JR62: Seventh & Final Step: Remove the Thorn in Jesus' Flesh (That Would Be Paul)

A: We've talked a lot on this site and on the Concinnate Christianity blog about the differences between your teachings and Paul's teachings. Many readers will say there's not much evidence in the Bible for the differences you and I claim. What would you say to Progressive Christians who want to "have their Jesus and keep their Paul, too," who want to make you, Jesus, more credible, without actually giving up any of their cherished Pauline doctrines?

J: They make me look like a dweeb, to be honest. An ineffectual, wimpy, turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy.

A: Which you were not.

J: They say they want to save me from the fundamentalist Christian right and the secular humanist left, yet they're forcing me to sit down at the Tea Party table with Paul, which is the last place I want to be. I'm a middle of the road social democrat, and I believe with all my heart and soul that a society can't function in a balanced way unless rights and responsibilities are given equal weight in all spheres of life. Paul was a man who taught about rights, rights, rights and not nearly enough about responsibilities. He and I had very different values.

A: Paul talks about punishments.

J: Yes. Paul talks about divine punishment and divine testing. He talks about his freedom -- his right -- to speak with divine authority. He talks about the need for self-discipline. He talks about divine rewards. But, you know, when you look carefully at what he's written, he doesn't speak to the soul of his listeners. He doesn't challenge them to see each of their neighbours as a separate person worthy of respect. Instead he does the opposite: he encourages them to see themselves as non-distinct members of a vast "body of Christ." Paul, instead of insisting that people build solid interpersonal boundaries -- which are the foundation of safety and respect and mutuality between individuals -- tells people to dissolve those boundaries. It sounds good on paper, but "Oneness" does not work in reality. If you encourage the dissolution of interpersonal boundaries, you'll see to your horror that the psychopaths in your midst will jump in and seize that "Oneness" for themselves. They won't hesitate to use it to their advantage.

A: Because they have no conscience.

J: Humans (as well as angels on the Other Side) are all part of One Family. But this isn't the same as saying humans are all "One." As anyone who comes from a big family knows, respect for boundaries is the grease that keeps you from killing each other.

A: It can be tricky to manoeuvre all the boundary issues in a big family.

J: Yes. You need all the brain power you can muster to stay on top of the different needs of different family members.

A: Spoken like a man who came from a big family.

J: When you're the youngest son in a family with three older brothers and two sisters (one older, one younger), you catch on fast to the idea of watching and learning and listening to the family dynamics so you don't get your butt kicked all the time.

A: It's real life, that's for sure.

J: That's the thing. It's real life. It's not about going off into the desert to live as a religious hermit. It's not about living inside walled compounds or hilltop fortresses. It's about living with your neighbours and learning to get along with them through communication and compromise and empathy. It's not fancy, but it works.

A: The Gospel of Mark makes this message very clear.

"Then he ordered them to get all the people to sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. And all ate and were filled" (Mark 6:39-42). Photo of hills in the Cotswolds, UK. Credit JAT 2023.

 
J: Christians have long assumed that the author of Luke truly believed in my teachings and was trying his best to convey them in a fresh way to a new generation of believers. Luke, of course, had no interest in my teachings, and was instead trying to promote Paul's package of religio-political doctrines. This is seen most obviously in the so-called Great Omission -- the complete absence in Luke of Mark's most important theological statement. Luke cut and pasted many parts of Mark's gospel, and thereby changed their meaning. But he didn't even try to include the dangerous theology found in Mark 6:47- 8:27a. He ignored it and hoped it would go away.

A: Why? Why did he want it to go away?

