The Resurrection of Jesus: Allegorical Story or Historical Truth?

[Marco Mara]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

https://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

[Brickjectivity]

From a recent thread titled: The Resurrection of Jesus: Allegorical Story or Historical Truth.

This is what I gather: The physical resurrection is just as real as eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. The two things are equally real. As you approach the altar for eucharist you enter heaven where the eucharist is real. Then you descend back to earth. Its something like that, so allegory and metaphor do not capture the concept. The concept may be is that this world is untrue compared with the heaven. The term 'Reality' is not in Greek Koine, but the concept is. You leave this false reality and go to the real one.

 

[Unguru]

It's an invitation for Christians to resurrect their atheist-political-cult and turn it into a proper religion with spirituality instead of an ideology. They haven't learn't from Jesus yet, as it shows.

 

[Howard Is]

Sunday would
take a super epic event to cause and it did.

As I understand it, that was a strategy to appease the Mithraic citizens of the Roman Empire.

 

[Muffled]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

I believe it is neither allegory not history but is the witness of those who saw the crucifixion and the risen Christ and wrote about it.

 

[Muffled]

According to Pinchas Lapide, in his book 'The Resurrection of Jesus, A Jewish Perspective, the Resurrection was an historical event, 'however much the details of the narrative may be open to objection.' Lapide does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.



The 'confession' of faith, the same crucified Jesus lives, is placed within a narrative in which every 'detail' has a symbolic meaning.



Paul teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but the resurrection of 'persons' not the return of 'fleshly' body which Paul describes as impossible.

I believe that is misleading because the new body will be fleshly, just not the same body that became ash.

 

[Muffled]

NT says that Christ Jesus appeared only to those who were able to see Christ.

I don't believe I have ever read that but certainly the disciples didn't recognize him until he showed the nail prints.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I believe it is neither allegory not history but is the witness of those who saw the crucifixion and the risen Christ and wrote about it.

Eating a fish and showing the nail and spear marks sounds like a resurrection to me

Jesus did call himself 'the resurrection and the life'
he didn't call himself 'the allegory and the life'.

 

[leov]

Eating a fish and showing the nail and spear marks sounds like a resurrection to me

Jesus did call himself 'the resurrection and the life'
he didn't call himself 'the allegory and the life'.

Not Jesus but Christ Jesus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What is interesting is right now I am in the middle of reading a book written out of modern scholarship by John Dominic Crossan, titled 'The Power of Parable, How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus". (Disclaimer: his word "fiction" is what is commonly used in modern scholarship to describe these things, and hence my continued use of it here, as well as elsewhere. It is not used nor intended by them or me to be dismissive of others beliefs).

In his book he details three basic types of parables: Riddle parables (often with deadly consequences). That type of parable is considered as allegories by him; Example parables or moral stories; and Challenge parables or provocations.

The average person today reading Jesus' parables, such as the Good Samaritan read it as an example parable, as an example of what it is to be a good neighbor to a stranger in need. They read it as a moral story. But it is actually far more than that. Jesus' parable were more the 3rd type of parable, challenge parables.

The 2nd part of the book is taking the reader into how the authors of the Gospels took the parables by Jesus, and reinterpret them as different types of parables, creating a fiction about Jesus as parable of their own, such as the sower and the seed, and morphing it into riddle parable or allegory casting Jesus as trying to create incomprehension as the goal, and subsequent condemnation.

So in brief, I would not limit Jesus parables to be allegorical, which they generally were not, even though the different Gospel authors cast them in different ways, such as Mark turning the Sower and the Seed into a riddle parable. Thus they were creating fictions about Jesus in their own parabolic interpretations of Jesus' parables, and of each other's handlings of the parables, changing and adding their own fictions to the other author's interpretations, ending up with Mark's historical fictions about Jesus, Luke's historical fictions, etc. Fascinating stuff.

Yes, they used Jesus' use of parables, to create their own parables about Jesus. Jesus taught them to use parables, which were fictions to teach with, and created their own fictions about him to teach with.

I think the best way to view the Gospels is "according to", and that goes all the way down to an interpretation of Jesus. So you have Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus, and John's Jesus. Or Mark's Parable or Fiction, Matthew's Parable or Fiction, Luke's Fiction, and John's Fiction. (Again, these are scholarship terms for the literary types, they are not polemical statements intended to put down the beliefs of those who read these through the lens of a premodern literalism).

