JR 43: The Case for "Mark Versus Paul"

A: Today, I'm shifting back into academic mode on the question of what Jesus actually taught 2,000 years ago -- as opposed to what the Church says he taught. 

I've had an inquiry about my academic arguments on the "Mark versus Paul" question -- that is, on my thesis that Mark wrote his gospel as a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. To present this argument in its entirety would fill at least one big fat Zondervan text (as if Zondervan's editors would publish such a thesis!) so all I can do at this stage is present a brief list of comparisons between the two texts. I'm aware that in order to build a case for each "talking point" in a complete academic format -- a format that would be acceptable to a peer-reviewed journal -- would require many months of research for each point and a long research paper for each. The work would go faster, however, if others were willing to help. If you're interested in helping with this project, please contact me. 

I'm going to present some of the major contrasts I see between First Corinthians and the Gospel of Mark. I'll assume for this purpose that the extant copies of these two books represent with a fair degree of accuracy the original texts as they were written by Paul and Mark respectively, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 (the very ending of Mark), which is generally believed to be a later addition.  

If you want to see which researchers I rely on, please refer to the post called "The Author's Research Bibliography" (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/03/authors-bibliography.html).  

Study of the Gospel of Thomas, which has strong links to the Q Source and the Synoptic Gospels, makes it easier to see what Jesus was actually saying and how Jesus’ teachings differed radically from Paul’s teachings. Ceiling mosaic in the original Queen’s Park entrance of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Photo credit JAT 2017.

I use more than one form of biblical criticism -- more than one analytical tool -- in this comparison. I tend to start with traditional methods -- socio-historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism -- and then I cross-reference these arguments with recent scientific insights from quantum theory, neurophysiology, psychotherapy, archaeology, and recent historical findings. I also use my own personal mystical faculties, but I won't apologize for this, since insights derived from mystical conversations are only a starting point, not an ending point. Other researchers get "aha" moments and call them intuition, or divine revelation, or just plain ol' personal brilliance. Me, I'm being honest about where I get my starting point for this discussion. After that, it's up to me to use logical human tools to make my case. 

Fortunately for me, what Jesus and my angels pointed out to me leads to an extremely strong case. To the best of my knowledge, there are no biblical scholars currently publishing on this topic. So this is original research you're reading. You'll probably wonder straight away how I -- an obscure blogger from Canada who has no PhD and no publishing record of note -- could see evidence of a book-to-book biblical feud that nobody else has seen. To this I must reply that the feud has been obvious "to those who have eyes and those who have ears" (Mark 8:18) since these two texts began to circulate simultaneously in the latter part of the 1st century CE. Christians have always been called to decide whether they choose Paul's teachings or Jesus' teachings (even if they haven't been able to articulate the choice in scholarly terms). However, it's only now that Christians are getting round to being honest about this fact. 

If Mark had simply written about entirely different themes than Paul did, there would be no point in trying to show that Mark wrote his gospel as a rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. But Mark didn't write about different themes than Paul did. He wrote about exactly the same topics and inverted them. He also chose his words as carefully as Paul did. He never uses Paul's favourite word: nomos (Greek for law, authority, unbreakable tradition). Nor does Mark use the words charis (grace) or elpis (hope). The words nomos, charis, and elpis are part of the vocabulary of apocalyptic thought. And Mark is trying to show, contrary to Paul's claims about Jesus, that Jesus himself rejected apocalyptic thought.  

Mark never uses the words nomos, charis, and elpis. But for a man who never uses these words, he talks about them a lot in his book. He talks about what it means for a person of faith to be in full relationship with God the Mother and God the Father.  

Here is a point form list of some of the direct comparisons. I reserve the right to edit, modify, add to, and clarify this list whenever additional information comes to light in future. If information is suggested to me by other writers, I will so note the contribution(s).  

Concerns of Form:  

1. Viewpoint Character In Paul: The viewpoint character is Paul himself. In Mark: The viewpoint character is Jesus; the author (Mark) is not present; reference to "a certain young man" in Mark 14:51 may indicate an eyewitness to whom Mark later spoke about events surrounding Jesus' arrest.  

2. Narrator's Voice In Paul: The narrator speaks in first person (Paul himself). In Mark: Third person narration. 

3. Literary Genre In Paul: Written as a letter; uses rhetoric, exhortation. In Mark: Written as a biographical narrative interspersed with parables, sayings, and teaching actions (i.e. teaching chreia).  

4: The Narrative Hook: "The Hero's Journey" In Paul: The hero Paul recounts highlights of his long and arduous journey to save the Gentiles; the focus is on important urban centres; the hero's personal journey is a metaphor for the path of spiritual ascent (i.e. the vertical path that leads to salvation and eventual bodily resurrection). In Mark: The hero Jesus takes many small trips around a small freshwater lake; the focus is on unimportant outlying communities; the hero's journey is horizontal, not vertical; the path is not straight; bad things happen on high hills; good things happen near boats and water.  

Theological and Social Concerns:  

5. Relationship to the Jerusalem Temple: In Paul: The physical Temple has been replaced by Jesus and "believers" (1 Cor 3:9-17; 6:19-20); the Temple is now purely mystical; it is more important than ever. (Note: the actual physical Herodian Temple was still standing in Jerusalem at the time Paul wrote his letter and Mark wrote his rebuttal). In Mark: The physical Temple exists and is the centre of corruption in Palestine (Mark 11:12-24;12:35-44; 15:38). 

6. Relationship to the city of Jerusalem: In Paul: Jerusalem is still favoured as shown by the collection for the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-4). In Mark: Jesus spends little time in Jerusalem; healing miracles all take place outside the city; Jesus' friends live outside the city; Jerusalem is the place where genuine faith withers away (Mark 11).  

7. Healing Miracles: In Paul: No mention of healing miracles. In Mark: Several healing miracles take place; the theme of healing is introduced early on and repeated until Jesus reaches Jerusalem.  

8. People With Disabilities: In Paul: No special mention of individuals with physical or mental illnesses or disabilities or special needs. In Mark: Those deemed "impure" according to Jewish custom and law are healed, touched, spoken to in violation of purity laws.  

9. The Kingdom of God: In Paul: The Kingdom is a reality outside the self; it depends on power (1 Cor 4:20; 15:24-28; 15:50). In Mark: There is no simple explanation of the Kingdom, but empathy is central to it (Mark 10:13-31; 12:28-34).  

10. Relationship of Body to Soul: In Paul: Influenced by Platonic dualism.; the flesh is corrupt (1 Cor 3:1-4; 7:8-9; 9:24-27; 15:42-49). Souls are in peril without belief in Christ. In Mark: Holistic attitude toward the body; non-Platonic and non-Covenantal; flesh is not impure or corrupt; right relationship with God involves caring for the body. Souls live as angels in the afterlife (Mark 12:24-27)  

11: Forgiveness: In Paul: No mention of forgiveness. In Mark: The theme of forgiveness is introduced early on (Mark 2:1-12); both God and humans can forgive (Mark 11:25).  

12: The Definition of Human Virtue: In Paul: "Foolishness" (morias) and unquestioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (1 Cor 1:10 - 2:5); obedience, fellowship, holiness, "strong consciousness," and the proper exercise of freedom are emphasized. In Mark: Courage (ischys) and a questioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (Mark 8:11-21); egalitarianism, service, forgiveness, and insight (suneseos) are emphasized.

