Did Jesus Christ Exist ?

[Whatchamacallit]

Please note: Below you'll see the word "bullet" repeated. It is from the CODE used in the original post. They are bullet points in a list, that's all.

Interesting....the website where the below article is posted: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Jesus of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ)
Did he actually exist? All sides to the question


Quotes offering opposing beliefs:
bullet "In none of these various testimonies to the fact of Christ is there any slightest hint or idea that he was not a real historical person." Roderic Dunkerley, "Beyond the Gospels."
bullet "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian."


Jesus' existence: the full range of views:

Almost everyone believes that Jesus walked the land of Palestine in the 1st century CE. Many have never considered the alternative - that Jesus was a mythical being. Most Christians would probably consider such an idea to be blasphemy:
bullet A conservative Christian, who believes in the inerrancy (freedom from error) of the Bible, and the inspiration by God of its authors, might cite passages from the Bible as proof of his existence. The gospels link Jesus' birth and crucifixion to historical persons and events. They describe his sayings, conversations, prayers and actions in great detail.
bullet Many liberal Christians view Jesus as a great Jewish prophet and innovative, itinerant teacher. Even though they do not necessarily consider him divine, few ever question his existence.
bullet Muslims also believe that Jesus was a great prophet. They do not believe that he died on the cross, but they definitely accept that he was born of a virgin, lived in Palestine in the early 1st century CE, and ascended to heaven without having previously died.
bullet Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi of the 1st century CE who popularized many of the beliefs of the Pharisees and of the liberal Jewish thought at the time.

However, there are some individuals who disagree that the biblical accounts of Jesus are accurate:
bullet Some claim that Jesus is simply a mythical character, not a historical person.
bullet Others claim that stories about a number of Jewish prophets and teachers from that era were consolidated and attributed to one man: Jesus.
bullet Still others believe that the myths and legends associated with other religious leaders and founders were collected from Egypt, Persia, India, etc. They were rewritten to refer to a person in first century CE Palestine, who may or may not have existed.


Philosophers and others who have been skeptical of Jesus' existence:

The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life. The skeptical view ..."has always been held by a small minority of investigators, usually 'outsiders'." (i.e. non-theologians). 1 It was a group of French philosophers during the French Revolution in the late 18th century who first suggested that Jesus was a mythical character. 1 Bruno Bauer, a mid-19th century German theologian agreed. In part of his 4 volume set "Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin," he claimed that Jesus did not exist. 18 A subsequent next major skeptic was the English theologian John M. Robertson who wrote two books in the very early 20th century. 12, 20 More recent books on this topic date from 1957 to 1991 and were written by perhaps a half dozen authors. 21 G.A. Wells, a former professor of German at the University of London was one of the most prominent. He wrote a series of five books on this topic, arguing that Paul and other 1st century Christian leaders believed that Jesus had lived in their distant past, perhaps in the 2nd or 3rd century BCE.

Michael Martin discussed Jesus' existence in his 1991 book: "The case against Christianity," 18 He is a professor of philosophy from Boston University who examined the major beliefs of Christianity. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed. Earl Doherty, writing in the Humanist in Canada magazine 1 believes that early Christian leaders saw Jesus as the Son of God who was a spiritual, not human being. He writes: "If Jesus was a 'social reformer' whose teachings began the Christian movement, as today's liberal scholars now style him, how can such a Jesus be utterly lacking in all the New Testament epistles, while only a cosmic Christ is to be found?" He wrote a book: "The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?" 22 If Doherty's assessment is true, then Christianity would have many points of similarity to other contemporary religions in the Roman Empire - particularly Mithraism who also viewed


Indicators of Jesus' existence or non-existence:
bullet Documents written during his lifetime which mention Jesus: There are none that date from the period 7 BCE to 33 CE.

bullet The Gospel of Q: This is believed by many theologians to be a collection of sayings, "which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and anecdotes." 1 These had been transmitted orally and are generally believed to have been first written down by his followers circa 50 CE. Unfortunately, the gospel does not include any dates for Jesus' life. If Jesus had been executed circa 30 CE, then many who saw and heard him preach would still have been alive and could have verified that the gospel was accurate. But a case can be made that the gospel was assembled out of sayings from the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

bullet Epistles from the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

bullet Liberal theologians believe that some of these were written as late as 150 CE, up to 4 generations after Jesus' death, by authors who were not eye witnesses of his ministry. Those writers could have based their letters on traditional sayings attributed to Jesus which dated from an earlier era. An analysis by G.A. Wells showed to his satisfaction that the authors definitely believed in the existence of Jesus, but did not cite any evidence that he lived in the 1st century. 17 They were vague about the location, timing and nature of his birth. Paul does not describe Jesus as a miracle worker, healer or teacher. Paul blames Jesus' death on Satan and demons, rather than the Roman government. (2 Timothy does blame Pilate and "the Jews" for his death. It thus ties the execution of Jesus to a person known to be alive in the 1st century CE. However, this epistles was written long after Paul's death, and may have picked up the concept from the synoptic gospels which had been widely circulated by that time.)

bullet Conservative Christians believe that all of the books which state that they were written by Paul were actually authored by him prior to his death in the mid 60's CE. Although there is no evidence that he was an eye witness to Jesus' ministry, Paul wrote that he received personal revelations directly from Jesus, presumably in the form of visions. Paul mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. That would be a strong indicator that Jesus had lived in the early 1st century CE.

