Jesus Was A Pagan

Not even a question- a definite statement! But, it's going to take a lot of explaining!

I'm writing this in response to the comments on the last blog between Pegasus and myself. My friend Pegasus could best be described as a multi-faith kabbalist scholar and mystic, and so this essay is dedicated to him. I'm also considering sending this to another friend, Revd. Phil Edwards, who is a relatively high-ranking CoE minister and head of a local university's multi-faith chaplaincy - because I'd value his opinions.
Please note that I'm not a biblical scholar, I'm a Pagan who knows his mythology, so I may get some things wrong. If I do, please tell me. I welcome correction.
Hell, if nothing else it makes a change from all the sex-obsessed stuff I've been writing lately!

Warning!
In the highly unlikely event that this blog is being read by a fundamentalist Christian who believes that every word in the Bible is literal truth - stop reading now! You are going to find the rest of this essay very offensive indeed. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Where I'm Coming From
The chance of finding a Pagan who was brought up that way, and especially one of my sort of age, is rare. Most of us were brought up either Christian or secular, and adopted Paganism when we eventually found it. In my own case my parents were not religious, but I was sent to church Infant and Junior schools. I would probably have been sent to secular schools, but there weren't any - so I was brainwashed! (I don't use that term lightly)
Later, and in common with other young Pagans, I rejected the church outright. The problem with doing this is that Jesus tends to get rejected along with it, and a study of Jesus reads like a text-book version of the life of a Solar Hero or Corn God. It's a pattern which repeats with variations all over Europe, the Middle East and probably the rest of the world.
I still reject the authority of the church, but throwing Jesus out with it brings to mind visions of babies and bathwater!

The Life of Jesus
There are two Jesuses (if that's the correct plural). The first is a Jewish human being, political activist and preacher born sometime around 4AD, the son of a carpenter and his wife. The second is the mythological Jesus whose story is told in the Bible.
Are they not one and the same? Well, sort of! The two blend, one into the other and back again.
We must remember that what we read in the Bible is not a diary. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written around 70AD, roughly 40 years after Jesus' death and immediately after a civil war in Palestine. Memories change and writings are alterable. Even the writings we have aren't complete. There were many "gospels" rejected by the early church and others only recently discovered
Early Christianity was promulgated by Paul of Tarsus. I don't know his reasons for doing so, but what he put forward seems tailor-made to appeal to the Pagan peoples he encountered by virtue of the similarities between his own hero and the pre-existent local gods. It was even common at the time (as often happens in India nowadays) for people to accept Jesus alongside their own gods because he fitted in so well!
Suspicious? So am I. It does seem awfully convenient that the one-and-only-God's one-and-only-Son should be so similar to, say Adonis, Hercules, Balder, Lugh, Dionysos, Cú Chulainn, Krishna and a great deal of others.

The salient points of Jesus' life, which we'll look at in more detail can be broken up as follows:

• Miraculous Birth (and relative unimportance of a human father)
• Miraculous Childhood Feats
• Period of Withdrawal (Initiation)
• Ministry: A Life of Miraculous Acts
• Betrayal and Sacrificial Death
• Resurrection

The Miraculous Birth
Jesus was special even before he was born. Paternally he was of the House of David, ie. Jewish royalty (Luke 3:23-31). That's a fascinating claim considering Jewish birth is passed through the maternal line.
The most well-known story, of course, is the virgin birth. The story states that Mary was visited by God in the guise of a spirit who impregnated her. She then gave birth to the infant Jesus without ever having had sexual relations with her husband. There are arguments that "virgin" meant an unmarried woman - one who had never subjugated herself to a man. These are interesting but, as we'll see, unnecessary. The miraculous birth by non-human paternity is necessary and very, very important. So is the early threat to his life by Herod
It should also be noted that Jesus had to be born at Bethlehem, which translates as House of Bread. In other words a centre of the worship of a Corn God.

