Opinion on Jesus

How should an Olympianist perceive Jesus and the different types of Christianities? Must we be antagonistic towards Jesus or christian religions? I've read that an Emperor, I'm not sure if it was Marcus Aurelius or Alexander Severus, included Jesus and Abraham in his worship; Porphyry also had a good opinion on Jesus just not the Christians, whom he called a "confused and vicious sect". I ask because I have seen that some Olympianists have this rather stupid hatred towards Jesus and Christianity in general even though the blame should be put on those specific christian sects which had a very orthodox and hence intolerant streak to them (which is rather hypocritical considering that "pure" Christianity would probably look nothing like Orthodox or Catholic Christianity since they have syncretized a lot from the other Greco-Roman religions). Anyway these rigid Olympianists come off as those "New Atheists" who sloppily blame all religions for every human issue.

Must we be antagonistic towards Jesus or christian religions? I've read that an Emperor, I'm not sure if it was Marcus Aurelius or Alexander Severus, included Jesus and Abraham in his worship; Porphyry also had a good opinion on Jesus just not the Christians, whom he called a "confused and vicious sect".

It was Alexander Severus – and I think he and Porphyry have given apt answers to the question 

the blame should be put on those specific christian sects which had a very orthodox and hence intolerant streak to them

Certainly, particular institutional Christian groups were responsible for persecutions, although I do not think the presence or absence of orthodoxy had much to do with it. Rather, it was a question of holding onto institutional authority. Christianity was persecuted by State Olympianism because it was an outspoken threat, hostile to the contemporary authorities and sources of peace and order. It was a sect that was fairly actively hostile to Rome. Christians were not persecuted simply for following their religion, they were persecuted because their religion, in most cases, actively encouraged disturbing the peace. 

However, it should be noted that Christians were not the only persecuted religion. Manichaeans were also heavily persecuted, and, although not as extreme, there were (before its own institutionalization around Diocletian's time) sporadic persecutions of Platonists/Orpheo-Pythagoreans and other similar movements as 'astrologers and magicians', in which books and scriptures would be confiscated, and both leaders and followers would be expelled from certain cities under penalty of imprisonment or death. 

When the Christians ousted the institutional Solism/Neoplatonism that had guided state religion since the middle 3rd century and won their own institutional support over the course of Constantine's life, they faced a dilemma of trying to unite a massive population under their own religion. Christianity was not particularly qualified for its new job, so to speak – its position was awkward and somewhat paradoxical – and so State Christianity responded by aggressively suppressing anything that could possibly threaten its position. 

(which is rather hypocritical considering that "pure" Christianity would probably look nothing like Orthodox or Catholic Christianity since they have syncretized a lot from the other Greco-Roman religions).

Very, very true. The consequence of institutionalizing Christianity was that the official Christianity (which developed into what is now the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches) became an overlay of Christianity grafted onto a large Olympiac foundation that had already been in place for centuries. Anything Christianity lacked – indeed, just about anything to which they didn't have a strong objection – was carried over from its predecessor. The end result was a Christianity that, as you say, was radically different from early, apostolic Christianity, and about which the apostles, and probably Jesus, would have condemned as, quite accurately, having 'sold out' to its former enemy ideology.

Other than it's monotheism what else do you think separates the Abrahamic perceptions(religions) from the older ones? I am trying to get a general picture of the divide and how they have influenced society differently. All I can really think of is that from the Abrahamic perspective there is this ideological extremism, everything or almost everything is seen in terms of good and evil(Satan vs God), militant religious universalism, intolerance(inevitable if the theology only acknowledges only one god), and a supreme being which monopolizes all divinity. I would like your input on this.

Valencia2014 wrote:Other than it's monotheism what else do you think separates the Abrahamic perceptions(religions) from the older ones? I am trying to get a general picture of the divide and how they have influenced society differently. All I can really think of is that from the Abrahamic perspective there is this ideological extremism, everything or almost everything is seen in terms of good and evil(Satan vs God), militant religious universalism, intolerance(inevitable if the theology only acknowledges only one god), and a supreme being which monopolizes all divinity. I would like your input on this.

It is not so simple as that, I think. Judaism, for instance, does not fit most of those descriptions. Any religion has hardliners, categorizations of the world into good things and bad things, and there are monotheistic religions that one would have difficulty calling intolerant. 