bullet The canonical Gospels:

bullet Liberal and mainline theologians generally believe that Mark was the first gospel written, and that it was composed about 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were authored up to 15 years later. John was written after Luke. None of the authors identities are known. If these dates are correct, then it is unlikely that any of the authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. In spite of their claims, they were relying on secondary or tertiary sources, and accumulated church tradition.

bullet Conservative theologians date the gospels much earlier. The Scofield Bible asserts that Matthew was written by a tax collector by that name who was mentioned in Matthew 10:13. Dr. Scofield accepted what he referred to as the traditional date of 37 CE. If the authorship and date are correct, then the gospel represents convincing support that the author was a disciple of Jesus and an eyewitness to his 1st century CE ministry.

bullet The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) overall:

bullet Many liberal theologians view the Christian Scriptures as being composed of some accurate material said and done by Jesus, mixed in with a many descriptions of Jesus' sayings and acts that never happened. The latter came from a variety of sources:

bullet Religious propaganda directed at enemies of the author's religious group. (Anti-Judaic passages in John which imply that "The Jews" are responsible for Jesus' execution is one example.)

bullet Events that never happened, but were added to satisfy prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). (The identification of Bethlehem as the birth place of Jesus is one example.)

bullet Other acts and sayings that were either distorted versions of Jesus life, or which were created out of nothing. These were added in order to bolster the traditions that had arisen within the author's faith group. (Jesus instructing his apostles to baptize in the name of the Trinity is one example.)
bullet Material copied from other religions in the Mediterranean area in order to make Jesus' claim to be the God-man. (e.g. the virgin birth, resurrection, status of Jesus as savior are some examples.)
bullet Stories of miracles that never happened but were added to bolster the importance of Jesus. (e.g. raising the dead, or healing people of leprosy, blindness, hemorrhaging, indwelling demonic spirits, etc. are some examples).
bullet Probably some other components that the author has missed.

Some liberal theologians might believe that there is little or no accurate information about Jesus that has survived to the present time. As Bertrand Russell wrote in "Why I am not a Christian.": "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

bullet The Gnostics: The early Christian movement was composed of Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians. Gnostics in particular maintained that God could never take human form. Some denied Jesus' existence as a historical person.
bullet Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.
bullet Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative." 18
bullet Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the entire passage as legitimate. 8

There exists no consensus on a second passage in Antiquities which refers to Jesus' brother James, having being tried and stoned to death. Some consider it legitimate; others assess it to be a forgery.
bullet Cornelius Tacitus: He was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE. McDowell and Stewart accept his writings as a strong indicator of Jesus' existence in the early 1st century CE. 8 However, the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century.
bullet Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE. He wrote to "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is often used to support the historicity of Jesus, assuming that Jesus' title was misspelled. But Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name.
bullet Other ancient Roman historians: There were about 40 historians who wrote during the first two centuries. 5 With the exception of the above, none stated that Jesus existed in the 1st century.
bullet Jewish literature: The Talmud states that Jesus lived in the 2nd century BCE. However, this passage itself dates from the early 2nd century CE. The authors were probably basing their writings on a reaction to some of the dozens of Christian gospels circulating by that time.
bullet Pope Leo X (1513-1521): Some believe that he considered Jesus to be a mere legend.
bullet Barbara Walker in her Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Page 471, quotes him as as having said "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"
bullet Rev. Taylor, in The Diegesis, Page 35, has a slightly different quote "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us."
bullet The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to a widely circulated remark: "How much we and our family have profited by the legend of Christ, is sufficiently evident to all ages."

The first two quotes appear fictional, and unrelated to any actual statement by Pope Leo X. They have the flavor of folktales. One reason is than they have appeared in so many different wordings. Their origin appears to be in a fictional work by John Bale. The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to him as an: "...apostate English Carmelite, the first to give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth" (1533 - 1603). 23 Even if Leo X said something like one of these "quotes" the meaning is not clear. He may have been referring to legends and fables arising about the life of Jesus which accumulated after his death.
bullet Present-day theologians: The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.


In interests of full disclosure....:

The personal hunch of B.A. Robinson, this website's main author, is that there were many Jewish teachers wandering in Galilee during the interval 20 to 30 CE. At least one may have been called Yeshua (Hebrew for Joshua). One developed a devoted following of fellow Jews, committed aggravated assault in the Jerusalem temple, and was arrested by the occupying Roman Army. He was crucified as an insurrectionist as one of perhaps ten thousand other Jews who suffered the same fate during the first century CE.

The beliefs of two or three of these Galilean teachers were subsequently amalgamated and recorded in the early gospels that explained the life of a single individual: Yeshua of Nazareth as a single individual:
bullet One was an itinerant Greek cynic philosopher who lived a life of poverty and challenged the public on philosophic, ethical and religious matters. The closest example to a cynic philosopher today would be a combination of stand-up comic and political cartoonist.
bullet A second was a apocalyptic teacher who preached about the imminent end of the world in his immediate future -- much like John the Baptizer.
bullet There might even have been a third teacher who was a follower of Hillel. The latter was a 1st century CE Jewish liberal theologian and one-time president of the Sanhedrin.

