•    Christ as Myth Focuses the Lens   

    Scales of Balanced Justice

    By-Line: For Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists it is vitally, desperately important that the biblical events and the people cited be taken as “true” and “real” — in every literal sense. But what if Christ and all the other cast of biblical characters are merely mythological figures who never did exist in actual physical reality? Would all of Christianity be flushed down the drain by such a revelation? This article takes the position that the notion of Christ as merely a mythological figure would actually greatly enhance the transmission of “The Message” of humility and undifferentiated Compassion — which the central character had always arduously emphasized was the only thing of great importance in the whole story.

    When I was 21 I wanted to truly understand what this bible thing was all about. I was determined to get to the bottom of it all — to understand, once and for all, what the central teachings were really saying. So I bought this huge King James version of the Bible. You almost needed two hands to pick this thing up. The pages were almost 8.5 x 11. So with the larger print it was easier to read and what I liked most was that all of Christ’s words were in red ink — which seemed apppropriate, since he is the central figure and, purportedly, the highest authority on the matters being addressed.

    So I would sit down for hours going through the entire New Testiment from the beginning — just reading everything in red ink. That’s all I was interested in — reading what Christ purportedly said — the name-sake for an entire religion.

    The King James version of the Bible is the only version anyone should ever own or read. Its poetic verse resonates and penetrates like no other translation ever has. I’d read many of the stripped-down, “in-plain language” Evangelical translations and what I found, over and over again, was those translations totally butchered, distorted, misstated or missed entirely what Christ had actually said — at least according to the King James version. The King James version of Christ’s purported teachings made sense, sounded humble, was not dogma-laden and it penetrated to the marrow of my bones — like many Buddhist, Sufi and Taoist writings had done. I heard Christ echoing the same insights disclosed by Buddha, Lao Tsu (Tao Te Ching), Ramana Maharshi, Shunryu Sazuki, Hazrat Inyat Khan (Sufi) and many others.

    I feel quite certain that if I had never discovered Buddhism and Taoism — the red ink would still sound like gibberish to me. It was only after I discovered Buddhism and Taoism that the red ink suddenly made perfect sense. It’s like Buddhism-Taoism-Sufiism contained the keys that unlocked the doors and thoroughly ‘cracked the code’ of the red ink — revealing a sweeping panoramic view of a landscape where the mystical branch of the World’s religions were all saying the same thing in essence — with variations primarily limited to different points of emphasis.

    And what they ALL seemed to be saying, in essence, was that the ‘teachings’ will be inaccessible to those who try to enter with their Egos intact — that the cultivation of Compassion leads to a humbleness that undermines the tyranny and dishonesty of the Ego thereby making the ‘teachings’ accessible — that the “surrender” being demanded by the mystical order of all these ‘religions’ is the surrender of the Ego-self (small self) that has owned us, lock-stock & barrel our entire lives. The spiritual, mystical branch of these religions all seemed to be emphasizing the critical importance of a meditative, contemplative life-style as being optimally conducive to taming the Ego-monkey-mind and converting it from a neurotic tyrant to a lucid, humble servant — thereby opening the doors of perception of “the Truth” of the teachings.

    This all brings us back to the thematic question: “Does it really make any difference whether Christ was a real historical figure or just a mythological figure spun by the enlightened insights of one or more enlightened sages whose names we will never know?

    The conclusive, unequivocal answer is found in the teachings themselves. The biblical black ink tells us that Christ was asked why he always spoke in parables — why didn’t he just come right out and plainly say what he meant. And the red ink tells us that Christ purportedly replied that it is given that the teaching should be hidden from the intellectual know-it-alls but shall be revealed to the babes. It was Buddhism, Taoism and Sufiism that opened-up this red ink for a full, penetrating understanding. All of these ‘religious’ teachings were saying — “an intellectualization of the words and teachings will never disclose the inner content. Intellectualization is the barrier, the hindrance, the blockade — not the keys to realization and the Promised Land. In other words, the heart of the teachings is so fundamentally simple, that it is missed by the intellectuals who are trapped in the complexities of their own rationalizations.

    And what could be more simple than the teaching of Compassion? It’s so simple it gets missed — it gets passed over — because everyone’s saying “there must be more to it” — “this can’t be the whole Kahuna.” If it was really this simple, everyone would have ‘figured it out’ and there wouldn’t be this big mystery that surrounds the biblical text. And if it really was this simple — why is the Bible so voluminous? There must be some complex, hidden ‘code’ buried deep within the text somewhere that only an expert code-cracker can decipher after many, many years of detailed linguistic, historical analysis.