What I was hoping to get at in this talking about the symbolic meaning of the death and resurrection. I don't see that Paul or any of the Gospel writers intended that to be allegorical, or parabolic. Rather, I see it ultimately as metaphorical in nature, talking about something tangible on one level or another symbolically, even if in the author's mind they understood it literally.

Paul being a mystic, which is correct term for him, is clearly telling of an experience of what he understood as the risen Christ. The language used to describe this is intentionally transcendent, as a means to describe the nature of the experience.

That's what metaphors do. They point to something beyond themselves, something tangible and real through symbolisms, like mapping a constellation out of the vast sea of stars in the night sky. That really isn't an allegory.

While you say he views the "Body" of Christ as the church, and he does, I do not believe when he speaks of the risen Christ he intends the church. He is speaking of a mystical experience of some transcended spirit. He uses the term Spirit of Christ to point to this. That's not the church body of believers. Would you agree with this?

Personally, I don't interpret the meaning of the resurrection literally, as in the reanimation of a dead corpse. Did Paul imagine it did? I don't really think so, as there are indications he viewed the resurrection more spiritually, perhaps a more supraphysical, or "spirit body" sense.

As an example we could speak of the language of "The Presence of God". Literally God's Presence is everywhere at all time, but it is spoken of as "here" or "not here" with our personal experience as the point of reference. It's a "truth" from our perceptions, not the "truth" of itself. It is a metaphor for something experienced as real to us. Make sense?

Thank you for you well considered post.

The resurrection narrative is perhaps one of the most powerful and compelling within Christian theology. Its influence on our hearts and minds can not be underestimated. Whether or not the story is literally true there are many spiritual truths that can be discerned for those who take the time to meditate and reflect.

There is value in the reading both the liberal theologicans such as Crossan or the more conservative perspective. Whether or not we agree on all the details is much less important than we are both on our journey centred around Christ and we are able to hear each others learnings.

Allegory for me means a story that has meaning beyond the what is immediately apparent. The resurrection of Christ seems to fit that well.

Sometiimes I wonder what was going on for Paul or the Gospel writers. I'm sure there was the release of potent spiritual forces in the first century Christ walked the earth that can not be accessed as readily as the Apostles.

Words such as allegory, metaphor, symbolic and theological narrative have some overlap. If we can connect with the spirit that transcends the murmur of sounds and syllables, we are half way there.

 

[pearl]

Words such as allegory, metaphor, symbolic and theological narrative have some overlap.

I would add the Christological development within the NT, from Paul's 'born of a woman' to John's 'born from above'.

 

[Windwalker]

Whether or not the story is literally true there are many spiritual truths that can be discerned for those who take the time to meditate and reflect.

I think the most immediate symbolic meaning of the resurrection is that of spiritual rebirth. Death and resurrection is the dying to the old self, the one trapped in the world, and awakening to the Self, the one liberated from suffering. Christianity's symbol of the risen Christ, and Paul's teachings of "Christ in you", captures that hope and power of self-transcendence.

As far as the literal interpretation of these things, inherent in that is this message, even though it may not be recognized consciously as symbolic per se. It nonetheless plants that "seed" into the subconscious mind which is full of symbolisms, archetypal forms which drive the conscious mind.

James Fowler's work on Stages of Faith, analyzes the structures of the various stages, and the key for me in understanding the Mythic-Literal stage, as well as carrying over into Stage 3 the Synthetic Conventional stage, is that the meaning of the symbol and the symbol itself are fused together in their ways of holding them. It's not until Stage 4 faith, Individuative Reflective, that the meaning can be separated out from the symbolic form, and be recognized in other forms as well.

Someone at the previous stages cannot do that, so to them, if you don't have the symbol, you don't have the meaning. The resurrection must be literally true, or the meaning is lost. I find that helpful to recognize that in others, who will often bawk at the suggestion that the same meaning is found in other religions. "You're trying to say that Jesus is just a mere symbol?," demonstrates to me that the nature of symbolism is not yet emerged from the symbol itself in their minds.

The symbol and the meaning are one and the same. And it doesn't matter which religion that is within either. It still follows the same developmental arc because of the how we are constructed as human beings. So that's really what literalism is about. Understanding the symbolic nature of these things is nothing that can be forced to be realized, because the threat of the meaning being lost is too great. To see the same meaning elsewhere, threatens their faith. "They can't both be true!".