JR36: Saying 56 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: When we wrote last time ("Father of Lights, Mother of Breath"), I ran out of time, and we didn't get a chance to return to the question of Saying 56 in the Gospel of Thomas. I was hoping we could continue that discussion. (For the record, Stevan Davies translates Saying 56 as "Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found a corpse; whoever has found that corpse, the world is not worthy of him.)

J: I can't help noticing the irony of a person who's "alive" having a discussion with a person who's "dead" about the question of "alive versus dead."  

A (rolling eyes): Very funny. I prefer to call you "molecularly challenged."  

J: Hey -- I left some bones behind when I died. Traces of them are sitting in a stone ossuary in a warehouse owned by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Kinda reminds me of the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.  

A: The IAA can have them. I somehow doubt you're going to be needing them again.  

J: Well, you know, there are still people on the planet today who believe in the concept of bodily resurrection on the Day of Judgment. According to that way of thinking, I might actually need to retrieve my bones so I'll be complete on the final day of judgment.  

A: Hey! You're not supposed to have any bones. According to Luke, you ascended bodily into heaven -- at least once, maybe twice! (Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:1-11). Prophets who are "beamed up" aren't supposed to leave body parts behind. That's the whole idea.  

J: Nobody gets out of a human life "alive." At some point, the biological body reaches its built-in limits, and the soul returns to God in soul form. There's no ascension. Never has been, never will be. Luke is lying.  

A: Maybe Luke just didn't understand the science of death. Maybe he was doing his best to explain something he didn't understand. 

J (shaking his head): Luke was lying. On purpose. If Luke had been sincere and well-meaning -- if misguided -- he would have to stuck to one story about my ascension. But one man -- the man we're calling Luke -- wrote two scrolls together to tell one continuous story. He wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as a two-part story. The Gospel finishes in Bethany, the hometown of Lazarus (who was the subject of a miraculous healing), and the last thing we hear is about is the disciples. Apparently, they obediently returned to Jerusalem to continually pray. 

A: Yeah, like that was gonna happen. 

A major problem for the spread of Pauline Christianity among Jews and Gentiles was the Eucharistic ritual instituted by Paul. A lot of people didn't like the idea of ritualistically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a divine being. So one of Luke's jobs, when he wrote the two-part Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, was to soften the impact of it for newcomers, while preserving Paul's occult meaning for those who were "in the know." What you see at the end of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of Acts is a slyly written (and entirely fictitious) account of twelve men who are "chosen" for the special privilege of receiving the Cloak of Glory from the Holy Spirit after they've properly prepared themselves for 40 days in the presence of the mystical body of Christ. They eat from the mystical body in order to purify themselves for the coming baptism of fire on Pentecost. Then, on the appointed day, the twelve (well, thirteen, if you count Paul's later baptism of fire) suddenly receive the intense fire of Glory that Luke says was promised to the twelve by God through Jesus. After that, nobody is allowed to challenge the authority of the apostles. Please note that if you're having trouble following this narrative in its established biblical form, there's a good reason for that: the secret knowledge wasn't meant to be easily understood by everyone. Interestingly, though, the themes of this secret knowledge have been found in other religious traditions, too. For instance, in this photo of the Tantric Buddhist deity Acala, "the Immovable One," he is braced by the fiery tongues of phoenix flame -- much like the fire delivered to the apostles at Pentecost. Who doesn't like a really good bonfire when Divine Power is the prize? This wooden sculpture is on display at the British Museum. Photo credit JAT 2023.

 J: Meanwhile, when you open up the book of Acts, which picks up where Luke leaves off, you get a completely different story from the same author. In Acts, he claims that after my suffering I spent 40 days with my chosen apostles in Jerusalem, and then was lifted up by a cloud from the Mount of Olives (which is just to the east of Jerusalem's city walls). The Mount of Olives is closer to Jerusalem than Bethany, the "authentic" site of my so-called Easter ascension in the Gospel. Luke also adds two mysterious men in white robes to the Acts version of the story. These two sound suspiciously like the two men in dazzling clothes who appear in Luke's account of the tomb scene (Luke 24:4). Luke is playing fast and loose with the details -- an easy mistake for fiction writers to make. 

A: Well, as you and I have discussed, Luke was trying very hard to sew together the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul. Mark puts a lot of focus on the Mount of Olives -- a place that was most definitely not Mount Zion, not the site of the sacred Temple. Luke probably needed a way to explain away Mark's focus on the non-sacred, non-pure, non-holy Mount of Olives. 

J: You wanna bet the Mount of Olives was non-pure! It was littered with tombs. Religious law dictated that no one could be buried within a residence or within the city walls, so it was the custom to bury people in the hills outside the city walls. To get from the city gates of Jerusalem to the top of the Mount of Olives, you had to pass by a number of tombs and mausoleums. If you got too close to death, though, you were considered ritually impure, and you had to go through a cleansing and purification process once you got back to the city -- especially during a big religious festival. Mark's Jewish audience would have understood this. They would have wondered, when they read Mark, why there was no concern about contamination. They would have wondered why the Mount of Olives became the site of important events when the purified Temple precincts were so close by. It would have defied their expectations about death and purity and piety.  

A: This was easier to understand when the Temple was still standing.  

J: Yes. It would have made a lot of sense in the context of Herod's humongous Temple complex. It started to make less sense, though, after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.  

A: A fact that Luke took advantage of.  

J: Yes.  

A: Mark doesn't include the saying from the Gospel of Thomas about corpses (saying 56), but Mark's portrayal of you shows a man whose least important concern is ritual purity -- not what you'd expect at all from a pious Jew, in contrast to Matthew's claim about you (Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.")  

J: Matthew says this, but Mark says the opposite.  

A: Not in so many words, but by showing your ongoing choices and actions. 

J: Later Christian interpreters wanted to believe that God had given me special powers over demons and sin and death, and this is how they understood Mark's account of my ministry. But this isn't what I taught. I didn't have the same assumptions about life and death that most of my peers had. It's not that I had special powers over life and death -- it's simply that I wasn't afraid of life or death. I wasn't afraid to "live" and I wasn't afraid to "die." I wasn't afraid to embrace difficult emotions. I wasn't afraid to trust God. Maybe to some of the people around me it seemed that I had special powers, but I didn't. All I had was maturity -- the courage to accept the things I couldn't change, the courage to accept the things I could change, and the wisdom to know the difference.  

A: The Serenity Prayer.  

“My friends, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2-4). Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: Yes. It seemed to me that Creation is much more like a rainbow than like night-versus-day. It seemed to me that the world I lived in was not "evil" and "corrupt," as many occult philosophers had said. (Including the Jewish sect of Essenes.) Yes, there were corpses, it's true. People died. Other creatures died. Beautiful flowers died. But obviously death led to new life, and wasn't to be feared. Death wasn't the enemy. Fear of the self was the enemy. Fear of trusting God, fear of trusting emotions such as love and grief, were the obstacles between individuals and God. To get over those fears, you have to face your initial fears about death -- about "corpses." You have to begin to see the world -- Creation -- in a new, more positive way, and accept -- even love in a sad sort of way -- the corpses. You have to stop spending so much time worrying about your death, because it's gonna happen whether you like it or not, and no religious ritual can stop it. Accept that it's going to happen, then focus on what you're doing today. Focus on the Kingdom of today. Build the love, build the relationships, build the trust. Physical bodies come and go, but love really does live on.  

