BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Magicians for Jesus!

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
grant
20:18 / 06.01.03
Here, two links you might find valuable:

The Wiccan Vicar.

Witches from a coven in England will be performing rituals under the watchful eye of an invited guest - a Church of England priest.

The Rev Richard Thomas has been given the blessing of his bishop to attend pagan rituals and plans to meet witches to research a thesis on Wicca - modern pagan witchcraft.


and Jesus will get you HIGH.

Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture... Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".
 
 
penitentvandal
20:31 / 06.01.03
'Not too many, eh?' What are ya sayin' - you reckon we could take 'em?

Seriously, tho', 'The Quantum Jesus Project' has a fantastic ring to it. Sounds miles better than 'Magicians for Jesus' and it means everyone can get involved. Faaaaan-tastic...

Johnny O - I think you're right about the synoptic gospels being the most consistent. That's why the council of Nicea chose those, instead of the crazier ones. You have to get the story straight before you hit the media, you know...

...and I'm sorry if I come across as being irritatingly sarky and denigrating your personal faith, coz I certainly don't want to. Most of what you say in your post re. the differences between Jesus' ideas and the institution of christianity is on the money, and if it works for you and helps you do some genuine good in the world then, y'know, fair enough.

I disagree with you on the notion that we should allow people to use the idea of 'Jesus the Redeemer' as a crutch, though. I feel that as we gain ever more power over our environment (the elements, the human genome, even cloning, perhaps) then it behoves us to stand on our own two feet and stop bowing and scraping at the feet of some 'godly' figure. We need to cast away our crutches as a culture, whatever they may be. We're strong enough to walk without them, really - we just need to be reminded.

You guys think we're going to be the ones to put a stop to it?

Maybe not, but what's wrong with high expectations? If we fail we do no worse than every generation before us. If we succeed, we do much better. And the difficulty of doing something right is no reason to decline the reponsibility of doing it, is it?
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
06:42 / 07.01.03
The Quantum Jesus Project

I’m going to head back to the bare bones of the discussion for a moment here. Essentially what has been proposed is that we attempt to change the surrounding ideas that go along with the name Jesus or some variant of said name that is attached to a possibly existing historical personage.

Oh a note, particularly for Johnny O or anyone else who might feel their faith is being manhandled a bit. I do not intend any of my postings to this discussion as put on. On the other hand what I am working with what I’ll term an As-If space. I am operating as if there may or may not ever have been a real Jesus, as if we could never know the truth about Jesus, as if the milieu surrounding Jesus is wrong or at least not the only valid interpretation and, lastly, as if changing the interpretation of Jesus could be beneficent or desirable. Consider what I say as a game played as if those propositions were true. If you want to play by those rules you will perhaps get the most out of the conversation. Neither you nor I necessarily have to hold those beliefs in real life.

We want to re-brand Jesus.

This process would have more or less five parts:
1. Identify what we find bad about the current memeplex.
2. Identify what we find as good about the current memeplex.
3. Decide what we want to add from outside to the memeplex.
4. Put it together.
5. Figure out how to package the new idea-set in order to spread it.

The following are things that I (given my game-rules) find problematic with the current ideas around Jesus/Yeshua. For simplicity I am going to use the name Jesus from this point forward. Jesus’ connection to and interaction with scripture is definitely difficult. To what degree should Jesus be linked to currently orthodox scripture, to what degree should he be separated from it or to what degree should he be linked to other scriptures such as the Gnostic Gospels? In this context, I believe that Jesus needs to be divorced from most of the Old Testament or at least removed from a literal interpretation of most of it. Perhaps the only scripture left to Jesus should be the Parables attributed to him, perhaps not even them. Another thing that I particularly find inappropriate is the current acceptance of usury by the people who hold the Jesus meme. Oh and I agree with the Jesus the Redeemer as a crutch needing to go, VV. So if anyone wants to add or refine anything that they feel is inappropriately attached to Jesus or that they feel needs excising from the memeplex, have a go. Also any discussion about how to relate the concept of and content of scripture to Jesus is, in my opinion, vital to the discussion.

There are many things good, beneficial or useful which are parts of the Jesus myth (for lack of synonyms for memplex) but I do not want to go into all of them now. I’ll let others flesh out some of the keepers before I come back to this topic.

