Christ and Wicca.

[wildhunt]

In other threads, we have spoken about how there is probably some ultimate "force" or something* responsible for the creation of the uni/multiverse. Let's just leave that as a broad statement for a moment. Now, I've read, heard and seen a million and nine times that there are many types of Wiccans. That is to say, Wiccans are Wiccans, but sometimes can disagree on certain beliefs (sometimes even core beliefs) and it's not a problem and, in fact, it's seems like it's almost expected. We've discussed what kind of force this could be from top to bottom.

Well, let me give you my spiele and let the arrows fly. I believe that there is, in fact, an all powerful entity of some kind responsible for the uni/multiverse. I believe it is personal. I believe it is immanent and transcendent. I believe it is ultimately unfathomable and unknowable...fully*. I do* believe we can catch glimpses of it here and there through different techniques such as meditation, magic, dreams, etc...and learn and come to understand things about it.

Now, hold on to your pants. I believe the Bible is errant. That is I believe it was compiled by a bunch of well-off, Constantine-chosen men who had an agenda. One read of the Bible and you can see that it cannot all be literal and certainly not infallible. I believe it is* possible that this "God" that I spoke of earlier may have appeared in the Bible a few times, maybe not. But I definitely do not believe overall that YHWH is the All Powerful Creator. Here's where it get's sketchy. I believe that Jesus probably was what He said He was. I think He was in fact a chunk of God, come down to earth (or just to* earth...not necessarily down) to do what He said He was here to do. The message is definitely garbled because men chose what was to be Canon. I think Jesus was not the Son of God, but God incarnate, or something similar, maybe also not really fully understandable. I believe, ultimately, His was a Mystery Tradition. Jesus Himself told the Disciples that He spoke in parables because it was the only way most would understand His message, but for the few (his disciples) they were to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the official Canon, not even we/us the readers are privy to this information. Jesus mentions it, but never reveals it. That alone is like giving permission to seek further and farther for more things spiritual/ mysterious/ esoteric etc... We are speaking of hidden knowledge here. Hidden=Occult. Jesus and the Occult? Heavens no? Heavens YES!

My point is, I don't think Jesus needs to be an enemy of the Wiccan faith. He could even be an ally. The orthodox Jesus, well, yeah...that's a problem, but it's also manure. Jesus was an anarchist. He was turning over tables and pointing fingers and using magic! By the way, when he healed the blind man, did you noticed he used mud and spittle? Why did He need mud and spit? Why not just say, you are healed?

My point is, I think it entirely possible to not only believe in a Godhead that is responsible for Creation, but I believe, in a different place than our ancestors, God may have shown up to stir things up a bit. I think Jesus can have a relevant place in Wicca, when looked at from the correct vantage point. Hel, maybe one of the reasons He came was to show that He was willing to strip Himself of Godhood and suffer and die so that He could share in the suffering of life. Now I'm rambling.

Alright, I'm ready for the attack. Archers......ready......

[Arx]

Well, all of that's assuming that Jesus actually existed - which he most probably did not. Despite the presence of numerous Roman scholars, chroniclers and historians at the time of Jesus' supposed life/death, there are no historical accounts of his existence. The earliest references (the gospels) is some 40 years after Jesus' supposed death. In a civilisation with an average adult lifespan of 30 years, that's an exceedingly long time to go without anyone mentioning his existence anywhere.

Most evidence seems to point to the story of Jesus being a Hebrew reinterpretation of the Mithras myth. Mithras had 12 disciples, was called the good shepherd, was resurrected after three days etc etc. Oh and there's this lovely inscription attributed to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." Sound familiar?

Putting that aside though, if you recognise the mythic nature of Jesus, there's no reason why he couldn't be seen as an aspect of the overall divine - no different to any other mythic figure whether it be Zeus, Isis or Thor. The Jesus story - even if it is a reworking of older tales - is still a very powerful mythos ingrained within our cultural psyche.

-Arx-

[truffledude]

Don't forget the twice born Dionysus/Zagreus. I never heard of the Mithras connect til' now. I have a new research assignment.

[ThunderWolf]

I tend to agree Jesus probably never existed and was only part of the Christian mythology (ie the Bible). On a more technical aspect I don't believe there's any room for Jesus in Wicca. There are "Christo-Pagans", and those are Pagans who believe in Jesus. But as for Wicca (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) there is such a focus on the Lord and the Lady that I personally see a conflict between Christian theology and Wiccan theology/thealogy.

A lot of people calling themselves Wiccan take liberties with what is technically Wicca. There are certain precepts that define Wicca despite the "wiggle room". I personally think Jesus is a bit beyond that wiggle room.

I personally started out practicing Wicca and eventually my path developed into something unique unto itself. It's still got a Wiccan basis, but it is no longer actual Wicca. I suggest that what you're discussing would fall into that category. Possibly Pagan (or in this particular case more Christo-Pagan) but not Wiccan.

