Christianity: The Great Lie

The modern narrative of Christianity arose out of a period of competition and synthesis where multiple narratives co-existed in a creative interplay. We can’t be certain about any of it. At the moment I’m leaning toward the idea, as are a growing number of scholars, that the historical Joshua was a leader of a group of Nazorean Essenes. He either believed in the Messiah story or used it to try and inspire a rebellion against the hated Sadducees. The crucifixion narrative can be read as an attempt by Joshua to directly challenge the Temple priests and inspire a popular revolt, bringing the Essene doctrine to prominence – the ‘meek’ (the Essenes) shall inherit the earth. It fails and he is executed. His brother James continues Joshua’s mission until he too is prosecuted by the Sanhedrin and executed by stoning.

This story of a noble, if somewhat politically motivated, sacrifice fits neatly into the common pagan theme of the sacrificial king. It inspired those of a Gnostic bent to equate Joshua with the Gnostic autogenes. The Gnostic Paul has a violent disagreement with James and he takes his mission to the heart of the Roman empire. Roughly a century later those Christians who are not initiated into the inner mysteries gain influence and create a literalist reading of the autogenes myth. They eventually gain power and ruthlessly suppress all rival groups. History is written by the victors and the New Testament is a closely edited document designed to support the literalist narrative, excising the Gnostic aspects of Paul.

But the fabric of the literalist narrative has been falling apart. They didn’t destroy all the heretical texts and couldn’t imagine the extensive forensic powers of archaeology. The heretics have begun to speak again.

It’s interesting how history forms patterns. The literalist narrative was supported by the power of the Roman empire. Today the centre of literalism is the US empire. This is worth serious reflection. How much does the literalist narrative act to create compliant subjects for imperialist ambitions? But that is the subject for another essay.

PART THREE – AN INTEGRAL ANALYSIS

Wilber has provided us with a good way to judge religions. They can be authentic or legitimate. I would suggest that we can add a further distinction. A religion may also be regarded as progressive or regressive. It’s perhaps a subtle distinction but I believe it adds a useful nuance. A religion is authentic if it leads to an authentic spiritual experience. It is legitimate simply if it is a commonly accepted religion. A legitimate religion may not be authentic. I would add that both an authentic and legitimate religion can be either progressive or regressive. Integral theory requires a spiritual path to be both authentic and progressive.