One of the main things already expressed, as needing adding to Jesus is the acceptance of multiple interpretations or a fuzzy and partially indeterminate model, a la Quantum science and hence the title The Quantum Jesus Project. Anything else that needs to go here anyone?

I’ll come back to these topics again when I think of more but there is no point in going further until the first three steps in the process is fleshed out. The last two can only be completed later. Sorry about the length and the cutting short of the end ideas but I figure someone else might want a turn now.
 
 
Yagg
15:23 / 07.01.03
In this context, I believe that Jesus needs to be divorced from most of the Old Testament or at least removed from a literal interpretation of most of it. Perhaps the only scripture left to Jesus should be the Parables attributed to him, perhaps not even them.

First of all, I like the idea of adopting N.E. Coyote's game-rules for this discussion. If we're talking Quantum Jesus, where else is he going to exist but in "As-if space?"

The Old Testament is an important context to understanding where Yeshua was coming from, but not necessarily where he was going. As someone already said, he often expressed himself in terms of "The Law says X, but I say Y." Also, it was used in some of the Gospels to legitimize his position as descendant of the House of David and the Jewish Messiah. And of course it's cultural background, but it's far from being the only piece of writing and/or history to form a cultural background for the time in which Yeshua lived. So I say we move the OT back into the background.

(Although the Gnostic interpretation of the Garden of Eden story is a lot of fun!)

Now the New Testament and non-canonical writings from that period are a whole different kettle of fish. (And/or loaves.) Do we look for points of agreement like the parables and the crucifixion story, at least as a starting point for what we're doing here? This is where the fuzziness sets in. Three of the four "official" gospels have parables, John pretty much dispenses with them. Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy.
 
 
penitentvandal
19:16 / 07.01.03
I actually quite like John, though - it's the way Jesus keeps going off on one and spouting mysticism to his disciples.

And he effectively calls some woman a whore at one point, and gets away with it. In a totally casual way. Which I find quite amusing.
 
 
Kobol Strom
19:49 / 07.01.03
I like to think of Jesus as the first stand up comedian.I see the Bible being compiled by a bunch of poe faced critics who edited out all the profanity in the interests of mass consumption.Thus you have the situation where there are no punchlines left and all there is is a very clever take on a situation followed by a moral.
-Which would explain the parable about the Donkey and the Piano...
Seriously,why would so many people follow him about.If he wasn't so funny,then there must have been Miracles.Its the only evidence I can think of that could recontextualise Jesus.'Jesus -Live on Stage,for one night only:Bread and wine to follow'
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
22:11 / 07.01.03
Jesus the Philosopher
Jesus the Comedian
Jesus the Magician

So far we have three models that people seem to like...

Jesus the Redeemer

And one most of respondents don't seem to like.
 
 
Hobo Humping Slobo-babe
22:16 / 07.01.03
Jesus the Hippie
Jesus the...

Hey, aren't we doing the same thing the "church" did? Jesus was a magician/comedian/philosopher. Most tales are taken out of context. If you read the gospels, (John is a good one.) you will see what I mean.

The problem with religon is that it is an opporunity for thelazy masses to have someone read the bible to them.Mass hypnosis.
 
 
Seth
23:10 / 07.01.03
Jesus the Redeemer is the personification of the Philosophers Stone, the Transformer - the anthropomorphic personification of Jung's Individuation Process. Therefore acceptable.

And I'll have less sweeping statements about religion, thank you. More thought, fewer generalisations, please.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:12 / 08.01.03
Let's get one thing straight: I am not a Christian. You are not degrading my personal beliefs, because I'm pretty sure I have none. I have no emotional investment in Christianity.

I am operating as if there may or may not ever have been a real Jesus, as if we could never know the truth about Jesus, as if the milieu surrounding Jesus is wrong or at least not the only valid interpretation and, lastly, as if changing the interpretation of Jesus could be beneficent or desirable. Consider what I say as a game played as if those propositions were true.

Good. Sounds fun. I wholly believe that there is no single "valid" interpretation of Christ the Figure.

I disagree with you on the notion that we should allow people to use the idea of 'Jesus the Redeemer' as a crutch, though.

"Allow"? Are we some sort of authority?

At any rate, the point of a crutch is to help one move around while an appendage heals. Once it is healed, the crutch can be thrown out. Only the terminally lame need a crutch forever. But I doubt that any of us are in any posistion to make the decision to throw it away for other people.

