What A Pagan Believes

Excellent information! Makes me want to learn even more about paganism.

Good information.

Ian – This article provides a good understanding of Paganism. It is interesting to know that Halloween celebrations are in some way related to pagan way of life of olden days. The spread of Christianity, being intolerant of other forms of worship, colored Paganism as evil and Satanic. Thus a centuries old wall of ignorance and mistrust has been built. In fact, Paganism appears to be a glorious celebration of life and seasons with an awe of nature's powerful forces.

Hi Ian,
It is for the most part an excellent article. But you stray into areas and make assertions which seem not to be correct. You seem to misinterpret or misunderstand Judaism and even at one point Christianity.
My own background and knowledge is Jewish, Jewish Kabbalah and Wiccan, although I don't claim to an expert on any of those vast traditions. With that Caveat, here I go.
You wrote: "What of pagan gods then you ask, do they not do requests? Are they false gods who should be avoided. After all you will have heard numerous warnings to steer clear of "false gods." But is not Jehovah, the God who has to be personified as a likeness of a human the false god, the synthetic god?"
Hmm… not sure where you got this idea, perhaps off of the account in Genesis where it states that man was made in the image of god? The ancient Rabbis noted early on that this was not meant to be taken literally but metaphoric/allegorically. Over all the Biblical concept of god is of a being without specific form.
You wrote: "The original Jehovah was simply a sun god like Ormazd, Zeus, Dis, Saturn, Ra, Dagda, Odin and so many others."
Hmmm…no real historical evidence that I have read matches that idea. There is some parallels with other Semitic gods that the Jewish god takes on the role in some passages of the text which is associated with the Sky God.
You wrote: " If you do not believe me take a look at the first chapter of Ezekiel in which the heavenly chariot is described. The four wheels and the wheels within wheels that drive them are an allegory of the earth and moon (there are four wheels because the Hermetic Jews at this time had a calendar based on a four year cycle) and the creatures that form the spokes of the wheels are the seasons, each with its seasonal symbol. And what is at the centre of each wheel? The sun of course."
Hmm..,.interesting idea, one that I am not familiar with, which doesn't make it make it wrong. Still the use of the image coming out of the prophet's subconscious is not proof that a) the Jewish concept of the divine was understood by Ezekiel as the exact equivalent of the Sun, b) no proof that Ezekiel knew the teachings of Hermes – not sure if the timelines of Ezekiel and the Hermetic teachings being written and taught overlap.

You wrote: "This mystification of the calendar shows that the pre - Romanic jews were in reality pagans (Hermetic Jews = devotees of Hermes)."
Again, you're stretching the facts and definitions of words. All ancient civilizations were interested in the cycles of time and the mystic meanings of time. That does not make the ancient Chinese, for example, Hermetic. Nor does it make the ancient Mayans and Aztecs Hermetic. You're twisting and mixing up concepts. All cultures dealt with time, time cycles, calendars as mystical constructs to be understood and interpreted. Each culture figured it on their own. You're making it seem like their was only one source for such knowledge – a giant error, leap of logic and historical evidence.
You wrote: "Really the modern Jewish religion is as much an invention of the Roman Empire as modern Christianity."
Not really true at all. Judaism grew out of the ancient Semitic cultural backgrounds and Rabbinic Judaism was starting to transform ancient Judaism when Rome was around. Rabbinic Judaism was definitely not an invention of Roman culture. Again, distorting and/or confusing historical facts. Christianity was influenced by the Mystery cults that were abundant at that time, some of which were Roman.
You wrote: "What all the Abrahamic religions do have in common however is an obsession with death and how we might cheat it."
That statement is true when you consider Christianity a "Abrahamic" religion. Judaism was never 'obsessed' with death and the necessity to cheat it. Biblical Judaism has very little to say about death and what happens after, and Rabbinic Judaism built off of the earthly focus of Biblical Judaism and enforced those tendencies and made Judaism to focus ones efforts on what was does in this life and leave the next life to take care of itself. Again you misunderstand Judaism.
You wrote: "Paganism however is about renewal, regeneration and responsibility. While the Abrahamic religions glorify selfishness because the objective of life is to earn enough brownie points to get you into the kingdom of heaven, a pagan believes that we simply hold the world in trust for future generations."
Again you mix Christianity with Judaism. You mistakenly assume that because Christianity focuses on heaven and getting into heaven that Judaism must also. Rabbinic Judaism taught that the completion of Mitzvoth – the Biblical 'commandments': keeping Kosher, not stealing, etc, is all about living an ethical, just, and the life prescribed by God as to be the path of the Jew. Nothing to do with getting into heaven, Rabbinic Judaism taught everyone goes to heaven, only those who commit violations of the 10 commandments or the other rules would be 'punished' in some form to right the balance whereupon once that is done, joining the heavenly court is automatic. Hence the focus is on living a just and good life in the here and now.

