I have been studying Christianity for many years, from monasticism to mysticism to the various orthodoxies and heresies, and wanted to present here my best interpretation for the person of Jesus and the early faith. This is an alternative view, but I think it is a better version for someone using the historical lens, who wants to understand Jesus from a perspective that is modern, mature, and holistic.
1. It is clear Jesus – who we might refer to by his historical name, Joshua ben Joseph – was a true spiritual teacher.
It is my understanding that the Aramaic for Jesus is 'Yeshua,' but I am not sure. 'ben Yoseph' would work, but I recently reflected upon his name at his time; since the claim was he was from the 'house of David,' then I guess it would have been 'ben David,' pronounced 'Doveed.'
2. Jesus seems to have been familiar with esotericism and mysticism (these are my terms not his), strands of which have existed in Judaism throughout its history.
Yes, I agree, and my evidence is what is often translated as 'fruits of the spirit.'
3. Jesus spent many years in contemplation and withdrawal; we see this alluded to briefly in the Gospels, where Jesus was in the “wilderness” and when he is a student of John the Baptist.
Yes, I agree. His 40 day fast suggests this. And, further, the reference to his 'way, truth and life' suggests to me his way was that of the contemplative as a journey to mysticism.
4. Jesus and John the Baptist were likely connected to a group in ancient Judea called the Essenes. We would associate the Essenes with asceticism, the contemplative life, and the mystery religions today. The Essenes believed in a life of retreat into the wilderness and the practice of the inner life.
This is a well reasoned hypothesis; however, the earliest Christians were Jews who called themselves 'nazara.' The Hebruic term 'nazara' has been translated as 'nazarite,' which refers to a Jewish person who took up monastic vows, so I take it that way; and since there is no 3rd person evidence of a town in Judea called 'Nazareth,' then all references in the new testament for such a town suggest a pervasive translation error, or an attempt to subvert the monastic origins of Christianity.
5. When he began his ministry, Jesus’ teaching was fundamentally given “underground.” He preferred to teach directly a limited number of disciples (who in history we call the “twelve apostles”). Beyond this we don’t know his precise teaching or much about these disciples.
I really do not see much evidence of an 'underground' or secret teaching, as there is evidence in the Gospels that he did a number of public things. The Gospels suggest Yeshua was a peasant street preacher, or what we call a 'mendicant.'
6. When Jesus does have contact with the public, he preferred to teach in parables, or symbolic stories.
*There are many examples of Christ’s esotericism in the Gospels, but let’s look at one occasion when he speaks to the apostles: “To you [my direct students, the apostles] it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the public] it has not been granted.”
*This is overall a very prudent approach for one teaching these topics; as their niceties are hard to understand, and it is easy to be misunderstood or misconstrued.
I agree regarding him possibly keeping the esoteric part of his teaching for his initiated disciples.
It might be worth pointing out here that the parable is a characteristic of Persian literature of the time. And, while Rome persecuted Christians until the 4th century, the early Christians took refuge in Persia from Roman persecution. And, Christians in Persia have been known as 'Nazra' ever since.
7. There is a great deal of mythologization about Jesus; some of this is based on symbols communicating important truths, while some is fiction.
Yes, I agree here. It is a simple fact that many concepts central to Christianity are based upon gross translation errors, but what is new about that. We have been discussing translation errors in religious literature of all religions from the origins of this forum, and long before.
8. It is very difficult to know exactly what Jesus said or taught and we must make our best guesses at it. There was likely a list of aphorisms (sayings) of Jesus compiled early on that was the most authentic source of his teaching; this work likely influenced the Gospel writers.
Yes, I agree.
9. The Christian Gospels are clearly revealed texts, written under religious inspiration. They are dense, rich texts which communicate important and essential truths about spirituality and human nature.
However, we also have to keep in mind that the New Testament also suggests that the 4 Gospels were not written in unity, but suggest competition of the Apostles for donations, which explains why one Gospel celebrates on Apostle, while dissing others; and why there are a fair number of contradictions between Gospels.
10. At the same time, the Gospels have many eccentricities, and are imperfect texts, as all revealed texts are. We may distill the essential element out of them and appreciate them, but should also subject them to criticism.
I agree. The message of the Gospels can not be understood without deep critical investigation, which none of the translators seems to have done.
11. The Gospels were written a minimum of 50 years after the death of Jesus, and it is probable none of the authors had direct contact with Christ himself.
This I find is a reasonable conclusion considering that literacy was a profession at the time of Gospel redaction, and clearly none of the Apostles were literate, so even if one or more Apostles were involved in the redaction of the Gospels, they surely did not write it. They would have hired a scribe to do so. This includes the letters of Peter and Paul, and explains why scholars of the Gospels have suggested that there were at least 5 different authors responsible for them.
12. Here are a few areas which I have been suspicious of over the years.
*Miracles
In the period of the Roman Empire during which the Gospels were written, a trope existed in which the ability of spiritual teachers was proved by their demonstration of spiritual powers. In the East, a “siddhi” is the term for a spiritual power a holy person or saint might manifest. In the Gospels, there is the interesting term “dynamikos” (power) which is alluded to at times when Christ performs the miracles.
There are other writings from around this same era of magicians and thaumaturgists (miracle-workers) who work similar wonders as Jesus. Most of these figures have been forgotten to time. It is interesting that the true teacher Jesus was the one whose account remained, and became a prevailing force.
I think these miracles are partly based on authentic manifestations that sometimes happen to spiritual seekers (the charisms), and are partly exaggerations, mythologizations, and fictions used to “prove” the attainment of Christ.
I have found that regardless of the religion, where the miracles are, there is little truth. So, I have had to conclude that miracles were just the marketing hype or every religion of the day.
*The Son of God
This is one I am relatively certain of. When participating in a modern Christian mass, Jesus is referred to as the (singular) “Son of God.” There is a whole teaching in Christian dogma today about this, linking Jesus as “the” Son to a “God the Father” and a “Holy Ghost.”
This seems to be a misunderstanding of the Essene teaching of the “ben Elohim” (sons of God). Jesus seems to have referred to himself as one of the sons of God (plural), with the idea being that anyone could become a son of God if they followed his teaching. This line of reasoning also elucidates the teaching of the early church fathers, the idea “God became man that man might become god.” This teaching is sometimes called the idea of deification or divinization (theosis).
I find this reasonable. Further, 250 years before Jesus Alexander the Great was believed to be the "Son of God, and was the God Jupiter, who was born of a virgin. Also, if we examine the archaeology of early Greco-Roman Christianity we find that most of the early temples that were dedicated to Jesus, were Jupiter temples that got a face lift, and a nae change, often without removing the mozaics that depicted Jupiter.
Also, making Jesus a god, and marketing a trinitarian belief system goes against the epistemology of monotheistic Judaism.
Further, if we stick to the epistemology of monotheistic Judaism ad examine Genesis, then we would have to acknowledge that Adam and Eve would constitute "God's first children."
Also, the Koran points out that the God of Abraham was a creator, therefore a woman would not have been needed to get Jesus. Jesus would have just been created.
Christian teaching often posits that Christ had two natures, divine and human. Based on the above, it follows that all men can realize this possibility, and become fully divine and fully human like Christ.
I agree with this.
*Jesus of Nazareth
This is one I am not as certain of, but have been suspicious of over the years. The idea Jesus originates in the town of Nazareth has been questioned by scholars and archaeologists. So, one alternative is “the Nazorean” or “of Nazareth” is a mistranslation of the correct “Nazirite.” The Nazirites were a sect of the Essenes, which would clarify more of Jesus’ origins.
Yes, I agree, see above.
*The Virgin Mary
Here I must admit I have never been a big fan of the cult of Mary, though over the past years I have in some ways been altering my perspective. Christian teaching says that Jesus’ mother “was born without original sin” and that she conceived Jesus without having had sexual relations: that Christ’s birth was of a virgin.
I feel that this is very clear mythologization, and we can find analogues of virgin birth in the religions and mythologies that were contemporary to the Gospels.
One problem with Mary is beyond her motherhood and holiness, we don’t know much about her. This has been an obstacle of mine in appreciating her as a spiritual figure. Perhaps it is that Mary was a holy woman, who also gave birth to a son who went on to become a holy man. Yet there is also evidence against this in the Gospels; for instance, the scene when Christ is teaching in the synagogue and Mary calls out, “He is out of his mind!” This brief scene in the past suggested to me that his mother was a worldly woman, unaware of the true nature of her son.
Yes, I agree. But, I should also point out that the term 'virgin' in translation more often means a young, unmarried, person. Not someone who had never had sex, but it is implied.
Orthodox Errors
While these would be very “bold” pronouncements to make in a conventional theological context, these are my main issues with Christian dogma.
*Physical Resurrection
The Resurrection of Christ is one of the most important parts of the Christian Gospels. The earliest Gospel (Mark) has an ending in which the disciples go to the tomb and find it empty; then the Gospel ends ambiguously. The two next Gospels have Jesus’ appearances to the disciples (which might be construed as intuitions or spiritual communications). However, by the time of the last Gospel (John), this return is now a full bodily resurrection, with Thomas famously touching Christ’s wounds.
This narrative has led to the modern teaching that Christ’s promise is of physical resurrection as opposed to spiritual resurrection. Unfortunately, I find this flawed and do not see any reason for a return to the physical body.
There are definite problems with the so-called resurrection:
1) I have been an herbalist for 55 years. Aloes are commonly used in herbalism; however, aloes are not put on a dead body for imbalming. They are put on an injured, but alive body for healing.
2) The whole point of the first Nacian counsel was to establish the divinity of Jesus. The Persian Christian Church had existed for 4 centuries before the Greco-Roman church. It was their premise that Jesus survived his crucifixion, and traveled with Thomas to Persia, where they started Jesus' mission together.
*Redemption Theology
This doctrine is a major pillar of all modern branches of Western Christianity, and one I have a problem with. While this dogma does reconcile Christ’s martyrdom, suffering, and death with the larger narrative of the Bible, I do not feel it is an appropriate interpretation.
This teaching usually goes something along the lines of this. “Man has original sin due to Adam; so, God sends Christ to suffer and die, and by doing so he ‘redeems’ the sin of mankind.”
I find this a very simpleminded understanding of Christ’s death, and an unnecessary one. Here I do feel the Eastern churches have been better at maintaining their integrity, as they have left many of these events open-ended for the individual to discern as “mysteries,” as opposed to giving easy canned narratives to preach to the public from the pulpit.
I agree that Christian doctrine is naive, but all mainstream religions tend to be naive.
Teachings of Christ
Here are the four major tenets I get from careful study of the Gospels.
I. Metanoia
The call for the complete transformation or conversion of man to conformity with truth or God.
II. The Beatitudes
The teaching of the themes of universal love and acceptance.
III. The redemptive power of suffering
The teaching that suffering ennobles or elevates man.
IV. Christ’s conquest of death
The meaning of the Resurrection: that eternal life is possible for man.
Yes, I agree; however, I do not agree with the so-called redemptive power of suffer, but the redemptive power of leading a contemplative life. Much of this discussion I hope will become central to the Great Western Vehicle.
