Chapter One

An interpretation of the meaning of the life, 'death', and 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ from a cultural point of view

Introduction

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there has been an ever-increasing concentration of research into the origins of Christianity. Most of the attention seems to be concentrated on discovering Jesus, 'the man', and trying to understand who he really was and what he really did. In the process of concentrating on Jesus, the man, however, comparatively little attention has been given, I suggest, toward trying to understand his 'Message'. In particular, no one yet appears to have been able to define the 'essence' of Christianity. My reading and thinking has led me to understand the reason for this 'failure', so far, to arrive at the 'essence' of Christianity.

In this paper, I propose a new approach toward understanding Christianity: an interpretation of the meaning of the life, 'death', and 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ from a cultural point of view. While this approach and its conclusions may possibly be considered 'original' for the twentieth century, they would undoubtedly not have surprised at all someone like the fifth-century English monk and 'heretic' Pelagius.

In the ground-breaking controversial best-seller Holy Blood, Holy Grail, as well as the sequels to this book, the authors take a close look at the 'factual' origins of Christianity, focusing, in the process, inevitably on the figure and role of Paul. If it is clear that Christianity today is largely founded on Paul's ideas, it is equally apparent that Paul's motives and designs have yet to be elucidated (see note 1). Nonetheless, my research and thinking, as will become clear from this paper, suggest the outline of a link between Paul, the controversial Protocols of the Elders of Sion (the purported conspiracy by Jewish supremacists to dominate and rule the world) and Nazism.

In 1995, in Brussels, there was an excellent exhibition entitled "I was 20 in '45". On display were several original documents dating from the war, including Hitler's last will and testament, which closed with his enjoinder to the German people:

"Above all, I charge the leadership of the nation and their followers with the strict observance of the racial laws and with merciless resistance against the universal poisoners of all peoples, international Jewry."

I came away from the exhibition with three conclusions:

The (psychological) 'wounds' of WWII have yet to heal.
Although we know, in great and lurid detail, WHAT the Nazis did before and during the war, we have almost no understanding WHY they did what they did. Specifically, WHY was Hitler so obsessed with the idea that his mission in life was to annihilate the Jewish people?
When the world finally knows the answer(s) to 2 above, I believe it may well lead to an epic revolution in (Western) civilization.

It is clear from an analysis of Nazi symbols that Hitler was a 'genius' - if evil - in the art of communicating with the German people. But, at the same time he was appealing with his Nazi salute (more accurately called 'der deutsche Gruß' - the German greeting) to deep primordial sentiments in the German people, he was also communicating his values and intentions clearly and graphically to the most learned rabbis of Judaism. One can only imagine with what abject horror they looked on, for years before the war began, knowing full well how things must inevitably evolve.

World War II was, above all, a conflict about the issue of morality, a recurrent theme throughout the Bible. Significantly, through my research and thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the true value of the Bible, and most important message, lies not in the fact that it offers an account, however accurate in an historical sense, of the past, but rather that it relates in vivid detail the evolution of a universal cultural 'system' grounded in morality. The last stage of that 'evolution' was the Message left by Jesus Christ who said of his role:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

__________________________

Part One: A New Interpretation of Jesus' Message

For more than a decade now, I have been pursuing the challenge of trying to understand culture and how it works. I decided long ago that there must be some core essence that defines one person as German, another as French, and still another as American. But the professional literature is, to my mind, of little help. It analyzes certain things to the nth degree but often never gets around to synthesizing and summing up. And, while certain aspects of culture and behavior are looked at thoroughly, other aspects, such as language, are - incredibly - almost completely ignored. Being knowledgeable about several languages in different family groups, I began to think and to explore, virtually on my own - and was rather unprepared for what I was to discover. For, hidden just beneath the surface in everyday expressions, highly interesting and promising patterns began to emerge. Word origins, greetings, proverbs, ways of expression, among others, proved to be a wealth of information. Only now do I have the slightest glimpse of understanding of what John meant when, at the beginning of his Gospel, he wrote:

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Little did I know ten years ago where my trek of questions and thoughts would lead me - certainly not to this thesis. Nonetheless, my consideration of national or ethnic cultures led me to consider as well the role of religion, and thus it is that I came to look intensely at Christianity as a culture with the objective of understanding and defining its essence.

Trying to understand culture involves the creative melding of many different disciplines, including, but certainly not limited to, (factual) history, legend, myth, linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, psychology and religion. Thus, one can well imagine how closely I identified my own study and thinking with the activities of the Hiéron du Val d'Or as described in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, p. 197:

"There was a preoccupation with the origins of men, races, languages, and symbols, such as occurs in Theosophy."

Throughout Holy Blood, Holy Grail there is an undercurrent of deep mystery surrounding the origins and activities of a number of secret societies and esoteric institutions such as the Hiéron du Val d'Or. Of the secret societies treated in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, none appears more intriguing than the Prieuré de Sion whose known origins go back to the 12th century and whose grand masters included such well-known historical figures as Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton. At the end of the 1970s the secretary-general of the Prieuré de Sion was Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair, who, when talking about the lost treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem (see p. 225), stated that 'the true treasure is "spiritual" and consists, 'at least in part, of a secret' which 'in some unspecified way ... would facilitate a major social change'.

