The Jesus Mysteries : The Original Jesus Was a Pagan God

As the authors state: "While the Jesus Mysteries Thesis clearly rewrites history, we do not see it as undermining the Christian faith, but as suggesting that Christianity is in fact richer than we previously imagined." I agree with the authors. How was Christianity richer in the past than it is now? Simple. The good guys lost and the bad guys won. In the 4th century CE Gnostic Christians who claimed Jesus was an allegory were brutally destroyed by Literal Christians who claimed Jesus was a real person. So, was Jesus an allegory or a real person? Paul the Apostle was a real person. Both religious and modern scholars agree the first seven letters of Paul were written in the first century CE by Paul himself. The Roman Empire had many prolific writers and Paul is mentioned on many occasions. But the Romans wrote nothing about Jesus. What about books in the New Testament? Since 1500 CE, honest, unbiased scholars have repeatedly exposed as frauds documents that supposedly proved Jesus really existed. Scholars may quibble over minutia but after 2,000 years there is no historical evidence a literal Jesus who founded Christianity ever lived. Evidence increasingly shows Jesus was meant to be an allegory that taught about the greatest Mystery of all - life itself. Individuals earning millions of dollars a year promoting a literal, historic Jesus may protest their reduced income but if they are honest they will admit there is no historical evidence Jesus the founder of Christianity was a real person. The Apostle Paul, yes; Jesus, no. Science continues to expose historical frauds from Literalist religions, yet Science and Gnosticism continue to support each other. Both question what is taken for granted. Both reject blind faith. Both have working models of the universe that are changeable. Both challenge unquestioned beliefs we inherit from the past. In fact, "Gnostic" and "Scientist" mean the same thing: knower. As the authors state: "Literalist Christianity is built upon the unsteady foundations of historical lies. Sooner or later it must topple over. But mystical Christianity rests securely on the bedrock of timeless mystical truth and is as relevant today as it has always been." Again, I agree with the authors. For a glimpse of first century CE Christianity without second century CE Literalist dishonesties go to Google.com, search for "Christian Mysticism" and visit a few of the 50,000 plus sites. In my opinion "The Jesus Mysteries" view is more accurate, more honest, and better fits historical evidence than the Literalist view. Filled with historical evidence by both religious and modern scholars "The Jesus Mysteries" is an excellent book. It took courage for the authors to write and if you are a Fundamentalist in any religion it takes courage to read. The question is, "Do you have the courage to face the 'The Jesus Mysteries' in an honest, unbiased manner or do you want to hide your head in the sand?"

This book is not an attack on Christ, it is rather an exaltation of the universal Christ principle. I found that everything that ever disturbed me, or rang false, about the gospels was washed away by the authors' Jesus Mysteries Thesis. I also realised why I have been so strongly drawn to Gnosticism over the years- it was the original faith, a faith hyjacked and perverted by an authoritarian, worldly, imperial, bureaucracy. There have been many Christs in many cultures: Osiris, Dionysis, Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, Mithras.... The central theme to all their stories was a son of God coming to earth, to learn, teach, and grow before being crucified on a cross of matter, and returning to the place from whence he came. This was also the central mystery in all cases: we are to realise that we too descended from another place and that we are to learn, grow and teach before we return there. This is the great truth to the Christ principle. How could this truth be a threat to anyone with a spark of spiritual insight?

Many will see the basic premise of "The Jesus Mysteries" to be the similarities between Christianity and the earlier Pagan Mystery Religions. This concept is not new and has been turned into a strawman and somewhat refuted by certain Christian Apologists.What makes this work unique is the completeness of the story, from the Pagan origins of the themes of Christianity, to the Mysteries' influence in the areas surrounding the first known Christian churches, to the earliest debates within the church over the "heretical" views of Gnosticism. Earlier works on this subject left many questions unanswered, but the complete story from Freke and Gandy leaves no stone unturned.Critics will attempt to knock out a few legs of their argument, but the completeness of the argument means it has a solid foundation that can handle a few valid criticisms. The criticisms I've seen so far, however, resort to ad-hominem attacks against the credibility of the authors (such as "they don't have a degree in Theology, so how could they write about Jesus", which would be like saying that the only ones capable of criticizing one of Bush's speeches is a life-time member of the Republican party), nit-picking about how hard it is to find the books they reference, or thinking that by refuting a single claim, one can refute the entire work.But none of the criticisms of the theory have convinced me that their basic premise is not entirely feasible -- at least as feasible as someone walking on water and raising the dead.The proposed "true" history of christianity from its roots as a hellenized mystery religion expressed through Gnosticism with the literal interpretation of the Gospels being only the "outer" mystery (and never intended to be taken as literal), followed by an enforcement of "orthodoxy" by later literalists is very much supported by what we know of the ancient times ... often from the very texts the church holds sacred.Certainly no fundamentalist myself, I had been introduced to the complete silence of the earliest Christians to any historical Jesus..., and have been open to finding the complete story. I suspect it is somewhere between Freke and Gandy's hypothesis and Doherty's.Although somewhat one-sided (and who isn't), I still give it 5 stars due to the completeness of the theory. Is it true? Maybe. Is it entirely plausible and supported by history? Definitely.

At first I feared this would be another book in the Michael Baigent or Barbara Thiering mold. But the fact that John Shelby Spong, George Wells and Alvar Ellegard were all willing to say nice things about it convinced me to give it a go. I'm glad I did. Christianity developed, according to the thesis, as a Jewish adaptation of the mystery religions that were common in the First Century. Jesus was a mythical figure with no solid historical existence. Gnostic Christianity was truest to this original understanding, but the growing literalist tradition ultimately supplanted it. Sound a bit hairy? The case is put strongly, and builds on the work of scholars like Elaine Pagels. While the authors are not specialists in the field of Historical Jesus/Early Church studies, they have produced a well documented and tightly argued case that can't be dismissed too lightly. This book will reach an audience not usually exposed to concepts like these, and it seems to mesh in several essentials with earlier studies. After completing it I had the same mixture of astonishment and conviction that I felt after reading Ellegard's Jesus - One Hundred Years Before Christ. If you want a swift kick in your Christian comfort zone, this is the place to start.

Freke and Gandy have done a spectacular job in writing a succinct, well-argued, credible history of the origins of christianity. Their extensive survey and reasoned analysis of comtemporary scholarship leads them to reject as implausible the idea of a literal, historical christ. This stance will undoubtedly upset some readers. However, to get stuck with the issue of whether or not they are right about this - and it seems likely to me that they are - is to miss the bigger (and better) picture. For if there was no Christ, then the question has to be: What was all the fuss about? In addressing this question, they open a door of understanding onto what they have called, "The Jesus Mysteries." With integrity and insight, they have begun an exploration into the true meaning of Christ and Christianity. It is compelling stuff. I can only hope they continue. And I for one look forward to reading another book.