![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticus1. This first point is a succinct reiteration of some other points I had made on the first list. Namely, that institutionalized (i.e. mainstream) Christianity has always been a sectarian affair with a rigid believer/nonbeliever binary Christian clergy have used over the many centuries to divine all of humanity into opposing "with us" vs. "against us" camps. Under this system there is zero middle ground, nor are people allowed to have any freedom of conscience; more specifically, freedom to form their own beliefs and opinions on metaphysical subject matter. Mainstream Christianity is supremely sectarian, and for me, compulsory belief and religious tribalism together is the ultimate deal-breaker. Full stop.
2. In my opinion and from the perspective of the great Western esoteric tradition, any attempt to claim a godform or archetype as a literal, real, historical person in anything resembling a matter-of-fact way (like the Gospel drama/myth does), is supremely vulgar act and a profaning of the great mysteries. Such an endeavor is what charlatans and mind-control cultists do in an opportunistic attempt to gain as many unthinking followers as possible. As I stated on my first list, I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth to have been a real historical person.
3. I do however believe that Jesus was created out of thin air by the New Testament compilers and editors (whomever they may have been), but that in the realm of ideas, Jesus is a very real entity. As an idea, Jesus Christ is composite godform; effectively a of mashup of Dionysus, Apollo, Mithras, Horus and very likely some Eastern inputs like Krishna and the Buddha. As a whole, Jesus Christ is a solar godform. On his name itself, Jesus Christ may in fact have been concocted out of an attempt to create a "Dionysus-Krishna" compound name, as we know "Ies" was the Phoenician name for Dionysus/Bacchus and adding the Greco-Roman os/us masculine proper noun suffix to the name would render "Iesus"..in other words, Jesus. The creations of composite gods for political purposes was nothing new at the time. Not long before Christianity came to be, the Macedonian rulers of Egypt combined the worship of Osiris and Apis into the compound god Serapis. They constituted this new cult for the Egyptian masses they ruled over at the time.
4. As we can see, the creators of the NT narrative were syncretists and they borrowed from every religious tradition they could get their hands on at the time in order to create their new chimera-savior god. Why should I or any independently-thinking person worship a fake god with a fake historical narrative attached to its legacy?
5. The clear answer is: I should not. And I'm under zero obligation to, since Christian institutions have lost so much power over the past several centuries that not a single Church anywhere in the Western world still has the power to force their dogma and demand for sectarian affiliation upon the general public. Why would I voluntarily throw my lot in with a crappy religion that I'm under no obligation whatsoever to affiliate with?
6. Having said all of this, now I can move on to some positive remarks regarding the archetypal aspects of the Jesus godform. But first I must say that in this day and age, we all have choice. As an archetype or ideal form, Jesus is a symbol of light, love, healing, altruism, spiritual rebirth, spiritual illumination and spiritual community-building. And on an ever higher metaphysical level, he personifies "the Logos" which is essentially the active, create and radiant aspect of creation. In essence, the Logos is the masculine aspect of Natural Law. In the Mazdean and Vedic systems, this is the fiery Asha and Rta, respectively. My point in bringing all this up to to put fort the idea that we can use any number of similar godforms to serve as a vessel for this holy and luminous archetype. Why not allow the people to choose between other solar/savior/healer figures like Apollo, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna, Balder, ect.? Different people can choose a different godform based on their own personality type, aesthetic preferences, or really whatever one resonates with them the most. And event the sacraments, art and ritualism of traditional Christianity has been recycled into whatever new cults arise. Let's face facts: the ritualism of Christianity was stolen for earlier systems anyway. So why not just repossess these elements?
7. Finally, I do recognize that many good people will wish to retain worship of Jesus, which of course is all fine and good. Jesus worship can be cleaned up and purged of its historical blemishes. But at the same time there will be many who don't want to bother with what they see as centuries of blood-soaked baggage and spiritually-enslaving dogma. For the latter group, they can simply adopt another solar godform.
2. In my opinion and from the perspective of the great Western esoteric tradition, any attempt to claim a godform or archetype as a literal, real, historical person in anything resembling a matter-of-fact way (like the Gospel drama/myth does), is supremely vulgar act and a profaning of the great mysteries. Such an endeavor is what charlatans and mind-control cultists do in an opportunistic attempt to gain as many unthinking followers as possible. As I stated on my first list, I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth to have been a real historical person.
3. I do however believe that Jesus was created out of thin air by the New Testament compilers and editors (whomever they may have been), but that in the realm of ideas, Jesus is a very real entity. As an idea, Jesus Christ is composite godform; effectively a of mashup of Dionysus, Apollo, Mithras, Horus and very likely some Eastern inputs like Krishna and the Buddha. As a whole, Jesus Christ is a solar godform. On his name itself, Jesus Christ may in fact have been concocted out of an attempt to create a "Dionysus-Krishna" compound name, as we know "Ies" was the Phoenician name for Dionysus/Bacchus and adding the Greco-Roman os/us masculine proper noun suffix to the name would render "Iesus"..in other words, Jesus. The creations of composite gods for political purposes was nothing new at the time. Not long before Christianity came to be, the Macedonian rulers of Egypt combined the worship of Osiris and Apis into the compound god Serapis. They constituted this new cult for the Egyptian masses they ruled over at the time.
4. As we can see, the creators of the NT narrative were syncretists and they borrowed from every religious tradition they could get their hands on at the time in order to create their new chimera-savior god. Why should I or any independently-thinking person worship a fake god with a fake historical narrative attached to its legacy?
5. The clear answer is: I should not. And I'm under zero obligation to, since Christian institutions have lost so much power over the past several centuries that not a single Church anywhere in the Western world still has the power to force their dogma and demand for sectarian affiliation upon the general public. Why would I voluntarily throw my lot in with a crappy religion that I'm under no obligation whatsoever to affiliate with?
6. Having said all of this, now I can move on to some positive remarks regarding the archetypal aspects of the Jesus godform. But first I must say that in this day and age, we all have choice. As an archetype or ideal form, Jesus is a symbol of light, love, healing, altruism, spiritual rebirth, spiritual illumination and spiritual community-building. And on an ever higher metaphysical level, he personifies "the Logos" which is essentially the active, create and radiant aspect of creation. In essence, the Logos is the masculine aspect of Natural Law. In the Mazdean and Vedic systems, this is the fiery Asha and Rta, respectively. My point in bringing all this up to to put fort the idea that we can use any number of similar godforms to serve as a vessel for this holy and luminous archetype. Why not allow the people to choose between other solar/savior/healer figures like Apollo, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna, Balder, ect.? Different people can choose a different godform based on their own personality type, aesthetic preferences, or really whatever one resonates with them the most. And event the sacraments, art and ritualism of traditional Christianity has been recycled into whatever new cults arise. Let's face facts: the ritualism of Christianity was stolen for earlier systems anyway. So why not just repossess these elements?
7. Finally, I do recognize that many good people will wish to retain worship of Jesus, which of course is all fine and good. Jesus worship can be cleaned up and purged of its historical blemishes. But at the same time there will be many who don't want to bother with what they see as centuries of blood-soaked baggage and spiritually-enslaving dogma. For the latter group, they can simply adopt another solar godform.
