Jesus as a Hybrid Guru

[Don Schneider]

After decades of reading books on physics, religion and philosophy and musing on ontological matters as to the ultimate nature of reality, I lean towads what is explained below. It is portions of an email I recently sent to someone. I was just wondering if any others here have thought along the same lines.

.....................................................

I remain a nominal Catholic and have never been affiliated with any other religion. Privately, however, I lean towards the pantheism and idealism of the Eastern metaphysical religions of Hinduism and the Buddhism it spawned. In Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta), Brahman is universal consciousness, the primal ground of existence (“I am who am”) which cannot be further sublated. The reality it/we experience is Lila, the play of God. We are all manifestations of universal consciousness. Maya is the force that renders the illusion of the individual ego apart from all others and all else and is the source of all suffering and anxiety. (“They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil [the false sense of dualism that permeates the illusion of life], and they saw that they were naked.”) Maya breeds a sense of isolation and inherent vulnerability. Protecting the ego becomes all important for its (our) death is the ultimate catastrophe. .

Much of what Jesus was reported to have said seems closer to Eastern metaphysical philosophy than that of His native Judaism. For example, “My father and I are one.” There is also the question asked Him concerning the man born blind that seems to indicate that the concept of reincarnation was at least familiar to Jews of that period. The Bible recounts nothing of His life from age twelve until around age thirty. Perhaps he traveled to India during some of that missing timeframe. It would not have been difficult for Him to have done so from his native Judea. When He begins to preach in His synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, the congregants seem uncertain as to His identity, perhaps indicating an extended period of absence.

If the block universe and eternalism implied by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is true, then the universe is stagnant with motion (and change) being mere illusions along the lines of a motion picture in which a series of still frames are rapidly projected onto the screen by a projector. Via an email exchange, I argued with Dr. Julian Barbour, a British physicist and eternalist, that in order for there to be even an illusion of motion something must in fact actually move.

Here is my favorite Zen anecdote:

A Zen master came across two of his students arguing over a flag blowing in the wind. One of them maintained that the flag was moving while the other the wind. The master settled the question with: “Mind moves.” (Mind = Brahman.)

This seems to nicely answer Zeno’s famed paradoxes in which all attempts to reconcile by means of, for example, invoking calculus are doomed to fail because such merely manipulates the theoretical unit while leaving the underlying existential questions raised by the paradoxes unanswered.

Perhaps who ever wrote the best known musical round was more philosopher than songwriter: “Row, row….gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but….”

[Manwë Súlimo]

I remain a nominal Catholic and have never been affiliated with any other religion. Privately, however, I lean towards the pantheism and idealism of the Eastern metaphysical religions of Hinduism and the Buddhism it spawned.

Then have the integrity to stop being a nominal Christian.

Much of what Jesus was reported to have said seems closer to Eastern metaphysical philosophy than that of His native Judaism. For example, “My father and I are one.”

Modalism has always been condemned as a heresy by the church. The orthodox doctrine has always been that God is three distinct persons.

There is also the question asked Him concerning the man born blind that seems to indicate that the concept of reincarnation was at least familiar to Jews of that period.

Are you talking about John 9? Because it doesn't work. The people of that time believed that should a member of a group (be it a family or a society as a whole) should screw up, then the whole could either be held accountable or at least suffer. Kinda like how Adam's sin cursed the entire human race.....and Jesus' sacrifice was good enough to forgive it.

The Bible recounts nothing of His life from age twelve until around age thirty. Perhaps he traveled to India during some of that missing timeframe.

Or maybe he took tap-dancing lessons in Rome. After all, the Bible doesn't say....

It would not have been difficult for Him to have done so from his native Judea.

Yes it would. Every member of the family was needed and was expected to contribute to its survival - a sentiment shared by the society as a whole. There was not time to go on an existential crisis.

When He begins to preach in His synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, the congregants seem uncertain as to His identity, perhaps indicating an extended period of absence.

You really need to study the social world of the Bible. The people wondered at Jesus because they believed one couldn't rise outside of the social class one was born into. Jesus was making himself to be a teacher of the Law, and the people resisted his honor claim because "Is he not the son of Joseph [the carpenter]"?