A: Some people might take that as an endorsement of hedonistic behaviours or suicidal behaviours, since, in your words, death isn't to be feared.  

J: There's a big difference between saying "death isn't to be feared" and saying "death is to be avidly pursued." If you avidly pursue death, it means you've chosen to avidly reject life -- the living of life to its fullest potential. Trusting in God means that you trust you're here on Earth for a reason, and you trust that when it's your time God will take you Home. What you do with the time in between depends on how you choose to view Creation. Is God's Creation a good creation, a place of rainbows where people can help each other heal? Or is God's Creation an evil "night" that prevents you from ever knowing the pure light of "day"? 

A: What about those who've chosen to view Creation as an evil place of suffering, and are now so full of pain and depression that they can't take it anymore? What happens to those who commit suicide?  

J: God the Mother and God the Father take them Home and heal them as they do all their children. There is no such thing as purgatory or hell for a person who commits suicide. On the other hand, our divine parents weep deeply when families, friends, and communities create the kind of pain and suffering that makes people want to kill themselves. There would be fewer tears for everyone if more human beings would take responsibility for the harmful choices they themselves make.  

A: And learn from those mistakes. 

J: Absolutely. It's not good enough to simply confess the mistake. It's important to confess the mistakes, but people also have to try to learn from their mistakes. They have to be willing to try to change. They have to let go of their stubbornness and their refusal to admit they're capable of change.  

A: Easier said than done.

JR29: Eucharist: The Temple Sacrifice

A: One thing I've noticed over and over in my studies is the idyllic portrait that's been painted of the apostle Paul. "Paul was such a good man." "Paul was such a brave missionary." "Paul teaches us how to be imitators of Christ." "Paul was a selfless servant of God." "Paul was a man I can relate to." "Jesus is my saviour, but Paul is my hero. I want to be like Paul when I grow up." I wonder sometimes if the Christians who are saying these things have ever read what Paul's letters actually say. Paul's own letters -- Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon, and probably Colossians -- reveal clearly that Paul was every bit as interested in "pagan" occult magic and mysticism as the "pagans" were at this time. This wasn't a "modern" or "progressive" religious movement at all.

“His disciples said to him: Show us the place you are, for it is essential for us to seek it. He responded: He who has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and it lights up all the world. If it does not shine, it is dark” (Gospel of Thomas 24). This saying can be understood as a central thesis statement in guiding your understanding of Jesus’ original teachings. Among those who believe in dualistic traditions about light versus dark that include good versus evil, purity versus sin, and mind versus body, a quick glance at Thomas 24 suggests that Jesus is talking about the light of divine knowledge and salvation. But only those who haven’t been paying attention to Jesus’ teachings on love, forgiveness, and healing could conclude that, for Jesus, the inner light sought by the disciples is gnosis (occult understanding, illumination, pure wisdom). For Jesus, the highest state of human experience was not gnosis but Divine Love — how to feel it, how to share it, how to be healed by it. You can choose to accept a life of relationship with God, in which case you’ll begin to live a life of wholeness, expansiveness, empathy, and healing -- entering the Kingdom that can’t be “seen” but can be “heard,” or, more properly, emotionally sensed. Or you can choose to block God’s love and forgiveness in your life by allowing ancient occult rituals and beliefs to get in the way of your daily relationship with God -- that is, choosing Paul’s movable Temple with its occult feast of body and blood). The photo shows a marble head and torso of Dionysos, God of Wine, Roman copy after a Praxitelean work of the 4th century BCE, on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: In the first century of the Roman Empire, the idea of gods and goddesses and cult rituals and visions and prophecies and sacrifices and divine fools and chosen oracles and sacred pools and sacred temples and sacred stones and sacred forests was -- by far -- the dominant understanding of humanity's relationship with the divine. This way of thinking has become foreign to the modern mind. But it was the context in which I was teaching. It was also the context in which Paul was teaching. In my time as a teacher and healer, I was not only trying to undermine the authority of the Jerusalem Temple -- I was also trying to lessen the authority of occult magic in people's minds. I was trying to say that visions and prophecies and sacrifices get in the way of people's relationship with God. I wanted to make the experience of faith consistent with the experience of the human senses and the natural world. Some would call it a form of natural theology.  

A: If this is what you were trying to do, it doesn't come across well in the New Testament. 

J: No. It can only be seen clearly in the Gospel of Mark. There's also an indication of it in the Gospel of Thomas and in the parts of the Letter of James I myself wrote. The Kingdom parables that Matthew and Luke cut and pasted from earlier written sources also give an indication of my lack of support for ritual, magic, prophecy, and the like. The images I used in my teaching parables were all very practical, very normal. You won't find any mystical flying chariots in my teachings.  

A: Or any trips to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2). On the other hand, there are lots of references to healing miracles in Mark, and many people today would want to lump healing stories into the same category as other first century superstitions. 

J: Well, the honest truth is that healing miracles do take place, and always have, because healing miracles aren't a form of magic. They're a form of science. Healing miracles, when they take place, are the result of conscious choices made by God or by God's healing angels. At a scientific level, God is collapsing probability wave functions and shifting quantum energies by means of non-locality (quantum entanglement) to effect changes at the macroscopic level. In other words, if God decides to give you a "miracle healing" -- and only God is in charge of this decision -- then God uses perfectly acceptable scientific tools to bring about the healing. This is just a more sophisticated form of what today's medical researchers are doing with targeted therapies and surgeries performed with computer-aided magnification. Really, it's just goofy to claim that healing miracles aren't scientifically possible. Just because the human mind can't grasp the scientific principles God uses doesn't mean those principles don't exist. Modern science gives people more grounds for believing in healing miracles, not fewer.  

A: What does a human being have to "do" in order to receive one of these healing miracles? What sort of religious observance will lead to a healing miracle? 

J: What I was trying to get at 2,000 years ago was the idea that occult magic gets in the way of the relationship between each person and God. It's the relationship that's central to the healing process. It's the choices that people make around their relationships -- all their relationships, not just their relationship with God -- that affect the functioning of the body's built-in healing abilities. Human DNA comes with some pretty amazing built-in "healing subroutines." If those subroutines are functioning properly, the body can bounce back quite quickly from all sorts of injuries and illnesses. I'm not saying there won't be scars, and I'm not saying there won't be psychological and emotional adjustments. Human beings can't escape occasional illness or eventual death. (Though to listen to Paul, you might think you can.) On the other hand, you can make the most of your DNA package. You can make the most of your human biology. You can work with God rather than against God towards a state of healing.  

A: I continue to be amazed that Paul's silence on the question of healing and healing miracles doesn't bother today's orthodox Christians.  

J: The author of Luke-Acts did a brilliant job of making it seem that Paul's spiritual concerns were the same as my spiritual concerns. Acts makes it seem that Paul cared about healing the disadvantaged in society. Paul's own words say otherwise. 

A: In 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, we see Paul instituting the Eucharist. In his own words, Paul says he received a revelation from the Lord in which you supposedly commanded your faithful followers to eat bread in remembrance of you and to drink the cup which is "the new covenant in [his] blood." How do your respond to that?  

J: The same way I respond to all Temple sacrifices: they gotta go.  

A: You're implying that Paul's Eucharist is a Temple sacrifice? 