What we really mean here are (some branches of) Christianity and (some branches of) Islam. These have a few unique characteristics that, I would say, contribute to their militancy and intolerance. Both recognize only one chance at a life of holiness, after which one's reward or punishment, in most cases, is eternal. This obviously gives an extreme sense of urgency. In its scriptures and traditions, Christianity, condemned and persecuted by both Judaism and Hellenism, also developed a kind of us-versus-them/underdog worldview, wherein they considered themselves a small group of good people, whereas everyone else was evil. Christianity has also been a missionary movement from its very beginning. Finally, when Christianity wound up becoming the dominant religion, it faced a strange paradox: a counterculture movement that became the dominant group. It thrived on having enemies, and when it became the major religion, it had to find new enemies to keep its worldview alive. 


Islam is even simpler. Its own scriptures directly command its followers to wage war without end against its enemies until they are either defeated, surrender, or one dies in the process. Not only is non-Islamic religion wrong, its very existence is considered an abomination and offense against Allah. Essentially, the fact that you exist and are not Muslim is justification enough, in some Islamic thought, for a Muslim to attack you, and kill you unless you convert.  

There must have been a sort of proto-religion from which they sprung, could we call it Abrahamism? Would that be too vague? From what I've read the Jews are actually just Canaanites that at one point worshiped many gods(the Phoenicians being those Canaanites which did not convert to Yahwism), but for some reason they identified Yahu or Yahweh as the one and only god worthy of worship. Anyway that is what I've been told by some Qadashim.

The Jews did indeed start as Canaanites, worshiping the creator El and the other gods. Yahweh was the tribal god of Israel. In Deuteronomy an old passage survives in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls that says that God created as many nations as there were gods and the Israelites were allotted to Yahweh. Thus in Judges, Jephthah regards Yahweh and Khemosh as equals. Then, between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, a series of prophets "promoted" Yahweh, first equating him to Baal Hadad (i.e. Zeus), then to the supreme being. But Jewish colonists in Egypt were still polytheist in the 5th century.

Christianity is a funny case. Jesus only claimed to be the messiah. The term he used, Son of Man, is that used for the messiah in the Book of Enoch, and Josephus recorded that the Christians believed Jesus to have been the mesiah — nothing about them believing him to be divine. Similarly, Paul (Galatians) says that Jesus was physically descended from David: i.e. he accepted Joseph as Jesus's father. The teaching about Jesus being the son of God and born of a virgin only starts in the 2nd century.

Personally, I can't see how a Jewish prophet can be relevant to me, and I cannot admire a man who was always threatening people with hell, "where the devouring worm never dies and the fire is not quenched" (Mark). Even Islam doesn't teach an eternal hell.

No doubt Erodius, I agree with you that it is not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Monotheism in general that is blameworthy but specific militant and intolerant sects of these religions or really any theology.

If it wasn't the case that Western / European society got christianised, and that Anglican Christianity is for all intents and purposes 'state religion' in England, (where I live), I would say that Jesus and the religion that came with/after him is simply irrelevant to me personally:
I regard Jesus --or whatever his name was, if it even was one singular person and not several individuals being merged into one legendary figure-- as one or more historical persons who were wandering preachers and wannabe messiahs -- not uncommon at all at the place and time.
As Erodius points out this type of person was rather anti-Rome -- which makes him already not very likeable in my books He was an extremist, tried and punished for sedition. (I want to add that I do not agree with the way this was done, as I condemn cruelty in any shape or form.)
But the Jesus-figure is part of our modern Western/European culture and avoidance --try as one might-- is never completely possible. Inevitably the subject came up at this time of the year, when my son (6) got confronted with the Christmas-story, and for the first time in his life took notice. Of course he realised his parents' rejection, without us even saying much. But I didn't want to put him into a difficult situation, so I teach him that Jesus was a religious teacher, and that for Christians he's their most important / only divine teacher; and that it's important to respect other peoples' religion, but that Jesus is not part of our religion and that we have our own [divine] teachers.

De Li I think we should just follow the example of Porphyry and Alexander Severus. The integration of Jesus into the Pantheon would have probably been very common in the Roman world and wherever else the cult of Jesus spread. The enemy is not Jesus but that "vicious and confused sect". Avoidance will perhaps have the effect of creating a sort of forbidden fruit mentality and we know what that leads to.

I believe Jesus was a real person just like I believe Hercules was a real person. Myths tend to grow around certain persons because to a certain group they have this aura of prestige. A case in point are the folk tales about Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa. Lol we can almost imagine hundreds of years from now if these tales are the only stories that survive about these two figures then future peoples would think that Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa were just myths. Yet we know that they were real people.

Valencia2014 wrote:De Li I think we should just follow the example of Porphyry and Alexander Severus. The integration of Jesus into the Pantheon would have probably been very common in the Roman world and wherever else the cult of Jesus spread. The enemy is not Jesus but that "vicious and confused sect". Avoidance will perhaps have the effect of creating a sort of forbidden fruit mentality and we know what that leads to.

