The Missing Man

[melodious]

I'm sure it has been hashed out dozens of times on other threads, but I would like to "resurrect" the topic once again with a helpful outline as an introduction. Here I shall present an excerpt of the conclusive points out of chapter 7, "The Missing Man" from Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's erudite thesis entitled "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?":-s

It is my belief that if you can prove that Jesus is not a historical person, you pretty well have the fundamentalist/literalist carnalizing, fetishizing, feverish Christians by the ... you get the picture.

Like countless scholars who have made this quest before us, we have found that looking for a historical Jesus is futile. It is astonishing that we have no substantial evidence for the historical existence of a man who is said to have been the one and only incarnation of God throughout all history. But the fact is we do not. So, what have we got?

• > A few mentions of "Christians" and followers of someone called Crestus among all the extensive histories of the Romans
  
  > Some fake passages in Josephus among all the substantial histories of the Jews
  
  > A handful of passages from among the vast literature of the Talmud, which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called "Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Toadah"
  
  > Four anonymous gospels that do not even agree on the facts of Jesus' birth and death
  
  > A gospel attributed to Mark written somewhere between 70 and 135 CE, which is not even meant to be an eyewitness account and certainly isn't from its ignorance of Palestinian geography and the fact that it misquotes Hebrew scripture
  
  > Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke, which are independently based on Mark and give entirely contradictory genealogies
  
  > A gospel attributed to John, which was written some time after the other three and certainly not by the disciple John
  
  > The names of 12 disciples for whom there is no historical evidence
  
  > The Acts of the Apostles, which reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Hebrew Old Testament, contradicts Paul's letters, and was not written until the second half of the second century
  
  > A selection of forged letters attributed to Peter, James, John, and Paul
  
  > A few genuine letters by Paul, which do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ
  
  > A lot of evidence which suggests that the New Testament is not a history of actual events, but a history of the evolution of Christian mythology

Maybe (if we realy want to believe it), something of this could (perhaps) be evidence of a historical Jesus. This cannot be ruled out. But the evidence that suggests that Jesus is a mythical figure is so compelling that we will need something far more substantial than any of this to undermine it.
- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy from The Jesus Mysteries

Question for debate: Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

[melodious]

Hey Lotan, thanks for the apologetic response. You shoud take it up as a profession since you are so good at it.

It's simple. Even if he were an historical person, he was not who the gospels make him out to be, so why would it matter? It doesn't! Galilean peasant or no peasant, it's a myth!!! What good does it do for faithful Christians if all you can prove is that their godman was real, but not a supernatural deity? Ok, sure, jesus was real... but not divine? What good is that for the believing Christian, and where does it illuminate any deeper truth? You sound like a subscriber to the evemerist view to me. I will admit that in the case of such figures as Alexander the Great, the evemerist view is correct.
However... it is not the case with the Christian savior.
Jesus is the Sun - Like Buddha, Krishna, Osiris and Horus, Mithra, and all the rest of the godmen throughout the ancient world!!! Are you so daft that you cannot see that? ](*,)

[Goat]

There’s the Q gospel, of course, but I can already hear you balking.
Before Constantine, they were all “non-biblical�, goat. Please explain why inclusion/exclusion from the NT canon, or a post-70 date disqualify a document as a possible source of information about Jesus.

All you have done is repeat Christian documents that are decades after the alleged events (I.e.. they had a theological agenda to promote), and the letters of paul, who only saw a 'vision'.

Actually the gospels all had theological agendas (plural) to promote. That doesn’t rule out Jesus’ existence either. As for Paul’s letters, he saw more than just a vision, he also saw Jesus’ brother James, as well as Peter and John.

What exactly does the Q gospel say?? The theory is it's just a bunch of sayings.

Now, since you are saying that 'before Constantine it was all 'non-biblical'. That is a misinterpretation. It was considered holy scripture.. it is just the council of Nicea filtered the writings they liked, and what did not fit their agenda. The fact you brought up a filtering process to eliminate competing concepts actually weakens your case, since it shows your sources when through a bias filter.

The post 70 secular sources can be discounted as independent verification because by that time, some of the letter of paul were out there, and the source of information can not be verified as being anything but from Christian sources. For example, Pliny the younger got his information from the torture of Christian slaves, and it is very likely his friend Tacitus got his information from Pliny...

And, Josephus has been tampered with, and is likely to be a total insertion.

I notice although you are claiming I am committing the logical fallacy of personal incredibility , you have not been able to provide any evidence that isn't from the bible that is first century and not been tampered with. If you find any, please let me know. I am more than willing to look at any non-christian source that there wasn't massive tampering with from before the second century.

[Lotan]

Hey Lotan, thanks for the apologetic response. You shoud take it up as a profession since you are so good at it.