I feel that as we gain ever more power over our environment (the elements, the human genome, even cloning, perhaps) then it behoves us to stand on our own two feet and stop bowing and scraping at the feet of some 'godly' figure.

Who is this "we"? The world? The world doesn't have power over the elements or the human genome. Most of that power is in the hands of the wealthy, and very few of them bow and scrape to any god.

We need to cast away our crutches as a culture, whatever they may be.

Culture is a crutch.

We're strong enough to walk without them, really - we just need to be reminded.

Again, who is "we"? And who are you to decide who is spiritually healthy enough to walk without any? Are you a doctor of the soul? Alright, bad question. You very well could be. But I doubt you've had a chance to examine enough people to make these kinds of decisions for the entire Christian world. I seriously doubt anyone here is, given the rather shoddy "research" of Christianity present in this thread.

And he effectively calls some woman a whore at one point, and gets away with it. In a totally casual way. Which I find quite amusing.

I don't remember that, but I remember Him calling a woman a dog in a sartlingly casual way. Which was amusing, I'll admit.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:39 / 08.01.03
I also really like the Gospel of John. It's probably my favorite of all the gospels, "official" or not. It's got one of my favorite stories of Jesus at the end:

So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 21:16
He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.
21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Aww! Christ asking Peter "do you love me?". Note also that Peter was hurt by Christ asking him three times. Was he upset that Christ had to ask three times to really believe him? Or was it a painful reminder of Peter's three denials of Christ?

Anyway, call him whatever you want; there is no clear picture of what He was. But there is a pretty clear picture of what He was about: Love. This is my conclusion after an ass-load of research (and I mean a great deal of research here, fellas). If you want to play a game where you think of new, exciting interpretations of Christ and release them on the public, that's cool. I'd love to watch. Just don't assume that there is little to no evidence as to what His message was. There is quite a bit of it. Some in the Bible, some not. Again, this is not a belief of mine. This is the idea that the evidence points to. Just because the Church says so as well doesn't necessarily make it a lie or misconception or misinterpretation of ancient, mystical ideas.
 
 
penitentvandal
17:21 / 08.01.03
"Allow"? Are we some sort of authority?

Ouch! Yes, good point...

the point of a crutch is to help one move around while an appendage heals. Once it is healed, the crutch can be thrown out.

Which is the point I think we've reached. 'We' defined here as people living in technologically advanced, information-rich societies concentrated mostly in the developed world.

Who is this "we"? The world? The world doesn't have power over the elements or the human genome. Most of that power is in the hands of the wealthy, and very few of them bow and scrape to any god.

By 'elements' I mean those elements defined in the periodic table, to avoid any confusion. Until the early twentieth century we hadn't even caalogued all the existing physical elements. During that century we not only accomplished that goal, we were able to create new ones, as well: plutonium, etc. This advancement brought with it a new set of ethical challenges. Likewise, as our knowledge of genetics has increased, we find ourselves facing new ethical problems, as in the cloning panic. 'We' defined here largely as 'scientists operating for the most part in technologically advanced, information-rich societies located mostly in the developed world', save for the last instance, where it should be taken to mean all citizens of said countries.

And how do you know, with absolute certainty, the religious convictions of these amorphous entities you refer to only as 'the wealthy'? Are you one of them? Are you privy to their beliefs in some way the rest of us aren't? Perhaps you are. But I suspect you're assuming that only people who aren't wealthy can follow an ethical system, while the wealthy are all a bunch of amoral, self-interested psychopaths intent only on fulfilling their own will to power. It is entirely possible for someone to be wealthy, to commit acts you or I would consider wrong, and yet to believe in some form of religious or ethical system. Such beliefs may be inconsistent, illogical, and possibly deluded, but they may still be strongly held.

It is of course also entirely possible for people to be wealthy and cheerfully amoral. But if we assume that all 'the wealthy' are amoral, we're very close to adopting a very simple, conspiratorial view of society, where the rich eternally endeavour to maintain their power at all costs, telling the public any lie they have to to maintain it, while admitting their true purposes to some 'inner circle' of the elite. In my view, it's more likely that, even if 'the wealthy' were to act in this manner, most of them would do so because they were convinced they had proper ethical motives for doing so, however deluded those motives may be.

I'm sorry to harp on so much about this, but it seems to me your broad generalisation of 'the wealthy' and their motives is as unhelpful as the broad generalisations of 'Christianity' that have been flying around this thread. Probably it's more of a blind spot on your part than anything deliberate - like my assumption that I, and we on this board, are in some exalted position where we can 'allow' people freedoms through some fiat.

