The dechristianized (much truncated) tantric Yeshua

[Marcion]

As an admirer of pure Tantra I have made efforts to peel away the Christian syncretic editing that happened during the creation of the New Testament and have ignored the artificial associations of Jesus to the Jewish scriptures and the Hellenistic and other types of later projections on His more original tantric personality.

This has left me with a much truncated Jesus who has returned within His solid tantric boundaries inside the concise texts of Q-lite and the more original first half of the gospel of Mark.

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

The more original part of Mark

This seems to me like a much more universal Jesus who is acceptible to any more tantric type of philosophy/ideology and is probably much closer to what the historical Jesus may have been like. Although admittedly we have no way of knowing if all (if any) of the miracles Jesus is said to have performed are truthfully described in the first half of the gospel of Mark or indeed if all of His reconstructed teachings in Q-lite are entirely authentic.

This does however also make me somewhat feel like a crude Protestant who smashes beautiful objects of religious art in a Roman Catholic church building in their striving to recreate an imaginary past that may have been yet somewhat different after all. But it is the only Jesus that is acceptable to me and makes me admire Him in his more simplified but bold and intriguing tantric glory.

Have I gone too far in truncating the Jesus of the New Testament?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Have I gone too far in truncating the Jesus of the New Testament?

I am not sure what you are trying to do. Are you trying to show parallels with tantric teaching or to say that Christianity comes from tantric influence rather than Jewish influence? Taking a look at the article you link to I see the following:

Commentary: Mystic teaching (gnosis) has always been more or less secret, only for the initiated (by the Master), for the so-called ‘talmidim’. In order to safeguard such teachings from those who are not yet ready for them and from those who have no connection to the Master, they are written down in such a way that the persons who read or hear them will need clarifications before they can understand their real, deeper meaning.

which then makes the mistake of interpreting Jesus saying "Love your enemies" as a wholesale tantric teaching. Its plainly Jewish, but the article claims it is about taking "...the ego out of the way you treat and regard people and to remain neutral just like God..." I can see parallels to removing the ego and denying one's self; but this is not merely chopping away from but adding to. Perhaps there is a parallel to loving one's enemies and being neutral, but the teaching to forgive enemies is drawn from Jewish sources. For example in the story of Jonah, a prophet who hates the city of Ninevah is required to forgive that city and to save it from destruction. That is a distinctly Jewish story. Perhaps what's happening is that the article presumes also that Judaism is tantric in its origin? Some people do assume that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As an admirer of pure Tantra I have made efforts to peel away the Christian syncretic editing that happened during the creation of the New Testament and have ignored the artificial associations of Jesus to the Jewish scriptures and the Hellenistic and other types of later projections on His more original tantric personality.

This has left me with a much truncated Jesus who has returned within His solid tantric boundaries inside the concise texts of Q-lite and the more original first half of the gospel of Mark.

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

The more original part of Mark

This seems to me like a much more universal Jesus who is acceptible to any more tantric type of philosophy/ideology and is probably much closer to what the historical Jesus may have been like. Although admittedly we have no way of knowing if all (if any) of the miracles Jesus is said to have performed are truthfully described in the first half of the gospel of Mark or indeed if all of His reconstructed teachings in Q-lite are entirely authentic.

This does however also make me somewhat feel like a crude Protestant who smashes beautiful objects of religious art in a Roman Catholic church building in their striving to recreate an imaginary past that may have been yet somewhat different after all. But it is the only Jesus that is acceptable to me and makes me admire Him in his more simplified but bold and intriguing tantric glory.

Have I gone too far in truncating the Jesus of the New Testament?

You are free to take what you want from the Gospels, or any scripture at all, and ignore that which doesn't suit you or speak to you. Some religious people may try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you have to read all of Shakespeare to enjoy or understand The Tempest. So why should the New Testament be any different?

I'll have a more considered read of your article later; the intent and stated purpose does intrigue me. Last summer I read John's Gospel and The Baghavad Gita in tandem, and noted several verses from the one that, to my ear, was echoed in the other.

I get the point about about the stained glass windows. I've been reading a lot about the build up to the English Civil War recently, and while my intellectual sympathies lie with the puritan radicals who tried to purge both Church and State of the flummery and trappings of feudal hierarchy, I have to say I am easily seduced by a bit of Papist idolatry. The Roman Catholic Church is full of pagan iconography, and all the better for it imo, aesthetically if not doctrinally (I don't have much time for doctrine or dogma anyway).

I love John's Gospel for it's references to Genesis and the Psalms, and the way it was written in conversation with the Hebrew scriptures.
Then take Pilate's response when Caiphas asks him to destroy the scroll proclaiming 'Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews';
"What I have written, I have written." What a line that is.