[Arx]

I tend to agree Jesus probably never existed and was only part of the Christian mythology (ie the Bible). On a more technical aspect I don't believe there's any room for Jesus in Wicca. There are "Christo-Pagans", and those are Pagans who believe in Jesus. But as for Wicca (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) there is such a focus on the Lord and the Lady that I personally see a conflict between Christian theology and Wiccan theology/thealogy.

A lot of people calling themselves Wiccan take liberties with what is technically Wicca. There are certain precepts that define Wicca despite the "wiggle room". I personally think Jesus is a bit beyond that wiggle room.

I personally started out practicing Wicca and eventually my path developed into something unique unto itself. It's still got a Wiccan basis, but it is no longer actual Wicca. I suggest that what you're discussing would fall into that category. Possibly Pagan (or in this particular case more Christo-Pagan) but not Wiccan.

Depends on your branch of Wicca. In a Gardnerian or Arthurian sense, Jesus would definitely be out of the question. In the sense of those interpretations of Wicca which entail substituting a specific God and Goddess from another culture for the Lord and Lady, then Jesus is a particularly valid choice as the male aspect. Arguing against the use of Jesus due to his roots from the Christian religion would then mean one would have to apply an equal argument to the use of figures such of Herne, Pan, Isis or Venus outside of their respective religions - religions which were most definitely "not" Wicca.

Thus, it all depends on which flavour of Wicca the individual prescribes to.

[RhiHu]

What you described sounds very Rosicrucian. I've read books that make a good case for the Christ mystery school... one that flurished all across the near east and could possibly date back to Sumeria. That would also explain why we have the resurecting son of god theme throughout the ages. The Osirian and Dionysian mystery school both put their initiates 'through the tomb' so to speak. You die to the flesh and worldly life so that you can become a vessle for the full influx of the cosmic. It's an alchemical working.

If this was the form that Christianity had stuck to, then the world might be a much better place. I guess it's a good example of what happens when the initiatic aspect and secrecy are taken out of the formula. You can't fake the results of true initiation, and if you try to you end up with.... the churchs. Just my opinion, obviously.

[Arx]

If this was the form that Christianity had stuck to, then the world might be a much better place. I guess it's a good example of what happens when the initiatic aspect and secrecy are taken out of the formula. You can't fake the results of true initiation, and if you try to you end up with.... the churchs. Just my opinion, obviously.

I've often wondered what it would have been like had the tables been turned e.g. if Wicca emerged 2000 years ago instead of Christianity. Would it have also moved from mystery to a tool for statecraft? Does Wicca have that potential within it? Would we have seen a Witch Queen as opposed to a Pope? Would monotheism have been the dangerous heresy? Many of the 161 Wiccan Laws could easily be misinterpreted by those desiring temporal power. Indeed, they have by certain unscrupulous practitioners.

Actually, the Wiccan Laws are about as rife with potential for abuse as the Bible is.

[iris]

he existed that much is known. He was not the man the bible makes him to be. Nor do we man of today under who he was. The story has become a myth. The myth has been blown out of propulsion to what really happened. The bible is in the same boat. There books missing that most have not read. So it is possible that one does not know the whole story or the the truth for that matter. I like to think that he was knowledgeable about magick. I saw this because in the bible he committed miracles. To the ancient time what was not a miracle but magick? There is no way to know for sure but it is possible so he may have know of the craft. There is not real need to believe in a god to believe in the the craft or practice the craft. So one cause say he did know the craft. If I am not wrong even the Jews have branch of belief that focus on the occult.

[ThunderWolf]

he existed that much is known. 

Actually, it's not known. As for the rest of what you said, it makes some sense, but the OP was referring specifically to Wicca.

[SnowAngel]

Personally, I don't think that it would be possible to mix the two religions without coming up with far too many opposing viewpoints between your chosen deities/and between the two religions themselves.  Which I think was already mentioned by one of the other posters.  My opinion is that it would cause more problems than it would be worth.

That being said, I certainly don't think that Christians and Wiccans need to be enemies, or that Jesus needs to be an enemy of the Wiccan faith.  I don't think, honestly, that Jesus would have a problem with Witches/Wiccans.  Christians tend to remember what they want to out of the Bible depending on the situation, and far too often they forget the part about acceptance. -- Now I'm rambling, lol

Interesting topic though 

Brightest Blessings
SnowAngel

[ferox1012]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen[smile].
I believe in the possible existence of Jesus Christ just as I believe in the possible existence of Socrates[not an awful lot of physical evidences for HIS existence either, you know. Unless I am mistaken, almost all of the proof of his existence mainly revolves around what his disciple Plato said/wrote about the man.], and although I am not a Christian, I never thought of Jesus as some kind of an enemy of Wicca, just as I don't see French people as enemies of America just because they talk different and come from a totally different culture from across the sea .