Personally, I think where faith develops to the next stages comes about as the meaning is being lost in how they are currently being held. A crisis of faith ensues, and the meaning is, again on a subconscious level, being sought to be found elsewhere. For a time, this can be a lateral move, seeking out other systems to do what their current one was doing, joining another religion and trying out their symbols in hope of finding that truth they once experienced at that level previously.

New Age religion for instance, is a lateral move for many coming out of Christianity, becoming a form of Experimental Christianity, with crystals instead of crosses. But they are still held in the same ways because they are still operating within that particular stage of faith, where the symbol and the meaning are fused. Or atheism too can be the same thing, replacing Science with a capital S as external authority for the meaning lost in belief in the Bible as external authority.

It really isn't not about "what" is being believed in all of the world's religions, but the "how" they are being believed. It's the "style" of what is believed that points to the basic vessel of the developmental stage of faith that holds the belief, no matter what the belief or the meaning is, which includes secular beliefs as well.

There is value in the reading both the liberal theologicans such as Crossan or the more conservative perspective.

There is, but I think they are speaking to different audience's needs. For me, to read a conservative author's explanations of how the Bible is inerrant, will have little meaning to me at this stage I am at. At one point in the past it would have, but not any more. I've already believed that way in the past, but no longer can because that cake for me cannot be unbaked, as it were.

Where the value can and does come in for me is to help grow and more "remember what it was like yourself", view, which helps me to be more compassionate and understanding, as opposed to simply thinking "I'm right and you're wrong". That thinking would be wrong on my part. Each way of thinking is "right" for that particular stage, or mode of perception.

For the conservative reading the liberal, I tend to see that as just simply seeing them as "wrong". That's been my experience, and it fits into what I understand about developmental theories in general, how that a stage one has not yet experiences, simply cannot be seen, or understood in that context. It ends up being seen as simply "wrong". But if you had previously been at that stage yourself, then you can remember that mode of perception, because you have personal experience with it.

Whether or not we agree on all the details is much less important than we are both on our journey centred around Christ and we are able to hear each others learnings.

Yes, and that is the hard part. Each person tends to see that how they currently see things is the "right" way, naturally because it's how we think and believe. The challenge is to be able to see through the others eyes, to put that mode of thinking back on yourself and see as they do. And at the heart of that, is the impulse towards the Divine, at any level, at any stage.

That's a very hard thing for people to recognize because they are looking at the fingers pointing at the moon, the beliefs or ways of talking and thinking about it, rather than looking at fact of pointing itself, and what it is we are all wanting to point to. That to me is the "Spirit's eye view", which is beyond all beliefs.

It is that Peak from which we recognize all paths lead up the mountain, and we can see some at the lower elevations on their climb, and others at higher elevations. Each elevation affords both insights and limitations to views, until at the top it all become clear and we are off the paths and standing together.

Sometiimes I wonder what was going on for Paul or the Gospel writers. I'm sure there was the release of potent spiritual forces in the first century Christ walked the earth that can not be accessed as readily as the Apostles.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe that the Spirit of God, is as much fully accessible today as then, and in all ages. What I could agree with is that they may have been a lot more collective impetus because of having a great one in their midst.

When someone encounters a true spiritual master today, it has that impact on the one who has direct experience with them. I've encountered someone like that myself, and the effect was surprising to me. Something gets "transmitted" by proximity. But that something is available to everyone willing to do the work of allowing it in themselves.

 

[Thief]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

If He failed.....with all that ability He is alleged to have....

we are screwed

on the other hand.....I believe
God is Spirit
the sons of God are spirit

flesh cannot inherit the kingdom

 

[pearl]

James Fowler's work on Stages of Faith

Those involved in religious education are familiar with Fowler.
Faith, according to Fowler, is not something that one does or does not have. It is, rather, a process of becoming. He suggests the concept of "faithing," which indicates the ongoing dynamic of movement and development in a person's faith journey. This process is continually growing through stages that are "hierarchical" (increasingly complex and qualitative), "sequential" (they appear one after the other in the life span), and "invariant" (they follow in the same order for all persons).