I believe Jesus was a real person just like I believe Hercules was a real person. Myths tend to grow around certain persons because to a certain group they have this aura of prestige. A case in point are the folk tales about Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa. Lol we can almost imagine hundreds of years from now if these tales are the only stories that survive about these two figures then future peoples would think that Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa were just myths. Yet we know that they were real people.

Dear Valencia,

Just to clarify since you addressed me personally:

I don't think it necessary let alone obligatory for people who are neither Christian or Muslim to 'integrate Jesus into the Pantheon'. Of course you are free to do so if you feel compelled to do so, or want to follow the claimed example of Emperor Alexander Severus. (Porphyry acknowledged Jesus as a pious man and great philosopher; there is no evidence however that he gave him any personal religious importance or integrated Jesus into his religious practice.)

A similar example is the Hindu Saint Ramakrishna, who adopted both Christianity and Islam for a while as primary religion. He concluded that both are genuine religions. While a Hindu is certainly not forbidden to revere Jesus or Mohammed, such reverence is not obligatory for a Hindu, and rather the exception to common practice.

I certainly don't see Jesus as "the enemy"(!), but that doesn't make the reverse true i.e. that I need to give him a place within my religion, (which can do just fine without him). Also, there have been a great many people in history who were pious and furtherer of humanity and genuine religion -- some have more importance to some, others less. None of them I regard or present as 'forbidden fruit'.

As to Emperors Karl and Barbarossa: I didn't know that in the US these are presented as figures of "folk tales" (sic!), in Europe/Germany these are historical persons and are presented as such. Also, as German, I'm sensitive to the atrocities committed by Emperor Karl, against the native people of my motherland and the Germanic native religion. He was a wicked man.

you are free to do as you wish

Only revolution whether gradual or violent will get rid of the Nicene ideology.

I consider Jesus to be an embodiment of the Logos, not an incarnation of the Logos. Nonetheless I have great admiration and love for this truly divine man.

In my opinion, Jesus is basically just the Jewish response to Dionysus.

Yes, me too. I recently went to a funeral in a Catholic church and it felt a lot like it. They even drink wine. LOL.

I don't really think about it. Christianity is another religion with Jesus as its founder. I don't know why I need to think about it beyond that. All Jesus is to me is a man who is credited with founding his own religion, which others have done throughout history as well. He's been idolized by his followers, most certainly. Jesus is not even his real name originally. His real name is pronounced "Yeshua," and his last name was also not "Christ." That was actually given to him by his followers, and it means, "anointed." The gospels about him were also not even written until after his death, and some people who wrote about him never met him in real life. He has certainly been highly romanticized, but to me, he's just another guy like the rest of everyone else. He just happened to get a really big following, mostly through destruction, coercion, torture and murder carried about by his followers.

Vadzhij wrote:I consider Jesus to be an embodiment of the Logos, not an incarnation of the Logos. Nonetheless I have great admiration and love for this truly divine man.

Can you elaborate on this? I mean the only difference I see between embodiment and incarnation is that one is Anglo-Saxon and the other Latin.

An apocryphal 'quote' of Gandhi would sum up my thoughts on this matter: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Jesus is the soft and sweet bait that ensnares those who prefer appeals to emotion rather than reason into the maw of the Abrahamic tricephalus--  The Abrahamic monstrosities are the three heads of the same dragon.  

The Judaic serpent is the old head, but it has been toothless for millennia.  It was spawned in the rage of the Israelites as they cursed their kin and the Gods of the world, seeking to implant their temple God as the only God (who lords it over Nature and smites the God of the sea).  It kept to itself largely (its only redeeming quality), though its immense self-exaggeration as the chosen ethnicity of Yahweh has lead to their persecution in virtually every society in the ancient world it has tarried in (whence Persian anti-Semitism, Egyptian anti-Semitism, Babylonian anti-Semitism, Greek anti-Semitism, Roman anti-Semitism, and so on ad nauseum, everywhere the Chosen set up market).  It is inherently self-negating, preferring exile over homeland and ugliness over beauty.  One might end the story here-- and if we could, the world would be better off-- But unfortunately its psychologically suspect brand of prophetism proved so exceedingly potent that it sprouted another head.  

The Christian serpent has the resource of an angler fish-like lure, this suffering Martyr (who is a guy, just like us!  and suffers!  like us slaves!), who is saddled on this second dragon's neck, always working his magic (from the original Christian movement to contemporary multiculturalism's individualist and universalist origins).

