf:358
We will do the same with the three monotheisms. The media-hub of the world is a perfect channel of delivery. Imagine millions of people being introduced to this new doctrine of Christ on the big screen; the heretic magician fool who laughed at the folly of his killers as he zipped through history witnessing the jihad his death would unleash. His archetype cannot be polluted by opinion and his return in spirit as the crowned and conquering is the next stage of consciousness evolution for "out of his mouth doth proceed a sharp sword, that with it he may smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and he doth tread the press of the wine of the wrath and the anger of God the Almighty."
We are at work.
999