What a great idea! Let’s see…

�a•pol•o•get•ics ( -p l -j t ks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.� – from here.

But, as I said…
It’s an historical question, not a religious one.

So either you’re ignorant of the meaning of the word "apologetic" or you’re deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Why don’t you leave the ad hominems alone, and try to argue like a grown up, with evidence and all?

It's simple. Even if he were an historical person, he was not who the gospels make him out to be, so why would it matter? It doesn't!

Are we starting a new debate now?

Question for debate: Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

I don’t see anything there about "the gospels", do you?

Galilean peasant or no peasant, it's a myth!!!

The whole thing?

What good does it do for faithful Christians if all you can prove is that their godman was real, but not a supernatural deity?

That’s not my concern. Why don’t you ask them?

Ok, sure, jesus was real... but not divine? What good is that for the believing Christian, and where does it illuminate any deeper truth?

Didn’t you just ask that? I’m not trying to “illuminate any deeper truth� so save the new-age gobbledygook for someone else. I’m only concerned with the brute fact of Jesus existence here – Is Jesus a historical person…?

You sound like a subscriber to the evemerist view to me. I will admit that in the case of such figures as Alexander the Great, the evemerist view is correct.
However... it is not the case with the Christian savior.

Your ill-informed opinions bore me. Please be mindful of rule 5…

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

…otherwise you’re not debating, you’re preaching. You shoud (sic) take it up as a profession since you are so good at it.

Jesus is the Sun - Like Buddha, Krishna, Osiris and Horus, Mithra, and all the rest of the godmen throughout the ancient world!!! Are you so daft that you cannot see that?

That’s silly! Everybody knows Jesus is the planet Venus.

[Lotan]

Oops!

[melodious]

Hey Lotan, how's it goin'?

Please allow me to apologize for the ridiculous ad homs. It was immature and not relevant to the topic. It seems to me you are an intelligent man and have a passion for religious studies - let's try to start over with a clean slate. It was my fault that the debate descended into the direction it did, and I suppose I just got frustrated and began lashing out in childish ways. I am a reasonable and logical man with a great passion for the truth, and I'm sure you are as well. You're right, I don't know you, but I would be willing to get to know and understand you better if you are willing.

The subject of historical Jesus is very controversial and evokes a variety of responses from different individuals. I should've been more willing to stick to the evidence and facts. I suppose there could've been a "real" Jesus, but even as you have said yourself, it is not the guy we get in the gospel story. To me this seems to negate any importance he would have to believing Christians who constantly insist that the gospels are an accurate biography. It's like a house of cards that, when exposed to the elements (rational truth), it becomes vulnerable and collapses on itself.

To address the assertion that Jesus represents the planet Venus, I will try to explain to the best of my ability the Kabbalist view of this. Kabbalists believe that there is a light that passes through Venus which comes from the star Sirius, or the "dog star." They believe that this is the last system that the Truth-light continuum passes through before reaching our own system. Venus is the mediator of this light, and through it we receive the light transmission from Sirius. In this way Venus acts as a transmitter of the light from Sirius, and can be understood as the "Light-bringer," or morning star (there's even more complexity that I can't properly explain; however, it has to do with the position of Mars and Venus at different times of the year; for Venus is also the "evening star" depending on the season; it very likely has something to do with the solstices and equinoxes and the mysteries attributed to these annual events by the ancients). In truth, Jesus represents both the Sun and the planet Venus, for they are both considered the "morning star." This is the best I can lend off the top of my head without having my source materials (and right now I'm too lazy to go net searching for more info - maybe you could lend a bit more knowledge on the subject and clear a few things up; I would like to hear your thoughts). I have merely skimmed the surface of this topic of Jesus and Venus, but it might be cool to dedicate a thread to it.

Again, please accept my apologies, and I look forward to having more engaging discussions and debates with you in the near future.

In the Spirit of Gnosis (knowledge) - M

[The Dude]

Jesus is the Sun - Like Buddha, Krishna, Osiris and Horus, Mithra, and all the rest of the godmen throughout the ancient world!!! Are you so daft that you cannot see that? ](*,)

Someone's been watching Zeitgeist

[Lotan]

What exactly does the Q gospel say?? The theory is it's just a bunch of sayings.

It says more than is practical to post. Here’s a taste…

"How fortunate are the poor ; they have the Kingdom of Elohim.
How fortunate the hungry ; they will be fed.
How fortunate those who weep ; they will laugh."

