Jesus Mythology With a Purpose

Hi, I am wanted to explore what I believe is the mythology of Jesus and the purpose behind that mythology.

I am assuming Jesus was a real person who lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem in a poor rural community. I believe this person was offended by the wealth of the synagogue and the rabbies, and had a big problem with authority.

I believe the mythology was Hellenized, making Christianity a very different religion from Judism. In the old testament God is jealous, revengeful, punishing, fearsome, and the God of David is most diffinately a war god, common to this period of time. This God is more like Zues, than the God of the New Testament. In the new testament Jesus is “the word”; this is the Greek concept of logos, reason, God. In the new testament God is loving and forgiving. But unfortunately, in the new testament the superstitious idea of demons from the east, gets added to the mythology, and there is a division of good and evil that doesn’t exist in the old testament. This addition of superstition becoming very problematic in Europe and to the repression of human thought, therefore, repression of science and truth, and the terrible witch hunts that lasted for 200 hundred years.

I believe the purpose behind the mythology was opposition to Rome, which was about as the US is today, making this a really good time to remember the mythology of Jesus.

Religion taken to an extreme is always bad.

I think that there is a lot of truth to your thesis. Christianity offered an alternative to Roman imperial theology and the cult of the emperor. The church was infected with superstition from which it is not yet free. The mythology of Jesus still has relevance today.

I am reading Founding Faith, and while a lot of really bad stuff was done by religiously motivated people, so were good things done, and I want to focus on the good, for the sake of becoming better informed. Jesus was a rebell, and his opposition against Rome did benefit the democracy of the US. The evanglist fought the hardest for separation of church and state, because it was lack of government that allowed them to exist and to experiement with social organization in their efforts to create a more perfect world. Religious people united in a fight against the king, to prevent the king from making his church the only recognized church, and forcing everyone to pay taxes to support the king’s church.

But as these varies religious groups defended their territory, they were brutally whipping those would not conform and delibately killing them on their 3rd offense. This was not a fight for religious freedom, but a fight for dominating power. Jews and Cahtolics were refused land, business opportunity, public office. This varied from colony to colony but it was just as brutal as the physcial punishments. May be it is premature for me to start this thread, because I am not fully clear about why some of these religious folks fought so hard for separation of church and state, but I know Jesus made several statements and I was hoping someone who knows the bible better than I do would give us some quotes and speak of the mythology that opposed Roman government control.

The book is about judgment. The order is therefore, perception determines conception, conception determines will.


Christs stay here was perceptual. He was to perform miricles for a purpose; as the fundamentals of reason is the say what you saw. The principles behind that can be learned by Lucid Dreaming. It was to be taken from man for a very long time, and would return at a specific time. It is here.

The second event, is conceptual; it is about mind.

The third event, does not involve a messanger, it involves the accomplishment of mankind himself, the eventual learning of judgment. It is about the evolution of human mental ability, and an introduction to . . . . well there is a very hold and very expansive universe.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden spoke twice. These are the two visitations. It is not about the end of the world, but the beginning of human sentience–a long and bloody history of man.

It is a story with a purpose.

A Jesus saying that is frequently cited as a proof text for separation of church and state is Matthew 22:21:
“Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” It’s hard for me to see how any NT teaching would lead to the principle of separation.

I think the principle of separation of church and state was largely a reaction to the European experience. European state religion resulted in persecution of religious minorities and religious wars. There was a desire not to repeat those mistakes among the framers of the constitution.

This paragraph is unclear to me, particularly the phrase I have emboldened. Would you care to elaborate?

I agree. I am curious and would also like a fuller explanation.

The problem of religious conflict didn’t stay in Europe, but in the colonies religious zeal lead to life endangering whippings, life endangering exiles, and intentional killing. Puritans carried Calvinism, the belief that a birth, some were born to go on to heaven and some were not. Then to keep their community pure, they got rid of those who were unfit for heaven. Puritans were very much like fantantic Muslims, destroying evil that is exterior to self to protect the community. The more extreme a religious group, the more important separation of church and state is. It Puritans had maintain dominance, there would be no liberty in the US.

Jesus opposed more than Rome. He also opposed the authority of rabbies, and said all the laws were not God’s laws, but their own man made laws. The importance of democracy is that everyone participates in the discovery of laws, and science is applied to understanding the laws of nature, which are then suppose to be the foundation for self government. In the New Testament we find principles agreeable to democracy.

Some find “principles agreeable to democracy” in the NT and some don’t. You and I may read it that way, but what about others who don’t?

If you read the NT literally what have you got? You don’t have a literal oppostion of a democratic system to dominant political systems of the time as you do in Athens.

I see a kind of egalitarianism in the teaching and practices of Jesus and the early church. But it would be an anarchronism to read modern liberal egalitarian values into the NT.

It seems to me that while church-state separation may not be incompatible with a particular reading of the NT it took more than that to generate it as a principle. It required reflection on the historical developments of Europe to illumnate the pitfalls of state religion.

That not all colonists and early Americans saw the wisdom of the separation principle is not surprising. Not everbody sees it today.

I like the title because it can be read two ways. After having read the thread, I read the title as meaning, “Jesus Mythology with the Purpose of upholding my personal political ideas and cultural sympathies”.

I think this has something to do with justifying the separation from England, and establishing individual authority, verses being subject to authority?

Uccisore, I couldn’t your links, because my computer is old and just couldn’t handle the load.

Why is weed illegal? It often breaks down cultural conditioning.

Jesus (THC) was born of Mary (Jane), a virgin. (Only female plants produce the THC, and if the male plant’s polen touches the female, she stops making THC).

Jesus is similar to Dionysus (Zeus’ son to a mortal virgin), the god of intoxication.

I don’t claim that Jesus simply refers to weed, just as I don’t claim Dionysus simply refers to wine or Shiva mushrooms (with his blue skin, like the bruise on a Pcilocybin mushroom, riding his white bull (cattle-shit-mushrooms)), I am saying that these images refer to several parts of man’s personality, the “divine spark” that can consciously evaluate one’s own creations and choose what to preserve and what to destroy.

These gods break down the hard-headed brick walls that block road to (spiritual) recovery.

I think I had a more political intention than a spiritual one. Here are a group of people deciding what it means to be a Christian and what is not Christian, and what stories they are putting together in a book to solidify what Christianity is all about. I was thinking what was their intent? What was the story they wanted to tell when the deified Jesus and defined what it means to be Christian?

I’m not sure if the first “Christians” focused much on the Christian Versus the NonChristian (depending on one’s current belief system, or way of living) as much as the being and potential of all people–having God, or the ability to consciously create, within them; the idea that one creates their own karma/habit through their thoughts and actions. I suppose I see it as:
(Zen buddhism minus emphases on meditation) + (Hinduism - Polytheism) + (Monotheism - Seperation from God).

Of course, I’m thinking of the Jesus teachings here more so than the intentions/beliefs of the initial “followers”, which I can’t assume with much confidence.

I can’t say for certain that they even thought Jesus was a real person, they may have just been rearranging past stories to fit their changing ideas. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus was just a kind of codeword for (a) certain drug(s) taken in ritual settings in what were, at that time, small cults. Large, Patriarchal systems like Rome do not want people taking anything that will present them with a reality that conflicts what they want people to believe (so they don’t cause trouble).