There is`some evidence of this merger. The Gospel of Q, appears to be the oldest surviving gospel. It was written in sections over time. The first section describes the sayings of a Greek cynic philosopher; the second section describes sayings of an apocalyptic teacher. Meanwhile, many of Yeshua's teachings, as found in the synoptic Gospels, closely match those of Hillel except on matters of divorce where Hillel was more liberal. Between 30 CE and 100 CE, when the Gospel of Q, the three synoptic canonic Gospels, and the Gospel of Thomas were first written, the teachings of these multiple teachers were merged and attributed to a single individual: Yeshua of Nazareth. The rest is history.

I stress that these are my personal hunches. They are shared by few if any theologians.


Possible source of material about Jesus' life:

Robert M Price 4 writes:

"In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven."

He asserts that there are a number of historical and mythical figures whose life stories contain these elements, including Jesus. But just as we do not regard Hercules as a historical figure, a case can be made that Jesus was also a mythical character.

Some theologians and historians believe that many of the details of Jesus' life were "borrowed" from a competing, contemporary religion, Mithraism.

Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. 5 Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. 19 Mithra was also believed to have been born of a virgin. Like Jesus, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of Jesus' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did. 19 Other early Christians believed that Satan invented Mithraism and that he made Mithra's life and the practices of the religion identical to what Christianity would become centuries later. They felt that Satan's purpose was to confuse believers.


References used:

The first draft of this essay was written in 1998 using the books and web sites listed below. Unfortunately, most of the latter are no longer online.

1. Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle: Was there no historical Jesus?" Journal of Higher Criticism at: http://pages.ca.inter.net/
2. Rae West, "Existence of Jesus Controversy," at: "http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/ *
3. Apostle James, First Apostle to the Antichrist, "The Jesus Myth," at: http://www.antichrist.net/ *
4. R.M. Price, "Christ a Fiction (1997)," at: http://www.infidels.org/
5. Acharya S, "The origins of Christianity and the quest for the historical Jesus Christ," at: http://www.truthbeknown.com/
6. Historicus, "Did Jesus ever live or is Christianity funded upon a myth?," United Secularists of America at: http://www.infidels.org/
7. Ross Clifford, "Leading lawyers look at the resurrection" Albatross, Australia, (1991)
8. J. McDowell & D. Stewart, "Did Jesus really exist?," from "Answers to Tough Questions," at: http://members.aol.com/ *
9. R.A. Eyre, "Did Jesus Christ exist?" at: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/ *
10. Bible Alive, "Did Jesus Exist?" at: http://www.biblealive.org.nz/
11. "Answers to tough questions: Did Jesus really exist?," Emmanus Evangelistic Ministries, at: http://home.sprynet.com/ *
12. J.M. Robertson, "Christianity and Mythology," 2nd edition, (1910)
13. John Romer "Testament: The Bible and History," videotape, Video Education Australasia, 3 cassettes
14. George Fletcher, "Did Jesus Christ exist?," at: http://pages.prodigy.com/ *
15. Cathy ?, "Did Jesus really exist?," http://www.geocities.com/ *
16. M.A. Copeland, "Christian Apologetics: The Historical Jesus," at: http://ccel.edu/
17. G.A. Wells, "Historicity of Jesus" in "Encyclopedia of Unbelief," Prometheus, (1985). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
18. Michael Martin, "The case against Christianity," Temple University Press, (1993) Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
19. B.G. Walker, "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets," Harper & Row, (1983), Page 663-664.
20. J.M. Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 2nd edition, Barns & Noble, (1911; reprinted) Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
21. Michael Martin 18 lists the following books which are skeptical of Jesus' existence:
bullet W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
bullet Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
bullet Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
bullet John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
bullet G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
bullet G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)
22. Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus," Canadian Humanist Publications, (1999). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
23. "Pope Leo X," Catholic Encyclopedia, at: http://www.newadvent.org/

* These essays are no longer online.

horizontal rule

Copyright ? 1998 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2008-APR-21
Author: B.A. Robinson
line.gif (538 bytes)

[truster]

The Greeks say the popular calandar dates are off. it seems the whole world is programmed to this calandar of a timeline where possibly the fake composite character is portrayed. It seems rare that anyone can psychically tune into jesus as they think he was born 2008 years ago.

From An X-File view, well marys virgin pregancy could of been from an abduction with an attempt to bring about a supergenetic human and the addition of technology to convince of miracles. getting the world to worship an astral entity from a certain name, and most of the world sings to the top of lungs to this named farther.

The first forced organized religion catholicism who probably wants to control population , and removed evidence of his 3 wives and children. With the evil astral entities this group chants to it probably didn't take much time for these astral entities to tune in and find any manuscript supporting the truth.

It seems the elite are trying to make the world feel as if they are imperfect, and the son of god was perfect. I say to add power back to yourself you need to view jesus as an imperfect man.
here is a link with a collection of views of jesus mistakes.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... jesus.html

the main overtheme of christianity is love and peace and that could be the bait to send humanities prana to some named astral entity, just as rse adds wine parties, and music and the ascended master promise to send the students prana to add to jz psychic abilities as well as to her spirt guide.
kinda like chris angel the magician, he at a young age did some tricks and gained prana to his aura that he can do magic and over time he was finnaly able to do more than just tricks. I've seen him bend forks like noone else has and I know someone who worked at the luxor and he told me some are staged where people actually sign a form of silence and it is just a trick, but he said some of it is real and amazing.