You wrote: "This astronomical knowledge was obliterated when Christianity, which is a purely political religion rather than a belief system, gained the ascendancy. It was only rediscovered in the 1950s."

Christianity became very political when it gained political power by becoming the official religion of Rome, but it was always a belief system – a very contentious collections of beliefs. Just review the history of the early years of the Church.

Your essay was good and informative, but you seem to not differentiate Judaism from Christianity and haven't done as much research into Jewish history and teachings.

good article of paganism, less scholarly on Judaism

Excellent article, Ian. I would love to pick apart and criticize every last little detail...but I'm not an asshole.

Thanks, Ian. I used to drop coins in that collection box to "save the pagan babies". It's nice to finally know what that was all about.

Ian:

I loved this article. You have a way with words. I do wonder how much of it is true. So many facts to check. And some are not exactly facts, just fact-like statements.

But I loved this article. I make fact-like statements myself trying to get at some larger truth which is difficult to articulate. Maybe impossible.

I am on your wavelength, seemingly believing what your believe, and yet I feel comfortable thinking of myself as Christian. You don't need to think of yourself as pagan. Of course, if you use any other word, you don't get a rise out of anyone.

Who owns that term, Christian? I stand with Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I intend it to mean, nothing less, nothing more. We're word bullies. Or maybe they are. Our opponents. The putative owners of the term.

What happens to Christianity if Jesus wasn't divine? Or rather, if the divinity of Jesus was the common garden variety, of which we each have a dollop. Including Pagans. He might have had, probably did have, a larger dollop, but it wasn't different in kind. I can easily imagine Jesus as a Pagan holy man.

I am just about totally allergic to doctrine. To any claims of absolute truth. Or even partial truth from some quarters, the Vatican, for instance. In my old age I have grown increasingly reluctant to spend the time needed to twist the words of doctrinal pronouncements so that they make some kind of sense. Now I just don't believe.

But I believe in lots of God things. God, for instance. You, yourself, haven't abandoned God have you? My current definition of an atheist is someone who simply hasn't found an acceptable concept or definition of God. The extant ones are surely not acceptable. And the ones that enlightened folk of the present or future will invent will also be short sighted. The change I hope for is that they will come to admit their short sightedness. The smallness of the human brain. Our God is not better than your God. Our God is not God at all, just our clumsy attempt to understand. But something is afoot in the universe. I stand in so much love it cannot be otherwise.

I can imagine that God is the man behind the curtain. No don't look. Ok the man or woman behind the curtain. The one who brings lovers together for the first time though they don't know it. The one who sparks renewal of old lovers, drawing them out occasionally to the center of the marriage arena and has them look into the core of each other. And they like what they see. The one who prepares a banquet and sends word to those invited, who, alas are too busy with their new country estate, or new Lexus, or new spouse, and so invites others. All the others. From the highways and byways. (Or should that be biways?) Jesus, I believe, had it right. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Alas. I blather too much.

Still, I loved your article.

Cheers.

Jim

Ronnie,
In what way was it anti - christian other than in that it exposed some of he lies disseminated by Christians about paganism and other belief systems?

Gary,
That's a wonderfully thoughtful and detailed reply and raises some points worty of discussion:

ME:..."But is not Jehovah, the God who has to be personified as a likeness of a human the false god, the synthetic god?"
GARY:... "Hmm… not sure where you got this idea, perhaps off of the account in Genesis where it states that man was made in the image of god?"

In this instance I am being a bit unfair to the Jewish, Zorosatrian ans Islamic religions. Unfortunately wherever we have Chritian fundamentalists in the audience the arguments against fundamentalism must be distorted by their prejudices. So yes, the ancient rabbis did assert that the idea of man being made in God's image is not to be taken literally but in that ancient tradition God only ever said "I am." wheras in the Chritian Bible he's a regular chatterbox.
The Zoroastrian Avesta explains the significance of "I am" and the real nature of God very well.

