Of that collection, I’m especially fond of the Gospel of Thomas. Seems like a distillation of (H/h)is message to us without all the magisterium built up around it later by men. I copied and pasted it as a thread the other day:
Highly relavent to the conversation is also the exact nature of the jewish sect, the Essenes. Debatably, they were a proto-Christian jewish-gnostic messianic sect, who debatably produced the cultural milieu in which Christ was brought up, but most certainly did so for John the Baptist, who is referred to as Jesus’ cousin, indicating the increased potential for similar early influences.
But your comment alluded to the idea that the god of this earth was the war god and those other names. (I could get there to a point, this plane being the devils arena and the fallen thinking themselves gods) Are you saying Jesus is some gnostic guy? Maybe I'm misreading and getting hyper?
Archeo-anthropological research indicates that, in its earliest forms, israelite worship of Yahweh was as part of a pantheon, where Yahweh was not regarded as the supreme universal God, but instead as the National, War-God, of one specific people, “yahweh sabaoth”. [edit: here is a good video to introduce that notion]
Other research, such as that done on the Essenes, supports the claim that Jesus could have been raised in that sect’s interpretation of judaism, which by many indications was a more “gnostic” interpretation of judaism than we see elsewhere. “Gnostic” in this case meaning a system of spiritual insight based on self-directed practices (focused and prolonged meditation/prayer, ritual washing, etc) as opposed to the more common image of a religion as a top-down hierarchy of edicts/canon/magesteria and so on. They are also associated with far stronger rejection of the physical, or as you mention, the part of the world which satan is the prince of.
So I’m saying two things, the first a response to the OP’s title question, and the second an explanation for “Christians” believing this or atleast considering it.
If this theory were correct, Jesus would be a liar.
I don't read these gnostic ideas in the tanahk and I try to read what Jesus read as well as the other inspired works of God. (I can glean what He read by what He said, just like I can with authors like Lewis) Doesn't it take a greater jump to imagine the Lord's mind instead of reading what He actually wishes to share with you, the pieces of His mind I mean as well as His nature.
Anything can be misunderstood if you don't know the person behind the words.
To be honest, this idea goes against the nature of who He is and I find it disappointing, even as a thought experiment it does a disservice to Him.
Check that video I edited into the first paragraph for an idea of the archeological evidence.
I don’t really see how “if this theory were correct, Jesus would be a liar”? - like you point out, so much is up to interpretation. Surely an interpretation of the Old Testament exists in which this is the case and Jesus is still Jesus. In fact, that is demonstrated by the many sects of Gnostic Christians who the Roman Catholic Church had to eradicate. Have you ever heard of the Cathars?
It's not like we have any reliable, original, verbatim documentation of anything Jesus ever said, all we have are conflicting accounts which paraphrase what he allegedly claimed.
Some of the earliest extant Christian writing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Of that collection, I’m especially fond of the Gospel of Thomas. Seems like a distillation of (H/h)is message to us without all the magisterium built up around it later by men. I copied and pasted it as a thread the other day:
https://communities.win/c/Manna/p/17teNpu1o2/the-gospel-of-thomas/c
Highly relavent to the conversation is also the exact nature of the jewish sect, the Essenes. Debatably, they were a proto-Christian jewish-gnostic messianic sect, who debatably produced the cultural milieu in which Christ was brought up, but most certainly did so for John the Baptist, who is referred to as Jesus’ cousin, indicating the increased potential for similar early influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes
But your comment alluded to the idea that the god of this earth was the war god and those other names. (I could get there to a point, this plane being the devils arena and the fallen thinking themselves gods) Are you saying Jesus is some gnostic guy? Maybe I'm misreading and getting hyper?
Archeo-anthropological research indicates that, in its earliest forms, israelite worship of Yahweh was as part of a pantheon, where Yahweh was not regarded as the supreme universal God, but instead as the National, War-God, of one specific people, “yahweh sabaoth”. [edit: here is a good video to introduce that notion]
Other research, such as that done on the Essenes, supports the claim that Jesus could have been raised in that sect’s interpretation of judaism, which by many indications was a more “gnostic” interpretation of judaism than we see elsewhere. “Gnostic” in this case meaning a system of spiritual insight based on self-directed practices (focused and prolonged meditation/prayer, ritual washing, etc) as opposed to the more common image of a religion as a top-down hierarchy of edicts/canon/magesteria and so on. They are also associated with far stronger rejection of the physical, or as you mention, the part of the world which satan is the prince of.
So I’m saying two things, the first a response to the OP’s title question, and the second an explanation for “Christians” believing this or atleast considering it.
If this theory were correct, Jesus would be a liar.
I don't read these gnostic ideas in the tanahk and I try to read what Jesus read as well as the other inspired works of God. (I can glean what He read by what He said, just like I can with authors like Lewis) Doesn't it take a greater jump to imagine the Lord's mind instead of reading what He actually wishes to share with you, the pieces of His mind I mean as well as His nature.
Anything can be misunderstood if you don't know the person behind the words.
To be honest, this idea goes against the nature of who He is and I find it disappointing, even as a thought experiment it does a disservice to Him.
Check that video I edited into the first paragraph for an idea of the archeological evidence.
I don’t really see how “if this theory were correct, Jesus would be a liar”? - like you point out, so much is up to interpretation. Surely an interpretation of the Old Testament exists in which this is the case and Jesus is still Jesus. In fact, that is demonstrated by the many sects of Gnostic Christians who the Roman Catholic Church had to eradicate. Have you ever heard of the Cathars?
It's not like we have any reliable, original, verbatim documentation of anything Jesus ever said, all we have are conflicting accounts which paraphrase what he allegedly claimed.