[G2G]

Christianity doesn't hold the "copyright" on a virgin birth. Just take a trip through "The Mahabharat," and see how many "virgin" births occurred within this other Indian epic. "Kunti's" first son was from a "virgin birth." Same for her Pandava sons, since her husband was cursed to "die" if he had relations with his wives. So "Kunti" was granted sons after praying for them. There is much more, but the virgin birth idea has been around for more than 2008 years...

[Whatchamacallit]

G2G said, "the virgin birth idea has been around for more than 2008 years"

Yes.


truster, it sounds as though you accept jzRamtha's view of Mary being abducted by aliens, impregnated to bring about a superhuman being/son. maybe you weren't in rse long to enough to know it, but that's what is taught there.

it's also contradicted at other points in the teachings, too, because another time jzRamtha says that Jesus was actually brought here and initially guided by the devil (Jehovah of the Old Testament), but the Council of 13 butted in and used him as a messenger for Good. doesn't make sense because supposedly, Jesus was the creation of the combined souls of the Council of 13, which made the composite soul, Jesus.

jzRamtha needs to get his/her story straight, first of all. Too much wine.

[Another Dimension60]

Although a 'contemporary' definition of 'virgin' is she who hasn't had sex with a man; the original meaning of virgin is "a woman unto herself" - i.e. in cultures/eras in which a woman is defined in terms of a male - father, husband, brother etc - a Virgin is a woman defined in/of/through/as herself. Many many many most Virgin Goddesses had children --- sex is not the point -- self empowerment is the point.
It is only in relatively recent 'civilized' times that 'facts' have become the critieria of truth. Stories have always been the means of communicating truth. It doesn't matter, for instance, the name of the "boy who cried wolf", or where he lived, or how old he was, or exactly when he lived or even how many times he cried wolf... it's a true story....
My 2 cents, as watcha would say (or somebody)...

[G2G]

That certainly changes things!!!! :) :) :)

It is so humbling to learn that nearly all one was taught...is not.

[Whatchamacallit]

ad60, i agree with your comments about the meaning, not being a literal/physical interpretation of the meaning of "virgin".


sort of off topic: i've heard rumor of sai baba and ammachi (female) who are both in-the-flesh, causing women to conceive, who had infertility issues; and the conceptions are alleged to have happened only by spirit intervention; nothing physical, though it manifested as physical. perhaps said baba had time for such matters when he wasn't otherwise busy molesting males. i cannot prove/disprove the claims...i've only read about them.


G2G, LOL !

[joe sz]

careful with Price's pov. I reviewed one of his books:
http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/top_secret.htm

Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today?s Pop Mysticisms
Robert M. Price

Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008

ISBN: 978 1 59102 608 2

370 pages, hardback

Review by Joe Szimhart, 2008 August

Top Secret is a facetious title for an ambitious book about a somewhat inscrutable topic. Robert Price challenges the reader to ride along with him through relatively popular realms of neo-spirituality?the kind you might experience by watching an Oprah Winfrey program or a Sunday morning mega-church televangelist. Listed on the book?s cover are ?The Secret and New Thought; A Course In Miracles and Marianne Williamson; The Celestine Prophecy; Joel Osteen?s Prosperity Gospel; Madonna?s Kabbalah; Deepak Chopra; [and] Dierdre Blomfeld-Brown, aka Pema Ch?dr?n.? But there is more. Price also includes chapters about modern Gnostics Carl Jung and Stephan A. Hoeller, Oprah?s latest favorite guru Eckhart Tolle, and authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy who wrote The Jesus Mysteries: Was ?the Original Jesus? a Pagan God? Seemingly out of place and for no obvious reason, the author adds appendixes containing around thirty-five pages about the cult problem, deprogramming and how best to understand and relate to cults.

Price has written other books that deconstruct Christian teaching and traditions but this is the first title by him that I have read. After finishing this provocative volume, I was curious about just who is Robert Price? I found that the author?s career path alone is a study in postmodern spirituality. The book jacket tells us that he is a professor of scriptural studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary (located at the Universal Truth Center in Miami, FL). Johnnie Colemon, named after a woman who was a minister of Unity Church in the 1950s but by 1974 established her own branch of New Thought spirituality, states its mission as ?training of women and men for the ministries of the New Thought Christian Movement.?[1] Today, Robert Price lives in North Carolina with his family according to http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/. Price was born in 1954 in Mississippi, studied Christian apologetics in college while he lived in New Jersey where he also became pastor of a Baptist church. By the late 1970s he reassessed his faith and adopted a more liberal, anthropological view in the camps of Paul Tillich and Robert Bultmann. Price got his Ph.D. in systematic theology from Drew University in 1981. Still, this was not enough for the intellectually restless Price. I will let the author?s website speak for him:

?Price soon enrolled in a second doctoral program at Drew, receiving the Ph.D. in New Testament in 1993. These studies, together with his encounter with the writings of Don Cupitt, Jacques Derrida, and the New Testament critics of the Nineteenth Century, rapidly eroded his liberal Christian stance, and Price resigned his pastorate in 1994. A brief flirtation with Unitarian Universalism disenchanted him even with this liberal extreme of institutional religion. For six years, Bob and Carol [author?s wife] led a living room church called The Grail. Now, back in North Carolina, he attends the Episcopal Church and keeps his mouth shut.? [2]

As another indication of just how far the author has moved from the Christian fundamentalism of his youth, secular humanist Paul Kurtz hired Price to work for the Center for Inquiry and for The Jesus Project as Professor of Biblical Criticism.[3] Price and his skeptical colleagues argue that a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 years ago, but evidence for the historical Jesus is sorely lacking. Price argues that the Gospel of Jesus is a story cobbled together from ancient Jewish and pagan prototypes. He indicates that even if there were a super prophet named Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel tradition is based on a mythic version of him, so all we have today is the myth. In this view, Price is radical as even most atheist scholars of religion agree that a real Jesus did live, teach and die if not exactly as described in the Gospels. Answering critics, Price states:

?As to how it feels to be beyond the fringe, I can only say it is exhilarating to pursue new paradigms and see where they lead, instructed by great scholars of the past and present but in no way obliged to swallow all their conclusions. I certainly do not ask anyone else to swallow mine, as if they were some kind of catechism. I am content to pursue my own ideas and to provide stimulation for others to think of possibilities they hadn?t before. They will come up with their own syntheses, and I hope they do it soon enough that I may read and learn from them.?[4]

Now, let us get back to his book, Top Secret.

Apparently, Price has not kept his ?mouth shut.? Top Secret represents a collection of new topics the author has written about since 2000. The book?s title is a spin on the mega-seller The Secret by Rhonda Byrne (2006). As I mentioned, I knew nothing of Price?s background when I first read his book, but I found it odd that he would so readily point out Byrne?s simple-minded magical ideas and ridicule A Course in Miracles as ?A Course in Malarkey,? yet defend meaningful concepts from the New Thought basis of those and other subjects covered in the book.. Price helps the reader along by describing New Thought ideas based on its origins in the 19th century. He also offers a useful brief on Gnosticism (Chapter 9, ?Know It Alls?) and its influences on New Age and New Thought religious ideas.

His defense of New Thought proper goes something like this: ?The Secret has invited a storm of justified criticism because of its embrace of, indeed its harping on, bogus physics to make what is essentially a sound and clever psychological point. If only Byrne and her adherents would drop the pseudoscience! All this talk of ?frequencies? and ?sensing out vibrations? must be recognized, and thus be respected, as metaphor.? (47) I agree partially with this keen insight by Price. New Age infected spirituality tends to be fundamentalist in that ?energies? or relational qualities like love, judgment, and harmony are taken literally as quantifiable entities. In other words, you can store up and send more love or healing power by meditating or using a specific ritual, affirmation or mantra. Think witches casting spells, Harry Potter waving his wand, or Papa Smurf making magic invocations. Price repeats this insight over and again as he critiques the nonsense science taught by the narcissistic post-TMer Deepak Chopra, the muddle-headed psycho-spirituality behind A Course in Miracles, the hackneyed New Age magic in The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield, and the vapid grandiosity of our latest celebrity guru, Eckhart Tolle (pronounced TOH-lee).

I agree only partially with Price because I have less sympathy for New Thought or New Thought religion (Church of Religious Science, Science of the Mind, Christian Science, Scientology, Unity) than he does. New Thought as metaphor still does not work for me. Homeopathy or chiropractic might qualify as useful medical metaphors under Price?s view but such pseudo remedies involve a lot of waste of time and money, if not health. The real cost is not a metaphor. And I would have to ask, ?What is New Thought without belief in supernatural forces and magical thinking?? Price seems to believe there would be something left to it. As I have gotten to know them over the years New Thought practitioners are particularly vulnerable to the ?alternative? healing modalities. This is not to say that my Christian or Jewish cousins avoid alternatives (I am Roman Catholic).

Despite my personal reservations, I think Top Secret is both a penetrating criticism of the topics and gurus covered as well as a subtle apologetic for the goals of the New Thought theological seminary that the author teaches for (at this writing). As an example of what I call his New Thought apologetic, Price finds some value in the advice of the neo-Kabbalist Rabbi Michael Berg or ?Madonna?s Guru? (252):

?In sharp contrast, I think, to the earlier advice to read the Hebrew text uncomprehendingly, comes Rabbi Berg?s suggestion that individual scripture passages be memorized for meditation as odd moments through the day permit. It is like chanting a mantra, but it has nothing to do with belief in magical invocation. It is rather a technique to launder the inner speech of the mind. All day long one is incessantly engaged in random chatter anyway, much of it negative and critical. Why not run some detergent through the machine instead? Why not think upon edifying texts, and thus alter one?s pattern of thinking and one?s attitudes? ... If that sounds like the mental techniques of New Thought, the similarity does not stop there. Rabbi Berg believes that the habits of giving and sharing we must inculcate in order to stretch ourselves for spiritual growth will, almost as a side effect, bring them worldly compensations too.? (263)

In other words, good thoughts with related good behavior can bring good results whether you believe in a magical universe or not. What Price argues against is making this neo-Kabbalah religion into a ?science? as if thoughts were quanta in the physical realms. He is also against the implied blame-the-victim crap endemic in many New Age/New Thought cults: If the affirmation brings bad luck or you get sick and die, you must have bad karma. It?s your fault. You create your own reality. New Thought properly applied, Price surmises, is a practical psychology and a social psychology, not a religious science. If this strips New Thought of its magical elements, so be it, says Price, because it ?may be backed up by recourse to more mundane, psychological conditions?(37). Price rightfully takes a host of pop-gurus to task over this same misapplication of sympathetic magic (law of attraction in The Secret) and they include Wayne Dyer and Shakti Gawain as well as ?team Secret?, Berg, Chopra, Tolle, and Ch?dr?n.