I couldn’t find a really comprehensive list online, but these sites ought to give you more than enough to start with…

Q1

The Gospel According to Q

The Real Jesus of the Sayings "Q" Gospel
by James M. Robinson

THE GOSPEL OF Q
The gospel's internal structure

The Gospel of Thomas

Now, since you are saying that 'before Constantine it was all 'non-biblical'. That is a misinterpretation. It was considered holy scripture…

The gospels were faith documents, if that’s what you mean.
Paul’s letters weren’t considered holy scripture, until later (they were considered ‘letters’).

…it is just the council of Nicea filtered the writings they liked, and what did not fit their agenda.

No question about that.

The fact you brought up a filtering process to eliminate competing concepts actually weakens your case, since it shows your sources when through a bias filter.

I don’t think it’s even relevant. One could just as easily argue that, 300 years later, they chose texts that reflected their theological beliefs over those that were more historical. That’s how politics works today.

The post 70 secular sources can be discounted as independent verification because by that time, some of the letter of paul were out there, and the source of information can not be verified as being anything but from Christian sources.

I’m sorry, I must have missed the portion of your argument where you proved that "from Christian sources" = 100% bogus.

For example, Pliny the younger got his information from the torture of Christian slaves, and it is very likely his friend Tacitus got his information from Pliny...

It’s “very likely� how? Please give evidence for your claim.

And, Josephus has been tampered with, and is likely to be a total insertion.

There you go with that word “likely� again. It’s funny; apologists insist it’s all true, and mythers say it’s all false, and almost no one will admit the truth – we don’t know.

The testimonium is incidental to the argument for Jesus’ historicity at best (ditto for Tacitus, Pliny, etc.). You might think it’s bunk, I honestly don’t know. Expert opinion argues for it’s (partial) authenticity…

"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.
Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."
Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? – by Christopher Price

(disclaimer - Price is an apologist but, as apologists go, he’s about as honest as they come.)

There’s also this bit about the second reference…

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars. – from Wikipedia

I notice although you are claiming I am committing the logical fallacy of personal incredibility…

"Argument from Incredulity" (although you are incredible!)

…you have not been able to provide any evidence that isn't from the bible that is first century and not been tampered with. If you find any, please let me know.

I’ll get right on that.

I am more than willing to look at any non-christian source that there wasn't massive tampering with from before the second century.

Non-christian, pre-second century. Got it. Do you need original manuscripts as well?

[melodious]

Someone's been watching Zeitgeist.

Sorry Dude, but...

I've been studying ancient religion and mythology for 12 years, and though I have seen the film you are referring to, I came to such conclusions many years ago in my early 20's (as Ecclesiastes states: "nothing new under the sun"). You might want to ask before you assume someone's experience or knowledge base. However, the fact remains that Jesus is a Jewish version of the Piscean solar myth.

I am a Gnostic Christian and have been for 7 years (yet in many ways, my whole life, for I began arguing against orthodox religion when I was 10). I am also a musician and poet of the bardic tradition and have a great passion for expressing the Mysteries through my music.

My reason for being on this forum is to lend the Gnostic viewpoint to the topics being discussed here, and I hope you and others can appreciate the need for that.

In the Spirit of Gnosis - M

[Goat]

What exactly does the Q gospel say?? The theory is it's just a bunch of sayings.

It says more than is practical to post. Here’s a taste…

"How fortunate are the poor ; they have the Kingdom of Elohim.
How fortunate the hungry ; they will be fed.
How fortunate those who weep ; they will laugh."

I couldn’t find a really comprehensive list online, but these sites ought to give you more than enough to start with…

Q1

The Gospel According to Q

The Real Jesus of the Sayings "Q" Gospel
by James M. Robinson

THE GOSPEL OF Q
The gospel's internal structure

The Gospel of Thomas

Now, since you are saying that 'before Constantine it was all 'non-biblical'. That is a misinterpretation. It was considered holy scripture…

The gospels were faith documents, if that’s what you mean.
Paul’s letters weren’t considered holy scripture, until later (they were considered ‘letters’).

…it is just the council of Nicea filtered the writings they liked, and what did not fit their agenda.

No question about that.

The fact you brought up a filtering process to eliminate competing concepts actually weakens your case, since it shows your sources when through a bias filter.

I don’t think it’s even relevant. One could just as easily argue that, 300 years later, they chose texts that reflected their theological beliefs over those that were more historical. That’s how politics works today.

The post 70 secular sources can be discounted as independent verification because by that time, some of the letter of paul were out there, and the source of information can not be verified as being anything but from Christian sources.

I’m sorry, I must have missed the portion of your argument where you proved that "from Christian sources" = 100% bogus.

For example, Pliny the younger got his information from the torture of Christian slaves, and it is very likely his friend Tacitus got his information from Pliny...

It’s “very likely� how? Please give evidence for your claim.

And, Josephus has been tampered with, and is likely to be a total insertion.