I believe I have 'discovered' the 'secret' to which Pierre Plantard, among others, is privy:

Christ did not 'die' on the cross to redeem a sinful mankind (the Pauline 'paradigm' or interpretation of the message). Rather, the true meaning of Christ's life, 'death' and 'resurrection', as depicted in the Gospels, especially that by the evangelist John, is something else altogether. If my study and thinking is correct, the Pauline paradigm of Christ, the Redeemer, must eventually be replaced by a new paradigm, the real one intended by the Gospels: Christ, the Liberator.

The research and thinking which has led me to this conclusion has little or nothing to do with 'religion' as this term in understood today. In order to understand the true meaning of the life, 'death' and 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Gospels, it is necessary, I believe, to understand the phenomenon of culture.

In the process of reading and thinking about culture, I have come to the conclusion that every culture is a system and a whole. As such, every culture has an essence or core value which gives all the members of that culture a specific meaning with which to identify. It is this core value, I believe, together with the means used to strive toward this core value, that gives each culture a particular cultural character, personality or gestalt that is formed by the culture as a whole.

Let me explain and illustrate my thinking by giving as an example a brief analysis of the Japanese culture. I long puzzled over certain aspects of Japanese attitudes and behavioral traits which I had heard or read about and which differ so markedly from those of my own culture (USA). So I listed some of these traits with the intention of trying to make sense out of them. The specific features of the Japanese culture which I considered were the following:

Avoidance of answering 'no' to a 'yes - no' question.
Avoidance of using the colors white and black together without having at least one other (intermediate) color.
The formal greeting consists of a polite, silent bow at a discreet distance involving no contact of body parts.
'Sayonara', the 'equivalent' for 'goodbye', literally means 'if it must be so'.

On the assumption that all four behavioral traits above must share a common element or 'leitmotif', I analyzed each trait separately more or less in the following manner:

When posing a question to be answered by 'yes' or 'no', most frequently the person posing the question is nonetheless hopeful or desirous that the answer be in the affirmative. Thus, if the information question is posed: "Does this train go to Paris?", the most logical reason for such a question is that the speaker is seeking the train going in the desired direction - Paris. Likewise, in posing a question asking for permission to undertake some activity, the speaker is clearly hoping for an affirmative answer: e.g. "May I go for a walk?" Responding with a direct 'no' to these questions would, at the very least, bring some disappointment to the person posing the question and run counter to his or her volition. Thus, I surmised that the Japanese habit of avoiding a direct 'no' to a 'yes - no' question may have something to do with deference to a person's hope or volition.
Black and white are two extremes, the one being the absence of all color, the other - a combination of all colors. Use of an intermediate color implies a desire to avoid extremes and/or seek a way to 'bridge' the difference.
A polite, silent bow at a distance is a respectful way of acknowledging another person's presence and spacial requirements. It also shows a desire to avoid possible offense by touching the other person or breaking the silence.
By saying 'sayonara' when taking leave, the speaker is expressing a feeling of regret. This sentiment is natural and quite appropriate if one assumes that the meeting was a friendly one in the first place.

After some reflection, I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a common element tying all of these traits together. The unifying element, I decided, is striving for harmony, or, inversely, avoiding confrontation or conflict. Although I was fairly confident of my analysis, I had no 'proof' to support my conclusion. However, sometime later, when browsing through a dictionary of basic Japanese ideograms, I discovered to my pleasant surprise that the character WA, , has a double meaning: harmony, peace, (Japan) (A Guide to Reading & Writing JAPANESE, p. 82). Still later, after more reflection, I realized that my 'discovery', although it proved to be an inspiration and insight for me, should hardly have been a surprise. Unlike most cultures, the Japanese are explicit in making known what I refer to as their core cultural value - striving for harmony. When the emperor Hirohito ascended the throne in 1926, he ushered in the era of SHOWA or 'bright harmony'. And Akihito's ascension to the throne is considered as having issued in the period of HEISEI or 'achievement of peace'. (See excerpts on the Japanese culture at the end of this Part One.)

Still later, after conceiving the idea that each culture must have a core cultural value or overall objective, I decided that there must be some means or 'tool' to strive toward this value or objective. So I continued to think and read about the Japanese culture in search of this 'tool'. Among other things, I read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword by anthropologist Ruth Benedict. Although I was not able to find any reference in her book to the concept of WA, I did discover that Benedict devoted a chapter (11, pp. 228-252) to the all-important subject of 'self-discipline', called 'shuyo' in Japanese, which I believe to be the brief description of the 'tool' or modus operandi needed to achieve harmony (see note 2).

Concurrent with the idea of a modus operandi to strive toward a core cultural value came also the idea that there must be an 'actor' or 'doer' implementing the modus operandi. And all of my reading and thinking about the Japanese culture came to focus overwhelmingly on one archetypal character or cultural person: the samurai.

Ironically and interestingly enough, in the process of developing a 'formula' for describing the essence of the Japanese culture, I duplicated the exact elements of a basic sentence:

Direct object = Core cultural value

Verb = Modus operandi

Subject = Cultural person

I chose or 'conceived' these terms in the process of developing my ideas. 'Core cultural value' because this is the supreme or most important value which unites the culture, 'modus operandi' because I feel this term best describes the idea that a culture functions or operates in the natural and subconscious way that it does, 'cultural person' as the 'sum' personality of the culture which it forms, when viewed as a whole.

Following, then, is what I have concluded to be the 'essence' of the Japanese culture:

Core cultural value: striving for WA (harmony)

Modus operandi: (exercising) shuyo (self-discipline or mental training)

Cultural person: samurai (warrior)

Still another way to define culture, I have discovered, is by applying a calque of the concept of Management By Objective (MBO) made well known by the business guru Peter Drucker: in other words, "Culture is 'management' of society by objective."