    It’s exactly what Christ allegedly predicted — the intellectuals just keep spinning their wheels and going nowhere — because Compassion isn’t an intellectual operation. But it’s what the simple, unpretentious “babes” intuitively grasp — because they were in touch with it already. It’s the fulfillment of another insight Christ purportedly disclosed — “To him that has, to him it shall be given. To him that has not, from him shall be taken even what he does have” (an approximate quote). Once you understand that the teaching is Compassion — this statement makes perfect sense. For the sociopath (him that has not compassion) — the teachings will never make any sense. The paradoxical irony is that you have to already have compassion in order to discern compassion. And somehow, Christ already knew that not everyone has it. In fact, he knew precisely WHO would have it and who would not — because he understood what the Buddhists, Taoists and Sufis know — that the intellectualization of Compassion LOCKS YOU OUT of Compassion.

    So once again, this all brings us back to the thematic question: “Does it really make any difference whether Christ was a real historical figure or just a mythological figure spun by the enlightened insights of one or more enlightened sages whose names we will never know? But now the answer is in plain sight — staring us in the face.

    The religious literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals — drenched to the bone in egotistical grandiosity and hubris about their own sanctimonious virtue and rectitude — represent “him that has not” — and they are locked-out by their hubris and their intellectualizations — which have displaced the humble Compassion that was necessary to discern the teachings. For these literalists, the inner teachings are inaccessible — precisely because their petrified literalist obstinacy keeps them tethered to the surface of things — the superficialities of life. They’re locked-out — not because they lack intellectual sophistication, but because they lack genuineness, sincerity, humility and Compassion.

    For the “babes” (“him that has”) it was always the teachings and the Compassion that was important. For the religious literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals it was always about the grandiosity of the miracles. And that is why it is absolutely imperative for them that Christ and the miracles be ‘real’ and historically accurate — even if they have to falsify the records to assert the claim. This is what happens when you try to bull your way through the Pearly Gates with your ego on. It’s like that religious axiom — “Everybody wants to go to Heaven. But nobody wants to die to get there.” No one wants to surrender their ego as the price for admission. And those who seek cheap grace with their egos intact end up homeless.

    When the teachings are what is of paramount importance — it makes no difference whether the biblical events and cast of characters are ‘real’ or mythical. When Christ ran-off one parable after another — did it matter whether the parable stories actually happened or not? Did it compromise or diminish the import of the message — just because the parables were fictional, illustrative concoctions? You’d have to be seriously out of touch to say “Yes.”

    The real paradox here is hiding in plain view. Because the teachings of Compassion are what is important — it would actually be better if the entire biblical account was mythological — because that would expunge the entire ‘miracles’ component so near and dear to the literalists. And that would serve to focus the lens more directly on what really is and always was of paramount importance — the teachings — the ‘message.’ Christ knew that literalists would seize upon the miracles aspect of the events. Or maybe the consortium of biblical myth authors knew that. And they depict Christ frequently berating those who ‘believe’ only because they witnessed the miracles. He essentially accused them of missing the point entirely.

    So if Christ (or the consortium of biblical myth authors) were granted a golden opportunity to make editing changes to the biblical text — there is little doubt that they would present it as mythological story-telling (parables) about the teachings — and they would purge the miracles from the story entirely — to deny superficial, disingenuous, egotistical, self-righteous literalists the fodder they need to distort, bastardize and misrepresent the teachings with their Ego-driven delusional, sanctimonious rants and diatribes.


    The Reflecting Pool Discourse


          Highly Related Articles —

    Religions’ Mortal Wounds — Reflecting Pool Discourse

    Spiritual But Not Religious — Reflecting Pool Discourse

    Has Religion Forsaken Spirituality? — Reflecting Pool Discourse

    Morality Has No Conscience (ironic isn’t it?) — Reflecting Pool Discourse

    Is Compassion Unconstitutional? — Reflecting Pool Discourse

    Reflecting Pool Discourse — Blog Introduction

    Why Should I Care if My Own Ox is Not Getting Gored? — Reflecting Pool Discourse


    The Reflecting Pool Discourse Blog