J: I'm saying it right out loud. I'm saying that Rabbiniic Judaism freed itself from the horror of Temple sacrifices more than 1,900 years ago, and now it's time for Christianity to follow suit. Paul's mystical Eucharist is nothing more than an extension of Paul's Temple theology. First he tells people that if they have blind faith in Christ, the Temple will come to them. Then he institutes a classic Temple sacrifice -- in this case the sacred Messianic bread and wine of the Essenes (1QS 6 and 1QSa). This would have made perfect sense to a first century audience steeped in occult magic -- you go to a Temple to offer a sacrifice. Logically, however, you can't take an external sacrifice to the Temple of the Spirit if the Temple is already inside of you. So to keep the Temple clean and make it habitable for the Spirit (so that the Spirit can come in and bring you lots of special spiritual goodies) you have to ingest the sacrifice. You have to drink holy blood and eat holy flesh because nothing else in the corrupt material world is powerful enough to purify your inner Temple.  

A: But this inner Temple isn't really "you." It's something that originated outside of you -- something that God gives and God can take away. It's like a surgical implant, a pacemaker or a stent or a pin in a broken hip. Right?  

J: Exactly. It's a Gnostic idea. An occult idea. Paul's Eucharist is a pagan ritual. A cult ritual. A vampiric ritual. It has nothing to with "remembrance" and everything to do with occult power over evil forces. The very idea of drinking blood would have offended and horrified mainstream Jews, including me and my followers. Even John the Baptist doesn't speak of the Eucharist in his gospel. Paul's Eucharist crossed a big line. 

 A: And I suppose Mark confronted this very issue in his gospel? 

J: Oh yes. Most definitely. 

 A: Good. Then I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that topic.

JR28: Paul's Easy Salvation

A: You've said that Paul's Temple teachings were very different from your own Kingdom teachings -- so much so that when your great-nephew "Mark" read what Paul had written in the letter called First Corinthians, he blew a gasket and started work on his own version of your teachings. Why was Mark so upset about Paul's Temple teachings?  

J: Mark knew that one of my basic teachings had been about the Jerusalem Temple and the stranglehold the Temple and its priests exerted on regular Jewish people. It was much the same equation as Martin Luther faced when he decided to go public with his rejection of Papal and Vatican corruption in the early 1500's. Luther didn't reject the idea of faith in God -- far from it. But he rejected a number of official claims made by the Church. He thought the Church was no longer representing the ideals of true Christian faith. So he protested. 

A: This was part of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.  

J: Yes. But Luther was protesting from within the Church, not from outside it. He was an Augustinian monk and priest, highly educated and highly devout. He held a doctorate in theology. So he wasn't easily dissuaded from the idea -- once he saw it -- that the Church wasn't "practising what it preached." I had the same problem with the Jerusalem Temple and the priestly hierarchy in my time. Once I saw the problem, I wasn't easily dissuaded. Much to the chagrin of my aristocratic family. 

A: You've said your mother was descended from the priestly bloodline. That must have given your family a lot of status, a lot of authority. 

J: My family was somewhat on the fringes of the power and authority that priestly families were entitled to. This was partly due to the fact that my mother's line wasn't descended from the "first son of the first son." We were related to the "junior sons," so to speak -- pretty good as far as pedigrees go, but not "the best of the best." Another factor was our geographical location. I wasn't born and raised in Jerusalem -- one of the hotbeds of Jewish political intrigue. I was born and raised in the city of Philadelphia, on the other side of the River Jordan. It was a Hellenized city, but also quite Jewish in its cultural norms, so I was raised with a strange mix of values and religious teachings. That's what allowed me, when I reached adulthood, to be more objective about trends in Jewish thought -- by that I mean the blend of religious, political, cultural, and social ideas that were intertwined in people's hearts and minds. I was far enough away from the Temple -- physically and geographically -- to be sceptical about the grandiose claims being made by the Temple priests.  

A: In the Gospel of Mark, it's quite apparent what the author thinks of the Temple. Mark shows you visiting all sorts of Jewish and Gentile locations to teach and heal, but the one place you don't visit till the end is Jerusalem. Things start to go badly for you as soon as you get to David's city. This is a strange claim to make if you're trying to promote the idea that Jesus is the prophesied Saviour of the Jewish people.  

J: Well, my great-nephew did think I was an important teacher, a rabbi who could help the Jewish people become free from oppression, but his understanding of my role was not the traditional Jewish understanding of who -- or what -- the Messiah would be. Mark was a very spiritual fellow -- a free thinking Jewish scholar who made his own observations and his own decisions. He got a little carried away, I think, with the idea that I was an important teacher, but on the whole he embraced my ideas about the Kingdom and did his best to live them. 

A: Mark wrote his gospel before the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. 

“Jesus said: Grapes are not harvested from thornbushes, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit. A good person brings forth good from his treasury; a bad person brings forth evil things from his mind’s corrupt treasury, and he speaks evil things. For out of the excesses of his mind he brings forth evil things” (Gospel of Thomas 45 a-b). The photo shows a marble Mithraic relief, (restored), from Rome 100-200 CE on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. The Mithraic Mysteries, in so far as we know what they entailed, showed uncanny similarities to the teachings of Paul. The teachings of Jesus, meanwhile, explicitly rejected the occult practices and secret rituals of mystery cults. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: Yes. And this is an important detail to bear in mind. Paul and Mark both wrote their comments about the Temple before the Temple was physically destroyed. This fact is important to bear in mind, especially when you're trying to understand what Mark is saying. Mark was seriously -- and I mean seriously -- pissed off about Paul's "moveable Temple." For Mark, as for me, the only way to free the Jewish people to know God and be in full relationship with God was for us to confront the harm and the hypocrisy of the Jewish Temple -- a huge, bloated, phenomenally expensive physical structure that had robbed people of their livelihood through high taxes and ongoing dues, payments, sacrifices, and obligatory pilgrimages. Herod the Great spent a fortune -- a literal fortune -- on his building projects. His children continued his habit of profligate spending on status symbols to impress the rest of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the widows and orphans and foreigners we were supposed to look after -- according to Exodus -- were going hungry and selling themselves into slavery because of their poverty. This was unacceptable to me and to many others. I certainly wasn't alone in being outraged at the unfairness, the hypocrisy, the status addiction, and the corruption. 

A: Chapter 13 of Mark has long puzzled Christian scholars. It's viewed by reputable scholars such as Bart Ehrman as a "little apocalypse" because it seems to prophesy the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. They use this chapter as part of their proof that you yourself claimed to be an apocalyptic prophet. How do you respond to that?  

J: Without wishing to be harsh, I'd say these biblical scholars need to refresh their memory on what the earlier Jewish prophetic books and Jewish apocalypses actually said about the role of the Temple in the prophesied End Times. It's clear that highly revered earlier writers such as First Isaiah and Second Isaiah and Zechariah believed the physical Temple on Mount Zion (i.e. Jerusalem) would be absolutely central to the ideal future restoration of Judah in the End Times. Yet Mark uses imagery from apocalyptic texts like Daniel to turn these predictions on their head. Mark 13 shouldn't be called the "little apocalypse": it should be called the "anti-apocalypse" because of the way it intentionally subverts and repudiates the prophecies of Zechariah. Mark may be attacking Paul's theology throughout his own gospel, but he uses well-known Hebrew prophecies to do it. Mark's own Jewish audience would have understood these references. They would have understood that Mark was openly attacking traditional Jewish teachings about the future End Times when God would one day return and "fix everything."  

A: Traditional teachings that Paul continued to endorse in his letters (1 Corinthians 15).  