There you go with that word “likely� again. It’s funny; apologists insist it’s all true, and mythers say it’s all false, and almost no one will admit the truth – we don’t know.

The testimonium is incidental to the argument for Jesus’ historicity at best (ditto for Tacitus, Pliny, etc.). You might think it’s bunk, I honestly don’t know. Expert opinion argues for it’s (partial) authenticity…

"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.
Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."
Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? – by Christopher Price

(disclaimer - Price is an apologist but, as apologists go, he’s about as honest as they come.)

There’s also this bit about the second reference…

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars. – from Wikipedia

I notice although you are claiming I am committing the logical fallacy of personal incredibility…

"Argument from Incredulity" (although you are incredible!)

…you have not been able to provide any evidence that isn't from the bible that is first century and not been tampered with. If you find any, please let me know.

I’ll get right on that.

I am more than willing to look at any non-christian source that there wasn't massive tampering with from before the second century.

Non-christian, pre-second century. Got it. Do you need original manuscripts as well?

Yes, it is true that the letters of paul were not considered sacred. However, it is admitted he met jesus in a 'vision' (see acts). Meeting someone in a vision is not evidence of a historical Jesus.

No.. but I need a reference to it that didn't go through massive tampering by Christians. Come on, it give you a whole 70 year buffer.

As for the TF being considered 'authentic' by scholars, what evidence do they have that it existed before the 3rd century?? It is admitted it want through more than a little tampering. Fine. What evidence do they have that it wasn't totally inserted? Or, will you just repeat their assertions? One question that I have asked that repeated gets brushed aside is why didn't Orgein use it, when he was discussing how Josephus showed part of the scriptures to be true when talking about John the Baptist just several paragraphs before?

I will be GLAD to discuss each and ever one of the non-biblical sources. Most of those sources came from Christians. For example.. Pilny wasn't talking about Jesus.. he was talking about Christian beliefs. Yes, I will admit that the Christians
believed that Jesus existed as part of their religion, but Pilny got his information from torture of CHristian slaves.

[Lotan]

Hey Lotan, how's it goin'?

Really well thanks. I'm happy to make a fresh start. Sorry if I got on your case. I'm not above throwing a few jabs myself.

The subject of historical Jesus is very controversial and evokes a variety of responses from different individuals.

That's for sure! I've seen a lot of people who can't address the question independently of their ideology. I expect that from Christians, but there are many so-called atheists that can't bear the thought that Christianity was ultimately based on the life of a real person. To me, these are just fundamentalists of a different stripe.

I suppose there could've been a "real" Jesus, but even as you have said yourself, it is not the guy we get in the gospel story. To me this seems to negate any importance he would have to believing Christians who constantly insist that the gospels are an accurate biography.

That can't be helped, nor should it matter. As I have said, the existence of an historical Jesus is not a religious issue, but a scientific one. Christians have learned to accept heliocentrism, and some at least have accepted the reality of evolutionary theory, so in time, maybe they can accept the implications of a Jesus who was an ordinary human being. In fact some, like Bishop Spong already have. The spiritual value of Jesus' story isn't to be found in its literal, temporal logos, but in its poetic, timeless mythos (if that makes any sense to anyone but me). Spong would say something like - people saw God in Jesus, and he taught them to see God in each other. It doesn't matter that he didn't really walk on water.

It's like a house of cards that, when exposed to the elements (rational truth), it becomes vulnerable and collapses on itself.

I think that has happened to Christianity before, and it will again. One of Christianity's strengths is it's elasticity. Likely it will adapt to a new paradigm, or else it will be replaced.

In truth, Jesus represents both the Sun and the planet Venus, for they are both considered the "morning star."

To tell the truth, I was kidding. I am familiar with the "bright and morning star" reference though. Interesting that it is applied both to Jesus and Lucifer, the light bearer. My understanding is that Venus can be seen above the horizon before dawn, and so, heralds the sunrise. The idea that Venus transmits the light from Sirius is kind of cool, if unscientific. I have to admit that I'm not all that familiar with Kabbalism, or Gnostic Christianity for that matter. My worldview is pretty much meat and potatoes. It seems to me that gnosticism existed before Jesus, and was applied (if that's the right word) to early Christian ideas.
As for the identification of Jesus (or God, for that matter) with the Sun, that's a very common mythological theme, so it's no surprise if it found its way into Christian mythology either intentionally or simply because it was such an ubiquitous theme in Pagan religious thought. I would never deny the similarities between Christian and Pagan theologies. I just think one should be careful not to read too much into them. There were other factors that were influential in the formation of Christian mythology, including the apologetic necessity of portraying Jesus in a Jewish context (and then subsequently divorcing him from his Jewish roots).