Are you a doctor of the soul?

No. I don't have my doctorate yet...

I doubt you've had a chance to examine enough people to make these kinds of decisions for the entire Christian world

As do I. This is a consequence of me allowing my rhetorical habits to carry me away again, really. In terms of what we should be doing on this thread, what we're trying to decide is on some alternative and amusing way of packaging the archetype and teachings of 'Jesus' (or Yeshua, Joshua ben Joseph, etc) in a way that provides a thought-provoking counterpoint to the image of said archetype and teachings promulgated by certain right-wing christians in America and, to a lesser extent, the UK. We then set about drawing attention to this meme. We don't force people to believe us, nor do we try and make peoples' decisions for them. All we're doing is putting out dissonant memetic information, in an effort to get people thinking about certain ideas they may have taken for granted.

Any high-falutin' statements from me to the effect that 'we' should immediately cast away our metaphorical crutches and ascend to our proper status as godly superhuman beings is me getting carried away and looking at things in the very, very, very long term, rather than what we're trying immediately to consider.

Sorry if this seems like I'm jumping on you in any way, but I felt you did make a series of very good points in that message that deserved some discussion, particularly with regard to me clarifying my position on all this. Thank you.

I'll post the 'Jesus Calls a Woman a Skank' passage here when I've got a little more time...
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
17:57 / 08.01.03
More on the Jesus the redeemer points:

Jesus the Redeemer is the personification of the Philosophers Stone, the Transformer - the anthropomorphic personification of Jung's Individuation Process. Therefore acceptable.

I would agree that you have an interesting take on Jesus the Redeemer there, however it is a bit of a model of a model. You are already reinterpreting the idea some. Jesus the Redeemer has a lot of "content" more than you cover with your comment. Certainly some of the Jesus the Redeemer model is valid and or useful but is ALL of it? Jesus the Redeemer has been used to justify "I am saved you are not" and discrimination against non-christians. Frequently by the same sort of right wing Xtians like Dubya that this dicussion started in rejection of. The trouble is the general understanding of Jesus the Redeemer covers too much ground.

I really like your:
Jesus the Personified Individuation Process

For now lets add that to the pile of potentially useful models and look to see if there are more parts of Jesus the Redeemer that would be useful to us in this "game".

Oh and instead of implying that we want to deny people the use of crutches lets say we don't support the use of crutches where and when they are not necessary.
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
18:51 / 08.01.03
STONED SERMON #4: Laughing Buddha Jesus
a Zenarchy essay by Kerry Thornley

In his book, Zen Catholicism (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963),
the Benedictine monk, Dom Aelred Graham, says: "The word
'Buddha' means simply the 'Enlightened One'; so understood,
there have been many 'Buddhas'. As Dr. Edward Conze points
out: 'In the official theory, the Buddha, 'the Enlightened', is a
kind of archetype which manifests itself in the world in different
personalities, whose individual particulars are of no account
whatsoever.' From this point of view, Jesus of Nazareth would
undoubtedly be accorded the title 'Buddha', since He is revealed,
according to St. John, as both uniquely 'Enlightened' and the
'Enlightener'."

Moreover, the Edgar Cayce readings (quoted in Many Mansions
by Gina Cerminara, New American Library, 1967) inform us that
"Those who walk closer with the Creative Forces should indeed
be full of joy, pleasure, peace, and harmony within," and that
"the principle of the Christ life is joyous!" "Remember," they
urge, "He laughed - even on the way to Calvary - not as so often
pictured; He laughed." Yea: "This is what angered them the
most." So: "Cultivate the ability to see the ridiculous and retain
the ability to laugh."

Wow! Can you dig that Jesus was a Buddha? Can you grok a
laughing Savior? A Zen Buddha from Nazareth? Nothing is more
heretical. Nothing is more treasonous. Jesus had a sense of
humor. That idea will destroy Western Civilization as we know it.

Come, brothers. Come, sisters. Let's all join hands and enter
the Church Invisible of the Laughing Christ. Let's all join hands
and find the Hidden Temple of the Happy Jesus. Let's all join
hands and giggle.
 