ME:... "The original Jehovah was simply a sun god like Ormazd, Zeus, Dis, Saturn, Ra, Dagda, Odin and so many others."
GARY:...Hmmm…no real historical evidence that I have read matches that idea.

Again the Zoroastrian Avesta clarifies a lot which is undertandable as Zoroastrianism is the parent of modern Judaeism. Alternatively you could read Robert Graves' work The White Goddess which although it is an investigation of the human creative impulse does throw a lot of light on the development of middle eastern societies.
Or try this website:
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/index.html#Sun%20Gods.
Both Graves' writing and the stuff at the website will back up my assertions about Ezekiel and the Hermetic Jews.


As for Jewish history, this is a very confused area. Historically there was no Exodus from Egypt, no empire of the Hebrews, no Hebrew language and no King David (just as there was no King Arthur) All the evidence we have suggests that "The Jews" were not a nation but a priestly caste crreasted by Cyrus the Great of Persia to administer his lands in Palestine. The Israelites were repeatedly conquered and reconquered by Peria, Phoenicia and the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires as these ancient civilisations waxed and waned. But I deal in history, the Talmud is a book of faith. I have never encountered Jewish people who confuse those things, wheras Christian fundamentalists do in their "we believe it so that proves its true" arguments.
You are right in saying that I do not differentiate enough between Christianity and Judaeism. 2006 was the 350th anniverary of the emancipation of British Jews by Oliver Cromwell. Official history has it that Cromwell readmitted Jews to England after they had been banished by King Edward 1 in the fourteenth century. This is a typical misrepresentation on two counts, firstly Edward never banished the Jewish community (though he did murder quite a lot of them) he simply forbade on penalty of death, the practice of the Jewish faith.
When Cromwell lifted this prohibition it was with so many conditions that Judaeism in England was fundamentally changed. So when I read Jewish history as written by members of the Jewish community in Britain I read a version distorted by things Cromwell imposed on the practice of that religion.
And then as I admitted, I spin my writing to challenge the ideas of fundamentalist Christians.
But for the historical record the early followerrs of Christ called themselves Nazarenes (Christos, the anointed one, being a pagan Greek concept) and when Constantine adopted and named Christianity as the official religion he reformed it in such a way that the teachings ascribed to Jesus had little significance after that. And that is very well documented by contemporary writers.

Thanks for raising such interesting points and for reminding me of my responsibility to point out that I am often writing of the Christian viuew of Judaeism.

Ian

Dolphi D.
Thanks, I have some very shocking stuff coming up on the early history of Christianity in Britain. It has all been known for centuries but denied as it makes nonsense of the official versions of things.

Carol,
Point taken, please look at my reply to Gary who got the criticism in before you. First come, first served. :-)

Everyone else, I have to sign off now, back tomorrow to finish.

Ian,
A good, well-written piece that I found entertaining. I'll leave it to the others to pick it apart. But you taught me a lot about paganism and the Druids. My knowledge of the latter is pretty much limited to what I learned in Rutherfurd's book "Sarum," a wonderful read on the early history of southwest England.

Hi Ian. I loved reading your article. It is so true that being a pagan has different meanings for different people. I often find my perspective of things changing with the new information I acquire throughout my life. At the core of it all, my paganism is what allows me too expand my mind without fear of recourse , judgement or damnation! Hail to that! Take care

I find paganism and wiccan beliefs very interesting, too. I enjoyed the article. Thank you, Ian. It helped to feed some of my hunger for information on these beliefs. I know some but not as much as I'd like.

Sandy,
You got me confused there, I've met many pagan babes but no pagan babies. At that age they tend to be concerned more with food and cuddles that what makes the world go round. And unlike some I could mention we don't plunge our infants into pools of cold water!
love
Ian

Steve,
Anyone is welcome to pick my articles apart. I appreaciate your raising this point though and demonstrating the level at which the article should be read. It is an overview.
Unfortunately it is necessary to generalise as I did about some aspects of Jewish history because I find that anything much over 1500 words just does not get read. Sure I could go into the historical evidence that Ezekiel, like the other Biblical prophets, was in fact a school of philosophy with many authors contributing to what has found its way into the old testament. But to do that get into that is to involve myself in arguments I can never win with followers of various faiths. Fith is fine for those who need it, but it should never be confused with history.

Ian, thanks for posting your excellent article. Gary's thoughts were pertinent too.