Through Price we learn that Joel Osteen falls into the New Thought milieu as an heir to the preaching of Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, and more recently Reverend Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life). Price does a remarkably good job exposing Osteen?s message for what it is: New Thought recycled, cosmetically theological, ornamentally scriptural, dubiously anecdotal as to evidence, inconsistent, and superstitious. Of all the chapters, this one finds Price reaching his stride best as scholar and social scientist. Price?s theology-geek humor spills out (I thought it was funny) when he shows how Osteen the Bible preacher in Your Best Life Now was ?scripturally accurate.? Osteen inadvertently reflects a passage that Price says is found nowhere in the Bible but found in the Buddhist Dhammapada. (283)

I said earlier that the topic of Top Secret was inscrutable, meaning that when human beings mine transcendental territory they often come back with fools? gold. It is not so much what they find as what they pretend to find. Mystical experience is what it is, whatever it is, but whenever human beings dumb it down into familiar images or native language the result can seem lofty or bizarre. We may sometimes find elegant poetry (Dante, Lao Tze, perhaps Blake) but more often we have confused, simple-minded utterances (Tolle), delusional identification with a god (Schucman in ACIM) or worse?self-serving fabrication (Smith in Book of Mormon). I think that Price more or less agrees with me.

I agree with Price that Tolle?s insight influenced by A Course in Miracles (ACIM) is ?malarkey? but I would go further. I spent years trying to analyze ACIM after it came out in 1975, especially after I baled from a New Age cult in 1980,[5] and I now see it as pure mind-(bleep)ing psychobabble. ACIM could be dangerous if any of its devotees ever figured out how to apply its cloud of inscrutable directions. The pure ACIM devotee would have to stop all movement and breathing forever to demonstrate its truth to remain in the ?holy instant.? Rocks do a super job of remaining in the holy instant. Also, ACIM is an odd, new example of the old, Gnostic how to avoid-the-real-world shuffle. But that?s just me talking. Price says, ?Oh, and one more thing: the book (ACIM) never once defines miracles nor is it at all clear even by implication. One thing Schucman seem (sic) not to mean is miracles as traditionally defined supernatural feats. So what does she mean? Some course in miracles. Is the tuition refundable?? (153-54)

Price only hints that after all his deconstruction and seeking that he ?knows? something of truth. Price is compelling in his arguments but does not play guru and I like him for that. However, he delivers nothing that is ?top secret? either and that is why I call his effort here facetious. He was obviously punning as all the commercial gurus covered in his book claim to have found the Top Secret. Price argues for a path to self realization through science and reason?that is his Top Secret as far as I can tell..

The book contains a few errors that a rewrite may correct someday. For example, Price calls the 2004 religious docudrama What the Bleep do We Know? a ?TM [Transcendental Meditation] production? (51). What the Bleep was produced by Ramtha School of Enlightenment operatives though it had a significant TM sympathizer in it. In Chapter 5, ?A Course in Malarkey?, Prices misses an important New Thought connection for Helen Schucman who channeled the ?voice? that generated A Course from 1965-1972. Schucman was a psychologist and not a psychiatrist as Price states (131). She worked under Bill Thetford?s mental health clinic at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital at the time of writing A Course. She shared her ?voice? musings almost daily with Thetford over seven years. Thetford (1943-1988) encouraged her from the start as she was a reluctant prophet, at least initially. Price does not mention Thetford or his early family influence from Christian Science, something Thetford may have rejected formally but not philosophically. Thetford?s continued enthusiasm over ACIM is the evidence for his continued belief in New Thought principles.

With Price and his polemic (in The Jesus Project) against faith-based claims of evangelical Christianity we may have an echo of the classic clash between the scholastic Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) and the visionary St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153). Bernard charged Abelard with heresy as the certain faith of the saint felt threatened by and opposed the brilliance of the rational scholastic. Abelard?s reported last words at his death were, ?I don?t know.? I think God may have found that refreshing. And as much as I find flaws in Price?s work, I find him refreshingly if not compellingly skeptical.

This is a deprogrammer?