SnowAngel, the problem with hoping for acceptance from Christians in regards to people like us, is that exclusiveness/dualism plays such a huge roll within their monotheistic theology. When you believe that your God created the entire universe[this is were you'll hear phrases like "worshiping the creation rather than the Creator" pop up in Christian Apologetics when Christians talk about non-Christians and their Deities/beliefs. When you think that your Deity created everything, and has no equals anywhere, then there just isn't room for anything else.], and that you must help your loved ones understand that your way IS the ONLY way, then acceptance of something like Paganism, even in a beloved family member, can only go so far. Eventually, they ARE going to feel bad about never seeing you again in Heaven after they/you die, and even if they keep their silence on the issue, there will always be that sad longing for your 'enlightenment' and the peace that will come with it, if you see what I mean. 
I don't bother trying to make peace with "Christianity" or debate in churches, I try to make peace with and/or debate Christian individuals. 

[Theflyingsorcerer]

There are some shreds of documentary evidence - notably from the Roman historian Josephus, although his writings have been altered and added to over time - that a man by the name of Ieshua ben Iussuf lived in first-century Palestine; he was somewhat of a rabble-rouser and (in terms of the religions of the time) a heretic, he gathered some followers around him, came to the notice of the Roman and Jewish authorities and was executed for seditious activities - in the Roman manner; the Jewish method of execution was stoning.

His followers survived, and various legends grew up around him, basically rehashings of the Roman culture hero/god Mithras, the Greek Dionysos, and (especially) the Egyptian Horus. Other followers were drawn into the cult, and the idea slowly took hold that Ieshua was the Son of God (a title also applied to Roman emperors of the time); the cult became a full-fledged religion and, by decree of the Emperor Constantine became the official religion of the Empire - for wholly political reasons. The name Ieshua became, first in Greek, Iesos, then in Latin Iesus (the letter J wasn't actually invented until the 1500s). It wasn't until the late 300s that the early Church began to treat the Ieshua legends as literal, historical truth, and to treat the followers of other creeds as heretics, to be converted or, failing that, destroyed.


Such are the bare bones of the origins of Christianity. For the full story, I recommend an excellent book, "The Pagan Christ", by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest and University Professor of Greek and the New Testament.
  http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp

This book received a host of favourable reviews and also (inevitably) some hate mail; Christian fundamentalists denounced it in scathing terms, notably James Holding a.k.a. Robert Turkel, in an almost hysterical Web article;
  http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

Tom Harpur's rebuttal is at
   http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_responsetotpc.asp

Harpur's thesis is that the Christ story as told in the Canonical Gospels, and indeed the whole Bible, should not be read as literal history but as myth, or allegorically; a symbolic account of the descent of Spirit into Matter - the Incarnation - that is the birthright of everyone, not just of a single God-man at a particular time in history. He feels that treating the Christ story in this way - as myth rather than fact - will serve to revitalize Christianity and bring all Believers closer together - a naive hope, perhaps. It seems to me that Harpur cannot quite bring himself to accept that his reading of the Jesus story actually undermines the entire basis for Christianity and, indeed, for all the Abrahamic religions. It seems he needs to hold on to his Christianity.

My own answer to the question "can we incorporate Christ into Wicca?" would have to be; why would we want to? Jesus may have been a great teacher (although outside the Gospels there is little evidence of this), but he was mainly an avatar, an Archetype in the Jungian sense, and essentially equivalent to Horus or any other similar figure in mythology. It seems to me we don't really need him.

Blessed Be everyone,

Theflyingsorcerer.

[Arx]

My own answer to the question "can we incorporate Christ into Wicca?" would have to be; why would we want to? Jesus may have been a great teacher (although outside the Gospels there is little evidence of this), but he was mainly an avatar, an Archetype in the Jungian sense, and essentially equivalent to Horus or any other similar figure in mythology. It seems to me we don't really need him.

Whilst you could argue that we don't "need" Jesus, neither do we really "need" Isis, Herne, Freya or Pluto. If you argue against the use of a given archetypal expression due to redundancy, then that argument applies equally to other all other archetypes with multiple expressions. Where do you draw the line? Is Aphrodite invalidated by Ishtar? Or is it vice versa? What criteria determines the archetype that stays, and the one that gets shelved? Nitpicking I know, but I consider it a valid point to raise.

My stance is that choosing to work with the Jesus variation of the solar son archetype is just as valid as picking Horus or Mithras. It just depends on the individual's personal preference.

Otherwise, a rather awesome post - particularly for mentioning Tom Harpur.
-Arx-

[Theflyingsorcerer]

My stance is that choosing to work with the Jesus variation of the solar son archetype is just as valid as picking Horus or Mithras. It just depends on the individual's personal preference.

I have to say I pretty much agree with you, Arx; the particular expression of any given archetype that we choose to work with is a matter of personal preference; but for myself, I feel that the Jesus version is a bit redundant - and, I have to say this, he feels somewhat tainted by what some (and I emphasise some) fundamentalist Christians have made him into.

I suppose a strong case could be made for rescuing Christ from the Christians..... but that thought might lead us into areas of controversy we might not want to get into......

Theflyingsorcerer.

[ferox1012]

..............I love a good religious controversy.................[smile].