 
Wrecks City-Zen
22:02 / 08.01.03
...shades of the "Buddy Christ" of 'Dogma', eh?...
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:00 / 10.01.03
Wow! Can you dig that Jesus was a Buddha? Can you grok a
laughing Savior? A Zen Buddha from Nazareth? Nothing is more
heretical. Nothing is more treasonous. Jesus had a sense of
humor. That idea will destroy Western Civilization as we know it.

This I like. Pictures of Jesus laughing or even smiling would disturb lots of people.

And how do you know, with absolute certainty, the religious convictions of these amorphous entities you refer to only as 'the wealthy'?

I know nothing with absolute certainty, I'll admit that much. A professor once told me that the best way to find out what religion someone follows is not by asking them, but by watching how they act.

Are you one of them?

My family is, yes.

But I suspect you're assuming that only people who aren't wealthy can follow an ethical system, while the wealthy are all a bunch of amoral, self-interested psychopaths intent only on fulfilling their own will to power.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Of course it's possible for wealthy people to follow an ethical spiritual path. My father is a perfect example. But I think that we can both see from the incredibly uneven distribution of power and goods in this world that the very wealthy apparently don't like company.

Sorry if this seems like I'm jumping on you in any way, but I felt you did make a series of very good points in that message that deserved some discussion, particularly with regard to me clarifying my position on all this.

Ha! I was about to say the same thing. I come across as a bit snarky, I realize. Sorry about that.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
19:02 / 10.01.03
First off, the last exchange states what I think is an important ground rule here, everyone be careful how you speak so that we don't step on each others toes. I am sorry Johnny for making any assumption about your religeous beliefs. Let's attempt to make no assumptions about peoples personal beliefs.

Second, the camel through the eye of the needle quote leads to one of my favorite "aspects" of Jesus. Jesus as a kind of communist. Perhaps Jesus as the Dialectical Dualist rather than Marx the Dialectial Materialist. There is a lot of discussion that could surround this point.

For example, trinity as a dialectic process. One consequence of this idea is that "god" would then be a changable or non-static entity. Another is the clear social consequences of concentrating on Jesus on money. Charity and the kingdom of heaven would then become similar in meaning to communal shared non-commodity wealth and a communistic utopian society. Interesting ideas even if people don't actually want to support them.

Jesus the Communist.

Who wants to find a justification for Jesus the Anarchist and/or Jesus the Rebel?
 
 
mixmage
19:11 / 10.01.03
Re: Toestepping.

... I think we call this a "Yeshuan Stand-Off"...
 
 
paw
19:18 / 10.01.03
hey people, gonna weigh in here and it's just a suggestion but perhaps i have stumbled upon the delivery system for this little scheme.

Taken from ‘Repossessed’ by Julian Cope when he talks about his friend and producer? Cally Callomon:

‘He hated organised religion, too. So he edited a fake religious pamplet called 'The Humble Meek' . It was 90% dead serious with only tiny giveaways dotted hither and yon. The thing was even sold at religious bookstalls for a short time. And he kept it going for much longer than necessary: the sign of a true subversive...if you get as accurate as Cally’s send ups were, then rather than have people laugh at the result, you actually begin to influence people.


very grant morrison, prions in burgers, don't you think?
 
 
Kobol Strom
19:47 / 10.01.03
I think I see a problem with recontextualising Jesus within Human archetypes,and that is: Jesus is God made man.
I realise that doesn't change the overall goal,but I did want to point out that in order to protect the consensus Jesus,your re-interpretaion will only result in the prevailing archetypes being elevated.
When I looked at religious paintings of Jesus in Art School I noticed the tendency of painters to depict Christ in subjective,inventive terms,and more often than not,Jesus would end up resembling the Artist themself.A kind of artisitic vanity seemed to be emerging,that makes a lot of sense really.The Artist would want to communicate the Divine grace an in doing so,creates a mirror of those emotions in the subject that reflects how the artist wants to be perceived.
By changing the face of Jesus take care not to put your own face onto his.
I don't mean to be inflammatory or denegrate anyones religious beliefs,but consider the danger of attaching too much significance to an archetype - without realising that its the Good in Jesus that prevailed, and we must hope, that even with characters like Dubya running around trying to scare everyone,that the good will prevail there too.
Call me nieve,call me any name you like- but its just sticks and stones.
 
 
penitentvandal
20:03 / 10.01.03
Ah, yes, the other super-enlightened, mysticool JC - Saint Julian!