Okay, let's compare:
Dionysos is the child of a human woman, Semele and the God, Zeus. His half-brother Hercules also has a human mother Alcmene. Lleu Llaw Gyffes has no known father, his mother produces him "by accident" when proving her maidenhood. Merlin is the child of a human woman and a "demon", while King Arthur's conception is brought about by an act of magic which also indirectly causes the death of his father. Adonis/Tammuz has a birth shrouded in mystery, his mother is turned into a myrrh tree, but who his father is is anybody's guess.
The story of Osiris is long and complicated but one could boil it down to the idea that he becomes his own father - the ultimate in magical rebirth!
Most of these characters are royal in descent, particularly on the human side and definitely divine on the paternal side. Their "human" fathers, where they exist at all, take little part in their upbringing. Lleu is brought up by his uncle Gwydion; Dionysos spends his childhood with the Hyades and his granny, Rhea. The youthful Merlin is the "child with no father" and in turn brings up the young Arthur. The lack of a father figure goes right back to ancient, matriarchal (and unprovable except by extrapolation) tribal society where paternity is highly uncertain. The most important male role-model in a young boy's life was usually his uncle. This pattern was kept as a tradition amongst Celtic peoples right up into Roman times and beyond.
They were often hidden away as children to protect them from a specific danger. In the case of Dionysos, his stepmother, Hera is the one after him. The same goes for Hercules. The baby Adonis is hidden in a box for his own protection, as is Lleu (and a few others were too - qv. Perseus)

Miraculous Childhood Feats
Only one gospel features an early childhood feat for Jesus. Luke 2 tells us about his being found teaching in the temple at the age of 12. It's surprising that only one gospel mentions it, but not surprising that it is mentioned. The proof of divinity by means of a miraculous act is an important part of the overall pattern.
The child Merlin divines two underground dragons which are preventing a castle being built and, almost coincidentally, predicts a major war. Hercules strangles snakes while in his cradle and Dionysos shape-shifts to avoid the Titans who are going to dismember him. Lleu learns all the perfections of humanity to become Llaw Gyffes (a long story!) and the Irish hero Cú Chulainn fights and kills a vicious guard dog with his bare hands.

Period of Withdrawal (Initiation)
Between the birth of Jesus and his 30th year, except the one event mention in Luke, there is no record. Many people have theorised about what he did during these missing years, without any real result. The mythological pattern works well though.
Most of our Corn Gods and Solar Heroes have some kind of missing period which they spend learning, training or coming to terms with the reality of their own existence as demi-gods. Merlin famously becomes insane and lives in the forest among the animals. Dionysos disappears to Phrygia to be trained by Rhea. Arthur's upbringing by Merlin is as much a period of training as any other and Cú Chulainn's training in the arts of love and war by Scatha are in the same vein.
Adonis spends his youth hidden by Persephone, the Goddess of Death, who doesn't want to give him back to the world.

The moment of Jesus' initiation is obviously his baptism by John, after which he spends a period of purification before starting his ministry.
This pattern reverberates through Arthur's pulling the sword from the stone (as Siegfried does from the branstock) and his drawing together of his court, Lleu's finally being given a name and arms by his mother and the beginning of his kingship and with Dionysos, who is struck with madness by Hera but cured by Rhea who sends him out on his own ministry.

Ministry: A Life of Miraculous Acts.
The miracles of Jesus are too many to name in any detail here. Most people know about turning water into wine, driving out demons and raising the dead. Miraculous behaviour is definitely not restricted to Jesus, though.
Hercules has his 12 labours, Merlin has his multiple acts of magic, Dionysos has his ministry of the vine which covers umpteen different myths and a great deal of land! Krishna picks up mountains and Cú Chulainn defends Ulster

Betrayal and Sacrificial Death
By far the most significant points of a Corn God or Solar Hero's story are his birth and his death. His death usually contains three significant aspects: it is unnatural, it is entered into fatalistically and it is brought about by a betrayal.
The story of Jesus has these points well covered via Judas and the crucifixion, even though the Koran and a few others, insist on Jesus' survival. That's a consideration for another time, but it can be said that to be accepted (ie. fit the pattern) Jesus had to be betrayed and sacrificed.
King Arthur is betrayed by his son/nephew Mordred to his death, although he is also earlier betrayed by his wife, Guinevere and best friend, Lancelot. I could go on about the merging and splitting of the myth but we'll be getting off the point.
Merlin is betrayed by Nimue but doesn't die, he's imprisoned forever instead. Adonis is betrayed by Aphrodite in favour of Ares who kills him in the form of a boar. Dionysos is torn to pieces at a very young age by his stepmother's cohorts, but stuck back together later, like Osiris.
Cú Chulainn kills his brother/lover Ferdiad at the behest of Queen Maedbh, interestingly reversing the pattern, although he is later killed by Lugaid after being forced to break a taboo by an old woman.
My favourite version is of Lleu Llaw Gyffes who is betrayed by his lover, Blodeuedd into giving away the secret of how he can be killed. This she gives to her lover, Gronw Pebr, who kills him according to the given formula. For a biblical scholar, it's a bit like the Samson and Delilah story.
It's unusual, but not unknown, for a male to be the betrayer in any of the myths, but the killer is always male and can be seen to represent the "dark twin" of the hero. Arthur has Mordred, Lleu has Gronw Pebr, Jesus has Pilate.
There is a Norse god of light, Baldur who fits the pattern very precisely. His name is Baldur, he is betrayed by his Cousin Loki - in the form of a giantess - and is killed by his brother, the blind god of darkness, Hod.