James,
Ah, the G word. I have been accused of desperately wanting to believe but being too arrogant to allow myself to, simply because I refer to God. This is a perfect example of your comments about people claiming ownership. I use "God" quite simply because everyone knows what I am talking about.
The evangelical movement's current favourite son of Satan, Prof Richard Dawkins, aq nobel laureat who specialises in debunking creationism will acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence for there being some unifying force in the cosmos although he argues very convincingly that it has no consciousness and nor does it play any direct role in our daily lives.
The only deity entitled to be called God is the Irish pagan god Dagda, whose name means "good." Now god or gode is an old English spelling of good (and Scandinavian languages still use god as in "god dag" - good day,) so who owns God. I'd say its just a word in the English language used to refer to a deity or supernatural force.
Strangely, though Christians are quick to descibe people as "agnostic" it is in fact the Abrahamic religions with their mytic, unknowable God (Allah, Jehovah) who are agnostic or do not know God. The true Chritians, the Essene a sect of which Jesus (not actually his name) was a member of the highest caste, were Gnostic. They knew the nature of God. So did the Brahmins, the highest caste of Hinduism, and the Druids.
I rather like your image of God, but he sounds a lot like my Goddess. Essentialy the spirit of humanity.

I will have more on spiritual matter ben I can break it down to small enough bites for Gather.
best
Ian

Bert,
Sarum is a great read. Another book set in that part of the world is Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth which deals with the building of a Cathedral and the workings of the medieval church. Great entertainment and very informative.
Strange as it may seem I love those really old Cathedrals, although Follett's is fictional it could easily be Westminster, Winchester or one of several others.

Dana, you're reminding me more of Arianrhod each time I look at your picture.
(Arianrhod Silver Wheel - goddess of the dawn and all things hidden. Hey, you've been promoted to a goddess, are you thrilled?)

Jennifer, Corina, Shannon, Olga, Dana

Here's a link. Now I recommend this for information only, I am not recruiting for these people.
http://www.druidry.org/

There is also a good book, Practical Celtic Magic by Murry Hope (The Aquarian Press) which is a good starting point, the magic in the title being the kind that comes from self knowledge. Unfortunately last time I looked for someone it was only available across the pond as an import at an obscene price - around $40 I think.

Bit I remind you all, I am only interested in this subject from the point of view of social histories. I do not subscribe to any organisations.

Ian- I just wanted to thank you for your article... I too have just recently written an article about my studies of paganism and wicca... I thank Bert Bigelow for directing me to your article...

And So loved Dana's comment, "At the core of it all, my paganism is what allows me too expand my mind without fear of recourse , judgement or damnation!"

That's the peace I am seeking... ~L

Ronnie,
It seems what you are saying is we cannot discuss any faith but our own. Having been called a paedophile, Satanist and a totally evil person by Christians I don't see why we should let Christians place their faith above criticism. Also, what I say about Christianity is often not criticism but simply setting the record straight.
Jesus born in a stable? It just did not happen and The Bible never says it did.

Jesus died on the cross? There is no evidence of that but stacks of evidence that he lived for around thirty years after the date of the crucifixion. And it is much more reliable evidence that the stuff in the Da Vinci Code.

Jesus was the son of a Carpenter? It is recorded and in the public domain that he was born into the highest caste of the Essene sect and his father was not a humble tradesman but "ho tekton," literally A Master Of The Craft - a Magus in other words, like the alleged three wise men.

Yet Christians will tell us all these things are true and we must not question them. And George Bush and Tony Blair told us the war was justified and we could not question it? Well, those of us who did question, were we right or were we right?

The problem with excluding other beliefs from such an article is that to be meaningful I have to refer to the single source of all these beliefs by at least acknowledging they come from the same source. If I fail to point out the way in which other faiths are misrepresented I fall into the trap of misrepresenting the subject of my article. It is very important to understand the relationship of European Paganism to Judaeism, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism as these all come from the same source. If that is not dfone then Pagans just look like a bunch of weirdie-beardies running around half naked and celebrating the flesh with anything that moves.

I do not criticise Judaeism in the article, I simply come at it from a historical perspective rather than one of faith. I never question people's right to believe what they believe, I only ask that they maintain a distance between belief and fact. The fact is, despite what Gary and others say it is well documented and proven beyond any doubts that the early Israelites were polytheistic sun worshippers and that monotheism only became the norm after Ezekiel and Zoroaster reformed their respective religions around 600BC. But in fact the history of Judaeism is too complicated to deal with properly in a short article so I ask that people allow a little licence.
Recently I have seen articles here and elsewhere denouncing pagans as frauds and claiming Halloween, Winter Solstice and Ostara are all festivals stolen from Christians by the "evil Devil worshippers." These festivals are much older than Chritianity and are documented as such.