As with my analysis of the Japanese culture, in like manner, by carefully analyzing specific features, behavioral patterns and, most importantly, language and its use, in other cultures, including the Russian, French, German and even my own American culture, I have found it possible, albeit certainly not easy, to arrive at a description of their 'essence' as well. Unlike the Japanese culture, however, all of these cultures have implicit core cultural values. They are present, but not overtly stated as the Japanese have chosen to do in their culture and therefore often not readily apparent.

One important reason I chose the Japanese culture as an example to explain my thinking about culture is because the core cultural value of the Japanese is explicit. Since it is explicit, I was able to find confirmation of my conclusion about the Japanese culture (see excerpts). The other reason is explained later in this paper.

* * *

With that explanation about my way of understanding and describing culture, let us now turn to an analysis of Christianity also from a cultural point of view.

The first thing one might note is that Christianity - viewed as an entity and a culture - is a supranational cultural phenomenon. In other words, Christianity encompasses many different national or ethnic cultures, many of which are in the same macro-cultural grouping - the Occident - others which are not. It can also be noted that, while Christianity is rooted in the Occident and has consequently and logically found widespread acceptance, albeit, not without considerable permutations from the original 'catholic' doctrine, it has been accepted only marginally by oriental cultures. For instance, in the Japanese culture less than 1% of the people have converted to Christianity. Yet Christianity aims at universality, clearly intending to unite all peoples all over the earth regardless of their individual ethnic or national culture. Why the stumbling block?

As already indicated at the beginning of this paper, I believe the main problem is the (Pauline) paradigm of Christ as the Redeemer, the sacrificial lamb who died to atone for Man's sins (see note 3). If my reasoning is correct, everything of importance needed to develop the originally intended paradigm of Christ, as done here above for the Japanese culture, can be found in the Gospels from the time of the Last Supper through the 'resurrection'.

In analyzing the life, 'death' and 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ, it is important, I suggest, to divide the analysis into two parts. For the purpose of the first part, the conditions of Christ's birth and his purported divine nature are not relevant. Let us focus, then, on an examination and interpretation of his brief ministry and the circumstances of his 'death' from a cultural point of view.

In his teachings, Christ preached a message of unconditional and universal love, a respect for the sanctity of human life - not just our own lives and those who are dear to us and fit into our paradigm of how a human being should be, but rather for all human beings of any culture, irrespective of sex or status in life.

During the Last Supper, after Judas Iscariot had left, Jesus gave the remaining eleven disciples the following new commandment:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)

Now, within the context of my previous thoughts on culture, let us assume that the 'core cultural value' of Christianity is (universal) love. In order to strive toward such a goal, there must be some sort of 'tool' or 'modus operandi'. What could this be?

The essential circumstances about Christ's 'death' by crucifixion, as depicted in the Gospels, are these:

1) He WILLINGLY accepted to undergo the crucifixion.

2) He underwent a 'death' of intense SUFFERING.

It is important here to remember that Christ did not want to undergo the agony of the crucifixion, but nonetheless accepted his fate. From Mark 14:36:

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Why?

From John 18:37-38:

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth (my bold). Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Note that Jesus refers to 'the truth' (i.e. indicating a specific 'truth' he has in mind, while Pilate fails to pick up on this subtlety and asks to know what 'truth' is, in general).

After being scourged, Jesus is again brought before Pilate.

From John 19:10-11:

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

In spite of Pilate's attempt to force Jesus to acknowledge that he, Pilate, had power over him, Jesus refused to accede, knowing full well that this act of non-compliance would irreversibly bring about a terrible, agonizing 'death'. In so doing, I believe, Jesus 'died' to SHOW that Man has a free will (see note 4). But why did Jesus have to do this?

The concept of free will was not a new idea at the time Christ lived. Centuries before he was born, there was philosophical debate about whether or not Man has a free will, with some thinkers taking one position and others the opposite view. This debate has continued to the present day. The innovative and crucial part in Jesus' act is the implicit message that all this debate is irrelevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is because it is impossible to prove, through conventional logic, specifically Greek cause-effect analysis, that Man has a free will while extremely easy, on the other hand, to 'prove' that Man does not have a free will.

The reason is obvious. If it were possible to 'prove' that Man has free will through cause-effect analysis, then this 'proof' would, in fact, be self-contradictory. For any present action could logically be linked to some past cause or causes, and thus prove, on the contrary, that free will could not have been exercised. On the other hand, the 'proof', using cause-effect analysis, that free will does not exist is readily apparent. For example: did I have any control over the act of conception which brought me to this earth? None. Therefore, I can logically reason that I am neither responsible for my birth nor any of my actions since. Instead, my parents are responsible. This argument can be carried ad infinitum back into the past.

For each individual human being at any given point in his or her life, the past is a given. For instance, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to change the fact that I was born into what would become a large family of modest means in Pennsylvania, grew up in the American culture, and finally ended up where I am now. But if I, as an individual human being, believe that I have a free will and can therefore exercise control over my actions, I can create my future. I can move beyond the culture in which I was born, decide at any given point in time whether I want to act in accordance with the paradigms in which I live, or simply reject them and try something else. But that belief in a free will is mine and mine alone to make and to keep. No one, neither my parents, nor Jesus Christ, nor even God Himself, can decide whether or not I choose to believe that I have a free will. Only I can make that choice. Thus, herewith, I suggest, the explanation for the belief in individual and personal responsibility for one's actions in Christianity.

