| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dan Harbor" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2004 08:09:10 AM |
| Object: |
Tom Harpur's |
A few years back The Jesus Seminar's <The Five Gospels> was
published. The book claimed that as little as 18% of the canonical
gospels (plus Thomas) was authentically the words of the historical
Jesus. Even my liberal Christian mind was jarred heavily by this
even though,
from childhood, I figured not everything in the gospel was accurate,
historical reporting. No way would Jesus be found dead saying those
many hell-fire pronouncements of whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
And now there are many rational and informed folk telling us
that the historical Jesus is not to be found, at all. Simply because
he never really existed as a real live flesh and blood person. This
will certainly rattle the cages of the conservatives. Maybe they will
soon be jumping up and down to the point of busting down that cage's
door.
Anyway, the ancient "heresy" gnosticism seems to have been
recently resurrected. (It was Vigorously, ruthlessly and maybe
murderously suppressed by the ancient Church during the 3rd and 4th
centuries). Yes, gnosticism has jumped back into the theological
ring with heavy horseshoes in its gloves. Gloves provided by
scholarly writings - <The Jesus Mysteries> by Freke and Gandy
(secular) and <The Pagan Christ> by Tom Harpur (Christian Priest and
Theologian). Both books suggest strongly that the historical Jesus
was never a flesh and blood real human but a myth - a mental construct
to express a profound spiritual truth. I.e., the Christ represents
God within each human being. God within and the hope of glory. A
complete wipe of the historical Jesus but a profound affirmation of
the
Christ principle in each human heart. Furthermore, this Christ
principle is not really totally anchored in the Jewish
religious milieu of the early first century. No, the Christ is at
the heart of most ancient cultures especially the Egyptians and, of
course, the Greek mystery religions.
(The Christians have always erroneously declared their religion
descended from heaven as something totally new without precendent in
that benighted ancient world. So, Harpur is right. This new
gnosticism will have its liberating and enlightening and correcting
aspects - God was always into self-revelation - persistently and long
before St.
Paul ever started his ramblings round the Empire. And as we all
know, despite covenants old and new and in between, God is not an
Isrealite, Protestant or Catholic. The Egyptians, Sumerians and
Greeks were always his chosen people. Any other claim, in light of
Jesus, historical or otherwise, is pure nationalistic or
ecclesiastical fervor stepping way over the line. And
diminishing the brains and heart of God. I.e. pure blasphemy)
So what are we to believe? I, personally, think there is a lot of
truth in the above 2 books, Jesus Mysteries and The Pagan Christ.
However, I do not want to totally erase the historical Jesus. That
Jesus clothed at every turn in the New Testament with myth. Some
Jewish and some pagan. I also think it easy to go from the Super Star
historical Jesus to a super-hyped
Christ per the gospels. But, it is no simple mathematical operation
to track back from a myth to the historical reality. Going from the
resurrected person at the right hand of God to that ancient teaching,
exorcising peasant is a big jump across a wide chasm. So much so if
you focus 100% on the myth, you end up with nothing historical. (A
recent Canadian Anglican review of Harpur's <The Pagan Christ> is
entitled "Christianity without Christ")
Christian thinkers now know that Jesus is far more than the
eschatological prophet that he was believed to be for fifty or more
years of the last century. Even though some great and smart people
had said so. Furthermore, the historical Jesus search teams for
hundreds of years now have always come up with a Jesus that strangely
matches the idea they had of Jesus when they started the search. Can
you look down that deep, dark well and NOT always see your own face??
Maybe, like St. Paul, all Christian should not give a hoot 'n
holler about the historical Jesus. I mean that apostle wrote and
wrote to Christian groups (the earliest New Testament writings) and
basically never gave as much as a
"how do you do" acknowledgement to the words, or deeds of Jesus
except, of course at he end the was hung on a cross by the Romans.
In any case, whether the search for the historical Jesus is a wild
goose
chase or not is, to my mind, something on which the jury is still out.
Meanwhile, as we await that elusive final verdict, I suggest we calm
our doubts and ANGER with this thought - The new gnosticism is
certainly not all wrong (St. Paul bafflingly was evidently a strong
one
himself). And the debate now heating up on this issue will surely
underscore the ancient Church's big mistake of caving into the masses
and excessively literalizing and historicising the words, person and
deeds of the real Jesus of Nazareth. For political reasons. The masses
would not buy a spiritual Christ principle as per the best minds of
ancient Greece and Egypt. They wanted a super-hyped maker of wine, a
calmer of wind and storm and a resusitated
flesh and blood resurrected Lord who eventually had to be rocketed
off, per Luke, to heaven.
So Harpur blames the masses. But there is enough guilt to go
round. I would include the leaders of the early Church too. They
thought themselves, no doubt, smarter than the ignorant masses. They
were better educated than the masses. In many cases, not smarter.
Still, the church leaders, say in AD 350, had all the levers at hand.
Who was there to tell themwhat's divine truth or not. They said, "We
have a neat and tidy (consistent) interpretation of the Christ event."
(It's naive but it's consistent!) "So listen to the shepherd of the
flock. Let's not get hung up on theological questions that tire even
us religous experts and will only confuse the masses". It was a
patriarchal society! So to be sure to listen to daddy. Father knows
best. It was not sophisticated 21st century thinking. It was a
blatant tradeoff of the Truth for power, control and wealth. But it
helped
get them through the night of the next 1000 years. Maybe not such a
bad idea after all. At least the ancient bishops thought so!
.
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Harpur's |
20 Apr 2004 06:38:36 AM |
|
|
"Dan Harbor" <dharbor2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e3eccc04.0404150509.14ffa11b@posting.google.com...
A few years back The Jesus Seminar's <The Five Gospels> was
published. The book claimed that as little as 18% of the canonical
gospels (plus Thomas) was authentically the words of the historical
Jesus. Even my liberal Christian mind was jarred heavily by this
even though,
from childhood, I figured not everything in the gospel was accurate,
historical reporting. No way would Jesus be found dead saying those
many hell-fire pronouncements of whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
And now there are many rational and informed folk telling us
that the historical Jesus is not to be found, at all. Simply because
he never really existed as a real live flesh and blood person.
The Marcionites had a similar belief..........
'Marcion taught that Jesus was not truly a part of this
material world. He did not have a flesh-and-blood body.
He was not actually born. He was not really human. He
only appeared to be a human with a material existance like
everyone else. In other words Marcion, like some Gnostic Christians,
was a docetist who taught that Jesus only "seemed" to have a fleshy body.'
-Erhman 'Lost Christianites' p105
One thing about Christians, they certainly knew (know!) how to 'Spin' a tale
!!
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