J: Yes. Paul enthusiastically taught his followers about the coming End Times -- a traditional Jewish teaching in itself -- and on top of that he added a wonderful new theological guarantee. He promised people that if they gave themselves over fully to a belief in Christ, then God's Spirit would be able to live inside of them in the "Temple" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20). Paul took the sacredness of the Jerusalem Temple and made it "moveable," an inner sanctuary of purity for the Spirit, just as the Essenes had already done in their Charter (1QS 3 and 1QS 8). He didn't try to undermine the importance and authority of the Jerusalem Temple. He actually added to it (as the Essenes had done) by elevating it to an inner mystical state that could only be known to true believers who followed Paul's teachings. This is a simplified version of Paul's Temple theology, but you get the picture. He's offering his followers the ultimate in "easy salvation." "You no longer have to go to the Temple; the Temple will come to you." 

A: And once you have the Temple, you can access all those spiritual goodies that Paul promises (1 Corinthians Chapters 2, 12, and 14).  

J: It's a theology that's very appealing to people who want all the benefits without doing the hard work.  

A: I've said it before and I'll say it again -- your teachings are much harder to stick to than Paul's are. It's impossible to follow your recommendations for connection with God without making spiritual commitment a regular part of everyday life. Once a week on Sundays -- or twice a year at Christmas and Easter -- won't do it. You ask a lot of regular people.  

J: Only because I have faith in you. Only because I have faith.

JR27: Paul's "Temple" versus Jesus' "Kingdom"

J: Today I'd like to talk about the starting place for understanding the many differences between what I taught and what Paul taught. 

“Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world. I came to them in the flesh. I found all of them drunk. I found not one of them to be thirsty. My soul was saddened by the sons of men for they were mentally blind. They do not see that they have come into the world empty and they will go out of the world empty. But now they are drunk. When they sober up they will repent” (Gospel of Thomas 28). Photo of Komombo Temple, dedicated to Sobek and Horus, Aswan, Egypt. Author Dennis Jarvis. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.

A: Sounds good to me.
 
J: I've mentioned before that Paul and I had different motivations, different purposes behind our respective religious movements.* One of the few things we had in common was a strong sense of conviction. Paul believed in his cause, and was willing to argue for it. I believed in my cause, and was willing to argue for it. We both had strong opinions. We just didn't have the same opinions.
 
A: Part of Paul's cause involved arguing against your cause.
 
J: Definitely. Paul rejected -- even feared -- my teachings on the nature of the Kingdom. He was sure my Kingdom teachings would lead to anarchy. Widespread civil and social disobedience. His fears were shared by others.
 
A: Why was he so afraid?
 
J: Well, Paul, like so many others then and now, had allowed his brain to become focussed -- riveted -- on the perfection of Divine Law. Of course, he thought it was Divine Law he was giving all his time, energy, and devotion to, but really it was human law, human authority. He didn't see it this way, though. He convinced himself that he was doing the right thing in aggressively attacking me because he was protecting Divine Law. He believed that Divine Law justified -- gave sanction to -- his actions.
 
A: Where have I heard that before?
 
J: Rigid, perfectionistic thinking is a symptom of imbalance and dysfunction in the wiring of the biological brain. It's common in bullies throughout the world.
 
A: Paul spends a lot of time in his letters telling the people of his churches that they don't need to follow Jewish laws on food and circumcision. If he believed so much in the law, why was he dissing it? It doesn't make sense.
 
J: It makes perfect sense if you understand that Paul wasn't trying to protect the "praxis" laws of regular Jewish people -- laws about "petty little daily practices," as he saw them. To him these minor practices were nothing, they were of no consequence. He wasn't interested in the small stuff, the things that matter to regular people on a day to day basis. He was after the big stuff. The End Point. The Omega. The be all and end all. He was after the Power.
 
A: What power?
 
J: The power that he and many others close to him believed was woven into the fabric of Creation. The power to command the universal Law of Cause and Effect.
 
A: That sounds seriously creepy. And not even very Jewish.
 
J: Well, as we've talked about, there were different schools of religious and philosophical thought that used the sacred Hebrew texts, and these schools fought fiercely among themselves. In the 1st century CE, there was no agreement on what it meant to be a pious Jew, just as today there's no agreement on what it means to be a pious Christian. Most people forget that there was a civil war among Jews in Judea in the 60's CE. Sure, the Romans came in eventually and torched everything in Jerusalem. But before the Romans sent in their troops, the Jews were doing a fine hatchet job on themselves. This mood of dissension among Jews was already brewing when I was teaching and healing in Galilee. It's part of the reason I left my home in Philadelphia (modern day Amman) and went to Galilee. There was a measure of religious sanity that still existed there.

 
A: The Bible claims that Paul was a Pharisee.
 
J: In Philippians Chapter 3, Paul is very clever about the claims he makes for himself. He says that according to Jewish laws of bloodline, he's a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Big deal. Lots of people could make that claim. He says that according to prevailing Jewish customs around religious authority, he's a Pharisee -- a sort of rabbi/lawyer/teacher who deserves to be treated with respect for his religious knowledge. Then comes the clincher: he says that according to "zeal" (zelos in Greek) he was an early persecutor of the church and according to "righteousness" he was blameless in his actions against the church. When Paul talks about "zeal" and "righteousness," he isn't talking about "beliefs" or "opinions." He isn't saying he was just really enthusiastic or really committed. He's saying he had "the zeal" inside of him. He's saying he had a piece of Divine Law inside of him, a spark of God inside of him that was guiding him, commanding his thoughts and actions. He's saying he was a "vessel of humility" into which God had poured the divine substance called "zeal." Zeal is a kind of love, therefore -- a love for the Law. Devotion to the Law. Obedience to the Law. Adoration, even, of the Law. It sees the Law as a quasi-divine being. Sort of an embodiment of the Divine desire for orderliness in Creation. More than just a philosophical structure. An animated, conscious entity, if you will. Wisdom -- Sophia -- was also envisioned in this way as a semi-divine female being.
 
A: Plato talked about the Laws in this kind of weird anthropomorphic way.
 
J: Yes. And so did the Essenes. The Essenes were very much a fringe cult within Judaism. They had the most highly developed mystical rituals, the most "out there" beliefs about God and Creation and occult magic. They were also highly devout, highly wealthy, and highly powerful. They were a scary bunch. And Paul was greatly influenced by Essene teachings about God, the Spirit, the indwelling Temple, and occult ritual.
 
A: Would you say that Paul was an Essene? An accepted member of the yahad?
 
J: No. He wasn't teaching pure Essene thought. But he was influenced by their thought. He also had strong links to another important school of thought that's harder to track. He blended ideas from Essene thought and Hellenistic thought to create his "new and improved" version of the Law of Cause and Effect. By the time he began his "mission to the Gentiles," he was no longer interested in mainstream Judaism, with its focus on Mosaic Law. He'd "moved up" on the spiritual ladder of ascent, on that ever so narrow and hard-to-find ladder of spiritual hierarchy. He'd found an enticing and intoxicating blend of occult magic and hidden knowledge -- the kind of hidden knowledge reserved only for a few select apostles. He was drunk on the idea that this new knowledge would lead him to power -- power over evil entities.

A: What evil entities?

J: The corrupted versions of Law and Wisdom and Life -- their "evil twins."

A: Their evil twins? This is sounding like some of the "contemporary horror" dramas that are so incredibly popular in books and movies and TV shows these days.
 