From the above, in the context of the Hellenistic culture in which Jesus grew up, it is understandable why he had to 'die' to show that Man has a free will. Only by acting on his own free will and accepting to suffer an agonizing 'death', a 'death' which he wanted to avoid, could Jesus show by his example that each and every human being has a free will.

Now, if we fit this into the 'formula' which I used earlier to describe the 'essence' of the Japanese culture, this time, however, of a follower of Jesus Christ, we have, I believe, the 'essence' and intended meaning of what it is to be a Christian, in other words a true follower of Jesus Christ (see note 5):

Core cultural value: (universal) love

Modus operandi: (exercising) free will

Cultural person: Christian

Briefly put, Christ's Message and 'gift' to Mankind is the universal 'tool' each and every human being, regardless of sex, status in life or, indeed, cultural background, can use to move beyond whatever paradigms are currently being used to create a new future regardless of the course of events that led to that individual's life up to that point in time.

From the 12 December 1994 issue of NEWSWEEK, Perspectives on page 7:

"I couldn't go against my family. If they had decided to do something, it wasn't up to me to ask questions."
(Lufti Ilipinar, a Kurdish immigrant on trial in France for allegedly helping to murder his young female cousin, who had dishonored her family by flirting with a local boy.)

Knowing and accepting Christ's Message, this individual could have decided, in spite of what he had been taught by his culture and what his family expected him to do, not to participate in the murder of his cousin. Of course, he would have to be prepared to suffer the consequences of his actions, which may mean banishment from his family or even his own death. But it is clear that the only way he can free himself from his culture and his past is for he himself to make that decision.

So much for Christ's Message and part one of this analysis.

__________________________

Part Two: The Resurrection

Following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, much present-day research into the origins of Christianity, as is clearly pointed out in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, indicates that Christ survived the crucifixion. Indeed some individuals are persuaded that Christ was not crucified at all. Whatever one may be inclined to believe, Jesus is depicted in the Gospels as arising from the 'dead' after the crucifixion. Why the Resurrection?

In his nature as 'man', a human being like the rest of his contemporaries, Jesus could and did accept to suffer an agonizing 'death' to show that Man has a free will. But why should anyone believe that following in Christ's footsteps would lead to anything other than a death through intense suffering before passing on to oblivion? After all, for the vast majority of people at this time in the Roman Empire life was cruel enough as it was. Those born in poverty, slavery, and obscurity could be certain they would die in those conditions as well; their lot would never change. In a word, these people - the downtrodden and enslaved masses - had no hope for a better future.

Therefore, the need for (the belief in) the Resurrection, an event that could only have been arranged by a power higher than that of Man, thus indicating Jesus' divine nature and 'proving' beyond any doubt (to his followers) that Christ was indeed the long awaited Messiah. Thus, although the poor and enslaved at that time could not necessarily expect any change in their lot on earth, they could, nonetheless, by following Christ's example, expect to be rewarded in an eternal afterlife free from the worries, cares, burdens and sorrows of life on this earth. In this way, Christ's Message that Man has a free will was underscored with the all-important corollary Message of hope. For the opposite of a belief in free will - the belief that each individual person can create his or her future - is the belief that all things are predetermined, a belief which, pushed to its logical limits, can cause nothing but total and utter despair.

By accepting to 'die' on the cross, Christ thus demonstrated to Mankind how to use the one and only 'tool' that ever was needed or ever will be needed for Man to continue to evolve, to free himself from the less complete truth of the day (i.e. the 'paradigms' and 'models' that Man creates to explain things and give meaning to his life) and move on to discover the more complete truth of the morrow.

The interpretation of the meaning of Christ's life, 'death' and 'resurrection' I give here above is based on the Gospels of the evangelists. However, the Gospels were written several years or even decades after the time of Paul and his paradigm of Christ, the Redeemer. Thus, from the same 'event' we have two different interpretations as to its meaning. Why should we accept the interpretation I have drawn based on the Gospels of the evangelists rather than that of Paul?

There are several reasons:

1) As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Scriptures, aside from Paul's own assertion, to support his paradigm of Christ, the Redeemer. That Jesus was the Messiah, yes, but nothing to indicate that Jesus died to redeem a sinful Mankind.

From Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity, p. 37:

"The Hellenic world could accept Jesus as a deity but Judaism placed a gulf of absolute difference between God and man. And there was nothing in Jewish literature which suggested the idea of an incarnated saviour of mankind who redeemed by virtue of his own sacrificial death."

2) The complex and obscure nature of Paul's paradigm - where is the logic or sense?

If Christ shed his blood for all human beings, it stands to reason that his Message must be completely compatible with primordial human nature, not culturally specific. Moreover, the Message must be, in essence, simple and straightforward - clear and easy enough for any common person to understand and accept. Paul's explanation of the meaning of Christ's life, death and resurrection is anything but easy to understand. Indeed, the complex nature of his interpretation of the 'message' would seem to be the very reason for the necessity to accept it as a matter of faith rather than logical common sense. Again from A History of Christianity, p. 37:

"Paul's gospel, as it evolved, could be seen to be alien to traditional Jewish thinking of any tendency, even though it contained Jewish elements. It can be summarized as follows. Jesus of Nazareth came from the line of David. He was born of a woman, but was established as Son of God, with full power, through his resurrection from the dead. He lived a short life in Palestine, embracing earthly poverty, and for our sins humbled himself in his death on the cross. God raised the crucified and buried one and exalted him to the highest throne at his own right hand: 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.' The atoning death of Jesus the Messiah, sacrificed for our sins, served as our expiation and ransomed humanity. His dying affects the redemption of the cosmos and humanity as a whole, for in his death the world has been crucified and has begun to pass away; Christ will shortly come again from heaven as the Son of Man. Here we have, in all essentials, the central doctrines of Christianity: the view of history, the salvation mechanism, the role and status of Christ Jesus. Everything in it had been implicit in the teachings of Christ. Paul made it explicit, clear and complete."

