psilojoe said:

A much more crucial question than "is Jesus God?" is the question "is Jesus historical?"

From the point of view of exoteric christianity, Jesus was a single historical man 2000 years ago
From the point of view of esoteric christianity, the historical individual Jesus never existed, and the stories about Jesus are all mythological metaphor (allegory) that describes the cognitive phenomenology of the intense psychedelic altered state of consciousness, in particular the experience of mystical death and rebirth (ego death).

Before you can meaningfully address the question of "is Jesus God?", it is first necessary to specify whether you are talking about the exoteric conception of Jesus, or the esoteric conception.

---

Quote:

Christ (n.) Look up Christ at Dictionary.com
    title given to Jesus of Nazareth, Old English crist (by 830, perhaps 675), from Latin Christus, from Greek khristos "the anointed" (translation of Hebrew mashiah; see messiah), noun use of verbal adjective of khriein "to rub, anoint" (see chrism). The Latin term drove out Old English Hæland "healer, savior," as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus.

---

Quote:

The “stumbling-block” (tiqla, “boltmushroom”) pun appears quite frequently. We know it best in the text in Matthew 16 about Peter and the “keys” of heaven. In it, Peter—the mushroom—is given the “key,” or “bolt” of paradise (v. 19), and is called a “stumbling-block” (v. 23).

The other part of that text about Peter being the “rock” foundation of the Church-on which the Roman Catholics place so much emphasis—is a double wordplay.

Not only is there the long-recognised pun on Peter-Petros in Greek and petra (rock) and pitra (mushroom)—but there is also a pun on the Latin cepa, one of a number of “onion” words which were used of the similarly formed bulbed mushroom. (The French still call certain mushrooms “cepe” or “ceps”—after the Latin.)

Even calling the name “satan” (“Get thee behind me…v. 23) is in line with the depa pun, since Setanion is another Latin name which also means onion or mushroom.

One of our common vegetables is chicory, a variant form of whose name in Greek is Korkoron. This last occurs also as a mushroom name, and Pliny’s description of “chicor” shows that whatever plant he is describing it is not the culinary root we know so well:

“Those who have anointed themselves with the juice of the whole plant, mixed with oil, become more popular and obtain their wishes more easily…so great are its health-giving properties that some call it Chreston…”

SOME ancient confusion through similarity in words has taken place here.

The juice was to be “rubbed on” or “anointed” (christos), and its properties were so beneficial that it was called Chreston (Greek khrestos, “good honest, health-bestowing,” etc.).

One is reminded of the form of the name by which non-Christians spoke of the object of the sect’s adoration – Chrestus.

Suetonius speaks of the emperor Claudius having to expel Jews from Rome because they were making a disturbance “at the instigation of Chrestus.”

What Pliny is describing then is the “Jesus Christ” mushroom whose consumption brought upon the first-century Christians the vilification and contempt of the Roman historians. source

---

psilojoe said:

A much more crucial question than "is Jesus God?" is the question "is Jesus historical?"

From the point of view of exoteric christianity, Jesus was a single historical man 2000 years ago
From the point of view of esoteric christianity, the historical individual Jesus never existed, and the stories about Jesus are all mythological metaphor (allegory) that describes the cognitive phenomenology of the intense psychedelic altered state of consciousness, in particular the experience of mystical death and rebirth (ego death).

Before you can meaningfully address the question of "is Jesus God?", it is first necessary to specify whether you are talking about the exoteric conception of Jesus, or the esoteric conception.

---

Quote:

Even the early Gnostics, with their docetic view of Jesus as God merely pretending to be human, acknowledged that there was a historical Jesus, even if they believed his humanity was merely an illusion.

---

zzripz said:

it all boils down to:

where is your historical evidence then?

---

Quote:

AND even if you were to preesent it -which I am betting you cannot. What has that got to do with the real meaning OF mythology?

---

Quote:

And can you please explain to me this sentence:

Quote:

Even the early Gnostics, with their docetic view of Jesus as God merely pretending to be human, acknowledged that there was a historical Jesus, even if they believed his humanity was merely an illusion.

---

---

zzripz said:

so do you believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was the only Son of God born of the Virgin Mary as it says so in the Bible?

---

Silversoul said:

zzripz said:

so do you believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was the only Son of God born of the Virgin Mary as it says so in the Bible?

---

There almost certainly was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Galilee, preached to the poor, and was crucified by the Romans.  The rest is a matter of faith, and there are some parts of the mythos that carry more significant importance for me than others.

---

Brian Jones said:

No

---

zzripz said:

Well I am not convinced there was an historical person called Jesus from Nazareth so we are going to have to agree to differ there. Yet you still strangely call it BOTH a myth and historical...?

---

Quote:

What parts of the mythos carry more significant importance for you than others?

---

Silversoul said:

Myth is not the opposite of reality.  As Joseph Campbell said, "All myths are true."  And the idea of mythologized reality ought to be familiar to anyone who's read history about heroes like Martin Luther King or Gandhi.  Of course the reality is always messier than the myth, but that doesn't take away the importance of the myth.

---

Quote:

What parts of the mythos carry more significant importance for you than others?

The basic mysteries of the Christian faith -- the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection -- all have special meaning for me.  I don't particularly care whether or not Jesus was literally born of a virgin, because I can conceive of the Incarnation occurring through normal procreation.  I do, however, venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary as the "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven."

---

absols said:

why cant you say what you mean simply and openly ?? how fulfilled is that ??? and which prophecy ???

---

zzripz said:

Can you accept that 'Jesus or Christos' may have meant a 'sacred mushroom' which when ingested gave people a spiritual experience?

---

Quote:

In 1970, the famed Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Marco Allegro published the following series of articles in the London Sunday Mirror, UK. This series of articles was to announce that Christianity is based on a fertility-mushroom/drug cult, and that Jesus was none other than the mushroom itself.

Mr. Allegro bases his claims on his researches into the oldest written language known to us—Sumerian “Cuneiform” text dating back to 3500 BC. From this ancient tongue he believes came the language of the Bible.

And so, he says, we no longer have to take the New Testament story at its face value. We can trace the proper names and words used in it back to their true and original meanings.

“It is this,” says Mr. Allegro, “That reveal the cult of the phallic mushroom.”

---