J: Mark's gospel, as we've been discussing, was a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. Paul wrote first, and in the middle of his letter he included 3 linked chapters on freedom and conscience, authority and obedience, sin and salvation, as these themes revolve around food -- idol meat and, more importantly, the blood and bread of Christ (1 Cor 8:1-11:1). We can call this set-piece the "Idol Meat Discourse." In this set-piece, Paul makes a number of claims about God that Mark, following my example, found particularly galling. Mark countered these claims by writing his own 3-chapter set-piece (Mark 6:30-8:26). I'm going to call Mark's set-piece "the Parable of the Idol Bread." This was Mark's head-on attack against Paul's Eucharist.

A: Mark didn't support the sacrament of the Last Supper?

J: Mark knew that Paul's speech about sharing in the blood and body of Christ (1 Cor 10:14-22) was a thinly veiled Essene ritual, the occult Messianic Banquet that had grown out of earlier, more honest offerings of thanks to God. I rejected the notion of the Messianic Banquet, with its invocation of hierarchy and status addiction. Mark rejected it, too.

A: Right before Mark launches into his Parable of the Idol Bread, he includes an allegorical tale about a banquet held by Herod and the subsequent beheading of John the Baptist (which we know didn't actually happen).

J: Yes. Mark uses a lot of sophisticated allegory in his gospel. (Plus I think the less loving aspect of him wanted to see John's head end up on a platter, which is where he thought it belonged.) Mark leads up to his set-piece -- which, of course, is an anti-Messianic-banquet -- by tipping off the reader to an upcoming inversion of religious expectations. He's telling them not to expect Paul's easy promises and glib words about "Oneness." He's telling them to prepare themselves for an alternate version of Jesus' teachings about relationship with God.

A: What was that alternate version? 

J: It was a radical vision of equality before God, of inclusiveness and non-Chosenness. It was a vision of faith without status addiction. Of faith and courage in numbers. Of freedom from the slavery of the Law. The love of a mother for her children (including our Divine Mother's love for her children!). A relationship with God founded on trust rather than fear. The healing miracles that take place in the presence of love rather than piety. The ability of people to change and let go of their hard-heartedness (ears and eyes being opened). The Garden of Eden that is all around, wherever you look, if you're willing to see and hear the truth for yourself. The failure of both the Pharisees and the Herodians to feed the starving spiritual hearts of the people. The personal responsibility that individuals bear for the evil things they choose to do. The importance of not idolizing the words of one man. (There's no lengthy "Sermon on the Mount" in Mark as in Matthew; in fact, there's no sermon at all, let alone a set of laws carved on stone tablets!)

A: That's a lot to pack into three short chapters.

J: This is why I refer to Mark's set-piece as a parable. As with any properly written parable, the message isn't immediately obvious. You have to use all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength in order to suss out the meaning.

A: I noticed when I was doing my research papers for a New Testament exegesis course that the setting of Mark's Parable of the Idol Bread is crucial. Not one but two major teaching events with miraculous endings take place out in the middle of nowhere near the Sea of Galilee. There's no proximity to important sacred sites such as Jerusalem or Jericho or the Dead Sea or the River Jordan. There's no Greco-Roman temple or Jerusalem Temple. There's no holy mountain. There's no sacred stone. There's no palace or patron's villa. But there's a lot of green grass, with enough room for everybody to recline in groups (as in a Roman banquet) and share the event together.

In the middle section, in Chapter 7, Mark shows you leaving Galilee to carry out more healing miracles, but these healings take place in Gentile areas -- everywhere but the sacred site of David's city. You can tell Mark doesn't think too much of Jerusalem's elite.

J: Mark had a scathing sense of humour, much like Jon Stewart's. When he wrote his gospel, he was thinking of it as a parable and a play at the same time. He wanted the actions of the actors to speak to the intent of the teachings.

A: Actions speak more loudly than words.

J: Yes. He wanted people to picture the actions, the geographical movements, that changed constantly in his story but never went close to Jerusalem in the first act of his two-act play. His Jewish audience would have understood the significance of this.

A: Tell me about the Idol Bread.