I totally forgot about that story...Which is weird, because I actually wrote a bloody poem about all the Cally Callomon stuff in Repossessed. I can't remember all the lines, but it conflated the Ka'aba (black stone of Mecca) with the Card Bar (metalhead shop in Newcastle-upon-Tyne), and included the lines 'l'illaha al'valhalla', 'ta tvam Ozzy', and 'I wouldn't kill for Kali but I'd kill for Cally Callomon'.

...which is why I can't remember it, in much the same way Bill 'can't remember' Monica. Incredibly, I was under the influence of no drugs at the time...

Johnny O - well, I defer to your first-hand knowledge of the wealthy, though, as you point out with your dad's example, you can have ethical rich people. One of my problems with the camel/eye of a needle line is that, historically, it has been used to calm the masses with the idea that their poverty is somehow holier than being rich, by one of the wealthiest, most powerful institutions in the world, i.e. the Catholic Church. And I'm not saying the rich people have the 'right' ethics, necessarily - just that most probably prefer to think of themselves as following some ethical code, whatever it is. Take the British Empire - it caused a lot of harm, but I remain convinced that many of those involved in it genuinely thought they were doing good by 'civilising' the world. Whether they were is another question entirely.
No need to apologise for being confrontational - you got me off my arse and forced me to define terms and rethink my position, which is always useful. Cheers for that.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
20:14 / 10.01.03
Your critique of potential artistic vanity is part of the reason I have been going about this as multiple models. With enough different faces jesus no longer looks like an artist. If you collect ALL the paintings of Jesus and you look at all of them you no longer see and artist's face you see what isn't the artist's face.

Jesus is God made man

What you have to realize in this thread is that you are making an interpretation when you make that claim. Not everyone who believes that there was a historical Jesus believes that he was a, or part of, god. You are making an interpretation of the data. Some of the data supports the "Jesus as God" hypothesis some, on the otherhand, some of the data contradicts that claim. What we can do here is to look at that as one model of Jesus. For the sake of my naming convention I'll call it:

Jesus the Incarnation

Lets look at this model and try to isolate what we feel is useful or accurate about this portrait. Or we could decide not to include any model that assumes the existance of a divinity. The choice is ours in this "game". Strom, do you want to try to elucidate what is benificial about this model or to explain why it is important?
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
20:23 / 10.01.03
Posit a person who does not believe in the existance of Jesus or of god at all. Now which would be easier to convince this person of Jesus the Incarnation or Jesus the Philosopher? The second model is easier to argue for because you only have to convince the person of one thing. The first requires you to argue two. Occam's Razor. Interesting but who knows how useful that is.

I have thought of another interesting model:

Jesus the King.

Jesus as a messiah in the political sense. His movement would then have been only an attempt to free the Jews from Rome. Actually this would be a very boring model because this Jesus would have no real relevance today. As a failed king whose state now exists despite him he is of no interest unless you believe the stories that he "knew" Mary Magdalene. Then at least we could speculate about the existance of an heir or successor.
 
 
Kobol Strom
21:13 / 10.01.03

'Jesus is God made Man',as you say, is an interpretation,but is not mine.I used it to demonstrate how easy it would be to trump the re-contextualisation of Jesus by simply elevating his status.
Jesus the King,King of Kings,God of Kings,God-King,God,superGod, MemeGod, MetaGodHead, UltraGod, DeceptaGod...it wouldn't matter.What you have to do is transcend the interpretations we've been given in language and realise that whatever was in Jesus is possibly in everyone.Its what he said and did,not what he was called.
Maybe he wasn't so different from people like us,and maybe thats a scary thought,maybe its controversial.I defy any interpretation and if Jesus was a rebel,so would he.I guess that's what makes him seem so enigmatic ,that he can epitomise your best version of yourself,
-but realise that living up to that image,even transcending it, is possible. And that is the 'revelation'. That the essential goodness of one single person and their sacrifice ,can impact on the lives of so many millions.

Pick anyone in the 'Multiverse' that you respect,it doesn't have to be Jesus, and for one day,try to live up to your expectations of them.And by your actions you judge what is right and good, by your interpretations of your own feelings, by how you live your life.Its starts by respecting who you are -and if you can feel 'Love' ,then you can begin. Find out what your own personal context is,and then break it open.This religion has no name.It has no saviour.
 
 
Pirate Ven Will Teach You To Lambada (The Forbidden Dance)
22:47 / 10.01.03
(Paraphrased, so forgive me)
"Are you a god?"
"No," said the Buddha.
"Angel?"
"No."
"What are you then?"
"I am Awake."

urban myths of the lord.

