Iasion

Greetings all

I take the view that the original Jesus Christ was a spiritual or mythical being, not a historical person - this view grew over years of research into the problems of the Gospels and the other early Christian writings.

My case rests on several related issues, which all point to a Gnostic foundation of Christianity, with the Gospels and the Life of Jesus only becoming known in mid-late 2nd century. I ask that readers try to take in the whole site before arguing minor points - it is the inter-locking of several issues that makes it clear there was no original historical Jesus.


I invite readers to my main page, which argues for this Mythical Jesus in several related pages:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/</a>


The argument rests on several related issues, which are as follows :


***************
Historical Records :

There is no real evidence for Jesus Christ or the Gospel events, the supposed 'evidence' oft-cited by Christians is all suspect, vague, or too late.
I list in detail all the early writers here, showing the lack of evidence :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/No-History.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/No-History.html</a>

Numerous authors argue for a Mythical Jesus :
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html</a>
<a href="http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html</a>
<a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm</a>
<a href="http://biology.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html" target="_blank">http://biology.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html</a>
<a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm</a>


*********************
Pagan and mythical origins :

The elements of the Life of Jesus Christ can be found in previous pagan mythological figures such as Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysius. Notably, the Jesus story is prefigured in Iasius, a greek mythic figure who shares much with Jesus :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/iasion.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/iasion.html</a>

Various authors note the pagan origins of Christianity :
<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/</a>
<a href="http://www.acu.edu.au/Earlychr/runia.htm" target="_blank">http://www.acu.edu.au/Earlychr/runia.htm</a>
<a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm" target="_blank">http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm</a>


*************
Paul the Gnostic :

Paul wrote as a Gnostic and Initiate, his conception of Jesus Christ is Archetypal (somewhat like what we call a 'soul' or 'higher self' perhaps) and found indwelling in every human, where it is 'crucified' - we live its death, it lives again at our death :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Paul-Gnostic.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Paul-Gnostic.html</a>

Paul's Gnostic ideas fit naturally with the many other Gnostic writers in early Christianity - in fact Gnosticism seems to be the dominant early form of Christianity :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EsotericChristianity.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EsotericChristianity.html</a>

Paul's Gnostic views also fit the context of the contemporary spiritual seekers and writers of the day - such as the writings of Philo, The Dream of Scipio, The Book of Enoch, (last part of) On The Delay of God's Justice (De Sera Numina Vindicta), and of course the Gnostic scriptures which revere Paul as the Arch-Gnostic.

I have tried to explain the Gnostic world view here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ChristianTreeofLife.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ChristianTreeofLife.html</a>

The development from a Gnostic & Spiritual Christ to physical Jesus can be seen here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/FallofChrist.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/FallofChrist.html</a>

A useful page describing this Archetypal Christ is here:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/8676/files/paulgno.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/8676/files/paulgno.htm</a>

Earl Doherty's page on the missing references to a historical Jesus is very instructive:
<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/silintro.htm</a>


**************************
The Gospels and the Life of Jesus :

I use a text-searching program to analyse all the early writimgs of the Christians (NT and Fathers), 37 documents and 5 large later collections. I searched for references to the elements of the Life of Jesus, the events, names and places, as well as references to the Gospels and their authors. The results can be seen here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html</a>

This table overview clearly shows that the Gospels and the Life of Jesus are not known until the mid-late 2nd century (the early references to 'cross' and 'Christ crucified' are spiritual formulae).

I also provide a detailed Chronology of these early days, showing how early Christians showed NO real knowledge of a historical Jesus, an idea which grows from tiny references early 2nd century to become fully developed only mid-late 2nd century :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html</a>

The Gospels are complex documents, for which we have no originals, and which have been much changed over the years - some pages which discuss the Gospel problems are here:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3607/gop31nt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3607/gop31nt.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.ntcanon.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ntcanon.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html</a>
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html</a>


***************************
Supposed early Gospel references :

Certain supposed early references to the Gospels are often claimed to support an early Gospel theory.

Clement of Rome allegedly quotes the Gospels at the turn of the century - in fact, he quotes the OT and Paul hundreds of times and refers to those writings explicitly by name, but only gives 'the words of Jesus' for 2 sayings, similar but not exactly the same, to statements in the NT - in short, Clement is repeating Sayings of Jesus from the Oral tradition period:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ClementRome.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ClementRome.html</a>

Ignatius is the VERY FIRST writer to even mention a real historical Jesus - his writings are much edited, but it seems he uses the phrases 'born of Mare' and 'suffered under the pontos pilatos' (dense sea of the physical plane) - these are actually Gnostic terms, and Ignatius speaks at length of the 'mysteries of the Gospel' and on the 'flesh of Jesus' and the 'passion' in ways which are very STRANGE :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Ignatius.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Ignatius.html</a>

Other early documents such as Barnabas and the Didakhe, do not actually quote from or refer to Gospels - in fact they describe a Christian World view very different to the later one.