Well Ronnie, Pagans are not required to turn the other cheek. Christians claim the right to tell lies about other belief systems but scream blue murder when the truth is told about their own manufactured faith.

Ian, You just so easy. I still say it's a penis thing with you. You say your religion is all about,"Wicca is not about marriage and property, it is about wisdom, understanding, compassion, choice and celebrating our humanity, living in hasrmony with each other and about compassion and and a sense of community", and yet you lack every single one of those qualities. You spew your disdain for every other religion, but yours. While your words sound nice, they're just more of the SOS, all religions or belief systems involve faith. What really defines you as a believer in whatever, is tolerance. If your faith is strong enough, someone else's beliefs have no effect on you.

I see people as good and evil. I don't believe you could heal anyone, including yourself. I think you are struggling with your own short comings, and so you must denigrate other belief systems in order to reinforce your own.

Finally you need to commit to what religion you are, or just run as an independent. First you say your a pagan, and not Wiccan, then you say your Wiccan.

I am Christian, but condemn no one because of their belief system. Your relationship with your spirituality is your own. However I don't appreciate you beating up on mine. Sure the druids were the first to play with astronomy, but compared to the advancements made in the last 20 years, that is nothing. Does that mean that Bill Gates is God? No, it must be Al Gore for inventing the internet, or did he?

I think you have real issues. If you are not capable of extracting the spirit of Christ from the Bible, Let's face it, all great authors have editors, then your ignoring all the positives, and trying to exploit negatives. Even Josephus said, "that Jesus was a wise man". Jesus was willing to die for his belief system, so that puts his credibility pretty high up on my list. However, Jesus didn't say because you were a pagan that you would go to hell. Just the opposite, "I came to save the world, not to destroy it".

So if you wish to put yourself forward as a messiah, I suggest you practice what you preach. The first thing I would work on would be tolerance.

Ian, Since your always wrong on historical facts, let me correct your last post.

Most Biblical scholars, historians, archeologist and even the clergy are knowledgeable about one fact of Christianity that the Christian worshipper is not, there is limited historical facts to establish finite historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. The vast majority of what Christians believe today is based purely on the New Testament , a collection of writings and testimony of those who knew Jesus and from those who never saw him. The origin of the New Testament was not the "bible" of the Christians until after 150 A.D. The actual "bible" of the early Christians was the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. For more than a century after the death of Christ, the early Christians relied on the Old Testament.

The writings in the New Testament were mostly from men of little literary learning, they were from long-time memories, and some were from hearsay. Biblical scholars have often pointed to glaring errors in the New Testament, conflicts in the testimonies between those who knew Jesus. Many "books" or testimonies were omitted from the New Testament. The writers of these Testaments were less concerned with the historical accuracies of their words and more concerned with the spiritual meanings of Christ's teachings.

The most fascinating time in Christianity began after the death of Christ through to the conclusion of Emperor Constantine's Christian conclave, the true shaping of Christianity as we know it today, this epic period merged the diverse views of the Apologists to the Gnostics. Jesus Christ and his Disciples were not part of the long series of debates that established Christian dogma. The Early Christian Fathers, published by The Westminster Press, states, "The most striking facts about early Christian literature are its rich variety and its almost exclusively Gentile authorship. Outside the New Testament writings, little belongs to the first century, the only considerable document being Clement's Letter to the Church of Corinth." No Jewish Christian literature appears to have survived the ages. Few Jewish Christians from the Palestinian Church survived after the fifth century, though their teachings and work can be found in the religion of Islam. The Gentiles, and not the Jewish Christians who lived and worshipped in the land of Jesus, dominated the Christian religion, and changed much of its original concepts.

EARLY CHRISTIAN SCHISM

The main battlelines in the second century focused around the "Orthodox" Christians and the Gnostics. After Constintine's conclave, the Gnostics vanished into history, some of their work survived and was unearthed in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. The discovered writings are known as the Nag Hammadi library, the Gnostic manuscripts virtually begin where the Dead Sea Scrolls end. These writings provide insights into early Judaism and the roots of Christianity. The Gnostics challenged the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament. They viewed the Jewish and Christian revelations as antithetical, noting the contrast of the good God revealed by Jesus Christ with the Old Testament God of retaliation and vengeance. The Gnostics, in essence, were responsible for doing away with the Old Testament as the sacred book of Christians, and in its place supplied a cannon called The Gospel and the Apostile. There was no unity in determining which books should be contained in the New Testament until the fourth century.