I now confess my love for that idea.
Got to be a little careful not to go overboard with that though, or we'll end up with "Jesus vs. Mothra vs. Bigfoot vs. Bloody Marry: Battle Royale" kinda stuff goin' on.
But I get what you mean, and love the idea.

"The Quantum Christ: Qurist". That does sound so fucking cool.

Utopia--made perfect sense. I love the idea of Jesus performing rather "Un-Christian" (according to a lot of churches or individuals... I mean, only the man himself could really define that phrase), but nonetheless good deeds.

And I now think of the phrase "son of God" in a whole new, somehow more exciting light...
I think I remember wondering about that term, back as a kid, remembering a sunday school teacher say we're all "sons and daughters of the Lord"...
...but my memory is also a filthy liar.

I think the whole general idea of seperating Jesus the Man from Jesus the God is brilliant.
It's a sensitive subject, though, so I wouldn't start off with a huge headfucking bang...
I wouldn't want this to come across as really offensive and knocking someone else's faith, since, at heart, it's quite the opposite.
But that's just my idea, and this project is not.

Sorry for re-stating a lot, I wrote most of this before finishing the thread, and I am quite lazy enough to just leave the rest in.

Kobol--so maybe "Jesus" can be anyone/thing each individual looks up to?
Any sort of archetype that one respects, that allowed one to transcend needing a saviour at all.
The Qurist.
Existing Everywhere, Nowhere, and All The Places In Between.
I always thought of God as being "everything", and since Jesus himself was supposed to have been God-On-Earth (or have become God), I also think he'd become everything. In becoming God.
Or maybe the whole point is, as was stated, we all have the potential to "walk on water".
To transcend needing a saviour, and become one ourselves.
And, in turn, save someone else into not needing a saviour.
Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'll have to think about this more.

By the way, this thread is one of the best I've ever seen on any message board.
Ever.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
10:14 / 11.01.03
Occam’s Runway, the models of Jesus

Posits a god:
Jesus the Redeemer*
Jesus the Incarnation

Posits supernatural powers:
Jesus the Magician

Posits a real human:
Jesus the Philosopher
Jesus the Comedian
Jesus the Hippie
Jesus the Rebel
Jesus the Buddha
Jesus the Communist

Posits nothing:
Jesus the Personified Individuation Process

*too complicated, not really a single model
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
23:08 / 11.01.03
enjoy
 
 
Kobol Strom
00:07 / 12.01.03
I'd be a total woos if I didn't re-iterate my reservations about this process.I worry that whats happening is the beginning of a new religion,when in fact,my point was that we don't actually need one.
I preach conscious liberation, so in my case I would recommend that the person in History,the best version of your 'self' will possibly be made of 'aspects' of which you might see or recognise in Jesus,or Gandalf,or Ghandi.But you don't have to live your life like they did, that would be insane,where would you draw the line?.
Ultimately, there is no end to this road,but instead of finding religion, you should have found your 'self'.And hopefully you will find yourself to be justifiably original, and free of the burden of self-doubt.

So the ideals of Jesus are more important than the packaging and marketing -no surprises there,then.The only product is the one measured by your success.And how you measure that is up to you.
 
 
EE
15:00 / 01.05.03
I was browsing through the Magick forum and came across this thread somewhere over by page ten or so. As much as I hate to dig up old threads, this one was too interesting to leave alone. I apologize if everyone is already sick and tired of this thread.

I think any view of Christ is a good one, and valid for calling him a magician, so long as his message was the same. It doesn't matter if he was a Redeemer, a Saviour, a Magician, carpenter, brother, whatever. The biggest magick he ever pulled is recorded in the gospels, and it's odd that no one saw it.

Think about it. All the world ever gave him was shit, and he turned it into love and turned it back on everyone. Water to wine is small stuff compared to what he did. During the course of his ministry (if you can call it that), he was always getting shit from people. The priests of the time wanted him in jail, and the Romans were worried that he might be the spark to ignite the revolution that everyone could feel coming. So his whole world denied him, and tried to get rid of him. But no matter what was happening, he would always transform the shit into love and give it back to the people. That's alchemy on a level I can't even imagine. Calming storming seas? Bah. Cheap tricks. That's not where the real magick is at.