 

[Windwalker]

Those involved in religious education are familiar with Fowler.
Faith, according to Fowler, is not something that one does or does not have. It is, rather, a process of becoming. He suggests the concept of "faithing," which indicates the ongoing dynamic of movement and development in a person's faith journey. This process is continually growing through stages that are "hierarchical" (increasingly complex and qualitative), "sequential" (they appear one after the other in the life span), and "invariant" (they follow in the same order for all persons).

Yes, that is a hard thing to discuss when talking about faith. People generally see faith as the same as having particular beliefs, generally about the supernatural. But I see atheism as part of faith development as well, once we understand that is how we evolve a particular "rational" aspect of faith. It is moving into Stage 4 faith, the individuative-reflective, which questions the assumptions of Stage 3 faith. But it is still about relating oneself to Ultimate Reality, as Tillich used the term, and to me that is what "faith" is about. "Who am I in relation to the Absolute?"

This is where magic and mythic symbols come online in the early stages to symbolize archetypically these intuitions of the higher stages. They can only come through in imagery, magic-like, subtle forms conveying higher truth and meanings, to which they either fear and repress, or respond to with faith and move towards opening themselves to them. That participation of the spiritual will, is what leads to that growth.

It's fascinating stuff to look at within the different types of structures or frameworks within the various hierarchical developmental stages, to see the patterns and the commonalities cross-culturally. Each stage builds upon what were the lessons learned in that stage, adding complexity, nuance, subtleties, etc, further and further up that ladder. Nothing is lost, other than the domination of the earlier stages primary structures, such as the magic or mythic structures. The meaning is carried forward, while the system is transcended and negated.

It removes the judgment factor of one stage thinking it's "better" or "smarter" than the previous one. Each stage is necessary. And each individual is at one stage or another, sometimes remaining in one their whole lives. Growth is not inevitable, but when it does occur, it will follow these pattern.

 

[pearl]

I am familiar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development. A stage six at which the moral appeal is made to a higher law of conscience or to a divine law which transcends custom and the laws of society. For Kohlberg the appeal is made to the universal principles of justice, to the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and to the dignity of human beings. To be respected not because he has obeyed the laws of society but because he has followed the inner dictated of his conscience.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think the most immediate symbolic meaning of the resurrection is that of spiritual rebirth. Death and resurrection is the dying to the old self, the one trapped in the world, and awakening to the Self, the one liberated from suffering. Christianity's symbol of the risen Christ, and Paul's teachings of "Christ in you", captures that hope and power of self-transcendence.

As far as the literal interpretation of these things, inherent in that is this message, even though it may not be recognized consciously as symbolic per se. It nonetheless plants that "seed" into the subconscious mind which is full of symbolisms, archetypal forms which drive the conscious mind.

James Fowler's work on Stages of Faith, analyzes the structures of the various stages, and the key for me in understanding the Mythic-Literal stage, as well as carrying over into Stage 3 the Synthetic Conventional stage, is that the meaning of the symbol and the symbol itself are fused together in their ways of holding them. It's not until Stage 4 faith, Individuative Reflective, that the meaning can be separated out from the symbolic form, and be recognized in other forms as well.

Someone at the previous stages cannot do that, so to them, if you don't have the symbol, you don't have the meaning. The resurrection must be literally true, or the meaning is lost. I find that helpful to recognize that in others, who will often bawk at the suggestion that the same meaning is found in other religions. "You're trying to say that Jesus is just a mere symbol?," demonstrates to me that the nature of symbolism is not yet emerged from the symbol itself in their minds.

The symbol and the meaning are one and the same. And it doesn't matter which religion that is within either. It still follows the same developmental arc because of the how we are constructed as human beings. So that's really what literalism is about. Understanding the symbolic nature of these things is nothing that can be forced to be realized, because the threat of the meaning being lost is too great. To see the same meaning elsewhere, threatens their faith. "They can't both be true!".

Personally, I think where faith develops to the next stages comes about as the meaning is being lost in how they are currently being held. A crisis of faith ensues, and the meaning is, again on a subconscious level, being sought to be found elsewhere. For a time, this can be a lateral move, seeking out other systems to do what their current one was doing, joining another religion and trying out their symbols in hope of finding that truth they once experienced at that level previously.

New Age religion for instance, is a lateral move for many coming out of Christianity, becoming a form of Experimental Christianity, with crystals instead of crosses. But they are still held in the same ways because they are still operating within that particular stage of faith, where the symbol and the meaning are fused. Or atheism too can be the same thing, replacing Science with a capital S as external authority for the meaning lost in belief in the Bible as external authority.