The Early Christian Fathers states, that Christian doctrine was established to embrace the Gentile concepts. "To interpret it to the Gentile mind, its affinities were the best in pagan religious thought were utilized. To maintain it against persecution, the martyr was willing to suffer. Finally, to ensure the perpetuity of the faith, the Church built up a close knit organization that was as uncompromising toward heresy and schism as it was toward the demands of the State." In The Verdict of History by Gary R. Habermas, this concept is carried further. "The charge is often made that Jesus' message was actually quite different from the one which Christians have traditionally taught concerning him. This sometimes is said to be the case, for instance, because the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself." Hugh Schonfield, a noted religious scholar, explains why the changes may have taken place. He states that Jesus was a teacher who was true to Judaism and who had no desire to start any new religion. "That is why, for instance, he never proclaimed his own deity," Schonfield wrote. Schonfield even challenges the early Church by claiming they may have written some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus. "The result is that Christian theology as it is taught today is not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles."

Paul's writings reveal little of the historical Jesus. A few historians have stated that Paul knew little of Jesus' historical life, the time of his birth, or death, for instance. G.A. Wells indicates that Paul may have conceived of Jesus as a supernatural being who led a very obscure life that was ended by crucifixion, perhaps even centuries before Paul's own time. But Paul was not interested in historical details, nor were the other writers of the New Testament, spiritual considerations dominated their thoughts. Habermas states that the "Gospels do not purport to record actual historical events, but that they simply report the faith of early Christians. We know much less about the historical Jesus than the Gospels actually recorded, for these writers were just not too concerned with history."

HISTORICAL RECORDS

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

RECORDED IN THE TALMUD

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

Toledoth Jesu is also part of Jewish writing, as well. The disputed text states that the disciples of Jesus had planned to steal the fallen body of Christ. However, a gardener named Juda discovered their plans and dug a new grave in his garden. Then he removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb and placed it in his own newly dug grave. The disciples came to the original tomb, found Jesus' body gone and proclaimed him risen. The Jewish leaders also proceeded to Joseph's tomb and found it empty. Juda then took them to his grave and dug up the body of Jesus. The Jewish leaders were greatly relieved and wanted to take the body. Juda replied that he would sell them the body of Jesus and did so for thirty pieces of silver. The Jewish priests then dragged Jesus' body through the streets of Jerusalem. Strangely enough, Juda and Judas are similar, in the Talmud Juda receives thirty pieces of silver and in the New Testament Judas receives thirty pieces of silver. Shortly after this time, the Emperor decreed that grave robbing in Palestine would be a capital offense.

These commentaries have been discredited by Jewish and Christian scholars. The anti-Christian commentary was created in the fifth century. The importance of this passage, historically correct or not, is to place Jesus in the tomb of Joseph after crucifixion and to record the consternation of the Jewish Priests. This places historic significance on the fact that Jesus did live and die in history. He was not a myth.

The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C. and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the census, again historically correct.

The second century Greek satirist Lucian, though speaking derisively of Jesus and the early Christians, does establish the worship of Christ within the first century of his death. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property."

THE BURIAL CAVE OF CAIAPHAS, THE LATEST FIND

The New Testament refers to the High Priest Caiaphas. Records of the Temple of Jerusalem where destroyed and history has not been able to verify that Caiaphas, like Christ, existed. If no evidence existed of Caiaphas when the New Testament was embraced by the Christians of the second century, then it would have been a fact lost to history. But now, 1,950 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a public works project building a water park in November 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave. The inscription in the burial chamber was that of the Caiaphas family. The Caiaphas name had only been mentioned in the New Testament and by Flavius Josephus, no Jewish records have been found with Caiaphas' name linked to being the high priest. The remains of a 60-year-old man were found in the burial cave that may have been the High Priest Caiaphas. The inscription on his craved ossuary, fit for a high priest, was the name Yehosef bar Qafa (Joseph, son of Caiaphas). Coins found in the cave were bronze minted in 42/43 (C.E.) during the reign of Herod Agrippa I. These are similar to images of coins found on the Shroud of Turin Ð believed by many scientists to be the burial shroud of Christ.