One person not persuaded by Paul's interpretation of the 'message' was Nietzsche. From A History of Christianity, p. 35:

'Paul embodies the very opposite type to that of Jesus, the bringer of good news: he is a genius in hatred, in the vision of hate, in the ruthless logic of hate. What has not their nefarious evangelist sacrificed to his hatred! He sacrificed first and foremost his saviour, he crucified him on his cross.... A god who died for our sins: redemption by faith: resurrection after death - all these things are falsifications of true Christianity, for which that morbid crank must be made responsible.'

And from Compton's Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 398:

"With all the differences in beliefs in the many denominations of Christianity, it is impossible to set out one list of teachings that apply to all Christians everywhere. The reason for this is fairly simple. Jesus, along with his life and work, are for Christians objects of faith (my bold); and the objects of faith are thought of by different people in different ways and differently in various periods of history. No one has ever succeeded in distilling an "essence of Christianity." (my bold)

Note: I suggest the reason why no one has ever succeeded in distilling an 'essence of Christianity' is because the interpretation by Paul is deliberately confusing. By substituting the Man for the Message (see note 6), Paul diverted the attention from Jesus' actions (and, therefore, his Message) to his person, deifying him in the process. From The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, p. 267:

"Paul, in effect, shunts God aside and establishes, for the first time, worship of Jesus - Jesus as a kind of equivalent of Adonis, of Tammuz, of Attis, or of any one of the other dying and reviving gods who populated the Middle East at the time. In order to compete with these divine rivals, Jesus had to match them point for point, miracle for miracle. It is at this stage that many of the miraculous elements become associated with Jesus' biography, including, in all probability, his supposed birth of a virgin and his resurrection from the dead. They are essentially Pauline inventions, often wildly at odds with the 'pure' doctrine promulgated by James and the rest of the community in Jerusalem. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that James and his entourage should be disturbed by what Paul is doing."

In his Letter to the Romans, Paul gives a hint of his motives. From Who's Who in the Bible, p. 372:

"Paul, seeing that in fact the Church has been unsuccessful among the Jews, turns to the Gentiles. Writing to the very centre of the Roman Empire, he seeks to attract in the Church a nucleus of Gentiles from all parts of the world, in the hope that it will 'make my fellow Jews jealous'." (my bold)

Regardless of Paul's precise motives or intentions at the time, with the perspective of history, what has, in fact, happened is that Paul's 'church', the Roman Catholic Church and institutionalized Christianity, was built upon the ruins of and is the direct descendant of the Roman Empire and has evolved over nearly two millennia to become the single largest, most wealthy, and most powerful supranational institution in the world (see note 7).

3) The Second Coming of Jesus as the Son of man.

In the Gospels, Jesus alludes on several occasions to his Second Coming as the Son of man. If we assume that the present Pauline model or paradigm of Christ as the Redeemer and Son of God is correct, why would there be any need for a Second Coming? The need for a Second Coming, logically, implies that (after some period of time) the current interpretation of the meaning of the life, 'death' and 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ would be revealed as being not correct (or perhaps not complete) and thus the need for a Second Coming of Jesus - the next time as the Son of man. It should also be noted that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as Son of man is only meant in a figurative sense (i.e. a new interpretation). It is not assumed that Jesus will physically reappear on earth.

4) According to Josephus, the Pharisees did not believe that man has a free will.

At the time Jesus lived, among the three main religious parties or sects in Judaism, the Essenes, Sadducees and the Pharisees, the latter apparently were the largest and most influential group. "Josephus states that the Sadducees believed in the freedom of the will, which the Pharisee's denied." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 579) If what Josephus writes is true, this could certainly have played a role in Jesus' decision to accept to 'die' to show that Man does, indeed, have a free will. Moreover, much about the description of early Christianity, including the personage of Jesus himself, suggests that its origins may lie with the Essenes. Certainly, their values are clearly indicative of a firm belief in free will. From The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, p. 246:

"The Essenes (Josephus) says: despise danger and conquer pain by sheer will power (my bold): death, if it comes with honour, they value more than life without end. Their spirit was tested to the utmost by the war with the Romans, who racked and twisted, burnt, and broke them, subjecting them to every torture yet invented in order to make them blaspheme the Lawgiver or eat some forbidden food."

5) The dynamics of culture.

Once a human being is enculturated in some specific culture, that culture in effect becomes the window to the world. Most human beings are unaware of the culture which shapes their lives, the values they hold, and the decisions they make. Moreover, almost no one ever questions the basic assumptions upon which their culture stands. All cultures have a point of reference and specific values which frequently do not correspond, or even come into conflict, with the values of other cultures. How to resolve the impasse? Clearly, one has to become aware of one's own culture and its point of view, assumptions, values, limitations, etc., and be prepared to go beyond these, when the circumstances warrant, by exercising one's free will.

6) Mankind's eternal challenge: How to live in peace?

