Saul, Paul, and how Jesus survived Christianity

How can you who are so holy suffer? All your past except its beauty is gone, and nothing is left but a blessing. I have saved all your kindnesses and every loving thought you ever had. I have purified them of the errors that hid their light, and kept them for you in their own perfect radiance. They are beyond destruction and beyond guilt. They came from the Holy Spirit within you, and we know what God creates is eternal. You can indeed depart in peace because I have loved you as I loved myself. You go with my blessing and for my blessing. Hold it and share it, that it may always be ours. I place the peace of God in your heart and in your hands, to hold and share. The heart is pure to hold it, and the hands are strong to give it. We cannot lose. My judgment is as strong as the wisdom of God, in Whose Heart and Hands we have our being. His quiet children are His blessed Sons. The Thoughts of God are with you. (ACIM:T-5.IV.8)

In Closing the Circle: Pursah's Gospel of Thomas and A Course in Miracles, I paid quite a bit of attention to the issue of the transition that takes place in the traditions about Jesus, between the teachings of Jesus, of which the Thomas gospel seems to be the most authentic record, and Chrisitianity, named after him, but never 'founded' by him in any meaningful sense of the word, but merely ascribed to him by others and given his name, after his death. Because of the profound intertwining of the Jesus tradition with the orthodoxy of Chrisitianity as it solidified in the next 300 years, for a long time it was the "canonical" books of the New Testament that appeared authoritative.
Only with the re-discovery of the Thomas Gospel, once one understands the timeline of how and why it emerged before the gospels of the New Testament collection, does it become insightful where the break occurs - with the introduction of the theological foundations of Christianity, including the exceptionalism about Jesus as God's only son, to the exclusion of the rest of the sonship as 'adopted sons,' the interpretation of the crucifixion, resurrection (bodily, as Paul assures us), the second coming (the puzzling idea of his returning to the world he claimed to have overcome), the Eucharist etc. All of these concepts were features of Pauline Christianity, and there were many other schools of would-be Christian thought which did not have them, or had entirely different notions. Among other things there were many vocal debates about the idea that the moment of the resurrection was really the moment of the Heavens opening up in the story of the baptism in the River Jordan, under John the Baptist. That particular story would be closer to what is reflected in the Course today. The fact is Pauline Christianity won, because it rendered itself palatable to Caesar, and as a result eventually what we now regard as Roman Catholicism. The fact that it was most successful in stamping out other views, and gained the upper hand politically is no recommendation.

After those original debates died down, Christianity went through a consolidation phase, and then a splintering again. With Vatican II the most obvious attempts at mind control were starting to be relinquished, allowing such an oxymoron as Catholic Bible Scholars, or in general Catholic Bible Studies to exist, just when the first serious translations of the Thomas Gospel began to gain currency, while at another place on the planet the dictation of A Course in Miracles got under way.
Since the time of the enlightenment, thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson in the US had become suspicious of the Pauline material, and smelled a rat. Jefferson likened his efforts to cull Jesus' teachings out of the Biblical materials to salvaging 'pearls' from a pile of 'manure.' Paul he called a 'dupe' and a 'fraud.' This was all very perceptive, but name calling does not solve anything. Jefferson's positive contribution, which was only published posthumously as the 'Jefferson Bible' -- he had called it The Life and Morals of Jezus of Nazareth -- however is a powerful turning point and came very close to anticipating the re-discovery of the Thomas Gospel almost 125 years later.

The interesting thing about A Course in Miracles no doubt is that in it Jesus quotes some of Paul's inspired writing on numerous occasions, while at the same time forcefully correcting the fundamental constructs of the Christian theology of which Paul was the principal architect. In other words, the Course shows also in that regard, what forgiveness means -- the mistakes and the messes are cleaned up and corrected, and only the inspired, 'loving' thoughts are remembered. To that extent then it is never useful to pursue this type of critical scholarship of the tradition, unless it also helps us to see how we all make the mistakes Paul made, and forgive him and ourselves in the same breath. Here, the text of the Course is our guide, as the opening quote shows.

Resurrection before or after Crucifixion?