According to Ronny Reich in an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, "Very few of the hundreds of people who walk through the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have been attested in archeological finds. Now, to that small list, we may add, in all probability, the high priest who presided at Jesus' trial, or at least a member of his family." It adds, "From the period between the second century B.C.E. and the second century C.E., there are only six such names, and perhaps you will exclude one or two of these because they are names of rulers or former rulers. Three of these names, however, are especially pertinent here because they, like Caiaphas, come from priestly families."

The New Testament only refers to the High Priest as Caiaphas, but Josephus refers to him as Joseph, who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood. Joseph or Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 C.E.

The debate over the divinity of Christ may never end, but historical evidence has become more supportive of the fact that Jesus can be proved historically to have lived, to have been a dominant figure during his lifetime and of a major concern to the establishment of the Temple and of Rome. What his exact words were, may have been lost in history. Robin Lane Fox writes in The Unauthorized Version, Truth and Fiction in the Bible, "Recognition does not require historical truth...In the Bible we recognize a human awareness in what scores of anonymous authors have written. This level of recognition is not at all the same as reverence for the Bible as a handbook for life, a role for which its detail is not well suited. The Gospels are not often specific on detailed points of conduct, and as a handbook they would be very patchy indeed. Those who want such details have to look back to the Hebrew books of law...As for the four Gospels, the idea that they usually give us Jesus' exact words in their exact context is a popular mirage; there are too many disagreements.' She adds, "In the Bible, therefore, we recognize human truth even when the stories themselves are untrue."

CONCLUSION

Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived and died in a time and a place described in the New Testament. Some of the evidence supporting these writings surfaced nearly 2000 years later, adding a strong rule of evidence toward their historic accuracy. Many books were omitted from the compilation of the New Testament, the writings of John and of Mary, for instance, were never included in the scriptures. But the same is true with the Old Testament. It was the early church father, in the case of the New Testament, that made the decisions on the composition of the New Testament.

The exact words of Jesus may not be contained in the New Testament, but the essence of his teachings appeared to be confirmed from sources outside the New Testament.

Joe,
Your inane ranting say more about you than I would ever want to.

But get this straight. I am a pagan. I have never said I am a wiccan. I have always said I am not a wiccan. But neither of these are religions, they are belief systems. Big difference. See I'm consistent wheras you contradict yourself several times in the same sentence.
As for healing myself - well I am co-operating with doctors now as they try to discover how I can have regenerated parts of myself destroyed by a catastrophic illness. What has happened in me is medically impossible yet with my help the medics are managing to reprouce the same results in others.

Finally I would remind you that I posted an article titled What A Pagan Believes. Like others you are taking me to task for not condensing into fifteen hundred words the entire history of absolutely everything since the beginning of time.

Bye Joe.

Don't forget the Native Traditions, Ian, which are neither Druidic nor Wiccan. There are as many different kinds of Pagans as there are kinds of weather lol. I believe our Creator is greater than any mere mortal religion.

they say variety is the spice of life,however I believe it is what makes life worth living. there are as many different pagans as there are snowflakes in the winter. We each have our own belief system.

I live in a town if 90% christians and was raised in the religion. I am appauled at the amount of contradiction in there own lives. they say one thing on Sunday and do the opposite on monday.
I thank you Ian for letting others know the truth.

May good things come yor way!

Okay, I had to debate this issue with myself before I decided to post. As an eclectic pagan I see and understand a lot of what you are saying Ian, but I can also see where the others that are NOT pagan are having issues with your article. The history that you are writing about is subjective. Knowing that all historical articles were written in their original language and have been passed down for generations with each successive generation putting their own translations and spins on them makes them suspect at best.

I have found that in dealing with people of alternate religious beliefs to mine that the best thing to do, is say nothing against their views. Chances are that just like them not knowing everything about me and my beliefs, I probably don't know everything about theirs. Most Christians believe many different things, even from each other. The same way that I might take exception to some of your definitions about wiccans ~ which while at least hitting the target, by no means was a bullseye. My suggestion for the future would be to explain your beliefs without cutting down the other guy for something they may have believed 1000 years ago.

Brightest Blessings in your travels and studies.