J: Same old, same old. It's just a dysfunctional, distorted version of the Law of Cause and Effect when taken to occult extremes. It goes like this: "Well, if there's a Perfect Law, a semi-divine being who brings only virtue and righteousness to people of virtue, then, logically speaking, there must be an evil twin of Perfect Law -- a powerful semi-divine being who sows vice and corruption in the world." It's a nice, neat, simple mathematical formula to explain why evil exists. Sons of Light versus Sons of Darkness, as the Essenes clearly formulated it. What could be easier to understand?
 
A: It's so easy to see what you're saying by looking at Paul's Letter to the Romans. Romans is filled with paranoid, dualistic, judgmental thinking. Paul tells people in gory detail how they can fight the evils of Law, Sin, and Death, and overcome these evil cosmic forces through the power of Christ's name.
 
J: Yes. For Paul, Mosaic Law had become the evil twin of the pure Essene Temple Law. Sin was the evil twin of Wisdom (implying by analogy to Wisdom's femaleness that Sin was also female). And Death was the evil twin of Life. Paul called this evil trinity Law, Sin, and Death.
 
A: On my God. That makes a ridiculous amount of sense. It explains how Paul could go around telling people they wouldn't die if they believed in Christ -- a promise that soon proved to be a lie, because some of Paul's followers had already died, and he had to answer for it in his letters.
 
J: It's popular these days for theologians to make excuses for this kind of apocalyptic promise, excuses based on the naive assumption that people in the 1st century CE "just didn't know any better" and "can't be blamed for believing in salvation from death." This, I'm sad to say, is hogwash. No balanced, mentally healthy individual is going to accept the idea that human beings can escape physical death and continue to live for centuries on Planet Earth the way their mystical forebears had (e.g. Methuselah). It's just goofy. It's what Paul promised his followers in the beginning of his mission, but it's goofy. In his Letter to the Romans, he has to go through huge theological contortions to try to salvage people's belief in him. It's a pretty sad way to go, if you think about it.
 
A: Promises, promises.
 
J: You know what works best in the Gospel of Mark? The fact that there are no "Cause and Effect" promises. Everything's messy. Everything's unpredictable. Shit happens, but so what? It can't take away your courage or your faith or your trust in God or your desire to help other people. Even shit can be turned into very useful fertilizer.
 
A: So your Kingdom is about turning shit into fertilizer, and Paul's Temple is about the quest to stop shitting at all?
 
J: And you say I have a way with words!


* Please see also "Materialism, Pauline Thought, and the Kingdom" and "Mark's Themes of Understanding and Strength"
 

JR10: Son of David or House of David?

A: You've said more than once that you were the son of a wealthy, aristocratic family, a descendant of priests. Were you a descendant of King David? Was your father "of the house of David," as Luke says in Luke 1:27?  

J: This is the great thing about modern socio-historical criticism of ancient religious texts. Today's research gives so many terrific, irrefutable facts that contradict the Church's teachings. It's like a game of Battleship, blowing up beloved traditions and sacred doctrines one piece at a time. 

A: So I'm thinking the answer to my question is "No"?  

J: With a capital "N." There is no way -- no possible way -- that the Jewish hierarchy or the Roman hierarchy would have allowed a male with a proveable link to the lineage of David to survive, let alone go around preaching a radical doctrine about God. That lineage was dead. Long gone. Jesus scholars trace the last reference to a verifiable descendant of David in Hebrew scripture to the 5th century BCE Book of Ezra-Nehemiah. After that, the Jewish texts are silent on David's genealogy. 

A: This appeared to be no obstacle to the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Matthew and Luke both insist you're an actual descendant of David, and give you a genealogy to prove it. 

J: Yes, but they don't give the same genealogy, which has to make you wonder . . . could it be possible these men made it up? [Voice dripping with facetious humour.] 

A: You mean, invented the genealogy. Lied about it.  

J: Well, there's certainly no truth to either of their genealogies.  

A: If a written record of David's line of descent had actually existed in the first century, where would it have been kept? 

J: In Jerusalem. In the Temple. The records of bloodlines for the high priests and the other priests were highly valuable documents. They were carefully preserved. Any record of Judah's or Israel's ancient kings would also have been preserved. During the Second Temple period, the safest storehouse for valuables was the Temple and its precincts. The originals were kept there.

“His disciples said to him, ‘Who are you to say these things to us?’ [Jesus replied]: ‘You do not know who I am from what I say to you. Rather, you have become like the Jewish people who love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree'” (Gospel of Thomas 43). In this saying, Jesus is referring to the struggle within 1st century Judaism to reconcile opposing claims about authority. Some taught that bloodline was the key. Others taught that rigorous knowledge and obedience to the Law was the key. Jesus himself rejected both these arguments, even though he came from a priestly family and was highly educated. He taught a holistic approach wherein the ability to love God and to love other people took precedence over both bloodline and advanced study of scripture. Photo credit Hemera Technologies 2001-2003.

A: But in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple. Any scrolls that were saved were probably taken into hiding. Making them hard to check, hard to verify -- at least until the political situation had settled down. 

J: A fact that "Matthew" and "Luke" both took advantage of. Both of them wrote after the Temple was destroyed. "Mark" wrote just beforehand. Mark was very careful not to make any claims about my background that could easily be disproved. 

A: Yet in the Gospel of Mark, there's reference to you as "the son of David." How do you explain that? 

J: That's an easy one. Mark never says that I'm from the "House of David." Mark says that a blind beggar named Bartimaeus called out to me as the "son of David." The short and simple answer -- plain as can be -- is that "House of David" and "son of David" mean two completely different things.  

A: Explain.  

J: To claim to be of the "House of David" is to make a genealogical claim -- a claim to be a direct blood descendant of a former king. It's like saying, "I'm descended from King Henry VIII" or "I'm descended from Queen Elizabeth I."  

A: Except that everybody knows Queen Elizabeth I died without children, without direct heirs. So anybody making that claim would have a hell of a time proving it to historians and archivists.  

J: Same thing with King David. If descendants of King David were still known, still living, where were they when the Hasmoneans -- the so-called Maccabeans -- claimed both the High Priesthood and the de facto Kingship of Judea in the 2nd century BCE? Why didn't the Davidic family step forward then to reassert their "claim" to the throne? Or when Pompey invaded in 63 BCE and made Judea a Roman protectorate? Or when Augustine officially turned the Roman Republic into an Empire with the Emperor as divinely appointed ruler and keeper of the Pax Romana in Judea, (as well as everywhere else)? It's just not historically realistic to believe there really was a "House of David" by the first century of the common era.

A: So when "Matthew" and "Luke" made their claims about your ancestry, we should understand these as fictional claims -- about as meaningful and factual as it would seem to us today if Stephen Harper were to say he's a direct descendant of King Arthur of the Round Table. Pure hype.  

J: You bet. On the other hand, if Stephen Harper were to liken himself symbolically or metaphorically to King Arthur -- if he were to say he's following the inspiration of his hero King Arthur -- then people would respond differently.  

A: It never hurts for a politician to model himself after a popular hero.  

J: And in the 1st century CE, David was a popular folk hero. Not David the King, but David the humble shepherd lad who brought down the oppressor Goliath with one well-aimed blow of a stone.  

A: Plus a swift sword to the neck.  