Finally - Resurrection
After three days Jesus rises again, appears some important people and then ascends to heaven. Funnily enough, he's not the only one, although usually the Solar Hero is promised to rise again rather than actually doing it.
Merlin isn't dead, he's trapped (symbolically dead) awaiting release and King Arthur is taken to Avalon on the point of death in order to return when the country needs him. Baldur will be reborn to begin the world anew after the Ragnarok.
Other heroes don't have a specifically promised rebirth, but their story begins again every Winter Solstice - the traditional birthday of all Solar Heroes.

To conclude:
The tangling of the historical Jesus and the mythological, Solar Hero/Corn God pattern is inextricable, and so it should be. The church's denial of all that came before was a simple claim to political power by means of propaganda and Jesus' Pagan origins were deliberately forgotten. It's easier to control the minds and hearts of the masses if your god is the only one rather than one of many.
The question now remains whether the Pagans can accept Jesus as a demi-god (rather than a threat) equal to Krishna, Merlin, Lleu Llaw Gyffes and a great deal of others I've not mentioned? Similarly, will modern Christians be able to accept that Jesus is not alone, but is one among many as the earliest followers believed.

It's quite common for Pagans to follow one or two patron Gods (no prizes for guessing who does that!) whilst acknowledging all the others. Is it possible for anyone else?

Love,
Seán

Sex and Violence?

One of my Fasebook friends recently wondered why violence is so prevalent in our society. My answer was that we don't have enough sex.

That's a pretty glib statement at first and sounds a bit like a joke. It is a joke, sort of , but that doesn't mean I don't think it's true. I didn't have enough space in the Facebook comments box to qualify my statement properly, so that's what this essay is about. I'm thinking of adding pictures too. (Why not - I like pictures!)

Just as an aside - does anybody else find Facebook to be the world's most amazing consumer of time? I'm beginning to think it may be evil.

Boys and Girls, Chimps and Bonobos

Have you ever noticed the different ways very young children play. At a really young age (crawling into toddling) they tend to play individual games next to each other, but as they learn to communicate boys and girls start to fall into different styles of playing. Boys become competitive and girls become co-operative.

This is an appalling generalisation because on an individual level it doesn't actually work, but the subject is so big I've got to use averages. I'm assuming - and with good reason - that my readers have the intelligence to see the difference between, for instance, "male" and "a boy".

So why should this be? The nature/nurture debate rages on; personally I think it's a little bit of both. The fact remains, though, that by the time they start infant school (3-4) girls play together and boys play against each other.

Let's apply this to our own societies which have been highly patriarchal in character across a vast history of thousands of years. Obviously competition becomes the norm and violence, which could be considered the ultimate form of competition, is widespread.

We could wonder how much different our societies would be if we'd been matriarchal from the start. Actually, we don't have to wonder because we've got a perfect comparative example right in front of us: chimps and bonobos.

I'm assuming that everyone knows what a chimpanzee is. Well, a bonobo - which is endangered and only lives in the Democratic Republic of Congo - is a smaller, slimmer species of chimp with longer legs, more individualistic facial features and a greater tendency to stand upright. Physically they're very similar. Socially they could hardly be more different.

Chimp society is male-dominated and competitive. Extreme violence to males outside the group is normal and violence as a conflict-resolution is common within the group. Bonobos are female-dominated, co-operative and egalitarian as well as very family oriented. They also have conflicts but deal with them in a completely different way: they have sex.

Bonobos have sex for any and every reason they, or we, can think of. They use sex as a greeting, as reconciliation, as conflict-resolution and tension-relief and, frankly, because it's fun. They don't discriminate in terms of age or gender, group sex is normal and permanent pairings are non-existent. You can usually spot a female bonobo by the huge, swollen vulva.

An example (which I think I'm plagiarising from Rev. Ivan Stang) would give a good demonstration of the differences between chimp and bonobo societies:

Imagine a small tribe of chimpanzees at rest. Now throw a large bunch of bananas into their midst. Immediately there's tension. The browbeaten females cower; the braver males make a grab for them. The dominant male beats the daylights out of everyone else until they give in and the bananas are all his. He eats what he wants, leaving the rest to the others to fight over. The females are lucky if they get the skins.