Throughout the ages, there has been one universal truism which cuts across all cultures: the tendency to resolve conflict by violent means, i.e. killing and warfare. The Message which Christ left with Mankind was one of universal and unconditional love - not only toward those for whom this comes naturally, but most especially toward those we consider to be our enemies. The only way to love in this manner is by exercising our free will.

7) The findings from Near Death Experiences (NDEs): love, responsibility for one's actions, and oneness.

Raymond Moody, who has interviewed hundreds of people of all ages who have had NDEs, relates in The Light Beyond that everyone came back from the experience with the same basic message: the single most important thing in this life is learning how to love. Moreover, everyone is responsible for his or her actions and the effect these have upon those around them. This is how a 'hard-driving, no-nonsense businessman who had an NDE during a cardiac arrest when he was sixty-two' described his experience (p. 42):

"One big thing I learned when I died was that we are all part of one big, living universe. If we think we can hurt another person or another living thing without hurting ourselves, we are sadly mistaken. I look at a forest or a flower or a bird now, and say, 'That is me, part of me'. We are connected with all things and if we send love along these connections, then we are happy."

And from a woman who had an NDE on her twenty-third birthday
(pp. 46-47):

"The most important thing I learned from this experience was that I am responsible for everything I do. ... I was the very people that I hurt, and I was the very people I helped to feel good."

8) Man's tyranny over himself.

Traditionally, knowledge, power, and control have always been in the hands of the priestly and ruling classes. But why should these people have access to the 'truth' any more than any other human being? After all, the circumstances of birth and enculturation of any human being are a complete accident of nature. Logically, therefore, access to the 'truth' should be open to everyone everywhere, without exception, regardless of that person's position in life. This argument especially would seem to be supported by the basic description of the personage of Christ as Dr. Barbara Thiering writes in Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 390:

"But Jesus introduced entirely new doctrines, claiming to be able himself to fill the position of high priest, as well as king. Thus he taught the priesthood of all believers, and also the free admission of all members, including Gentiles, without hierarchical grading on the grounds of birth, race, sex or physical condition. He was opposed by all parties working for Jewish supremacy, and was called by them the 'Wicked (Anti-) Priest' and 'Man of a Lie'."

From the standpoint of human interrelations, the personage of Christ must have been very disturbing to the priestly class (i.e. the interpreters of the 'truth') of his time. Certain (sects or classes of) Jews recognized all too clearly the threat that Christ posed to their concept of a world where they were God's Chosen People and were able to exercise overlordship over everyone else. Thus, during Jesus' trial, despite several attempts by an unaware Pontius Pilate to set Jesus free, the chief priests and officers responded with the words "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

And so Barabbas was released and Jesus was put to 'death'. That almost certainly would have been the end of Jesus and his Message, were he to have remained in the tomb. But he didn't. He was 'resurrected', 'deified' and became a model for a new religion. Thus began the Christian sect movement which the Western world has inherited, albeit, as I believe, not with the original Message intended by the Gospels, but rather the paradigm created by Paul which we have inherited in institutionalized Christianity.

In light of all the current information about Jesus and the time in which he lived, it is apparent that the personage of Christ, as described in the Gospels, is both part fact and part 'myth', the 'creation', apparently, of some very wise men at the time. Because, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus did not die on the cross and thus was not resurrected, as well as the fact that he did not have a divine nature (see note 8), his Message that Man is endowed with a free will and therefore can determine his future, remains unchanged and unaffected. So too, the immense importance and value of his Message, to a world where 'justice' demanded 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', in other words a suit of violent actions that can only lead to more violence, that henceforth all human beings everywhere upon the earth should exercise their free will to love instead of hate, to build rather than destroy.

Having accepted the ultimate threat of force which Pilate could exert over him, namely to take away his physical life through a 'death' of suffering on the cross, Jesus showed that no human being can have power over any other human being, unless the latter so agrees. Thus, each and every human being is free, if he or she believes they are free. Therefore, I believe the ultimate purpose of Jesus' Message is to end, once and for all time, Man's tyranny over himself. Hence, my argument for a new paradigm of Christ: the Liberator, Son of man.

From the Gospel of John, there is a passage, 10:14-18, which, as I interpret it, speaks directly both of the universality of Christ's Message as well as of the concept of free will:

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (my bold) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. (my bold) This commandment have I received of my Father."

Therefore, I have concluded, after considerable reflection, that the true and intended meaning of Christ's willing 'death' is to show that Man is endowed with a free will and should use that free will in conjunction with Christ's new commandment at the Last Supper to evolve into one culture with universal peace among all people.

* * *

Now it can be seen also that it is not by accident that I chose the Japanese culture as an example to explain these ideas about how to arrive at the essence of any culture. Both because the Japanese core cultural value closely approximates what I believe to be the true essence of Christianity and because it is explicit, once the original and intended paradigm of Christianity becomes apparent, it should be readily acceptable, in the first instance, to the Japanese themselves. It should be noted, however, that despite the close resemblance between the essence of a true Christian and a Japanese, there is an all-important difference between the concept that Man has a free will and 'shuyo'. In Christianity, Man is born with and always has a free will whether or not an individual human being chooses to believe in it and exercise it in accordance with God's Plan. In the Japanese culture, by contrast, no one is born with 'shuyo'. Instead, it is a process of enculturation that has to be gradually developed through a lifetime of practice. 'Shuyo', then, most closely approximates the total unquestioning obedience Abraham demonstrated by obeying God's command to sacrifice his son Isaac.