J: The meaning of the bread in Mark's parable makes more sense if you look at the Greek. In Mark's parable, and again at the scene of the so-called Last Supper in Mark 14, the bread in question is leavened bread -- artos in the Greek -- not unleavened bread, which is an entirely different word in Greek (azymos). Mark shows me constantly messing with the bread and breaking all the Jewish laws around shewbread and Shavuot bread and Passover bread. At the teaching events beside the Sea of Galilee, the bread is given to the people rather than being received from the people in ritual sacrifice. It's torn into big hunks. It's handed out to everyone regardless of gender or rank or clan or purity. It's handed out with a blessing on a day that isn't even a holy day. Nobody washes their hands first. Everyone receives a full portion of humble food. Everyone eats together.

A: If the fish in this parable are a metaphor for courage and strength (see http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/05/marks-themes-of-understanding-and.html ) then what does the bread represent?

J: Artos -- which is very similar to the Greek pronoun autos, which means "self" and, with certain prepositions, "at the same time; together" -- is a metaphor for the equality of all people before God. Everybody needs their daily bread regardless of status or bloodline or rank. It's about as status-free a symbol as you can get.

A: Something tells me that got lost in the Pauline translation.

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.

JR7: John the Baptist and Jesus

A: Tell me more about John. Why do you say that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are one and the same person? Is there any proof for that in the Bible?  

Theologians and biblical researchers have tended to overlook the significance of this passage from Mark 3: 13 – 19, in which Jesus names the twelve apostles: “. . .James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder)”. The Gospel writer Mark isn’t telling his audience that James and John were powerful preachers (as Christian writers would like to believe); Mark is telling his audience that James and John were claiming for themselves a powerful pedigree. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the charter for the Yahad is a reference to two prophesied Messiahs — a priestly Messiah and a Messiah of Israel (a royal commander for the armies) — who will serve together in the Last Days at the Messianic Banquet. Once it’s clear that the Yahad was waiting for a pair of Messiahs rather than a single Messiah, the reference in Mark to the Sons of Thunder takes on much greater significance. Mark is saying that James and John were claiming divine heritage, just like the long parade of gentile heroes who insisted they were the sons of Zeus, Jupiter, and other Thunder Gods. (And I don’t think Mark thought much of this particular claim.) Shown here is the mosaic above the entrance to the Chapel of St. John and the Grotto of the Revelation on the island of Patmos. Photo credit JAT 2001.

J: You have to know what to look for. Mark's account of John's beheading is much more than it seems. But Mark is like that throughout his gospel. You really have to know your sources -- important early texts -- to understand Mark. Mark was highly intelligent and very well read. He riffed off well known symbolism and motifs to tell his tale of intrigue. And intrigue it was.  

A: The Gospel of John mentions John the Baptist's early ministry several times, but then he sort of fades out of the picture. The Fourth Gospel doesn't say what happened to the Baptist.  

J: That's because John the Baptist was still alive and still teaching long after I died. A: Tell me about him as a person.  

J: How much time do you have?  

A: The Gospel of John is considered by many Christians to be the clearest expression, the clearest depiction, of the ministry and divinity of Jesus. Theologians love John's "high Christology." Many people feel that when they're listening to the voice of John, they're listening to divine truth. The prologue -- John 1:1-18 -- is poetic, elegant, mystical. It helps people feel they're getting closer to God.  

J: John was a gifted communicator, a skilled rhetorician and poet. If he hadn't been, I wouldn't have been drawn into his movement in the beginning. He was truly charismatic when he spoke. His writings definitely reflect that. Even his last writing -- the book of Revelation. Even when he was profoundly psychotic, as he was in the later years of his life, the poetry and metre of the texts he'd read again and again in his childhood infused all his thinking. In a way you could say that the poetry and metre of those early texts -- the logos -- acted for him to lessen the pain, fear, and confusion that comes with psychosis. The logos was a soothing mantra. Olanzapine in word form, you might say.  

A: Olanzapine being a highly effective atypical anti-psychotic medication.  

