"This myth of Jesus has served us well!" Pope Leo X - Italian Online community

Villa · #1 01-22-2008, 02:55 AM

Somebody told me about this a long time ago so I looked it up. Not saying I agree with it. Just seems very odd that a Pope would come out and say such a thing.

In the early sixteenth century, Pope Leo X is on record as declaring: "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."
Why would he say such a thing. I could see him thinking it but to come out and say it! It would be like G.W. saying: "This myth of democracy has served us well."

Was the story of Jesus of Nazareth a myth?

In the earliest contacts with the Cassiopaeans we began to ask questions about Jesus. This was, in a sense, a form of a "challenge" or a "test," from our perspective. It was only later, after much research and work in many areas, I realized that this really wasn't much of a "test!" There are endless variations of material delivered from all sorts of sources identifying themselves as Jesus, Ashtar, Lord Sananda, and who knows else! Some of them claim to be Jesus, some of them claim to have genetically engineered Jesus, some of them claim to have "projected" the Jesus story into history, and on and on and on!

Nevertheless, this was what we did, and the answers we received were sometimes quite in line with modern scholarship and theological opinion; sometimes they dovetailed with more "esoteric" sources from other "psychic channels," and in startling and outstanding ways, some of the answers were completely different from anything we had ever encountered. It was on all of these points that we were challenged to do original research, and I hope to shed some light on the matter here.

It seems that to the "easy believer" everything is possible and they have no problems accepting the word of this or that person or teacher or text that something is so. However, to a person who has studied the varied and often conflicting material and is in search of facts, there are a host of problems with this story of Jesus.

The biggest problem consists in the fact that it is easy to fabricate texts and documents out of nothing. Falsification and counterfeiting are as old as the hills. J.-K. Huysmans wrote in Las-bas,

"If there was a historical Jesus, he left little or no impression on his contemporaries. No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing. The Gospels were not written in his own time, nor were they written by anyone who ever saw him in the flesh. The names of the apostles attached to these books were fraudulent. The books were composed after the establishment of the church, some as late as the 2nd century AD or later... Most scholars believe the earliest book of the New Testament was I Thessalonians, written perhaps in 51 AD by Paul, who never saw Jesus in person and knew no details of his life story." [Walker; 1996]

stephaniealexis8 · #2 01-22-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Villa

Somebody told me about this a long time ago so I looked it up. Not saying I agree with it. Just seems very odd that a Pope would come out and say such a thing.

In the early sixteenth century, Pope Leo X is on record as declaring: "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."
Why would he say such a thing. I could see him thinking it but to come out and say it! It would be like G.W. saying: "This myth of democracy has served us well."

Was the story of Jesus of Nazareth a myth?

In the earliest contacts with the Cassiopaeans we began to ask questions about Jesus. This was, in a sense, a form of a "challenge" or a "test," from our perspective. It was only later, after much research and work in many areas, I realized that this really wasn't much of a "test!" There are endless variations of material delivered from all sorts of sources identifying themselves as Jesus, Ashtar, Lord Sananda, and who knows else! Some of them claim to be Jesus, some of them claim to have genetically engineered Jesus, some of them claim to have "projected" the Jesus story into history, and on and on and on!

Nevertheless, this was what we did, and the answers we received were sometimes quite in line with modern scholarship and theological opinion; sometimes they dovetailed with more "esoteric" sources from other "psychic channels," and in startling and outstanding ways, some of the answers were completely different from anything we had ever encountered. It was on all of these points that we were challenged to do original research, and I hope to shed some light on the matter here.

It seems that to the "easy believer" everything is possible and they have no problems accepting the word of this or that person or teacher or text that something is so. However, to a person who has studied the varied and often conflicting material and is in search of facts, there are a host of problems with this story of Jesus.