Since Christianity, the well known religion that was founded in the years following the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth in his name, answers this question one way, namely "after," and since they became the dominant tradition, and at least for a while suppressed all other traditions about Jesus' teachings, and ultimately emerged as the Christian orthodoxy, few people are aware anymore of the vivid dialogue that took place in the first two centuries, or the many "Christianities" then in existence. There were any number of hot topics, but the question if the resurrection came before or after the crucifixion, was a big one, and it was bound up completely with the parallel question, if the resurrection was an event of the mind or of the body. Bart D.Ehrman's book, listed above is one of the best sources on the period, and I've discussed it elsewhere on this blog, because it was one of the sources I used in my book. The apostle Paul spent a fair amount of time musing the question, and came down in favor of the notion that this was about a resurrection of the body.

I think Jesus would beg to differ, if the Thomas gospel is any guide, and a lot of it of course did find its way into the synoptic gospels, but managed to largely be ignored over time. Evidently, the Logia speak entirely from the standpoint of an enlightened teacher, an Ascended Master, or what ACIM would call a Teacher of Teachers. This expectation is set right away in the first Logion, which was really meant to be the introduction and not an actual Logion, but is counted as the first one in the texts. Logion 1 says: "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." That is the central focus of the notion of the Resurrection, the choice for life (of the spirit), and not death (of the ego, or of the world), or as the Course puts it:

There is no life outside of Heaven. Where God created life, there life must be. In any state apart from Heaven life is illusion. At best it seems like life; at worst, like death. Yet both are judgments on what is not life, equal in their inaccuracy and lack of meaning. Life not in Heaven is impossible, and what is not in Heaven is not anywhere. Outside of Heaven, only the conflict of illusion stands; senseless, impossible and beyond all reason, and yet perceived as an eternal barrier to Heaven. Illusions are but forms. Their content is never true. (ACIM:T-23.II.19)

And elsewhere he explains the meaning of the resurrection:

The journey to the cross should be the last "useless journey." Do not dwell upon it, but dismiss it as accomplished. If you can accept it as your own last useless journey, you are also free to join my resurrection. Until you do so your life is indeed wasted. It merely re-enacts the separation, the loss of power, the futile attempts of the ego at reparation, and finally the crucifixion of the body, or death. Such repetitions are endless until they are voluntarily given up. Do not make the pathetic error of "clinging to the old rugged cross." The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome the cross. Until then you are free to crucify yourself as often as you choose. This is not the gospel I intended to offer you. We have another journey to undertake, and if you will read these lessons carefully they will help prepare you to undertake it. (ACIM:T-4.in.3)

And in the section on the message of the crucifixion he puts it as follows:

The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. It can be, and has been, misunderstood. This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it. While I emphasized only the resurrection before, the purpose of the crucifixion and how it actually led to the resurrection was not clarified then. Nevertheless, it has a definite contribution to make to your own life, and if you will consider it without fear, it will help you understand your own role as a teacher. (ACIM:T-6.I.2)

None of this can be understood if you think we're a body, like Paul did, but it makes perfect sense if you think that what we are is spirit, and the son of God, like Jesus does as he speaks to us from the pages of the Thomas Gospel and the Course. At the same time this also makes it clear why this Jesus is the inner Jesus - the one who is present with us whenever we ask him to - and not some historical figure who died on a cross two thousand years ago. In other words having once awakened to the complete inner realization, true knowing, as in gnosis, that our identity is spirit, and that we are thus still and forever as God created us, we are then no longer dependent on any kind of form, including the body. The crucifixion then, Jesus's ability to experience his body dying on the cross without feeling any pain, and in the full knowledge that it was meaningless, was merely the most dramatic confirmation of that realization that it is possible to have. In our ego identity we always identify with form, which is by definition limitation, and that is the essence of the ego thought, never the whole, always just a part of the whole. Spirit works the other way around, always the whole, and there is only the whole, the all, the Oneness of Heaven. There is nothing else. But as long as we cling to the ego we spend a lot of our life in mourning, because all forms do pass away, whereas spirit is unconcerned with form, because forms will adapt to suit the purpose. Spirit is cause, the form is effect, and knowing that changes our attitude about life forever. That is the change of mind Jesus was talking about. (Metanoia in New Testament Greek is a word that means "change of mind," but under the influence of later Christian theology it has too often been translated as "repentance," and thus reduced to a moral concept, that applies to living in the world, whereas Jesus was indicating with his notion of "change of mind," how we could change our entire frame of reference and follow him to a Kingdom not of this world.