J: Yes. Before the advent in recent years of tailored psychiatric medications, those who were suffering from major mental illness -- including the flattened affect and hallucinations that accompany schizophrenia and related forms of psychotic illness -- suffered more than most people can imagine. The suffering is internal but intense. Sometimes it feels to them as if their head is on fire. Or that ants are crawling everywhere inside them. It's a horrible feeling. They have to find relief wherever they can. The majority turn to addictive substances -- substances that trigger the dopamine circuitry in the brain, the pleasure circuitry. Others turn to religion. It's sad to say, but extreme religiosity -- rigid piety, fideism, blind faith, obsessive observance of ritual -- all these careful, minutely observed rituals can bring relief to a suffering individual, depending on what parts of their brain have been ravaged by the effects of the disease process.  

A: When I was working in the mental health field, I saw firsthand that one of the hallmarks of psychotic illness is paranoia. A fear that people are out to "get them." When they're floridly psychotic they're often afraid of their own family members and medical caregivers. They're sure they're being watched, spied on. They're afraid somebody will put poison in their medications. They think they're perfectly sane and everybody else is sick. They have no objective understanding that they're ill when they're ill. 

J: It's the tragedy of the disease. They don't believe they're sick. If they get proper treatment, and become medically stabilized, they begin to develop insight. They begin to understand that the voices they'd been hearing in their heads weren't normal, weren't real. They can begin to trust their family members again. However, it's not possible to persuade a floridly psychotic person to trust you. You can't use logic to get through to them. As those working in the field of psychiatry know, sometimes you just have to lock the person up for a while and treat him against his will. Of course, by the time he's that psychotic, he doesn't really have free will -- not as you and I would understand it. He has lots of thoughts, but they're not balanced, they're not integrated. There's no functioning internal framework to hold his thoughts together, to help him process his thoughts and experiences, and learn from them. It's a big jumble in his head -- very frightening, very confusing. 

A: So if he can find an external framework that makes sense to him . . . 

J: Right. If he can find an external framework such as a strict religious code, then he can lean on that code. He no longer has to make sense of anything on his own. He's off the hook, so to speak. The code tells him what to do and when to do it. This means he doesn't have to decide these things for himself. For a person with schizophrenia (not really one disease, but a related cluster of illnesses) this is a huge relief. Life becomes liveable. Painful but liveable. The tradeoff is the fear. You can't get rid of the fear. You're constantly afraid of attack from "evil forces" such as the devil or demons or vampires or aliens. But at least you can blame the "evil forces" for your fear. You don't have to blame your family. So from that point of view, the strict religious code makes it easier for you to stay with your family and receive the care you need.  

A: Can you explain how all this relates to the man named John?  

J: The man I knew as John -- though his real name wasn't John -- would be diagnosed today under the category of schizophrenia. I first met him when he was about 18, and he already showed signs then of the illness.  

A: As I understand it, that's a common age for a diagnosis of schizophrenia to be made. The signs and symptoms often show up in late adolesence, early adulthood.  

J: Yes, except I didn't have a DSM-IV to refer to, and I didn't recognize his illness at first for what it was. I thought he was an inspired prophet.  

A: What was his background? Where did he come from?  

J: He was an Essene. He was born Essene and raised Essene. He wasn't a raw recruit, as some were -- including myself for a short time.  

A: You were an Essene?  

J: I never officially joined the yahad or "Unity," as they described themselves. In fact, I never made it past the "inquiry phase," as you might call it. I was curious about the yahad. Many Jews were. Like many spiritual inquirers, I thought the Essenes might have the answers I was looking for. So when I heard about the new prophet named John, I went to check him out. It took me a long time to understand that John didn't have the answers. He spoke endlessly and eloquently, but had no answers for me or anyone else. He was far too delusional to help anyone, including himself.  

A: You said his real name wasn't John. What was his real name?  

