Solo

There is a certain type of mentality on display in the NT and Jesus answers to that mentality, speaks for it, defends it, and defeats its critics. The "Jesus insider" that Mark and (after him Matthew and Luke to a degree) wrote to was someone experiencing psi phenomena typically as a bi-polar (or a paraphrenic) who was able to recover his/her faculties for periods of time and thus capable of reflection and larger speculation on their meaning. The figure of Jesus then became more-or-less an agreed symbol within this group, which acts as a therapist counsellor, and "a lightning rod" catching and deflecting criticism and scorn. When Jesus says, "pick up my cross and follow", he means to say: do not go there solo, you are not the first one experiencing the blues, radically altered consciousness and exalted sense of self. Follow Jesus in the spirit; following him will extricate you from your predicament; you will get better. So Jesus then becomes something of a Walter Mitty by proxy for this earliest group of followers. He has an answer for everything; he can shut up anyone; he can be killed but still lives; he is seen as crazy maniac but he is still the beloved son of God. He becomes a model of surviving mental illness. It started with Paul. Mark created the manual.

Jiri

gstafleu

Perhaps my cake-analogy wasn't one of the best. What I was trying to say is this. If you take the set of all persons with a high MHA value and compare that to the set of all people with a low value, the first set will have more mythical people in it. You are saying, I take it, that the MHA attribute is neutral in this respect: the distribution of MHA values (MHA is a rating on a scale, not a yes/no) is, in your view, not different between the groups of (known) mythical and non-mythical people. Intuitively that seems unlikely to me, but I guess we can only settle this by gathering some data.

Gerard Stafleu

gurugeorge

I'm kind of on your general wavelength with this Solo - this stuff is essentially and originally all about "visionary" experiences, something rationalists, almost by definition, don't have a lot of, but other kinds of people do. However, I'd disagree that it's necessarily some kind of mental disorder. Normal people can experience these kinds of things under the right circumstances - suggestion, groupthink, breathing practices, drugs, dietary cultivations, meditations, whatever the catalyst, can sort of trigger some kind of coherent process in the brain that produces visions that are extremely realistic (one might say "hyper-real" in a peculiar way, as if they had more of whatever subjective sense of "thinginess" real things normally trigger in us), like dreams had while waking, only without the usual incoherence of dreams, and with complete, seemingly coherent symbol systems being produced, and coherent language spoken by subjectively perceived entities.

It's not a thing that people cultivate much nowadays (although many "native" and Eastern religions do, and "occultists" in the West do), but I think the cultivation and seeking of visionary experience was typical of religion in those days, and is typical of religion in general, especially with respect to the genesis of religions. (Someone "talks with X", receives some body of wisdom, etc.)

mountainman

Thanks again for posting this and to
the author for his articulation and analyses.

The analyses provided by the author Robert Price I find sound.
This article is a modern summary of the field.
I hope to soon make it available on my website.

The theory that Constantine invented christianity is at the
moment without supporters, but not without support. For
this reason I have bolded the word "crankish" at the opeing
of the article. It does not seem to immediately make sense,
that christianity could have been created by Constantine.

The pseudo-history might not be forever lost behind the
stained glass curtain of holy myth. When the basilas went
up across the empire, there may yet be evidence to be found,
scientific and/or archeological, that christianity was a very
very new phenomenom in the fourth century.



Pete Brown
Did Constantine Create Christianity

The

dog-on

...but are we simply assuming that "Paul" referred to a literal vision? Why is it so difficult to believe that "Paul" believed exactly as he says he did. "Paul", or the originators before him, read scripture and through their careful study, discovered the hidden mystery. This mystery was always there, to be discovered, placed there by God. Hell, it's basically what every Christian I know believes . Why not take their word for it...

gurugeorge

Well he does say he received the gospel from the Lord, he says the gospel was revealed to him and it was according to Scripture; he talks about "third heaven" and all the rest of it, he also talks about Christian worship involving "prophecy", "faith", "tongues" and "knowledge" (which I take to be the beginnings of what developed into Gnostic cosmology-mongering), as if they're perfectly ordinary (for his milieu).

i.e. it's all what rationalists would call "woo woo" stuff.

The stretch seems to me to make this out to be either A) to do with a literal human being Jesus, or B) a composite of "poring over scriptures/having a big idea", as if they were all just a bunch of seminary geeks.