Now I come to the appendixes in which Price gives us his take on the cult problem. Here, he is in my territory?I have been a cult critic and ?deprogrammer? since the early 1980s. I mentioned above that this last section seems out of place. It is nowhere mentioned on the jacket notes and not indicated in the subtitle. But a quick Internet search of Price?s writings reveals a fictional piece he called The Deprogrammer (2004).[6] He definitely exhibits a keen interest in the topic of cults. After reading this entertaining story and looking over the Appendixes in Top Secret, my impression is that Price relied on limited and dated, if not biased, sources. His model of a deprogrammer and cults seems greatly influenced by the controversial career and behaviors of Ted Patrick (Let Our Children Go, 1976) and perhaps by early 1980s movies about deprogramming (Split Image, Ticket to Heaven). More recently, Holy Smoke (1999), a film by Jane Campion, continues this stereotyping narrative about abusive shock tactics in deprogramming. These movies and Patrick?s career as described in Let Our Children Go do not represent my extensive experience with the field.

Other sources seem to be a specialized group of social scientists that have a significant reaction to what they call the ?Anti-Cult Network.? One book referenced by Price, The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and New Religions by David Bromley and Anson Shupe, Jr. (1980) typifies the scholars I am referring to. Other scholars referenced and in that camp are James R. Lewis, J. Gordon Melton, and James Richardson. Price does list one book co-edited by sociologist Benjamin Zablocki who is more in line with how I see the problem. The anti-anti-cult network scholars assert that there is no such thing as ?brainwashing? (as anti-cultists mean it). They argue that ?new religious movements? are vilified mainly because they are new and/or foreign, misunderstood, and upstart alternatives to established religions. I do not entirely disagree with this argument as far as it goes but getting one of these specialized scholars to admit that controversial cults might fully deserve the criticism by ex-members is like pulling wisdom teeth without a numbing agent. I have tried. Many of them develop brain-lock when an ex-member speaks out. All they seem to hear are ?atrocity tales? with doubtful content. Price inherits the same brain-lock as evidenced in this passage, for example:

?We need to keep in mind what Peter Berger describes as ?nihilation strategies.? When someone embraces a new set of beliefs or a new allegiance, diametrically opposed to his former ones, he seeks to make sense of the old allegiance in terms of the new? One simple cannot deal with the chagrin of having been a ?kooky cultist,? and it becomes in mighty handy to deny that one?s choice for the previous state was voluntary. ?I only joined up because they brainwashed me!? This is another way of saying, ?You know, I must have been crazy to have joined that group!? Only it is no longer hyperbole. You are seeking to slough off the responsibility for a decision you now find embarrassing. I suspect the same thing happened in the early 1980s when the porn star Linda Lovelace abandoned her film career and claimed, not that she had repented of her sins, but that she escaped from the slavery and brainwashing at the hands of her evil manager, who forced her to degrade herself in pornographic moviemaking. She was ashamed now of having done it, so ashamed that she could not imagine she had ever chosen to do it. Her story was a nihilation strategy to save face. And one suspects the atrocity tales of ex-cultists partake of the same.? (313)

So, what is Price inferring here? Do all deprogrammed or walk-away ex-cultists identify with what Linda Lovelace supposedly claimed? Linda Lovelace is somehow a paradigm for ex-members now when she says, ?The manager made me do it?? Do ex-members accept no responsibility? Is it all brainwashing, as if brainwashing creates a kind of robotic automaton? I admit that I have run into a few folks that blame it all on the cult when they should take more responsibility but I can assure Professor Price that, by far, most of the thousands of ex-members I have personally encountered would be chuckling at his stilted depiction.

I recall once in 1992 having to defend myself in a civil suit by a large martial arts cult (John C. Kim schools at the time) that did not like that I had accused them, in writing, of using ?coercive persuasion? to manipulate potential instructors into signing huge contracts?like $30,000 and $125,000. The Texas judge threw out the complaint after I testified and after our lawyer with my help cross-examined their witnesses and their ?expert.? I felt sorry for her. Out of sympathy for their middle-aged ?expert? psychologist (she studied martial arts at one of the schools), I wrote to her to try to help her understand my position. I ran into brain-lock (not unusual for a true believer) with her after two exchanges. She said I had a ?reaction formation? to cults because I was an ex-member implying that there was something seriously wrong with my recovery. As I indicated above, I got deeply involved with a large New Age cult from 1979-1980.

Now, I am not arguing that a ?reaction formation? was not part of my ?nihilation strategy? after rejecting the Summit Lighthouse but I emphasize it was only a small part. What I am arguing is that by labeling my defection story and recovery as ?nihilation strategy? my critic brain-locks into seeing no further. So, it seems to me that both she and Price do exactly what they feel deprogrammers and anti-cultists do, namely, resort to simplistic jargon to sustain a bias or what Price calls a ?plausibility structure.? Robert J. Lifton in his fine study on brainwashing in Communist China called this ?loading the language.?[7] Lifton quoted Lionel Trilling who calls this the ?language of non-thought.?

Price also seems to ignore the fact that ?nihilation strategies? might include scholarly refutation of false beliefs, exposure of actual misbehavior by gurus, analysis of group dynamics that can undermine or compromise individual choice, and learning strategies that accelerate recovery from psychological harm. It is as if Price is saying that ex-members are merely utilizing a nihilation strategy to avoid personal responsibility. What I see here is equivocation in Price?s argument. A nihilation strategy does not equal an atrocity tale (as if an atrocity tale excludes accuracy, reason, and intelligent choice with in depth self-analysis). Furthermore, I challenge Price to produce a real person that remotely resembles his caricature in The Deprogramming. If he does, I would like to have a discussion with that person in Price?s presence.