Okay - Imagine a small tribe of bonobos at rest. Now throw a large bunch of bananas into their midst. Immediately there's tension. Suddenly everyone turns to their nearest neighbour(s) and start having frantic, orgasmic sex. In a little while everyone feels much better at which point the dominant female takes all the bananas and shares them out evenly amongst the tribe. It seems that if violence is uncivilised then sex must be the world's greatest civilizer.

The chimps probably developed violent competition due to a lack of resources, the bonobos never needed to. They have all they need and more. Sounds idyllic doesn't it? It sort of is.

Human Bonobos

I'm going to state right now that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for the existence of matriarchal human societies in our distant past. This doesn't actually mean that they didn't exist (and I believe they probably did), just that we can't prove it. So, I'm going to postulate one.

Imagine living in a place where all your immediate needs are completely taken care of and always have been. There is no need to compete for resources so competitiveness in society is unnecessary. Female-domination would be highly likely. Co-operation and leisure are, therefore, the norms and what could be more co-operative and leisure-based than sex? Lots and lots of sex.

Frankly, such societies would be rare. Should a highly competitive tribe from a neighbouring, but less well-resourced land decide they want all the food, then it's goodbye to our feminist utopia. But they wouldn't be completely forgotten. They would live on in memory and folklore.

They are certainly remembered in the ancient Greek and Celtic legends of the Fortunate Isles away to the West. Tir na nÓg and Tir na mBan in Celtic mythology are perfect examples. These are places where there is no hunger or thirst, where all are healthy and need not struggle, where sex has no shame attached and which are ruled by a Queen.

Patriarchal Religion

The supreme sexual power of women was still recognised (albeit in a somewhat lessened form) in the Middle East in the shape of the Temple Prostitute. This carried on right up to the 4th Century AD and was a form of worship for Astarte (Ishtar). The word "prostitute" has connotations nowadays which cannot be applied to the Qedeshah (local Semitic word). She was a sacred female, a minor queen in her own right and not the servant of the men who came to her. She was a servant of her Goddess.

Patriarchal Judaism didn't like it at all. In order to hold position and gain strength in a world quite hostile to its harsh and ascetic ways the Hebrews had to be competitive, they had to fight - like men!

The suppression of women is Patriarchy's most successful policy when it comes to gaining political power. The suppression of women is also the suppression of sex - remember that woman's sex-drive is far more powerful than a man's - and the suppression of sex leads to an immense build-up of energy. Nothing has suppressed sex like Patriarchal Monotheism.

The human sex-drive is incredibly powerful - it's next on the list immediately after food, warmth, shelter. When suppressed that energy has to go somewhere and a skillful propagandist can sublimate and redirect it in anyway he chooses. Fundamentalist Islam (which treats women slightly worse than cattle) is particularly good at this nowadays.

Back to the Present

So that's the history - but how does it apply to the present day?

Well, we're in a kind of flux position. The position of women in modern Western society has improved immensely in recent years, although true equality is still a long way off. Most of us also have all our immediate needs pretty much sorted and secure. A franker and more accepting attitude to sexuality has also become more prominent, although nowhere near enough.

On the other hand we have several thousand years of ingrained Monotheistic history and cultural propaganda which isn't going to go away.

Even though it's no longer necessary for survival, competition is still encouraged and lauded in ordinary society and on the sports field. Violence is less common than it was, but still prominent.

What we need to do now - and in many ways it's just following a trend that's already begun - is to promote two things: Firstly, the feminine (anarchist) virtues of mutual trust and co-operation and secondly sex - lots and lots (of lots of different types) of sex.

Taoist Bonking

According to the ancient Taoist sages in China, the teachers of wisdom are female. The Tao is female, and in sexual (ie. civilised) terms women are superior to men. The sooner both men and women realise this, the better. Sex needs to be learned and taught and practised a lot and, contrary to our society's norms, the teachers need to be women. This doesn't preclude homosexuality because in a truly civilised society all forms of consensual sex become normal - just like the bonobos.

There are violent people in our society, mostly poor and uneducated young men. There are less than the papers would have us believe, but they do exist. They are brought up to be competitive, suspicious of sex and fearful of difference, just like the boys who killed Michael Causer in Liverpool recently. Had they been brought up in a feminised society, would they have considered a gay person as a threat, or a target? Or would they be too busy with their own sexual experiments to want to go hurting anybody?

It's a huge subject and I've waffled for long enough, so here's a little question to finish:

You and you belovèd(s) have just had a fantastic, multi-orgasmic session - do you really want to listen to somebody telling you to get up and fight? No? Neither would I.

Love,

Seán