Recently, I blogged some pieces about the issues to do with the historical Jesus, pointing out why in essence the whole concept is a distraction.

The topic keeps coming back up, because with my interest in the Thomas Gospel, the whole question of why Jesus sounds so different in Thomas than in the later gospels keeps coming up, and the historical time line of how things happened at the time is the most practical way of explaining that, and sorting out Jesus's teachings from the theologies that were later promulgated in his name.

However, the real way of understanding it all is only internal, never mind how difficult that may seem at times. This is one reason why A Course In Miracles is so helpful, because it puts us in touch with the resistance we all have against Jesus.

For the careful reader it is very evident how "fresh" the sayings from the Thomas gospel sound, it is really like it was recorded by someone live, and then collected into a bundle, so it is almost as if you can hear the spoken word vicariously through the scribe, listening through him. This experience is similar to what people experience with A Course In Miracles, and even with some of the sayings in the New Testament tradition, the inner recognition results from having an experience that results from a sincere attempt to follow him, by practicing what it is we hear him say. Only in that attempt do we come to grips with the meaning of the words, and does the meaning of the teaching reveal itself. References to that are to be found throughout the literature. His teachings are thoroughly practical, and not at all meant as a topic for a thesis in theology, but for daily practice.

Once we begin to fathom the holographic nature of this perceptual universe of time and space, "the world," it is evident that Jesus is speaking to us from outside that world of separation, from a reality of wholeness, where truth is one, and one is truth, and no separation or differences exist. He is thus the personification of our own deep understanding that the Kingdom is actually our reality, and, as Jesus says repeatedly in the Thomas logia, the Kingdom is all around us, we just don't see it. Ultimately, the reason we don't see the Oneness, is because we have chosen at the level of the mind to take seriously the notion of a separate identity, and on the abstract level, it is that choice of the mind, where we place ourselves outside the all of spirit, which we are a part of, that we then reciprocally no longer perceive that all as oneness, but as a multitude of individuals and individual entities. One is a logical consequence of the other.

Therefore when we follow the accounts of Jesus, there is a temptation of trying to identify him as what he looked like and what he said or did, and which individual he was, so we can point him out, as Judas did, and we do not even fathom that this in itself is the betrayal, not of Jesus, but of ourselves. The Judas principle denies the living, spiritual reality of Jesus, and hands him over to "the authorities of the world," so that he ends up being crucified. Like Judas we do not comprehend that we are simply so drunk with the perceived "reality" of time and space, that we don't realize the consequences of our action, but we won't learn until we finally are able to stop choosing form over content, and let the spirit direct the form, instead of trying to force it into a mold which kills it. By setting him up as a person of history, we now relegate Jesus to being one person in particular, who we can then crucify, or idolize, or both, but at the very least we have then successfully killed off his living reality as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (as A Course In Miracles calls him). At that point we have seemingly managed to pull him down to our level, instead of following his call to rise up to his level and follow him to the Kingdom, which is the reality of our oneness, which we cannot see as long as we look from the vantage point of individuality, with our physical eyes. The idea of his teaching is instead to come up to his level, and see the world with the spiritual vision of oneness, so that we see it like him. However, as long as we limit him to a historical person, we have then established him to be like us, as a specific individual, whom we call Jesus, and to make it really safe, he lived 2,000 years ago. And again, psychologically to put him in the past symbolizes nothing but repression. We have thus distanced ourselves from him, by imagining we live in a world in which he lived, and died, that long ago.

So the way to recognize him for what he is, including understanding the true and the false of the historical traditions about him, lies in practicing his teachings in our own lives, at which point we find ourselves moments of sudden understanding of some of his sayings, which might otherwise remain obscure. We see this in contemporary writers such as Eckhart Tolle and Jeff Foster, and we've seen it from many spiritual people (regardless of if they were sainted or not), who suddenly along their path experience a deepening of understanding his words, when experientially they come in touch with the same issues of spiritual development as Jesus spoke about. That level of understanding, which is a dynamic growth process of its own, is altogether different, and more solid than the form-based argumentations of philology, hermeneutics, and theology, which will invariably shut us off from that living reality of experiencing Jesus in the present.

Another tip-off about the problem is to realize just how many historical Jesuses there are. As many as there are students of him, for we all have different images and understandings of the past, which after all is not a reality per se, but just a way of speaking about our experience, and our own belief system of who and what we are. There is no better way than that to realize that none of them are true. The only thing about him that is true, is the essence, is what he represents. Historically it is the Acts of John which is the tipoff, for there we find the apostles discussing how differently they each experience Jesus.

The above is why I found myself recently saying to someone that the whole historical Jesus "thing" is some sort of a hoax. Jesus told us he would be with us whenever we call on him, but by limiting him to a personage of history, we safely shut the awareness of him out of our present awareness.