(Note: The ultimate test of 'shuyo', or mental training, can be observed in ritual suicide, or seppuku, called for when a samurai has committed some grave offense and can only save his honor by deliberately killing himself to prove that he is truly 'Japanese'. Unlike the quick, and probably largely painless, act of shooting oneself, however, seppuku requires that the individual gather the courage and will power to plunge a knife into his gut and disembowel himself. Only after the individual has successfully carried out this excruciating act may a bystander subsequently behead the dying victim to spare him any further suffering. For an example, read the description of how Mishima Yukio committed seppuku.

It can also be explained that seppuku or ritual disembowelment relates directly and logically to the concept of WA:
For this ideogram, when broken down into its component parts, consists of two elements each of which bears a literal meaning. The left-hand element is the symbol for 'grain/rice' while the right-hand element means 'mouth'. Thus, the concept of WA, a figurative meaning, is derived from the sense that food, when eaten, removes the natural 'discontent' from hunger, and from this comes the extended meaning of (striving for) harmony. Since the digestive system converts energy stored in food into useful energy sustaining life, it is only logical that if a samurai has greatly abused the privilege of being alive, the only way he can restore his honor is by deliberately destroying, before his own eyes, the digestive system.)

Notwithstanding my interpretation and conclusion about the meaning of Christ's willing 'death', I can find nothing anywhere in (popular) literature to support this conclusion. Although the encyclopedia Britannica contains a seventeen-page treatise on Jesus and his life, there is no mention of free will in connection with Christ's willing 'death'. In this treatise, there is a section on The Will of God, but nothing about the concept of free will. Likewise, in a primer on philosophy which I have (Basic Teachings Of The Great Philosophers), there is a chapter entitled 'FATE VERSUS FREE WILL' (pp. 127-152), but still no explicit mention about any direct connection between Christ's willing 'death' and free will. Despite the possible 'originality' of my interpretation, I find it totally implausible that 2,000 years after the time of Christ only I could have arrived at the conclusion above. Therefore, I have come to the further conclusion that the lack of explicit mention anywhere about Christ's willing 'death', to show by his example that Man has a free will, is no accident. Rather, this is a deliberate omission, on the part of those in a position to know, to withhold this information from the general public - for obvious reasons. Because, if the conclusion I have come to is correct, it can mean nothing less than an epic revolution in world civilization, perhaps bringing to pass the fulfillment of some or all of Nostradamus' prophecies for the millennium, a major one of which is the imminent demise and dissolution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Finally, it should come as no surprise when I state that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, this time as the Son of man, is indeed at hand.

__________________________

NOTES (Chapter One)

Paul, who was present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, is without a doubt the most intriguing personage in early Christianity. A savage persecutor of early Christians until his 'blinding vision of Christ' on the road to Damascus, after arrival in that city, he appeared to execute a volte-face and immediately began preaching that Jesus was the 'Son of God' and co-equal with God. Lacking any outside confirmation, we only have Paul's word and testimony about his conversion. Did he, in fact, convert, or was this only a ruse in the framework of a larger strategy, the complex nature of which has yet to be elucidated?
In a chapter preceding that on self-discipline, Benedict alludes clearly to its concept (p. 192):

"(The Japanese) constantly give up pleasures which they consider in no way evil. That requires strength of will. But such strength is the most admired virtue in Japan."
In the opening of an address entitled Made in Japan "Whole"-istically at a DEMING Seminar in Newport Beach, California, Dr. Kosaku Yoshida drew an important distinction between Japanese and American culture:

"In fairness, I can see some of the advantage Japanese have over Americans. Most Americans are born with sins; Japanese are born without sins."

An editor's comment to Dr. Yoshida's statement explains: "Some of you know, of course, that he refers to the Christian concept of original sin, which can lead to a black/white, yes/no, right/wrong way of thinking about problems. It can lead to "acceptability" thinking. Japanese are not born with the notion of original sin. If they practice Buddhism they move along a path of continual improvement toward nirvana. This promotes a way of thinking consistent with the "desirability" model."
Actually, to be more precise, not (adult) man, but rather newly born infant is born with a free will. From that time forth, the process of enculturation will determine whether that infant grows up to be a human being believing consciously and unconditionally in free will, or apply the belief selectively to some actions and not to others, or, at the other extreme, simply cling to the belief that all his or her future actions are predetermined.
This 'essence' of Christianity is confirmed, interestingly enough, by the name of the protagonist in The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz (Rose-cross), which is only a clever guise for Christ's Message. The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz was a Rosicrucian allegory which appeared in 1616 and is generally attributed to the German theologian Johann Valentin Andrea who, according to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, was also a grand master of the Prieuré de Sion:

Core cultural value: the (red) Rose (symbol of love)

Modus operandi: the Cross (symbol of exercising free will or will power)

Cultural person: Christian
Paul's stratagem can quickly and easily be seen by reverse substitution (i.e. substituting Christ's name with his Message). Example from Paul's letter to the Philippians 4:13:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

With substitution: "I can do all things through (my) free will, (a belief) which strengtheneth me."
In the latter part of The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Paul's motives and actions are placed under profound, thought-provoking suspicion: "In all the vicissitudes that follow, it must be emphasized that Paul is, in effect, the first 'Christian' heretic, and that his teachings - which become the foundation of later Christianity - are a flagrant deviation from the 'original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership." (p. 266) "The movement entrusted to the 'early Church' and the Qumran community was effectively hijacked and converted into something that could no longer accommodate its progenitors. There emerged a skein of thought, which, heretical at its inception, was to evolve in the course of the next two centuries into an entirely new religion. What had been heresy within the framework of Judaism was now to become the orthodoxy of Christianity." (p. 321)
The fact that Jesus did not have a divine nature is all but explicitly admitted in an extraordinary apostolic letter by Pope John XXIII. From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, p. 161:

"... in June 1960 he (Pope John XXIII) issued a profoundly important apostolic letter. This missive addressed itself specifically to the subject of "the Precious Blood of Jesus." It ascribed a hitherto unprecedented significance to that blood. It emphasized Jesus' suffering as a human being and maintained that the redemption of mankind had been effected by the shedding of his blood (my bold). In the context of Pope John's letter, Jesus' human Passion and the shedding of his blood assume a greater consequence than the Resurrection or even than the mechanics of the Crucifixion.