The biggest problem consists in the fact that it is easy to fabricate texts and documents out of nothing. Falsification and counterfeiting are as old as the hills. J.-K. Huysmans wrote in Las-bas,

"If there was a historical Jesus, he left little or no impression on his contemporaries. No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing. The Gospels were not written in his own time, nor were they written by anyone who ever saw him in the flesh. The names of the apostles attached to these books were fraudulent. The books were composed after the establishment of the church, some as late as the 2nd century AD or later... Most scholars believe the earliest book of the New Testament was I Thessalonians, written perhaps in 51 AD by Paul, who never saw Jesus in person and knew no details of his life story." [Walker; 1996]

Villa, what a thought-provoking post!

This echoes many of the topics brought up by books like "The DaVinci Code". While I try not to judge another's spiritual belief, for that strikes me as akin to judging the air another breathes, I have always found it odd that tangible historical proof of the Biblically described Jesus Christ is often either fleeting or contrived.
But then perhaps this is the nature of faith?

(And for the record, I have no problem imagining the current President of The United States thinking democracy is a myth, but that's for another thread....)

justindemetri · #3 01-22-2008, 03:29 PM

I think when it comes to this famous quote by Pope Leo X, it is more of a reflection of the man who said it rather than some hidden church secret. The man became pope because he was a Medici not because of any religious convictions. Leo X is certainly one of the worst popes in history and his attitudes can be summed up in another of his famous quotes:

"God has granted us the Papacy, so let us enjoy it."

Remember it was during his watch that the Protestant Reformation began.

I'm not a supporter of the Catholic Church (as you can tell from some of my posts) but I do enjoy studying church history and have been at it for many years now. Faith does not get in my way when it comes to research. That being said I agree with many modern scholars that the cannonical gospels, especailly Mark date to around +/- 50AD and that the books that made it into the New Testament are mostly of the oldest lineage of the Christian tradition. The apostles, with the exception of Matthew were probably illiterate and so "secretaries" like Mark and Luke were needed. Also there is theory of the book of "Q" which may have been the original source for the canonical gospels.

Of all the gnostic/apocryphal works that we know of, the only one that seems to date to this earliest time is the Gospel of Thomas. - of course I am not including the Gospel of John, which is heavy with gnostic symbolism but made it into the bible. All the others: Gospel of Phillip, Mary Magdaline etc.. all date much later based upon linguistic evidence.

CJ · #4 01-22-2008, 05:21 PM

This thread again demonstrates the impact that religious institutions (like most other institutions) have on our lives.

Since the publishing industry is driven by balance sheets and financial results, I do not give much credence to the underlying and outlandish theories outlined in the Da Vinci Code. In fact, it is just another novel, which, as it happens, has had enormous success due to its controversial nature. In essence, the book can therefore justify itself on the basis of its sales, but not because of its claim to have the solid facts. Some of its claims are unsubstantiated and even Henry Lincoln, co author of Holy Blood and Holy Grail – produced some 20 years ago – and to which the Da Vinci Code seems to draw its inspiration from - has gone on record to say that his own research cannot be substantiated, a fact that should cast doubt on the veracity of the theories underpinning the central theme of the Da Vinci Code.

I think that because there are so many unanswered questions, the effect of books such as the Da Vinci Code unquestionably help fuel the speculation and give rise to the jaundiced view that many have of the Catholic Church. The contradictory nature of Christendom and its somewhat ambiguous ideology and autocratic doctrine, much of it resulting from the unfortunate legacy of the Middle Ages when the church imposed a regime of abstemious piety upon the common people, yet being itself morally corrupt, certainly hasn’t helped its case.

Pope Leo X was a Medici and he consolidated the Medici’s power by appointing members of his family to lucrative and powerful posts. He was ambitious and intelligent, yet he was also ridiculously extravagant. In fact, his extravagances are legendary and he certainly lived a life of luxury and so I guess it would be easy for him to say something like this.

By this I am not questioning people’s faith as I respect the fact that Christians (or any other faith for that matter) believe that their faith is not blind and that they have an obligation to take their faith seriously and defend it. The Catholic Church has a long-standing history behind it. It has had a long and pervasive influence on society for centuries. It has moreover, during recent times, unquestionably expressed unequivocal support for democracy and to charitable works, but this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) render it immune from analysis, synthesis and open, well-balanced criticism.