Tracye,
I invited you to discuss this privately but have not seen a response. Therefore I must take issue here.
One of the problems with Gather and, I believe with America is this fallacy that people's beliefs must be respected. No society could support a more corrosive idea. Facts are sacrosanct, beliefs are subjective. If we are not prepared to have our beliefs questioned how will we ever grow as people and achieve greater understanding of the world in which we live.
To deny people the right to question our beliefs is the act of a fundamentalist.
Now you have noted that some religionists were not impressed with things I said about their religion. Well its commonly said (truly) that truth is the first casualty in war. But it is equally true that truth is the first sacrifice of religion.
Just because we believe something does not make it true and I said at the outset that I know there is no factual basis in the beliefs I hold. I also believe that when people need to belive in the literal truth of the myths of their faith they either have little faith or little understanding.
The Jews are largely an invention of the Romans, they did not think of thermselves as "Jews", a composite religion, until marginalised by the Romans. This is fact and is documented by Jewish writers of the period. Until then only a member of the Tribe of Judah was a Judean.
The past is a different country, they do things differently there.
Similarly it is wrong to speak of wicca when we mean the old pagan beliefs. These belief systems had no name (or had local names that are now forgotten) but wicca is a twentieth century invention although it is based on ancient beliefs that were practiced in Norther Europe: Take a look at the Religion and Ethics pages of the BBC website, below. The BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, is a state owned Broadcaster bound by its charter to report in a fair and unbiased way.
BBC Religion and Ethics - Paganism

So while Wicca is an old Anglo Saxon word it was never used to describe the pre - chistian religion of the Anglo Saxons in Britain. To them it simply meant "wisdom."

I do know many wiccans in Britain who have found my comments in the original article and here acceptable and broadly correct (and I have repeatedly said I cannot deal in fine detail a fifteen hundred word article)

As for the Chistians, Jewish people, muslims etc. who read my articles, I actually do not care how many I piss off if I might just help one to get a bit firmer grip on reality.

James Stemmie made a good comment in asking "what happens to Christianity if Christ ceases to be divine? The answer is basically what has happened in Europe :- we don't fight wars over religion any more. What's more Anglicans, Methodists and Roman Catholics (and Lutherans, Moravians, Orthodox Christians and others I hope though I don't actually know any) have developed a sense of humour about their religion and can actually bear to listen to criticism of their faith. It makes for a nice easy going atmosphere.

Ian,

The same fundamentalism you espouse to hate, you master with the click of a key. It's not that I disagree with everything you say, I disagree with the way you say it. No matter how you slice it up, you come off as saying, that your the only one who has it right.

My idea of God, I'm sure is different than every other Christian in the world. However, Jesus himself made it absolutely clear that it was not mandatory to believe in him to go to heaven, but it was mandatory to live by the principles of the Bible. Jesus was humble, and only expressed hatred for evil, especially if it was done in his or God's name. So evil is evil. It's not a vague term, but clearly definable, and easily recognized.

It is obvious from this thread and all others by you, that you hate those who are different than you. That is why I like to respond to your post. I believe hatred to be one of the roots of all evil.

it's so true that no two pagans will tell you the same beliefs! thanks for attempting to clear the smoke
- A druid.

Wow, a comment from Joe C and I missed it for six whole months.

Now I should explain something here so casual readers will understand. Joe likes to attack me, I think this is because he fancies me and I spurned his adevances. OK, Joe is a Chistian and hates faggots just like Ted Haggard did, so he has to disguise his unrequited love by yelling at me.
But sadly I'm straight and just make fun of him so he tries to get the last word by sneaking his comments in long after I have abandoned the thread.
Funny thing is, in his cirtique of my articles he always makes exactly the same points as I have made and then accuses me of having said something completely different.
Its really odd.

Now next time Joe, try to make your comments refer to something I have actually written about and maybe I will take you seriously.

Just to make things clear for you Joe, because it is really hard work getting things though your skull, I don't hate those who are different to me, I've been to bed with Muslim, Hindus and even Evangelical Christian women. Hows that for celebrating diversity.
I tend to be very provocative towards those who tell me I have no right to question their beliefs nor duiscuss the hypocrisy that goes hand inhand with those beliefs while at the same time making stupid bigoted attacks on my beliefs. Eowyn said above that no two pagans believe the same which echoes exactly what I said. So how can that equate to my thinking, as you wrongly suggest, that I am the only one who has it right.
Or maybe I am the only one who has it right, after all anything is possible with God.

Seriously Joe, I'm a professional comedian, you're never going to win.

This is for Joe. Jesus did make it absolutely clear, John 3:16 I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth No one come to the Father but by me.

Thank you for this artical Ian I enjoyed it very much. And yes I am pagan I run a coven and teach others about their own spirituality, I will have to refer some of my students to this artical.