J: People often forget that just as there are two different versions of the Creation story in Genesis, there are two different versions of the early David story in First Samuel, and there are two strikingly different "images" of David in the Bible -- one humble, one royal. Which version is going to appeal more to regular folk oppressed by their leaders, both domestic and foreign?  

A: The version where David is the little guy up against the big, mean, nasty Goliath. 

J: Or the big, mean, nasty Herodian Temple, in my case.  

A: It was a metaphor, then. A reference to the heroic folk tale of David. A reminder that God doesn't always choose "the big guy" or "the firstborn son."  

J: Regular people didn't love David because he was a king. Regular people loved David -- the young David, the innocent David -- because they could relate to him. David was a popular symbol amongst the slaves and the hard-working lower classes who longed to be freed from the cruelty of unjust leaders.  

A: Huh. Well, as the Staples commercial says, "That was easy."

JR8: Mystical Bloodlines, Mystical Castes

J: I'd like to start out today's discussion by emphasizing a very important point. I want to emphasize that it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about any particular religion or religious tradition. Just as it's wrong to "hate" somebody on their basis of their religion, it's just as wrong to "love" somebody on the basis of their religion. Religious beliefs form a framework for people, a place to start on the journey of faith. But in the end, the only thing that matters as far as God is concerned is what choices you make as an individual. No religion has all the answers. No religion is even asking all the right questions. So when I come out swinging against a revered figure from the past such as John the Baptist, I'm not trying to attack huge groups of people. I have specific complaints about the choices made 2,000 years ago by John the Baptist while he was incarnated as a human being. I also have specific complaints about specific choices made by a number of individuals who were close to John at the time. However . . . and this is a big however . . . the choices made by John the Baptist 2,000 years ago have nothing to do with the choices open to individual people today. There is no "loss of honour" for readers today because of choices that were made by somebody else centuries ago. No real "loss of honour," anyway. If individuals today believe I'm undermining their own personal sense of honour by exposing the reality -- the harsh and painful truth -- about ancient religious teachings, then they've got bigger problems than they realize. 

“Jesus said: There was a rich man who had a great deal of money. He said, ‘I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.’ These were the things he was thinking in his head, but that very night he died. Whoever has ears should hear” (Gospel of Thomas 63). Even psychopaths have a personal code of morality — a set of internal laws to live by — despite their lack of conscience. Competitiveness, dominance, perfectionism, obsessiveness, chosenness, and eradication of weakness are among the key markers of moral success for a psychopath. Needless to say, a psychopath has no use for traits such as love, tolerance, forgiveness, ambiguity, or individuation, despite what he or she may say out loud. Shown here is the entrance to the Chapel of John the Baptist, Westminster Abbey, England. Notice all the sharp, spiky, metal forks on the door -- all the better to stab your heart as you try to open the door to relationship with God. Photo credit JAT 2023.

A: Yes, but a lot of people still believe very deeply in ancient ideas such as the mystical power of bloodline. For these individuals, there's such a thing as honour in the blood. Honour carried from generation to generation through the bloodline. Power carred from generation to generation. Divine rights carried from generation to generation. It's one of the underpinnings of their modern day lives. So they'll take enormous offense at what you're saying. Gargantuan offense. 

J: I'm sorry to have to say this, but a conviction in the innate mystical power of bloodlines is a fantasy superstition that belongs only in novels and films. God does not favour any one clan or family group over another. It should be clear to everyone by now what happens in the wider world when particular clans, tribes, or nations give themselves the label of "Chosen by God." Nothing good comes of it. Nothing.  

A: Yet it's a myth-dream that's found in most cultures and most places in the world. Not to mention most major world religions. Why is this myth-dream so universal?  

J: It goes again to the issue we've been discussing -- major mental illness.  

A: Ooooh. I can hear the gasps already.  

J: Well, I won't apologize for saying what needs to be said. Individuals will have to deal with it. It's the reality. It's time the blunt reality was brought into the open. Other forms of violence and abuse have been brought forward, brought into the open in recent decades. It's painful and awkward at first, but it's only when people openly discuss their suffering that change begins.  

A: As you've said many times to me, healing follows insight. Healing follows self-honesty and public transparency.  

J: Abusers will keep their secrets for as long as they can. They won't volunteer to tell people their dark secrets. Even when they're caught, they typically deny they did anything wrong. Other people have to step forward, point the light of truth at the abusers, collect evidence of their wrongdoing, and demonstrate their guilt through a public, transparent, non-corrupt legal system. It's the only way to change a society's perception of what's moral and what's immoral.   

A: Can you give some examples?  

J: Sure. Not so long ago, it was considered acceptable by many North Americans to treat women as inferior "possessions" of men. It was considered acceptable to turn a blind eye to incest and child sexual abuse and child pornography. It was considered acceptable to dump vast quantities of highly toxic pollutants into the water, air, and earth.  

A: These things are still going on.  

J: Yes. But these choices are no longer considered acceptable by the majority of North Americans. There's been a cultural shift. The harmful actions of the abusers -- the narcissists and psychopaths -- are no longer being condoned by wider public opinion. There are legal and social implications for the abusers now. The legal and social implications didn't use to exist. They only exist today because a lot of decent people got on board with the idea that these particular choices -- the choice to abuse women, the choice to abuse children, the choice to abuse the environment -- are wrong. Immoral. Not acceptable in a compassionate community.  

A: It's a work in progress.  

J: Yes. It's astounding and beautiful and amazing because it shows the truth. It shows that if you boldly and honestly expose the reality of abuse, a lot of people will recognize the wrongness of the abusers' choices. They'll feel it deep in their bones. 

A: Deep in their souls.  

J: The soul is consciousness with a conscience. The soul knows the difference between right and wrong, between moral choices and immoral choices. The soul is not stupid. Everybody has a soul, and everybody comes "prewired," so to speak, with a "right and wrong" package in their DNA. It's why mentally mature, emotionally mature people instinctively recoil from certain actions, certain choices. They just feel in their gut that it's wrong.  

A: Except for the people with psychopathy. The psychopaths have lost access to the "right and wrong" package. They know it exists, because they can see it operating in the world around them, but they don't care. They don't recoil from horror and abuse the way other people do. Brain scans confirm that certain parts of their brains are underactive, other parts are overactive.  

J: As I said, it's a major mental illness.  

A: One that isn't in the DSM-IV, the bible of psychiatry.  

J: Psychopathy is a touchy, touchy topic. It should come as no surprise that a lot of "successful" people in politics, business, religion, and entertainment have little regard for the nuances of "right and wrong."  

A: That's a polite way of saying that many successful people are psychopaths.

J: Again, no surprise. But these people have tremendous power, tremendous resources. It's risky to piss off a psychopath. They think nothing of getting revenge. In fact, revenge is a favourite pastime. Even worse, psychopaths lose their ability to feel empathy for others, but at the same time, they show an eerily heightened grip on logic and a creepy ability to spot other people's vulnerabilities. It's scary how manipulative they can be in a purely cold, hard, logical way. 

A: Almost as if they're compensating for the loss of empathy and emotion by putting extra biological resources into their logic circuitry. 

J: That's exactly what psychopathy is. They're trying to find a way to cope with life. They're trying to find a workable system. They have no capacity for love, forgiveness, or trust. They're so empty inside that they're always looking for ways to fill the void. It's a literal void, not just a metaphorical void. They can't access certain functions of their brains. They can't access the emotional circuitry they were born with. So they actually do feel empty, as if something's constantly missing. They're so narcissistic, however, that they believe everybody else on the planet feels as empty as they do. They think other people are faking it when they talk about love, redemption, forgiveness, and trust. In the world of the psychopath, love -- mature, respectful love -- is pure fantasy. It can't be real. A psychopath feels nothing but contempt for the ideals of love, redemption, forgiveness, and trust.  

