I am not here in this thread to convince anyone of something other than what they hold true. I am thankful for the detailed information RastaGoddess. This is what I am seeking; information that provides an in depth look at the existence -- either way -- of Christ. I have to say that years ago I had a very similar view. Seeing the astrological and metaphysical happenings that created the myth of Christ.. i.e. the Sun instead of the Son. It made a lot of sense and I looked at religion and spirituality as nonsensical and 'lived' as an atheist.. I dont need to tell my entire story but the essence is that I was not satisfied with full truth in this view. I began to look more into the divine that has lead I here..
I am not saying that Christ is the end-all be-all of spirituality and that one CANNOT reach liberation/salvation without Christ. From what I see, this topic is a source of separation within Ras Tafari. Many say Man in blood and flesh, and many say pacifying lie.. Naturally there is an undeniable truth here. One that most likely meets somewhere in the middle.. As I said earlier, I SEE the astrological correlations with the story of Christ but am not satisfied that this is the ENTIRE truth of the situation. I feel that nature and creation are more mystic than to say the force of ALL is no form or personality and never MANifested the supreme essence into a Man to teach the I's of creation.. I am a Man formed from the source with all aspects of my self being a representation of this creation; so to I it makes beautiful sense that The Source manifest form. Creating the physical universe from the infinite energy of the supersoul. The life giving essence of ALL creation experiencing loving service from creation as self.
The existence of Christ the Man can be seen in the writings of roman historians. "In his two great works, The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, both written in Greek for educated people, Josephus tried to appeal to aristocrats in the Roman world, presenting Judaism as a religion to be admired for its moral and philosophical depth. The Jewish War doesn’t mention Jesus except in some versions in likely later additions by others, but Jewish Antiquities does mention Jesus—twice.
The shorter of these two references to Jesus (in Book 20)11 is incidental to identifying Jesus’ brother James,12 the leader of the church in Jerusalem. In the temporary absence of a Roman governor between Festus’s death and governor Albinus’s arrival in 62 C.E., the high priest Ananus instigated James’s execution. Josephus described it:
Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.
James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus’s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest. James (Jacob) was a common Jewish name at this time. Many men named James are mentioned in Josephus’s works, so Josephus needed to specify which one he meant. The common custom of simply giving the father’s name (James, son of Joseph) would not work here, because James’s father’s name was also very common. Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.14 Therefore Josephus specified which Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase “who is called Messiah,” or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos.15 This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person."