It really isn't not about "what" is being believed in all of the world's religions, but the "how" they are being believed. It's the "style" of what is believed that points to the basic vessel of the developmental stage of faith that holds the belief, no matter what the belief or the meaning is, which includes secular beliefs as well.

I agree with much of what you say. As I grow older I tend to think less of myself and more about the needs of others. I’m not that interested in comparing myself to others and how I may be more or less spiritually advanced. If someone wants to consider themselves a more advanced soul than others on account of the truth they possess, it no longer troubles me. Instead I want to consider how we can walk a common path of service to the community.

It doesn’t really matter to me what stage a soul is at so long as we can work together for the betterment of all. Whether someone is conservative or liberal in their theology is much less important than who they become and what they do. If we are able to love and express that love through action (James 2:14-26) then we are on the right road. If our faith transforms and empowers us to be better people then our faith is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). That’s what is means to believe in the resurrection.

There is, but I think they are speaking to different audience's needs. For me, to read a conservative author's explanations of how the Bible is inerrant, will have little meaning to me at this stage I am at. At one point in the past it would have, but not any more. I've already believed that way in the past, but no longer can because that cake for me cannot be unbaked, as it were.

Where the value can and does come in for me is to help grow and more "remember what it was like yourself", view, which helps me to be more compassionate and understanding, as opposed to simply thinking "I'm right and you're wrong". That thinking would be wrong on my part. Each way of thinking is "right" for that particular stage, or mode of perception.

For the conservative reading the liberal, I tend to see that as just simply seeing them as "wrong". That's been my experience, and it fits into what I understand about developmental theories in general, how that a stage one has not yet experiences, simply cannot be seen, or understood in that context. It ends up being seen as simply "wrong". But if you had previously been at that stage yourself, then you can remember that mode of perception, because you have personal experience with it.

I would describe the “I’m right and your wrong” brigade as religious extremists and fanatics. Some conservatives fall into this category but then again so do some liberals. It may not involve violence but it can be enormously dangerous psychologically for anyone who participates.

Yes, and that is the hard part. Each person tends to see that how they currently see things is the "right" way, naturally because it's how we think and believe. The challenge is to be able to see through the others eyes, to put that mode of thinking back on yourself and see as they do. And at the heart of that, is the impulse towards the Divine, at any level, at any stage.

That's a very hard thing for people to recognize because they are looking at the fingers pointing at the moon, the beliefs or ways of talking and thinking about it, rather than looking at fact of pointing itself, and what it is we are all wanting to point to. That to me is the "Spirit's eye view", which is beyond all beliefs.

It is that Peak from which we recognize all paths lead up the mountain, and we can see some at the lower elevations on their climb, and others at higher elevations. Each elevation affords both insights and limitations to views, until at the top it all become clear and we are off the paths and standing together.

This is really crucial to where any faith needs to be. If we are unable to recognise the validity of any path other than our own, what are we about?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe that the Spirit of God, is as much fully accessible today as then, and in all ages. What I could agree with is that they may have been a lot more collective impetus because of having a great one in their midst.

When someone encounters a true spiritual master today, it has that impact on the one who has direct experience with them. I've encountered someone like that myself, and the effect was surprising to me. Something gets "transmitted" by proximity. But that something is available to everyone willing to do the work of allowing it in themselves.

I’m pleased you have found such a spiritual master that facilitates such a connection with the Spirit of God. My understanding is the Reality of Christ excels all other beings except a small handful. I think attaining a station or level of development that Christ attained is beyond most if not practically all of us. The difference between first hand experience with a Manifestation of God and other spiritual teachers is immeasurable IMHO.

 

[Windwalker]

If someone wants to consider themselves a more advanced soul than others on account of the truth they possess, it no longer troubles me.

If someone is considering themselves as more spiritually advanced because of a belief, they are still relying on their egos. The last thing to purged is the sneakiest weed of all, spiritual pride, the ego hiding itself behind spiritual advancement. To be truly spiritually advanced, brings with it a true humility, and the ego is tamed like house-training that family pet which will beg at the table for scraps to eat constantly if left unchecked.