These were not just geeks, they were larger-than-life, extraordinarily passionate people, people who had ecstatic trances, visions, mystical experiences. They interpreted their visions in the light of Scripture and Scripture in the light of their visions.

Solo sees this too, but I think he goes to far in attributing it to insanity or mental instability in a strong sense. Quite ordinary, sane people can have these kinds of visions and experiences with a bit of dedication and practice.

dog-on

Unless Paul was into psychedelics, I think the "visionary" experience was something less than literal. I would entertain, however, that a fervent believer could understand such an occurrence as to relate to the "mystical" experience of discovering the hidden mystery in scripture. Does God actually speak to our current crop of resident fundies, or do they mistake their internal voice for that of the big G? Seems to me, "Paul" could have easily believed that his "revelation" came straight from the horses mouth, as it were.

gurugeorge

You don't need to take drugs to have these kinds of experiences. You can learn how to "astral travel" or OOBE in a few weeks. It just seems to be something the brain can do - some combination of the proprioceptive system and the model of the world the brain has, plus whatever it is that functions to create dreams and hallucinations, can create coherent visions that are a bit like lucid dreams, but had while awake and quite sober, in which you seem to be talking to entities who talk back to you, in "worlds" that have rich symbolic content. Almost anybody can do it, and people who are into this sort of stuff really ought to learn how to do it so they can get a better handle on what religion is actually all about.

i.e., when these people say they "talked to God", or "received" some wisdom from deity X or spirit Y they weren't joking or talking in metaphorical terms; it was as real-seeming an experience to them as talking to Mrs Smith down the street.

I think to really see something in contemporary times that's what Christianity was like in its early days, you have to think more New Age "channeling" and that class of "received text" - the older forms of spiritualism or spiritism are also comparable, also "occultism", Swedenborg, stuff like that; also the sorts of things that Tibetan Buddhists do (Tantra, not the sex type but the visualisation type), what Daoists do (the majority ritual magic kinds of Daoists in China, not the more Zen-like Daoist schools), native magic of all sorts, shamanism, etc.

Things like suggestion, hypnosis and con-artistry are also involved in all this, to be sure, but there's a huge class of religious stuff that is clearly by sincere people who were fairly intelligent. Since this kind of visionary experience certainly exists, and isn't all that hard to experience, and produces real-seeming (indeed peculiarly "hyper-real" - i.e. as if there's somehow more of the subjective "marker" you put on experiences that make you tag them as "real") experiences, then if you take a "principle of charity" in trying to explain what's going on, this type of experiential possibility fits the bill to a tee: i.e. if people claim they talked to God, then this is a way in which a very real-seeming experience of "talking to God" (and God talking back to you) can be produced, so it seems logical that this is the kind of thing they were talking about.

dog-on

...

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

I just can't get around the fact that Paul tells us exactly what his source is...

gurugeorge

Well I think you have to balance that against stuff like this:

[7] But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
[8] None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
[9] But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him,"
[10] God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
[11] For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
[12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
[13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

[6] Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
[7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
[8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
[9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
[10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
[11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. .........
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
[30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
[31] But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

[1] Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
[2] For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
[3] On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
[4] He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
[5] Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.
[6]

(Incidentally the following bit comes in a section in 2 Corinthians where Paul is "boasting" of his credentials as an apostole, and one of the most telling things in that section from the HJ/MJ point of view is that in his list of things the other apostles have that he either has or doesn't have, there's no mention of having known or been taught by the Lord himself in any sense of a human being. His boast is that he has the relevant Jewish credentials, and that he's suffered many hardships for the sake of his preachings, and then his next boast - remember this is in context of justifying himself as an apostle of the Lord - is about revelations as follows : )

[1] I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
[3] And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows --
[4] and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.
[5] On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.
[6] Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.
[7] And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
[8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;
[9] but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
[10] For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong. ....
[12] The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.


[1] Paul an apostle -- not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father


For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.

[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
...

[1] For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles --
[2] assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you,
[3] how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.
[4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
[5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
[6] that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
[7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which was given me by the working of his power.

[24] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
[25] of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
[26] the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.
[27] To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.


I don't doubt that these people would pore over the Scriptures with a fine tooth comb, and look for signs of the "Christ" in them, and educate others in their interpretation; but the actual "revelation" seems to be more of a visionary experience.

Take note particularly of "interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit". i.e., you have to already "possess the spirit" if you're to grok the texts the way they should be grokked.