A: A contempt that's notably present in the orthodox doctrines of the Western Christian church. 

J: True. But Christianity isn't the only faith tradition that's riddled with contempt for these compassionate ideals. I was dealing with the same contempt 2,000 years ago in Palestine. Lots of people were. Women, children, slaves, foreigners -- all these people had to deal with the fallout of a religious tradition that had steadily erased all the empathy from the earlier spiritual traditions --  

A: Like the Covenant Code in Exodus.  

J: Like the all too brief Covenant Code. Bit by bit they replaced the Covenant Code's early focus on human dignity with mystical authority for a few select men and their families. What scholars today call Second Temple Judaism bears so little resemblance to the Rabbinic Judaism practised today that I hesitate to even call the ancient religion "Judaism." It was a bizarre caste system, really. It placed incalculable power in the hands of the High Priests and the Levites, who happily abused the "lesser tribes" of Israel -- the lower Jewish castes. Meanwhile, the priests derived all their power, authority, and wealth from the "sacred books" they themselves wrote. A bit of a conflict of interest, don't you think?  

A: Yeah. I notice that after a while they decreed there could be no more prophecy. No more troublesome prophets standing up on soapboxes and speaking the truth.  

J: The priests were always willing to endorse new prophetic voices off the record as long as those new voices reinforced the idea among the general population that Jews were the chosen people and Jerusalem's priests were "the best of the best."  

A: Hence they could tolerate the Essenes, who required obedience to the caste system, but they couldn't tolerate you, because you rejected the caste system in its entirety. And said so publicly.  

J: The idea that Jews had allowed themselves to become enslaved to the priests may have entered my teachings more than once. 

A: Yeah, I'll bet.

JR5: Jesus and the Jerusalem Temple

A: Jesus, could you please explain why the brain health of people 2,000 years ago makes a difference to what you're saying today? Why should people on a spiritual journey care about the question of brain health?  

J: Well, there are a couple of different approaches to that question. Many religious individuals don't care about this question and don't want to care. These are individuals who are happy with their current understanding of God. They believe they have the correct understanding. Therefore, from their point of view, it's a complete waste of time to be asking about the brain health of the people I lived and worked with. There's only one reason a person today would be asking about the brain health of Jesus and Paul and John. Only a person who's interested in the historical facts about what happened would ask such a question.  

A: You mean a person who suspects the Church hasn't been telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?  

J: Yes. A person who isn't afraid of asking difficult questions about the past. Questions that can help bring healing into the world today. 

A: The same sorts of difficult questions that cultural groups in the 20th century had to ask themselves repeatedly. Questions about the motivations that lay behind crimes against humanity. Questions about personal responsibility and ethical conduct in the face of horrendous mob behaviour. 

J: There was no shortage of opportunities for deep soul-searching in the 20th century. 

A: Here in Canada we've had to address our treatment of First Nations people and ethnic and religious minorities. It isn't easy to be honest about past mistakes, but it's in acknowledging our mistakes that we're able to learn from them and make our society more inclusive, more compassionate.  

J (nodding): It's a painful struggle to bring major change to a society. But it can be done when a sizeable group decides to "get on board." You need a critical mass of people to bring about effective change. Individual members of a society have to be willing to decide for themselves that change is a good thing. It has to come from within people's hearts. When the rules are imposed on them from the top down by a small cadre of rulers or leaders, that's not change. That's fascism or totalitarianism. 

A: Or church authority.  

J: Exactly the point I was trying to make 2,000 years ago.  

A: Tell me more about that. 

J: There was no church at the time, of course. But there was a Temple. Actually, there were lots of temples, because many different religions co-existed in the first century, and most of them built temples as places of worship. I wasn't interested myself in Greek or Roman or Egyptian temples. I knew about them, had visited them, but my main concern was the Jewish Temple.  

A: In Jerusalem.  

J: Yes, physically the Jewish Temple was in Jerusalem. But the Temple was more than that. It was a symbol. A powerful symbol. It overshadowed Jewish people no matter where we lived. If you were Jewish, you couldn't get away from it.  

A: Was this a good thing?  

J: Sure, if you were a wealthy Sadducee. Or a member of the privileged Jewish aristocracy. Or a wealthy Roman merchant-mercenary. 

A: You mean Roman merchants and Roman mercenaries?  

J: No, I mean the unique class of Roman culture that was clawing its way up the rigid social class system by making buckets and buckets of money in various mercantile enterprises of dubious ethical merit. 

A: Huh. That sounds a lot like some corporations today.  

J: There's a reason the English word "corporation" comes from the same Latin root as Paul's "one body -- corpus -- in Christ."  

A: That's pretty inflammatory. 

J: Yes. But accurate. Religion was THE biggest business in the first century. It was intimately linked with politics and power, even more so than people can imagine today. It's just crazy to pretend that Paul was talking about love and salvation. When you get right down to it, Paul was a businessman. He wasn't selling relationship with God. He was selling power. Like certain televangelists in recent years who've been building market share -- along with their own investment portfolios. Same old, same old. 

“Jesus said to his disciples: Compare me to something and tell me what am I like. Simon Peter replied: You are like a righteous messenger. Matthew replied: You are like an intelligent lover of wisdom. Thomas replied: Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like. Jesus said: I am not your teacher; because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended. Jesus took Thomas and they withdrew. Jesus said three things to him. When Thomas returned to his friends, they asked him: What did Jesus say to you? Thomas replied: If I tell you even one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come out of the rocks and burn you up” (Gospel of Thomas 13). This photo shows the underground alleys in the old city of Jerusalem. Credit FreeIsraelPhotos.

 A: And that's not what you were doing? Building a power base for your own ideas? 

J: I was interested in dismantling the power base of the Temple. Brash, crazy, and impossible at the time. But I gave it my best shot. 

 A: Some political observers would suggest this makes you a Zealot -- a first century Jewish political revolutionary. Were you a Zealot?  

J: No. The Jewish faction known as Zealots were the equivalent of today's radical religious fundamentalists. I was as far from religious fundamentalism as it was possible to get. 

A: But you also weren't a religious conservative devoted to preserving the status quo.  

J: No. I came from a family of religious conservatives. My mother's father was a Sadducee. My father was a Roman citizen from Greece who hobnobbed with Roman merchant-mercenaries. As a young adult, I rejected the social values my family taught me.  

A: Okay. So you weren't a Zealot. And you weren't a Sadducee. What else was left within Judaism at the time?  

J: There were the Pharisees. Their influence had been steadily growing for decades. They were highly obedient to the Jewish Law and the traditions of the Jewish Temple.  

A: And you weren't. 

 J: Nope.  

A: So you didn't have much in common with the Pharisees.  

J: Not by the time I came to my senses.  

A: Which was when?  

J: When I realized that the group Josephus calls the Essenes were extremely powerful and dangerous, and that they were influencing the teachings of well-meaning Pharisees. I decided then to stop listening to "factions" within Judaism and start listening to my own heart and soul. 

A: So basically all the Jewish religious factions that existed in Palestine in the first century (that we know of) would have considered you a heretic?  

J: Damn straight.