[Don Schneider]

I said I lean in this direction. I shall not renounce my heritage until which time, if ever, I’m certain. Like you, apparently, I’m a born conservative. That, however, would not compel me turning a blind eye towards concepts I had not been raised with in order to be doctrinaire. I call them as I see them. The universe does not care what we believe or want to believe.

What I present here is speculative, especially in regard to Jesus. Since there is very little extra-Scriptural evidence of His existence, I submit that all interpretations of His ministry are speculative. All Christians believe that Jesus was either God incarnate (the majority view) or God’s son. We are supposed to accept unquestionably God’s sudden volte-face from the wrathful deity of the Old Testament to the lovey-dovey one of the New? We are supposed to uncritically accept that He communicated with various favorites through the millennia of the Old Testament and suddenly ceased to do so after about 100 A.D.?

John 9:1: “As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’”

By asking if a man born blind had sinned to have his disability justified in their minds clearly implies the concept of reincarnation (transmigration of souls). Jesus' answer does not clarify matters and I don’t use this isolated verse as proof that Jesus believed in reincarnation, merely that the concept must have at least been known to the Jews. If your response were valid, then why would they ask if the man himself had sinned? He couldn’t have “screwed up,” now could he, according to your viewpoint and of that you are attributing to the Jews of the period?.

Your response to the possibility of Jesus’ having traveled to the East is insipid. Of course, every person ever born faithfully adhered to social mores and convention! Jesus’ independent streak was exhibited at age twelve.

Your interpretation of the congregants at Jesus’ synagogue in Nazareth is as speculative as my own. You have no more proof of it than have I.

Idealism answers a lot of puzzling questions in my mind that cannot be adequately addressed by materialism. That is why I lean towards the doctrine.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Since there is very little extra-Scriptural evidence of His existence, I submit that all interpretations of His ministry are speculative.

Ha.

Haha.

HAHAHAHA.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I might have a more substantive reply in the future, but that's all that little turd of yours deserves.

[Don Schneider]

Ha.

Haha.

HAHAHAHA.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I might have a more substantive reply in the future, but that's all that little turd of yours deserves.

I am reminded of Adlai Stevenson’s reply to the irate shoe banging of the Russian ambassador in the United Nations during the Cuban missile crisis: “I want that translated.”

[fm93]

What I present here is speculative, especially in regard to Jesus. Since there is very little extra-Scriptural evidence of His existence

I guess, if by "very little" you're comparing the amount of extra-Scriptural references to the amount of modern records about the President. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud and the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc. Compared to how many records there are about other historical figures, this is actually an ample amount.

I submit that all interpretations of His ministry are speculative.

All?

All Christians believe that Jesus was either God incarnate (the majority view) or God’s son.

I was under the impression that all Christians believe both of those options you presented.

We are supposed to accept unquestionably God’s sudden volte-face from the wrathful deity of the Old Testament to the lovey-dovey one of the New?

There's no change in nature, just in what's more heavily emphasized. God still demonstrates mercy and forgiveness in the Old Testament and provides several demonstrations of kindness, and Jesus still talks significantly about punishment and justice in the New Testament. All you have to do to know this is read the Bible carefully, so no, we're not supposed to accept this unquestionably.

We are supposed to uncritically accept that He communicated with various favorites through the millennia of the Old Testament and suddenly ceased to do so after about 100 A.D.?

Again, this is where it helps to have Biblical knowledge. The Jews believed that time was divided into two ages: the age of the Law and the age of the Messiah. It was in the age of the Law that God needed to communicate with prophets for the Hebrew scriptures to be recorded. In Matthew 24, when Jesus talks about the end of the age, he states that the destruction of the Temple is linked with the end of the Law age, which then ushers in the age of the Messiah. So the former age, in which God performed salvific acts in a contract specifically with Israel, is now over, the requirements having been superseded, and God therefore no longer needs to have that sort of communication. And again, this isn't supposed to be something you accept uncritically, but rather from having a broader contextual knowledge of the scriptures.

By asking if a man born blind had sinned to have his disability justified in their minds clearly implies the concept of reincarnation (transmigration of souls).

Not really. Some Jews believed an infant could sin while in the womb. That's more likely what they're referring to.