 

[Marcion]

I am not sure what you are trying to do. Are you trying to show parallels with tantric teaching or to say that Christianity comes from tantric influence rather than Jewish influence? Taking a look at the article you link to I see the following:


which then makes the mistake of interpreting Jesus saying "Love your enemies" as a wholesale tantric teaching. Its plainly Jewish, but the article claims it is about taking "...the ego out of the way you treat and regard people and to remain neutral just like God..." I can see parallels to removing the ego and denying one's self; but this is not merely chopping away from but adding to. Perhaps there is a parallel to loving one's enemies and being neutral, but the teaching to forgive enemies is drawn from Jewish sources. For example in the story of Jonah, a prophet who hates the city of Ninevah is required to forgive that city and to save it from destruction. That is a distinctly Jewish story. Perhaps what's happening is that the article presumes also that Judaism is tantric in its origin? Some people do assume that.

When explaining a text, in this case Q-lite, you don't only look at each single saying seperately, but you interpret the whole set of teachings while explaining each saying.
So you can never escape from mentioning much more than the actual text of the single saying is putting into words.
You can see it as though the single sayings are dancing around a certain (tantric or mystic) spiritual philosophy. The philosophy is not explained in full detail, but you can see it behind the sayings as their connecting ideology.

In fact, this is also what the Christian interpreters were trying to do, except that they both are doing this rather differently from each other and using Christian ideas that were nor originally part of the text. This blurs or twists the original meaning of the sayings and detaches them from the original ideology that Jesus was teaching.

Of course Jesus was teaching in a Jewish context, but I would argue that this Jesus was doing so in a tantric or mystic way, the Jewish religion is itself not free of tantra or mysticism. So you will be able to find similar ideas to those in the sayings in older Jewish texts, but finding such texts is not necessary in order to understand the underlying ideology.

'Love your enemies', is just one example of not making distinctions in your universal love for how you approach God's many creations, just like God makes no distiction in His love for all of His children. In mysticism only the love for the Holy Spirit (God) or the Rule of God is to be taken as the centre or goal in life and making distinctions as to which you like of dislike of love or hate will distract you from that goal.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When explaining a text, in this case Q-lite, you don't only look at each single saying seperately, but you interpret the whole set of teachings while explaining each saying.
So you can never escape from mentioning much more than the actual text of the single saying is putting into words.
You can see it as though the single sayings are dancing around a certain (tantric or mystic) spiritual philosophy. The philosophy is not explained in full detail, but you can see it behind the sayings as their connecting ideology.

In fact, this is also what the Christian interpreters were trying to do, except that they both are doing this rather differently from each other and using Christian ideas that were nor originally part of the text. This blurs or twists the original meaning of the sayings and detaches them from the original ideology that Jesus was teaching.

Of course Jesus was teaching in a Jewish context, but I would argue that this Jesus was doing so in a tantric or mystic way, the Jewish religion is itself not free of tantra or mysticism. So you will be able to find similar ideas to those in the sayings in older Jewish texts, but finding such texts is not necessary in order to understand the underlying ideology.

'Love your enemies', is just one example of not making distinctions in your universal love for how you approach God's many creations, just like God makes no distiction in His love for all of His children. In mysticism only the love for the Holy Spirit (God) or the Rule of God is to be taken as the centre or goal in life and making distinctions as to which you like of dislike of love or hate will distract you from that goal.

I think I understand you better now, thanks.

You are importing the term tantric, not suggesting that ideas in gospels are being imported from vedic philosophy. Some people do suggest it, and there are groups that argue that Abraham is Brahman and others that Jesus went on a pilgrimage in India. That's why the term tantric confuses me when you're talking about a more universal Jesus.

 

[Marcion]

I think I understand you better now, thanks.

You are importing the term tantric, not suggesting that ideas in gospels are being imported from vedic philosophy. Some people do suggest it, and there are groups that argue that Abraham is Brahman and others that Jesus went on a pilgrimage in India. That's why the term tantric confuses me when you're talking about a more universal Jesus.

The terms vedic and tantric can be confusing.
The original vedic religion started outside of India and was more like the original religions of the Europeans. It was rather ritualistic and sacrificial in nature and polytheistic.
In India it was much influenced by the indigenous Tantra (much more introspective than original Vedism) and so the later Veda's are more tantric than vedic (in its original sense).

I do believe that tantric practices also spread around the world but how this may have reached Jesus is not clear. Perhaps Tantra also influenced the origins of the Jewish religion and the name Abraham is linguistically related to the word Brahma.
The idea of God (Brahma) as a singular cause behind the universe (Brahmavada) seems to have originated in Iran and picked up by the migrating Aryans, so perhaps this is also where the Jewish tribes picked up monotheism.

I use the term Tantra as a general term for any type of introspective practice or cult. In that sense it is almost synonymous with Mysticism. They are universal and not bound by any religion or other groupism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Perhaps you are right and Tantra also influenced the origins of the Jewish religion and the name Abraham is linguistically related to the word Brahma.

I did not suggest that.