J: I never knew. Not during my lifetime as Jesus. Readers today may have a hard time understanding what I'm about to say, but when I was growing up, "name magic" was a big deal. If you believed in the mystical "truth" of name magic, you didn't lightly give out your real name. 

A: Why not? J: Your real name was said to be a source of great power. If an evil sorcerer or magician got hold of your name, he could gain power over you. 

A: Interesting. That idea is still floating around. I remember reading Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea novels when I was growing up. The power of true names was central to her stories.  

J: Kabbalah also embraces this idea.  

A: Not a big fan of Kabbalah myself.  

J: Kabbalah owes a lot to the ancient ideas of the Essenes. 

A: What goes around comes around.  

J: There aren't a lot of new mystical ideas under the sun. The human brain, when diseased and dysfunctional, tends to produce certain distinctive patterns of thought, mood, and behaviour -- what physicans call signs and symptoms. When patients start believing -- truly believing -- in occult magic, psychiatrists get worried. It's okay to believe in things you can't see if those things have a scientific origin -- because one day the science will catch up with the theory -- but there's a line. 

A: For instance, it's okay to believe in love, even though we can't see it. Though neuroscientists are now trying to capture it on brain scans.  

J: Right. But mature love makes the world a better place, a more compassionate place, a more logical place. Occult magic doesn't do any of these things. Belief in occult magic makes people less mature, less balanced, more grandiose, more controlling, and therefore less able to bring healing and compassion into the world around them.  

A: Belief in occult magic ties in with the signs and symptoms of major mental illness. 

J: Including psychopathy and severe narcissism.  

A: Only a profoundly narcissistic person would believe that God gives special magical powers to small groups of bullies and tyrants who abuse others in the name of God.  

J: There you go -- your description of John in a nutshell. Raised to believe he was one of the Essene's two prophesied Messiahs, hence profoundly narcissistic and dysfunctional by the time he was 18.  

A: I guess he didn't like you very much, then. 

J: The Essenes were taught to hate the Sons of Darkness and raise up the Sons of Light. As far as he was concerned, I proved myself beyond dispute to be an apostate to the yahad cause and a Son of Darkness worthy of death. By the time I was arrested, John hated my guts.  

A: So much for the theory that John himself was the Beloved Disciple. 

J: Yeah, but I forgave him anyway, even after he tried to kill me.

JR3: Some Family History of Jesus

A: On my Concinnate Christianity blog, I take aim at the Apostle Paul and try to show some of the ways that his teachings were very different from your own. I wonder if we can talk some more about that. 

“Jesus said: It is not possible for anyone to enter a strong man’s house and take it over forcefully unless he first ties his hands. Then he can steal from that house” (Gospel of Thomas 35). Photo of a side entrance of the Royal Conservatory of Music, Bloor Street, Toronto. Photo credit JAT 2017.

 

J: There's a lot there to talk about. 

A: One of the things that has surprised me most over the past few years is the shortage of people willing to examine the differences between you and Paul. Even serious biblical scholars -- people like the scholars of the Jesus Seminar -- have a blind spot around Paul. They seem to want to pretend that Paul was preaching the same core teachings as you. But it's not that hard to draw up a list of the similarities and differences between First Corinthians and Mark. In fact, it's one of the easier academic analyses I've tried in the past few years. The differences are blatant. I mean, scarily blatant. So I've gotta ask -- what the heck has been going on? Why are so many Christians, even the ones who label themselves Progressive, so completely unwilling to be objective?  

J: Brain chemistry.  

A (rolling eyes): Why did I know you were going to say that?  

J: It's the brain chemistry. It's the way most people have wired their brains -- or have allowed their brains to be wired for them. Their biological brains are loaded with software packages about God and religion, and there's a conflict between the existing software -- provided in the beginning by Paul -- and the "new" software I and other angels have been trying to reintroduce. Of course, it's not really "new." It was old when I was teaching it 2,000 years ago. But the Church tried very hard to eradicate it early on, and to keep eradicating it each time it sprang up again. So to today's readers it seems "new."  