I want to comment on another equivocation. Price wrote:

?If one has abandoned one?s former membership through a deprogrammer, one has in effect been through a ?deconversion? experience fully as powerful as the original conversion whereby one entered the cult in the first place. One rejoices in a new identity.? (313)

Oh? That is news to me. I have participated in a wide variety of deprogramming interventions, easily many hundreds. Most, and exclusively since 1992, were non-coercive ?exit counselings? that lasted from three to five days. Most of those were ?successes.? By successes I mean cult members that rejected the cult in my presence during the intervention and not months or years after. I can assure Professor Price and that clique of scholars that influence his ideas that a deconversion during intervention and the conversion process are not the same ?experience,? nor does deconversion have the same ?power.? Price seems to mean intervention while confining a cult member against his will when he refers to what a deprogrammer does. In either case, confined or not, cult members that ?abandoned? their group or belief system after going through intervention emerge feeling relieved of a spurious role and useless burden. If they rejoice it is because their identity has been freed from a false or overvalued belief and not because they found a ?new identity.?

There is no ?new identity? as a result of deprogramming. Early anti-cultists sometimes used terms like ?pseudo-identity? or ?cult self? to describe the personality of a devoted group member in a self-sealing social system. I prefer to call it an ?affected identity? conditioned by specialized self-directed and other-directed manipulations but we need not discuss that here. When a person emerges from the ?rabbit hole? during an exit intervention (to me the process amounts to an educational approach once it gets going) no new identity emerges. It is the same person but one with new insight, new memories, improved (hopefully) perspectives and prospects, broader discursive interests, and renewed relationships that were cut-off for whatever reason during the cult experience. Rejecting cult affiliation, however, is only the start of a longer adjustment process of integrating the exit experience with a life thereafter. The ex-member does not ?rejoice in a new identity.? The cult identity never wholly leaves one; no more than having once been married, incarcerated, or part of a military campaign ever disappear from one?s history.



I wish Price had been more specific about cults that utilize New Thought ideas. He never actually accuses any of his main targets in Top Secret of running such a cult. If he had, his appendixes would make more sense. For example, A Course in Miracles has attained ?cult? status as a book but I say this with no intent to demean its tens of thousands of scattered devotees, most of whom, I daresay, are no more ?in? a cult (as self-sealing, manipulative system) than the average Lutheran! If we mean ?cult? in the sense of a controversial group with a charismatic leader and highly manipulative behaviors, then Price could have pointed to Church of the Full Endeavor (a.k.a. Endeavor Academy).[8] This ?Academy? is based on ACIM and has had a series of ex-members that accuse it of cult behaviors.[9] I have exit counseled people out of Endeavor and it does conform to the model of harmful group behaviors that would attract my services. Without clear examples, the reader will find it hard to apply just what Price means by cult.

And what does he mean? He titled his first appendix What Is a Cult? (291). He starts out well by dismissing the practically useless ?new religious movement? used by that same group of social scientists I mentioned above. Price states that cult is a perfectly fine word when we use it as defined in the dictionary despite its often pejorative intent by ignorant people. ?Cult? has layers of meaning. Good for Price. But then he goes off into sociologese by citing Max Weber?s classifications of church, sect, and cult. A sect in Weber?s typology is a breakaway or reformation movement within an established church. A cult, Price surmises within Weber?s aura, has two defining traits: 1. ?A small group of zealous believers all completely devoted to a single charismatic leader..? 2. A cult may also be a foreign transplant from an alien religion. Personally, I find Weber?s typology wanting because cult formation can occur within or without a sect or church.

There are layers of nuance about cult experience that Price does not ignore. For example, Price discusses ?plausibility structure? within a ?cognitive universe? citing research by Berger and Luckman (The Social Construction of Reality). ?The believer is like a submarine sailor surrounded by thousands of tons of water pressure. He had better have thick walls between him and that water! The plausibility structure provides them, and he must do his best to internalize the cognitive universe before he departs for the outer world of everyday society? (303).

Nowhere does Price mention that Eckhart Tolle devotees (if not Tolle himself) maintain plausibility structures to sustain belief in Tolle-ism. Of course, they have to, if one takes seriously what Price says about Tolle or any of the other pop gurus examined in Top Secret. What Price misses completely is that maintaining a plausibility structure is tantamount to what deprogrammers call mind control (self-policing one?s thoughts to comply with a belief system) or brainwashing (thoughts and behaviors as manipulated by another?s ideas, suggestions and directives). A thicket by any other name is still a thicket. So, there you have it from a deprogrammer.



jszimhart@dejazzd.com





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.jctseminary.org/portaljcts/C ... fault.aspx

[2] http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bio.htm

[3] http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cser/index.html

[4] http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showt ... 065&page=3

[5] Church Universal and Triumphant, a.k.a. Summit Lighthouse

[6] http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/fic_deprog.htm

[7] Robert J. Lifton (1961) Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

[8] http://www.themiracletimes.com/ACIMI/En ... cademy.htm

[9] http://www.rickross.com/reference/eacad ... demy1.html; http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcece ... /endeavor/

home

[EMFWebmaster]

This way to the Homeopathy debate

EMF link...

http://www.enlightenmefree.com/phpbb3/p ... =4129#4129