Which will it be: Jesus, Jesus, or Jesus? Evidently, whoever Jesus is, he is not dependent on how we think of him, but nonetheless, confusion is rampant. People's associations with the name can be very powerful at times, and yet, he is unaffected by any of it. Having said that, it remains a helpful thing at times to realize the many ways people have looked at him, and all of which he is not. No different than the famous Buddhist saying that "What is known as the teachings of the Buddha, are not the teachings of the Buddha." Ultimately whether you follow Buddha, Krishna, or Jesus, the only thing that could possibly matter is your own relationship to them, and more precisely, the more you can let them teach you the meaning of their being and their teachings, rather than the interpretations of others. It really gets to be absurd to substitute these teachers with the interpretations of them by others, yet that is what "religions" have always done and are still doing.


With early Christianity there were major differences from the start, most notably the "Jerusalem" church under Jesus's brother James, a.k.a. the Ebionites, which maintained a Jewish focus, and felt that Paul c.s. Romanized Jesus, and they were certainly right about that, but does that mean that they got Jesus right? Paul, and Peter c.s. made the most noise, and ended up establishing the very Roman tradition which for a while was the Church pure and simple, but then quickly split again in East and West, Greek and Roman, and that process has been repeated many times over until today. Pursah, the ascended master who appeared to Gary Renard, and who was the apostle Thomas in another life, represents yet another school, that of Thomas and Thaddeus, which ended up via Syria in India in the years after Jesus' death, and their central text was the Thomas Gospel. And of course there were numerous other schools, we can't even keep track of them, but very soon it was in the hundreds and even thousands.

All in all the Thomas group, and of course Mary Magdalen, left precious few historical traces, and seemed to have sailed between the Scylla and Charybdis of these dominant groups who were the major power blocks of early Christianity. So as always, it is the victors who write history, and this is why our perception of Christianity in the West is so biased towards the Pauline tradition. In Gary Renard's book Your Immortal Reality, Pursah points out that in order to understand the source of the movement, you would want to go back to a time before it splits into many different traditions. By that logic the Thomas Gospel is our best source, because it is the oldest, and least corrupted record of actual teachings of Jesus, along with that other sayings tradition, the Q document, of which we don't own a copy, but which has been reconstructed from quotes that are common to the texts we do have. Clearly Jesus was not a Christian, not only historically, because it was invented long after his time, in the modern sense that we attach to the term today, but also, his teachings are clearly very different than the religion(s) founded in his name. In fact everything points to the fact that he had no intention of founding any new religion. As I recently blogged here, under the title Being There, just one little theme alone shows the completely different thought of the original teachings versus Christianity, namely the very clear emphasis on the Kingdom as not something in the future, but something here and now, that is within us and around us, but which we do not see, unless we get an attitude adjustment - and for that Jesus offers some ideas. Therefore he is also not pro or con any religion, and not concerned with founding a new one, but merely a teacher of truth, a truth which finds its only validation in inner experience.

Thus the answer is not in making him out to be a Jew, although he was a Jew, that fact was not important to his teachings. Thus James and the Jerusalem school, although they are very reflective of the culture from which Jesus sprang, and were certainly very justified in their skepsis of Paul, but they do not do Jesus a service by restricting him to being a Jew. Still we can learn a lot of useful stuff from scholars like Robert Eisenman (James the Brother of Jesus), Hyam Maccoby (Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity), and Barrie Wilson (How Jesus became a Christian). The mass of Pauline writings which became so dominant and constituted the New Testament, has filled entire libraries, but it's good to realize that essentially any book that does not reflect and appreciate the complete difference between the teaching of Jesus and Paul, is inevitably from the Pauline tradition, and beholden to justifying his views, a practice which started with the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts, whose purpose really was to prove Paul right and James wrong. So it is that for our own understanding of him, we need to navigate between all of these systems which claim to represent him, and seek our own relationship with him. The preface of A Course in Miracles expresses that very clearly, here:

And this makes it very clear what needs to be done. Not a degree in theology, but starting a relationship with your own Internal Teacher, to which the Course may be a help, but it is not a substitute, nor is any particular writing. A book is not the truth, at best only a reflection of it, and some books may be more helpful finding it than others. The key thing is to let the teacher teach us, rather than us telling him what to say.

Funnily enough, there are urban myths around, such as that we only use a small percentage of our brain, etc., which are really an interesting symbolic reminder of a reality we seem to have lost. What if we could use it all. We never stop to think how absurd it is to assume that meat could think. It's almost as absurd as thinking that computers could ever think. Absurd because both assumptions ignore the thinker who teaches dead matter to perform a certain way.

The image that is evoked by Logion 96, of the leaven that makes large loaves of bread, is really about the fact that the Kingdom represents something that exceeds our wildest imagination. In the Course we find this discussed in other ways, such as the difference between grandeur (of spirit, and our true nature), and grandiosity (of the ego - which is really the superiority complex covering over an inferiority complex). Our reality as immortal spirit is completely beyond what we can grasp within the ego mind, and hence there is always the emphasis in the Course on our relationship with our Internal Teacher, just like we find emphasis in the early Jesus literature on "following" him.

The life of the ego, is an existence of littleness, of scarcity, and of limitation. And the teachings of Jesus are nothing but an invitation to wake up from that dream of limitation, to our true reality as spirit, which is beyond our wildest imagination, and he invites us to invite him to lead us up to the level where he is.