Your response to the possibility of Jesus’ having traveled to the East is insipid. Of course, every person ever born faithfully adhered to social mores and convention! Jesus’ independent streak was exhibited at age twelve.

Yet just a few verses after that passage that you're alluding to, Luke 2:51 explicitly says that Jesus was obedient to his parents. So we have direct evidence that he indeed would have adhered to social mores and convention, or at least the particular more and convention of remaining with the family and contributing to its survival.

Your interpretation of the congregants at Jesus’ synagogue in Nazareth is as speculative as my own. You have no more proof of it than have I.

His interpretation isn't speculative at all. The verses actually say that the people did know who he was, since they asked "Isn't this Joseph's son?" Also, we know from anthropologists and sociologists that ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, and the social classes were generally fixed and rigid--there was no American Dream concept of "opportunity for all, regardless of social class" or of moving through the social strata. So the facts do suggest that Manwe's interpretation is correct.

Idealism answers a lot of puzzling questions in my mind that cannot be adequately addressed by materialism. That is why I lean towards the doctrine.

You realize, however, that idealism and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive?

[Don Schneider]

FM93:

My maternal grandmother literally did not recognize me when I knocked on her door one day unannounced. We had not seen each other for three years. She had last seen me when I had been twelve and frequently prior to that age. That is all I am getting at. The passage makes it seem to me that at least some in Jesus’ home congregation did not recognize him by His physical appearance.

At age twelve, Jesus answers his parents with: “Did you not know that I have to be about my father’s business?” indicating His deep spiritual bent even at that age. I’m sure His parents would have understood if at say age eighteen He had gone off in a quest for spiritual enlightenment. I wouldn’t consider this gross dereliction of duty or disobedience on His part. You are assuming his parents would have objected. Besides, Protestant Christians believe He had brothers to pick up the “slack.”

The earliest extra-scriptural references are to the Christian sect and references to their self-proclaimed founder. There is no recorded firsthand extra-scriptural witness to Jesus Himself. I personally do not doubt Jesus existed and did many remarkable things. I am just questioning if He was who and what many of us were raised to believe He was and had been.

The belief by some Jews that a fetus can sin (which sounds absurd on the face of it) dates to about 300 A.D. so such cannot be an explanation for this passage. Some argue it can be explained by a passage from The Book of Wisdom. I need to study that further. It is not critical to my ideas that the Jews had been familiar with the concept of reincarnation. It would just be interesting if they had been.

By idealism, I mean the Eastern concept that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness rather than visa versa as in the traditional Western belief of both believers and nonbelievers. .

[shunyadragon]

After decades of reading books on physics, religion and philosophy and musing on ontological matters as to the ultimate nature of reality, I lean towads what is explained below. It is portions of an email I recently sent to someone. I was just wondering if any others here have thought along the same lines.

.....................................................

I remain a nominal Catholic and have never been affiliated with any other religion. Privately, however, I lean towards the pantheism and idealism of the Eastern metaphysical religions of Hinduism and the Buddhism it spawned. In Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta), Brahman is universal consciousness, the primal ground of existence (“I am who am”) which cannot be further sublated. The reality it/we experience is Lila, the play of God. We are all manifestations of universal consciousness. Maya is the force that renders the illusion of the individual ego apart from all others and all else and is the source of all suffering and anxiety. (“They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil [the false sense of dualism that permeates the illusion of life], and they saw that they were naked.”) Maya breeds a sense of isolation and inherent vulnerability. Protecting the ego becomes all important for its (our) death is the ultimate catastrophe. .

Much of what Jesus was reported to have said seems closer to Eastern metaphysical philosophy than that of His native Judaism. For example, “My father and I are one.” There is also the question asked Him concerning the man born blind that seems to indicate that the concept of reincarnation was at least familiar to Jews of that period. The Bible recounts nothing of His life from age twelve until around age thirty. Perhaps he traveled to India during some of that missing timeframe. It would not have been difficult for Him to have done so from his native Judea. When He begins to preach in His synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, the congregants seem uncertain as to His identity, perhaps indicating an extended period of absence.


If the block universe and eternalism implied by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is true, then the universe is stagnant with motion (and change) being mere illusions along the lines of a motion picture in which a series of still frames are rapidly projected onto the screen by a projector. Via an email exchange, I argued with Dr. Julian Barbour, a British physicist and eternalist, that in order for there to be even an illusion of motion something must in fact actually move.

Here is my favorite Zen anecdote:

A Zen master came across two of his students arguing over a flag blowing in the wind. One of them maintained that the flag was moving while the other the wind. The master settled the question with: “Mind moves.” (Mind = Brahman.)

This seems to nicely answer Zeno’s famed paradoxes in which all attempts to reconcile by means of, for example, invoking calculus are doomed to fail because such merely manipulates the theoretical unit while leaving the underlying existential questions raised by the paradoxes unanswered.

Perhaps who ever wrote the best known musical round was more philosopher than songwriter: “Row, row….gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but….”

First, welcome to Tweb.

Considering your moniker as a Conservative Christian little of this fits, but it is interesting nonetheless. If you will excuse my bluntness. I have seen threads like this begin with posts in contradiction of one's beliefs as sort of an entry sarcasm.

I grew up in the Roman Church, but when I left I would not consider myself a nominal anything. The above does present some interesting and thought provoking ideas which I explored over the years. I am now a Baha'i which leaves a lot of doors open for the Nature of the 'Anointed One' or the Enlightened One,' and what is the relationship in Revelation between humans and God, but definitely does not hold to ancient specific Doctrines of ancient faiths as the standard of belief as Manwe Sulimo and most other traditional Christians believe.

[Don Schneider]

First, welcome to Tweb.

Considering your moniker as a Conservative Christian little of this fits, but it is interesting nonetheless. If you will excuse my bluntness. I have seen threads like this begin with posts in contradiction of one's beliefs as sort of an entry sarcasm.

I grew up in the Roman Church, but when I left I would not consider myself a nominal anything. The above does present some interesting and thought provoking ideas which I explored over the years. I am now a Baha'i which leaves a lot of doors open for the Nature of the 'Anointed One' or the Enlightened One,' and what is the relationship in Revelation between humans and God, but definitely does not hold to ancient specific Doctrines of ancient faiths as the standard of belief as Manwe Sulimo and most other traditional Christians believe.

Shuny,

Thanks for the welcome and thoughtful reply.

I’m still nominally Catholic and still conservative. Thus, “Conservative Christian.” Had it not been for Vatican II I probably never would have wandered. I consider Vat II to have been the greatest self-inflicted wound of any institution in all history. The results speak for themselves.

I heard of your adopted religion but have not been too familiar with it. All I basically knew was that it is Persian in origin and has a reputation for great tolerance. I did a quick study of it on Wikipedia. It seems to be rather the mutual fund of religions! <G> It seems to incorporate elements of many different religions. Even after reading the Wiki article, I am still unclear as to what it is you believe happens after death. Perhaps you could briefly enlighten me.

The only light that is shed on Jesus’ life after age twelve and the incident in the temple in Jerusalem until age thirty is from Luke. The gospel states that he subsequently “grew in age, wisdom and grace.” I don’t how one can reconcile God incarnate growing in wisdom and grace as God is already positioned as omniscient and all-just. Such a description seems more compatible with the scenario I speculated upon in my original post.

Ask yourself this: What is the arena in which everything takes place, without which nothing could be attested to?

Addendum To FM: Unitarians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was the son of God but not God Himself. Also, “An eye for an eye” hardly seems compatible with “turn the other cheek.”

[fm93]

[FONT=Arial]At age twelve, Jesus answers his parents with: “Did you not know that I have to be about my father’s business?” indicating His deep spiritual bent even at that age. I’m sure His parents would have understood if at say age eighteen He had gone off in a quest for spiritual enlightenment.

Except that he was in the Jewish Temple, which he called his Father's house. It was there that he stayed and taught. We have explicit evidence that he was immersed in Judaism, and absolutely no evidence that he had any exposure to Hinduism or Buddhism. Why abandon the straightforward understanding of what the text directly tells us for pure speculation that's unfounded in any evidence whatsoever?

[FONT=Arial]The belief by some Jews that a fetus can sin (which sounds absurd on the face of it)

Even prima facie there's no absurdity. It's not the belief that a fetus could sin, but an unborn infant. Many people throughout history and cultures have wondered what an infant's mental life is like, and we now know that even infants have some degree of self-awareness. While I personally don't think infants can sin, it's not implausible to think that they could.

dates to about 300 A.D. so such cannot be an explanation for this passage.

Psalm 51:5 could be taken to mean that unborn infants can sin, however, so it's highly doubtful that the belief originated in 300 AD.

By idealism, I mean the Eastern concept that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness rather than visa versa as in the traditional Western belief of both believers and nonbelievers. .

I know. And that's still not incompatible with Christianity.

[fm93]

[QUOTE=Don Schneider;3332029]

[FONT=Arial]The only light that is shed on Jesus’ life after age twelve and the incident in the temple in Jerusalem until age thirty is from Luke. The gospel states that he subsequently “grew in age, wisdom and grace.” I don’t how one can reconcile God incarnate growing in wisdom and grace as God is already positioned as omniscient and all-just.

That's where the concept of kenosis comes in. The orthodox belief is that in taking on a human nature, God the Son had to set aside some of his power and knowledge. We know from modern psychology that much of the information and feelings that we store actually reside in the subconscious level of the mind, and that the conscious mind is merely the tip of an iceberg. So Jesus' conscious mind could contain only a finite amount of knowledge, but his full omniscience dwelled in his subconsciousness, so when necessary he could summon it from that infinite reservoir.

Addendum To FM: Unitarians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was the son of God but not God Himself.

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't technically classified under Christianity, though.

Also, “An eye for an eye” hardly seems compatible with “turn the other cheek.”

The "eye for an eye" rule applied to civil matters. That is, when someone commits a crime, the authorities of society are supposed to follow that rule to dish out a just punishment. The "turn the other cheek" command, however, applies to interpersonal relationships. If someone sins against you, don't take it upon yourself to seek out personal revenge. Let the justice system deal with that.

[Don Schneider]

FM:

The following is an online quote from an unidentified Biblical scholar who upholds orthodox Biblical teaching. Since I don’t even know who he or she is I obviously can’t attest to the validity of his or her research. However, since he or she is upholding your point of view (albeit for a different reason than yours), I tend to believe he or she has done adequate research on the matter. Do you have any sources that attribute this belief to an earlier period and that it was present in Judea at the time of Christ?:

“Many New Agers mistakenly assume that the disciples' question in John 9:1-2 implies a belief in reincarnation: "As Jesus went along, He saw a man born blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, `Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' `Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, `but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" Bible commentaries typically contend that the disciples' question reflects a rabbinic belief that a fetus can sin in its mother's womb. But this rabbinic belief stems from around 300 AD--far too late to serve as the background for John 9:1-2. Rather, the disciples' question reflects the belief attested in the Wisdom of Solomon that the soul can acquire a good or bad character prior to birth. Jesus does not dispute this belief, but merely asserts that this particular blind man was not born blind because of his own sins committed in his preexistent state.”

In any event, familiarity with the concept of reincarnation on the part of the Jews of Jesus’ time is not critical to my speculations. The title of this thread as termed by me is “Jesus as a Hybrid Guru.” I’m hypothesizing that Jesus’ teaching was a fusion of His native Judaism and Eastern metaphysical philosophy; thus the seeming disparate natures of the God of the Old Testament and the Father of Jesus. He identifies the God of the Jews with the Brahman (universal consciousness) of the Hindu belief. Because of the doctrinaire and extremely legalistic nature of Judaism, He dared not go any further than allusion and veiled references. He was crucified as it was

Under this hypothetical scenario, at age twelve Jesus would have been, as you suggest, fully immersed in traditional Judaism. I am suggesting that at a later time He might well have become familiar with Eastern metaphysical ideas, whether by virtue of a journey to India or by having encountered others familiar with such ideas.

If we assume, just for the sake of argument, that the Bible is not an inerrant oracle from an anthropomorphic deity, then the four gospels (three of which are apparently based upon the same source) written years after the fact are personal historical accounts and subject to error and misunderstandings based upon the perspectives of their authors and the memories of the witness accounts upon which they were based.

It is an extremely common occurrence that after the death of the founder of any religion there immediately occurs a power struggle among the followers over doctrine, control of the membership and, in some cases, the religion’s assets. This happened with Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and, in more contemporary times, Mormonism, Christian Science and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It would therefore not be at all a stretch to argue that accounts of the founder’s ministry differ according to perspectives and a quest to shape the fledgling Christian religion according to the desires and beliefs of individual proponents of the faith seeking authority.

For those who hold to the traditional view that the Bible is an inerrant oracle of God, they are forced to engage in linguistic gymnastics to reconcile many apparent contradictions within the asserted inerrant documents. For example, in one gospel we read of Christ crucified along with two men, both of whom mock Him. In another, we have the story of the repentant “good thief” reproaching the “bad thief” for his irreverence to Jesus.

Your answer regarding how an eternally existing omniscient God incarnate could grow in wisdom also fits nicely within the speculative paradigm of my original post.. Some describe Lila as God (Brahman) playing hide-and-go-seek with Himself. Universal consciousness compartmentalizes itself through the illusory agency of maya.

Your technical classification of unitarians such as the JWs not being Christian is one I’m certain they would dispute. They do accept Jesus as their savior. To me, the word “Christian” means exactly how the word is denoted: “a follower of Christ." Even if I should unequivocally accept my own speculations one day, I would still consider myself a Christian as I would accept Christ as my teacher....in whatever language, guru or rabbi, for example.

[abu njoroge]

Jesus was the ultimate Guru. When he said the kingdom of God is found within. He also said if thy eye be single(the awakening of the third eye that looks within to Atman/soul/spark of god) then thy whole body shall be full of light. He is a true guru and spiritual master The true christ is found within oneself. His power is spiritual not the body of christ.

[shunyadragon]

Ha.

Haha.

HAHAHAHA.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I might have a more substantive reply in the future, but that's all that little turd of yours deserves.

Actually he is correct. Your abuse reflects your own problems with dealing with the reality of the evidence and how different people believe.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

Thanks for the welcome and thoughtful reply.

I’m still nominally Catholic and still conservative. Thus, “Conservative Christian.” Had it not been for Vatican II I probably never would have wandered. I consider Vat II to have been the greatest self-inflicted wound of any institution in all history. The results speak for themselves.

Actually Vatican II was just Vatican I reasserting the authority of the Roman Church, with window dressing to make it look like some sort of reform, but in reality none there. Any kind of change and reform would be unlikely because of the underlying doctrines and dogma of the church.

I heard of your adopted religion but have not been too familiar with it. All I basically knew was that it is Persian in origin and has a reputation for great tolerance. I did a quick study of it on Wikipedia. It seems to be rather the mutual fund of religions! <G> It seems to incorporate elements of many different religions. Even after reading the Wiki article, I am still unclear as to what it is you believe happens after death. Perhaps you could briefly enlighten me.

It would help to read more, but nonetheless the above contains some common misconceptions about the Baha'i Faith.

(1) Unfortunately, tolerance is not the virtue people promote it as. To be tolerant one must view other people as in some way separate, and in need of toleration. Tolerance is simple a grade of intolerance trying to relate to people and beliefs outside your world view.

(2) No it does not incorporate elements of other religions and beliefs. This would be a humanist intellectual exercise in some ways like Unitarians view the world. The Baha'i Faith considers the different religions of the world as the 'human view of God's relationship with man each in one time frame of the over all universal evolving dynamic cycles.

The world view of each ancient religion is limited and frozen in time of ancient paradigm and cannot address the universal spirit of humanity

The only light that is shed on Jesus’ life after age twelve and the incident in the temple in Jerusalem until age thirty is from Luke. The gospel states that he subsequently “grew in age, wisdom and grace.” I don’t how one can reconcile God incarnate growing in wisdom and grace as God is already positioned as omniscient and all-just. Such a description seems more compatible with the scenario I speculated upon in my original post.

I do not believe any version of Christianity, nor and other ancient religion can be reconciled with a universal relationship between God, humanity and Creation in all its vastness we know today.

Ask yourself this: What is the arena in which everything takes place, without which nothing could be attested to?

Addendum To FM: Unitarians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was the son of God but not God Himself. Also, “An eye for an eye” hardly seems compatible with “turn the other cheek.”

JWs like other of the many divisions of Christian hardly represent a universal view of our existence nor good understanding of science.