*********
Conclusion :

I came to this view after years of research and study. Originally I bought the whole Jesus story, but as I became more aware and educated I found the contradictions and problems with the story just in-surmountable. I read wider and deeper into the issues and found that the natural answer lay in Gnosticism - Paul belongs with the Gnostics, Christ is our higher self, an image of the God-head.
My site is still growing, I will be analysing the apocrypha and the Gnostic scriptures in more depth.

Quentin David Jones

Amos

Of course he was and that is why he told us to "follow him" and "drink of the cup he drank."

But so what? Must we deny his existence and not follow him?

We go wrong when we worship him instead of being like him.

Dark Jedi

That made sense, sort of.
You are saying that modern Cristianity is too caucht up in the worship of the Christ model to emulate it?

Amos

Yes very much so. Jesus should not be worshipped but he should be followed to the cross (if by "Christ model" you mean Jesus).

The beauty of the spiritual Jesus it that we can become like him, and in fact are identical with him if we are born-again after the manner of Joseph the Jew via the virgin birth method.

If we pray (our life should be our prayer), we should pray to Mary and ask her to make us more like Jesus because she is the one who pulls the strings from behind the scene. She might be eclectic but if ever she becomes the sweethart of our life she will be our sweetheart for life.

I can take you to the second beast of Rev.13 and that is exactly how modern Christians are . . . all the way to the evidence of it as described in Rev.14:6-12.

Prior to rebirth (when all is cold) the reverence for Jesus is acceptable but only until then.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Sojourner553

I don't think you can rule out the possibility that Jesus was a real historical person around whom myths were woven.

One can see parallels for this in the life of Buddha. A real person, the tenets of the original Buddha did not have a heaven or other divine elements.


I heard on another site (About.com) that GA Wells no longer holds that Jesus was not a mythical person. I realize that is hearsay...

I have seen arguments that I think make sense that the Josephus passages shows there was an original text (hostile to Christian dogma) on which were grafted Christian interpolations.

Look at Section I, Chapter 5 - Josephus at
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

and tell me what you think. Spin and I have already been all over this. Per Spin, once a text is tainted (by interpolation), it's virtually impossible to split out the accurate from the inaccurate, as this chapter attempts to do.

You may agree, but I thought you might find the other viewpoint of interest. By the way, the next chapter 6, adds more credence for a historical basis.

I think all your examples though are right on, in terms of the myths that were grafted on top of a historical personnage.

Sojourner

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Iasion,

an interesting post. I've never heard that pontius pilate was really the dense sea of physical being. Can you elaborate?

BTW, you should probably remove the reference to Blavatsky, who was a nut, on your Iason page.

Michael

Amos

But of course Jesus (or Jesus by another name), was a real person because the events described happen only to real people. Myth is real and myth is a description of a physical event because the entire body becomes transformed (new wine into new skins). The point is that the value of myth lies not in the historical account of it. Hence Buddha said "This is Buddha" just as the Catholic Church says "This is my Body."

When reference is made to a "spiritual event" the idea is that the story of his life as superhero can be ours as well.

Iasion

Greetinsg all,

thanks for your comments

Sojourner:
Really?
what makes you think Buddha was a real person?
I haven't looked into in detail, but it is my general understanding that there is also NO hard evidence for Buddha, the stories of his life date to a couple of centuries after his alleged times. Perhaps a reader here can tell us the details.

turtonm:
I will be posting separately on this issue of pontos piletas and mare and herut etc.

H.P. Blavatsky a nut?
Hmm, did you form that view by reading her writings, or by reading her critics?

HPB's writings are extensive, deep and complex, I don't think 'nut' is the right word. She stirred controversy, did some questionable things and was surrounded by some nutty people - but having read the Secret Doctrine and more, I think she was a very unusual person who knew a great deal. She had quite an effect on our ideas even today, being one of a group of people who brought the teachings of the east back into the west.

Quentin David Jones

Answerer

Well Iasion, there is evidences for existence of Buddha but not as great as the story in the sutras proclaimed. The Sangha community had a unbroken linkage from the time when Buddha died to the present days. So the sutras that were kept by them is likely to tell the actual existence of Buddha himself. Furthermore, the strict conquences of forgery or falsify of Dharma in other forms in Buddhism prevent the monks from inserting in their own 'words' into sutras.
I hope this could help.

Sojourner553

Was Mithra a real person? What about Zeus?

When did the Catholic Church "begin"? With Peter? Can you prove Peter was real?

I can find religious authorities older than the Catholic Church (Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoastrianism) are examples. Does that make them true?

Why not -- these are AUTHORITY bodies too. The only reason you follow the Catholics is highly likely because you were brought up as a child to unquestionably believe it. Did you believe in Santa as a child too?