The implications of this letter are enormous. As one commentator has observed, they alter the whole basis of Christian belief. If man's redemption was achieved by the shedding of Jesus' blood, his death and resurrection become incidental - if not, indeed, superfluous. Jesus need not have died on the cross for the faith to retain its validity."

With regard to the crucifixion and the events leading up to the crucifixion (i.e. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on an ass at Passover time), it is apparent that these events were deliberately and carefully staged that the script(ure) might be fulfilled. As proof of this, we need only look at the Gospel of John. Extracts from his account of the crucifixion scene in Chapter 19:

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. (my bold)

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (my bold)

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost(*).

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (my bold)

And, from Chapter 20, after Jesus had 'arisen' from the tomb:

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (my bold)

Thus, John's statements about fulfilling the scripture confirm the findings of present-day research that it was, in fact, 'planned' that Christ not die on the cross in order to appear later to rise again from the dead.

* This scene, as described in Jesus and The Riddle of The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 115:

"A drink was brought, of "vinegar", wine that had been spoiled. It had been spoiled by poison, as later Christian sources admit. The poison that had been offered earlier was now given to Jesus again, and this time he drank it. It was snake poison, taking a number of hours to act. But its first effect, together with that of the trauma he had suffered, was to render him unconscious. He bowed his head, and because as a sick man he was now defiled, he "gave up the spirit."

Since Jesus appeared to have died, there was no need to break his legs, an action undertaken to hasten the death of those who had been crucified. Instead, a soldier pierced Jesus' side to confirm that he was dead. Once taken down from the cross, Jesus was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb, but then later came or was brought back to consciousness so he did, in fact, 'arise' from the tomb, and thus appeared to have arisen from the dead or been resurrected, when, in fact, he had never really died.

From all the above, including the apostolic letter from Pope John XXIII, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Jesus was only human, not divine, although his Mission and Message were indeed divinely inspired by the Word of God. That is why, as a human being, Jesus had to suffer the extreme humiliation and agony of crucifixion in order to demonstrate by his example that each and every human being has a free will over which no one else can exercise control unless the former so agrees. Further, as explained earlier, the 'resurrection' was necessary in order that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And from the belief in the resurrection logically followed the belief in Jesus' divine nature.

__________________________

<< Return to the index

>> Go to Chapter Two: The Word

EXCERPTS ON THE JAPANESE CULTURE:

A) Excerpt from the International Herald Tribune, 21 September 1988:

Japan Bracing for End Of the Era of Hirohito

"Whatever the cause of Hirohito's worsening condition, most Japanese, from government officials to citizens, had clearly concluded by Tuesday that the tumultuous "Showa," or "bright harmony," era, which was officially named for Hirohito the day he ascended to the Chrysanthemum throne 62 years ago, was drawing to a close."

B) Excerpt from the Financial Times, 9 January 1989, p. 4:

Heisei Era - New name expresses 'spirit of the age'

"THE NEW era of Emperor Akihito of Japan began yesterday under the name "Heisei". The word is formed from two Chinese characters which can mean literally "peace" and "to achieve".

..."Each era is given a name which is intended to express the spirit of the age. Emperor Hirohito's era was called Showa, meaning "Enlightened Peace", although for the first third of his reign there was little evidence of it.
The main criteria for selection of the name were that it be easy to say, read and write, and convey a suitable sentiment."

C) Excerpt from the International Herald Tribune, 24-25 June 1989, front page:

Frustrated and Defeated, a U.S. Businessman Says Farewell to Japan

"TOKYO - It seems, at first, a familiar story. An American businessman comes to Japan with great hopes, works his heart out and, four years later, retreats to New Jersey, a beaten man.
Ryusuke Hasegawa, a naturalized American, was born in Japan 49 years ago, attended college here and didn't leave until he was 24, Japanese master's degree in hand. No one could complain that he didn't know the language or customs.
He returned to Japan, moreover, with a high-tech product to sell, a $12 billion corporation, Allied-Signal Inc., to back him up and a partnership with some blue-chip Japanese companies.
Yet, this month Mr. Hasegawa, like hundreds of less-prepared businessmen before him, will indeed retreat, somewhat bitterly, to New Jersey.
"I thought, 'This is ridiculous. I speak the language, I understand the customs, this isn't going to happen to me,'" Mr. Hasegawa said. "And then things didn't go as I expected."
"The Japanese like harmony (my bold)," he continued. "You say, 'Buy ours, it's cheaper,' and they won't. And you say, 'Why not?' And they say, 'Because we're happy. You're destroying our harmony (my bold). Everything was harmonious (my bold) until you came along.'"

D) Headline from an advertisement by Tokai Bank in the Financial Times, 31 July 1992:

FINANCIAL HARMONY

Financial integration for all your business needs