In this context, what's been called the Resurrection, namely Jesus's appearance in the body to the apostles was just that, his appearance in the body. He was awakened already at the outset of his ministry, and in that context the crucifixion was merely the "last useless journey" the physical confirmation of his complete awakening, in a demonstration that he could be peaceful regardless of what happened, and that subsequently, being spirit, he could appear to anyone in whatever form was appropriate.

Bach on Golgotha...

Once more thanks to Annelies

Here is another Bach fragment, with a lamentation on Golgotha, which reflects the notion that to the ego the guiltless are guilty -- which is why in this world Jesus is crucified, or as the Course puts it:

Much of the ego's strange behavior is directly attributable to its definition of guilt. To the ego, the guiltless are guilty. Those who do not attack are its "enemies" because, by not valuing its interpretation of salvation, they are in an excellent position to let it go. They have approached the darkest and deepest cornerstone in the ego's foundation, and while the ego can withstand your raising all else to question, it guards this one secret with its life, for its existence depends on keeping this secret. So it is this secret that we must look upon, for the ego cannot protect you against truth, and in its presence the ego is dispelled. (ACIM:T-13.II.4)

And of course once we see how idiotic that is, which Jesus demonstrates by the irrelevance of the crucifixion (the last useless journey), we can join with him and laugh away the tiny mad idea of the separation. That is the true meaning of the resurrection. And in small ways all of us know the process, but we have yet to learn to trust it. How many times have we not felt that if we lost this or that, we would die, only to find out that we did lose it and yet we live. Jesus' losing his body was merely an extreme demonstration of the same principle. As we learn from his example, we are bound to eventually join him in the resurrection, and cease to ever put our faith form because we know again that what we are is spirit. Putting our faith in form (limited) is the crucifixion, and we are thereby asking to repeat the suffering as the form perishes, which it always will. What we are learning through the forgiveness process is to let go of the ego boundaries (form), and accept the sight of spirit instead. Here's how the Course reminds us of this:

The journey to the cross should be the last "useless journey." Do not dwell upon it, but dismiss it as accomplished. f you can accept it as your own last useless journey, you are also free to join my resurrection. Until you do so your life is indeed wasted. It merely re-enacts the separation, the loss of power, the futile attempts of the ego at reparation, and finally the crucifixion of the body, or death. Such repetitions are endless until they are voluntarily given up. Do not make the pathetic error of "clinging to the old rugged cross." The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome the cross. Until then you are free to crucify yourself as often as you choose. This is not the gospel I intended to offer you. We have another journey to undertake, and if you will read these lessons carefully they will help prepare you to undertake it. (ACIM:T-4.in.3)

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity

It seems this book is sold out in the moment, but one of the things I'm trying to do on this site is to offer mini reviews of the books I've consulted in writing Closing the Circle. The most recent printing of this one was at Barnes & Noble, in their reprint series.

I think this is a very important book, because it provides a unique and different look at an old problem. There are a lot of ways to approach the evident differences between the teachings of Yeshua, and the words that the Pauline world of the New Testament puts in Jesus's mouth, all the while framing the stories in a way that underscores Christian theology. Hyam Jaccoby, is a Talmudic scholar, and he approaches it from that angle, and his investigation is pretty convincing. If there is a weakness it is that Jesus is left as a Jewish rabbi, really as the sort of Yeshua that his brother James and the Jerusalem community would have wished he were. He Jewish rabbi, with some unique ideas perhaps, but nevertheless a Jewish rabbi. That was their view. While Paul's view was the one to mythologize Jesus in ways that laid the groundwork for the Christian teachings about him.

Hyam Jaccoby takes Paul to task by pointing out that ideas like Jesus's divinity and the meaning of the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the Second Coming all go back to Paul and not to Jesus. In short everything that makes Christianity what it is, originates with Paul, not Jesus. The book is truly very informative, the more so while it does this through analyzing Paul's writing and influence. But the conclusion lines up perfectly with what we now know about the Yeshua of the Thomas gospel, who also dates from before he was made to sound like a Christian.

With the Thomas gospel in hand it seems to me we would differ with Maccoby, in that Jesus did transcend the Jewish mold as well. In short I agree with Maccoby that he was not the proto-Christian Paul makes him out to be, but that does not automatically make him out to be the Jewish rabbi which Maccoby makes out of him, again, really following the mold of how the Jerusalem community under James looked at him.
So this is complimentary reading for someone who is so inclined. I found it tremendously engaging reading, and intuitively quite convincing.

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity