JESUS and History

*******

I am not convinced that Jesus was ever a formal, appointed "rabbi" of the traditional schools of Judaism. In the Gospels, over and over, his "enemies" appear as the "scribes and Pharisees." The latter were traditionalist and orthodox people, "people of the book," which Jesus was clearly not.:) Also, there are some historical sources that claim that the term "rabbi" was not used to designate an official, formal, teacher or leader in Judaism until after the death of Jesus; so, it might be an anachronism.

Jesus was clearly not orthodox. In some ways, he was just as clearly antiorthodox, as when, in Matthew 5, he in effect denied the infallibility of the "written" Scriptures and recommended that we follow the heart.

Other texts, such as the famous John 17:3, imply that he might have been a gnostic (mystic). For there, in prayer, Jesus says, "This is timeless life, to know (Greek, form of gnodsein) you, the only true God, and the one whom you emanated, Jesus Christ." This kind of thinking/talking was purest mysticism.

I am not convinced that there is any historical data whatsoever that proves that Jesus was married. If he was, great! Also, if he was not, great! His beautiful teachings of Love are not altered one way or the other. I know that, since the "tempest in a teacup" caused in the official Catholic Church recently, many people will argue to the death that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. I believe, and remember, that they were the closest of friends. But there is no solid, good, scholarly evidence that they were married. In a gnostic work, the "Gospel of Phillip," it says that Jesus used to kiss her on the mouth with fair regularity, so they were not only friends, but intimate friends. (This Gospel says even that the other disciples were jealous!) And Mary Magdalen was recognized, in place of Peter, as the founder of the later church, by gnostics of many traditions. And this fact is also very impressive.

I know and agree that Jesus was no carpenter; only Joseph was. And the people said that he was a carpenter; but the people also said that he "had a demon." So, you cannot, as always, rely on the crowd to prove anything! Yet there is consistent scholarly consensus that he was no carpenter, popular myth to the contrary.:)

Yes, the orthodox, official Church was powerfully misogynistic, and this alone is a good enough reason-- as if another were needed-- to reject the leadership of the official and orthodox Church. (There are many other good reasons for rejecting, even renouncing, this Church. For one, it mistakes Jehovah for the sweet Lord of Love!:)

Jesus rejected the title of "messiah." There was a good, sound historical reason for this: The Jewish "messiah" was predicted to be a powerful and bloody general who would liberate the Jewish nation by spilling the blood of tens of thousands of Romans and other Jewish "enemies." This nightmarish, hideous "prophecy" did not at all fit the gentle teacher of Love.

The unreliability of the canonical Gospels, which went through many hands of many scribes, is indicated by the fact that, in Mark, the oldest of the official Gospels (including also Matthew, Luke, and John), Jesus tells Pilate that he is the "messiah." The "messiah" was nothing more than a popular Jewish superstition; Jesus did not buy into it at all, and certainly never made any claims to be the messiah. Like the word "rabbi," this word is also an anachronism; the word was not even used during the life of Jesus, but came along later.

The Greek word khristos, "Christ," is much more than a mere translation of the Hebrew mashiahh, or "messiah." Like "Buddha," in Sanskrit, the word "Christ" referred to a level of enlightenment, as the "anointed" one-- "anointed" by the Spirit (God or Love). But when Christianity historically abandoned many Jewish customs, holidays, and Levitical requirements of the Law, such as sacrifice, it somehow clinged tenaciously to the doctrine of the messiah-- in some ways, the most harmful of all. (Maybe this appealed to the Church because it was ruled by the lower nature.)
*******

The Transfiguration

*******

The famous Transfiguration of Jesus is one of the most wellknown, and spectacular, accounts of "visionary," not mystical, events in history.

We must begin by the caveat that it might not have been a literal event, but a symbolic one.

For example, "Moses" and "Elijah" were very ancient members of the Jewish religion. They often appeared in the experiences of visionaries. As human beings, of course, they were dead, and had been so for centuries.

But, as parts of visions, they were "alive and well" in the visions of dozens of Jewish visionaries. (A "visionary" sees visions, and is not the same as a "mystic," who might never see a vision.)

But as archetypes (symbols of mind), they represented two facets of Jewish religion: legalism and the belief in the extraordinary (miraculous) powers of God. (Many miracles were ascribed, in the ancient tales, to Elijah.)

Moses, historically, had been recognized as the writer of the Pentateuch or Torah, the first five books of the Bible-- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Jews were the original "people of the Book." In other words, their original faith was not ennucleated around a principle such as Love or goodness, but used as its core the written Scriptures, which grew finally to include the thirty-nine small books of the Hebrew Scriptures, known to most Christians as the "Old Testament."

These archetypes arose, during the vision, from the collective (shared) Unconscious. This vision was of a very rare type, for it, at least, in the later tellings, was shared by Jesus and his disciples, unless the entire account is an allegory (symbolic tale).

During the vision, the entire place was flooded with light, a perfect and picturesque symbol of the actions of Love. For Love is Light; for "God is Light." (1 Jn. 1:5)

This could not have been Jesus' first realization of the Christ of Light within him, for he was already the Christ. The account was recorded as further evidence that he was the Christ, especially to convince the doubting. Such stories as this, whether apocryphal or not, are commonly told of deeply spiritual people. In a short time, they become legend. And later, many of them are mistaken for actual "history."

Just a brief note on the word "Christ." This word, among Christian gnostics (most early Christians) was a term of immense respect and great awe. The Greek word Khristos was not just a translation of the Hebrew masshiah ("messiah"). This is a very common mistake made even by ministers and some scholars.

But early Christians never claimed that Jesus was the Jewish "Messiah," and he was not. For the Messiah, said the legends and "prophecies," was to be a great and bloody general who would raise an army of thousands, slaughtering thousands of Romans and other "enemies" of Israel, and freeing the Jewish people from foreign domination.

The real and truest, most reliable experts on the "Messiah" are the Jews. They formulated the concept, and they have studied it quite profoundly for centuries. So, when you want to learn about a strictly Jewish teaching, it does not make sense to ask a Christian-- a person of another faith. And when you ask Jewish scholars whether Jesus was their Messiah, they will answer, to a person, "No."

So, Jesus was not the "Messiah," and never taught that he was. There is one verse in Mark where he appears to have claimed that he was, but the texts of the original Christian Scriptures passed through many hands, and were emended several times to say what the scribe wanted them to say.

So, they are a fairly unreliable document when it comes to technical details of "truth" (Reality). That is why the person of Love follows her Love-trained conscience rather than ancient texts.

So, the magnificent Transfiguration probably was, originally, an account of a solitary vision seen by Jesus on the Mount. Through decades of embellishment, and retelling, it grew into the dramatic, overblown, fantastic, spectacular tale that we now have in our Bibles.
*******

Judaism and Christianity, Jesus and Messiah

*******

The entire history of the Ten Commandments has never had anything to do with the Christian religion. The entire doc has been, from the beginning, a Jewish text. If "Christians" were fighting for the display of the Sermon on the Mount, at least, their arguments could hope to make a tiny bit of sense. But, they regularly make the nightmare error of equating the ancient wargod Jehovah with the Lord of pure Love taught by Jesus. They insist also that every Jewish law is also somehow "Christian." This despite the fact that most of the ancient Jewish laws, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament"), go absolutely ignored by almost all Christians all the time. Jehovah forbade the eating of pork, for example, but Christians-- almost all of them-- continue to chew and swallow huge amounts of the dangerous fats of bacon and ham.

It is as ludicrous and out-of-place for a Christian to fight to protect the Ten Commandments as it is for a Jewish person to argue for the "messiahship" of Jesus Christ.

The people of the Book [Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament")] have made it clear, repeatedly, that Jesus is not, was never, their messiah. Now, the whole idea of a "Messiah" was a Jewish one, not a Christian teaching. And does it not make sense, if you have a question about Judaism, to ask the experts-- the Jews-- about any of their teachings? The "Messiah," in prophecy, was predicted to be a very bloody general who would lead legions of Jewish soldiers in war against the Romans. The whole world, it was predicted, would be flowing with the blood of the Messiah's "enemies." Jesus, a man of non-negotiable and unchanging peace, did not fit this profile at all. So, it only made sense for the Jewish people to reject him as their Messiah. So, despite later Christian bias, and the twisting of ancient records and prophecies to make them look as if they were specifically about Jesus, I have come to the logical (indeed, inevitable) conclusion that Jesus was not the "Messiah of Jewish prophecy. Except for a single text in Mark, which might have suffered emendation and/or alteration by a later Christian scribe, Jesus himself never claims to be the Messiah. In fact, I believe that he denied it, as he does in The Mystic Gospels of Jesus the Christ.

What mostly uneducated fundies have never come to terms with is the solid historical fact that Christianity and Judaism are two very different, in many ways, unrelated, faiths. As two faiths, they have two separate sets of Scriptures, two different sets of recognized "prophets," two different sets of teachings, different traditions, different "holy" days, different customs, and yes-- most spectacularly-- different gods. The "Jehovah" of the Hebrew Scriptures was never the God of pure Love taught by Jesus. (That alone explains why, although some form of the wrongly translated name "Jehovah" appears nearly seven thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures, it does not appear a single time in the best ancient texts of the Christian Scriptures.)

Most Jewish people today have as sophisticated and loving an image of God as anyone. But, four thousand years ago, the primitives worshipped a god of genocide, rage, emotional immaturity, violence, and psychosis. This confusion between two very different godimages is why Christian fundies are so hopelessly confused.

Your best bet, with people whose minds resemble blocks of unchanging granite, is just to let them be. In time, karmic force alone has the necessary power to alter some minds. Happily, it is not our job even to try to change the dogmatic mind!
*******