A: Can you give us an analogy that will make sense to today's readers?  

J: Yes. It's like the difference between early Macs and PC's. Groups were fighting over which platform was better. At that point PC's couldn't read Mac software. Mac software existed, and Mac software was useful and real, but PC's couldn't read it. So a lot of users missed out on good programs. The human brain can end up like that -- wired so it can only read one kind of software, though others kinds of software do exist. For many Christians, their brains have become so used to the ideas of Pauline Christianity that they literally can't "hear" any other ideas about God. Their brains can't process the information. They're literally the people who have ears but cannot hear. They're not able to understand the "new" message at first because their brains aren't used to hearing that kind of language.  

A: What you describe sounds a lot like brainwashing. People conditioned to the point where they can hear only one kind of "truth." 

J: You could put it that way.  

A: That's scary.  

J: Yes. But it's not new. It's a very old way to control a large group of people. You don't have to put chains on everybody in your culture to get them to do what you want. A clever tyrant controls the mind -- keeps the body free, but controls the mind. Nothing new there.  

A: Except that 2,000 years ago your culture had real slavery -- the kind where human beings were bought and sold and forced to do all sorts of things against their will.  

J: The kind that continues in many parts of the world today.  

A: Yes, that too. 

J: One reason my great-nephew Matthew -- the man you know as the author of the Gospel of Mark -- went ballistic when he read what Paul was writing about "Jesus Christ" was Paul's take on slavery. Paul never comes out and says that slavery is wrong. Instead Paul tries to preserve the status quo by persuading slaves to understand slavery as an illusion -- something not worth fighting about because they have something more valuable than freedom: the higher "truth" of salvation.  

A: Right. But can we back up the truck for a minute? I'd like to go back to that historical tidbit you just dropped in. The part about your great-nephew Matthew.  

J: Matthew was the grandson of my brother Andrew. Andrew was the only one of my siblings who believed in my teachings.  

A: And this Matthew who was your great-nephew . . . is this the same man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?  

J: No. The author of the Gospel of Matthew was not named Matthew. Just as the author of the Gospel of Mark was not named Mark.  

A: Okay, well at least that part is known to scholars. But this is all very confusing. Is it okay with you if I keep calling the author of the Gospel of Mark, "Mark"? It's much less confusing to call him Mark.  

J: Sounds like a plan. 

A: So you're saying that your great-nephew wrote the Gospel of Mark. 

J: Well, one of my great-nephews wrote the Gospel of Mark. I had a lot of great-nieces and great-nephews, but only the children and grandchildren of my brother Andrew carried on my teachings the way I taught them. More or less. The rest of my family didn't like me very much. 

A: You and I have talked about this a lot. But can you talk a bit today about why your family didn't like you?  

J: Basically because I was a shit-disturber. I disagreed with most of the values my family raised me to believe in, and I went on record to say my family and their social class were wrong about the way they were treating other people and God. I grew up in an aristocratic family where we held slaves and where we believed we were chosen by God. I said that was wrong. My family didn't like it. I was embarrassing them.  

A: The way a man from the state of Georgia, for instance, would have embarrassed his wealthy plantation owning family in the 19th century if he'd joined the Abolitionists.  

J: Or if a son of the Kennedy clan had disavowed the Kennedy myth and run away to live in Canada in a small town where nobody cared that he was a Kennedy.  

A: As Canada is to the U.S., so Galilee was to Judea.  

J: As Port Hope is to Washington, so Capernaum was to Jerusalem.  

A: So you picked Galilee on purpose because it was not a major centre of religious and political influence.  

J: And because the people in Galilee had different priorities. They were interested in real healing, real teaching, and they had no use for arrogant priests or rabbis who had their heads stuck up their asses. 

A: You always have such a way with words.