Then a serpent decided that it was the final head, the only head.  This is the Islamic serpent.  Thankfully, it is so hungry that it tries to devour everything at once and is beaten back in time.  Thus it is no surprise that the Quran reads like a poor plagiarism of its Christian and Judaic predecessors, with some local sayings and maxims thrown in for good measure.  This religion plundered the spiritualities of India and Greece to craft Sufism, it's most exotic and attractive development, which gives it some legitimacy as a faith among scholars of Eastern spirituality, who can huff the Sufi rag to cover up the stench of slaughter and child rape emanating from its Founding Prophet, an illiterate and murderous fellow who seems to suffer from severe psychological problems.

The Three-Headed Dragon feasts on the folk of the world, and they fight among each other over the prey, ripping entire civilizations in half to sate their gullets.  

Jesus teaches tolerance and weakness; Muhammad teaches cunning and brutality.  The civilization based on cunning and brutality will ultimately win out over tolerance and weakness, and we are seeing this unfold before our very eyes in the West in the present age.

Out of Phlegethon wrote:Jesus is the soft and sweet bait that ensnares those who prefer appeals to emotion rather than reason into the maw of the Abrahamic tricephalus--  The Abrahamic monstrosities are the three heads of the same dragon.  

The Judaic serpent is the old head, but it has been toothless for millennia.  It was spawned in the rage of the Israelites as they cursed their kin and the Gods of the world, seeking to implant their temple God as the only God (who lords it over Nature and smites the God of the sea).  It kept to itself largely (its only redeeming quality), though its immense self-exaggeration as the chosen ethnicity of Yahweh has lead to their persecution in virtually every society in the ancient world it has tarried in (whence Persian anti-Semitism, Egyptian anti-Semitism, Babylonian anti-Semitism, Greek anti-Semitism, Roman anti-Semitism, and so on ad nauseum, everywhere the Chosen set up market).  It is inherently self-negating, preferring exile over homeland and ugliness over beauty.  One might end the story here-- and if we could, the world would be better off-- But unfortunately its psychologically suspect brand of prophetism proved so exceedingly potent that it sprouted another head.  

The Christian serpent has the resource of an angler fish-like lure, this suffering Martyr (who is a guy, just like us!  and suffers!  like us slaves!), who is saddled on this second dragon's neck, always working his magic (from the original Christian movement to contemporary multiculturalism's individualist and universalist origins).

Then a serpent decided that it was the final head, the only head.  This is the Islamic serpent.  Thankfully, it is so hungry that it tries to devour everything at once and is beaten back in time.  Thus it is no surprise that the Quran reads like a poor plagiarism of its Christian and Judaic predecessors, with some local sayings and maxims thrown in for good measure.  This religion plundered the spiritualities of India and Greece to craft Sufism, it's most exotic and attractive development, which gives it some legitimacy as a faith among scholars of Eastern spirituality, who can huff the Sufi rag to cover up the stench of slaughter and child rape emanating from its Founding Prophet, an illiterate and murderous fellow who seems to suffer from severe psychological problems.

The Three-Headed Dragon feasts on the folk of the world, and they fight among each other over the prey, ripping entire civilizations in half to sate their gullets.  

Jesus teaches tolerance and weakness; Muhammad teaches cunning and brutality.  The civilization based on cunning and brutality will ultimately win out over tolerance and weakness, and we are seeing this unfold before our very eyes in the West in the present age.

Goodness gracious, tell us how you really feel!

Wow. I feel so peaceful honouring the Gods and keeping to myself. LOL.

I missed you, Out of Phlegethon.

The Galilean is largely viewed apathetically by those who maintain Ελληνισμός in Greece. He isn't accorded any honor by them, however; it is not seen as necessary to the fulfillment of θρησκεία or traditional adoration. I would not try to convince them, either.

Αγαμέμνων wrote:The Galilean is largely viewed apathetically by those who maintain Ελληνισμός in Greece. He isn't accorded any honor by them, however; it is not seen as necessary to the fulfillment of θρησκεία or traditional adoration. I would not try to convince them, either.

And what about the founders of other mystery schools?

Valencia2014 wrote:

Αγαμέμνων wrote:The Galilean is largely viewed apathetically by those who maintain Ελληνισμός in Greece. He isn't accorded any honor by them, however; it is not seen as necessary to the fulfillment of θρησκεία or traditional adoration. I would not try to convince them, either.

And what about the founders of other mystery schools?

Jesus would not be considered as having any innate importance in other Mystery schools, so his incorporation into them is not necessary, and not appropriate as anything other than a hero or a sage figure. Not the same for other founders like Orpheus. Orphism has Orpheus as its prophet. Hermeticism has Hermes Trismigestus, etc. Jesus had no hand in that, and it's not necessary to incorporate him into them. This is not to say that you can't, it's just not a necessity or a requirement, and his role should be limited within the system, otherwise it's inappropriate and, really, incoherent from the system's perspective.