It doesn’t really matter to me what stage a soul is at so long as we can work together for the betterment of all. Whether someone is conservative or liberal in their theology is much less important than who they become and what they do. If we are able to love and express that love through action (James 2:14-26) then we are on the right road. If our faith transforms and empowers us to be better people then our faith is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). That’s what is means to believe in the resurrection.

I agree with this.

I would describe the “I’m right and your wrong” brigade as religious extremists and fanatics. Some conservatives fall into this category but then again so do some liberals. It may not involve violence but it can be enormously dangerous psychologically for anyone who participates.

The "my beliefs are right and your's are wrong", is not a feature of fanatics, but is common to all stages of development up to the Integral, or "Second Tier" thinking, as certain developmentalists have observed and noted. First Tier are all the stages of Spiral Dynamics beginning with Beige, through Red, Amber, Orange, and Green. Beginning at Yellow, or Tiel, depending on the model is Second Tier where there is a "momentous leap" in value structures and motivations, as noted by Maslow and Graves, as well as others.

Each of those colors correspond to different stages we go through in our development. What is common is for each stage to see itself and its values and beliefs as correct, and the other stages as lacking or incomplete or wrong by comparison. Even Green, the Postmodernist stage, while recognizing the other stages as having truths, sees those other value structures as wrong. Green hates Orange, for instance. That's the end of Tier one thinking.

Where you may make note of the "fanatics", I think that is more the ways in which they handle, or rather don't handle diversity of thought. They can be more violent about those differences than others, but the non-fanatics are still nonetheless embedded in their beliefs as being correct, and subsequently others as wrong by default. It's not yet a holistic perspective, but a "mono-perspectival" view.

There are some deeper discussions about this to be explored, but here are a couple links and a short audio recording going into this a little more deeply.

Ken Wilber about 1st and 2nd Tier - Spiral Dynamics Integral

1st vs 2nd Tier ⋅ Spiral Dynamics Integral

This is really crucial to where any faith needs to be. If we are unable to recognise the validity of any path other than our own, what are we about?

This is an extremely hard place for most to come to. It requires being able to look at our own views as "relative", and not absolute. It has to take a position that recognizes that one's own beliefs are functionally doing the same for themselves, as those other beliefs the other has that we don't agree with is for them. That is a huge leap of maturity, and few get there.

The reasons behind that are interesting to consider, but I'd say it probably comes down to one's ego needs being fulfilled, or rather move beyond. Following Maslow's "Deficiency Needs", vs. "Being Needs", when we are no longer operating within the deficiency paradigm, the natural defenses surrounding those structural supports for the ego's needs, such as belief systems, having the right teacher, the correct prophet, the true scriptures, etc, begin to drop away and the structure is seen as a structure now, rather than "the truth", because our needs are beyond lacking and adding to and building up support for the ego structure.

I’m pleased you have found such a spiritual master that facilitates such a connection with the Spirit of God.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I have not found a "Spiritual Master" for myself. Not at all. I met and had the pleasure of spending some time with a very advanced teacher within Tibetan Buddhism, and I was simply noting that there is some "transmission" just from the presence of such spiritually advanced souls. It was to say I can see how the early disciples may be have motivated in the early formations of their movements, having the impetus of having being around a Jesus person due to that.

For myself, I experience that same "transmission" from Life itself. It's fully available at all times to everyone. It's really a matter of stopping to try to fill our cup, and realizing we are full already. Easier said than done, but easy nonetheless, like opening a window that was never there.

My understanding is the Reality of Christ excels all other beings except a small handful.

And this is where I find that belief structure to create a barrier to someone's own spiritual Awakening. To say it is limited to some predefined, select individuals is not born out by the facts nor experience. It tells us, "We can't". That is practically untrue. Everyone can, because we all are from the same Divine Source. We all already have that Gift. Most don't realize it however, and saying "I can't," or "Not for me", is creating that window that isn't there, and frustruction of how to open it.

To quote from the Apostle Paul, "Christ in you". "We are being transformed from glory to glory", etc. This is not mere theory, but realized experiences of many, not just two or three or a half dozen only. But it is still "few" compared to the masses.

I think attaining a station or level of development that Christ attained is beyond most if not practically all of us. The difference between first hand experience with a Manifestation of God and other spiritual teachers is immeasurable IMHO.

To realize that in yourself, is to realize the truth of it in everyone, even if they themselves are walking in the darkness of their own minds, as we all do living in the ego, living in that "First Tier" world.