Personally, I think Christ was love incarnate, sent (I don't know by whom) to tell us that we had forgotten what was important in life.
 
 
Quantum
15:17 / 01.05.03
Wish I'd been on the board when this came up...

He was the embodiment of the Philosopher's Stone as Reflect pointed out.
He was a living master and wrote nothing down- Let's dissociate Jesus (who ruled) from the Bible (which doesn't). Obviously the problem will be that almost all the evidence we have is in it, but can't we just sift out the actual quotes of Jesus and things he actually said from the other stuff (whatever you think of it)
 
 
Saint Keggers
15:18 / 01.05.03


This "Laughing Jesus" image by Harvey Cox is amazingly, the most Popular image downloaded from "Playboy".
 
 
Rev. Wright
16:36 / 01.05.03
I'm glad this thread has been brought up again. I have recently started seeing a non mystical christian who has been aware of my practice for some time. Her initial concerns are gone but she is one with the Lord. So to get an angle on this I've been doing some reading and as if by magick I stumble across a copy of Rudolph Steiner's Christianity as Mystical Fact. His basic premise is linking the Mystery School tradition, Greek philosophers and JC's life and teachings. Its gonne make my night with 3.5g of liberty caps very interesting.
 
 
penitentvandal
19:54 / 01.05.03
Nice to see the Quantum Jesus resurrected, even if it is a fortnight after Easter...(hmm. fortnight = Fort Knight, perhaps? Sorry - I've been playing with the Cobralingus engine again...)

This idea was brought back into my head just prior to Easter, actually, reading Anarchy for the Masses...There are a couple of points where GM describes Barbelith (the entity, not the board) as a symbol of Christ, though more in an alchemical sense than trad religion, I think. I'll post up the quote over the weekend.
 
 
aurnien
05:06 / 04.05.03
Anyone seen the movie "The Life of Brian"? Might be relevant.
 
 
Salamander
07:12 / 04.05.03
In my opinion,

Personaly, (and I don't think anyone thats read the shit I've posted these past few weeks will be surprised), I have extremely heavy Thelemic leaning. As far as I see it Jesus was a mage, hell he was one of the best... but he had his chance, had his aeon, his followers had their chance too. They failed. Whats left is something out of a Gnostics nightmare, the words of the great Christ being used to promote war and suffering. Don't get me wrong here, I love JC, thats right, I hold the man in high esteem, he chalenged an empire whose leaders were honored as Gods. He did this before there were things like the 1st Amendment, the ACLU, before abolition of slavery. It was bravery then to preach anti-authority ideas and peace and tolerance and yes, love. His family was poor, he grew up in the ass end, the ghetto, of the empire. He had every reason to preach war and hate, and at every turn taught peace and forgiveness. These things are not easy to do, especially now, how about back then? What I'm saying is that this Magus had big cast iron balls the size of pumpkins, but he failed. Let it go, let him go. Let him put down his cross, he's carried it for two millenia and it's done, time for something new, let jesus rest in peace.

Alternate Veiw

Man I am all for this. If you want to bring back the spirit into the whole church buisness, you need to stop serving the sacrament in tiny cups, (and half the time its grape juice, sheesh), and little thin waifers of tastless bread. You need to make Sunday an all day affair, serving good wine in giant XXXXXL holy grail sized goblets, and everyone gets at least ten good sized half ounce caps. All kinds of stained glass showing JC doing all kinds of crazy miracles, walking on water, all that, and making problems for the establishment, speaking out against dogma a la gospel of thomas, and nowhere found will be an image of death. JC was a happy guy and he gave us the reason to be happy, we have the word, the knowledge and the power, we have eternal life in the body of christ, eternal life forever Amen.

Alternate View

Man FUCK CHRIST IN THE ASS. Christ and his followers gave us nothing but darkness suffering and misery, you think you can do better? His followers thought they were right too, especially when they burned that library down, you know the one I'm talking about, named after a great man, Alexander. But hear you are ready to take up the cross again, bringing us another two millenia of darkness, you can keep christ, keep peace, and keep tolerance. Don't do us any favors, you could do way worse because we've never had it this good, and to think we could loose it all again to the same tom foolery that took what we had going the first time, shit, just don't do us any favors.

And now that I'm done theory bitching we could always name him YHShVH and make normal christians guess how to pronounce it, and call him Joshua, like one of you said, but never speak his name...

I'm in, I love this idea too much to not participate.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply