Why Jesus Was Not the Messiah

Ackroyd, Peter R. "Zerubbabel." Dictionary of the Bible. Revised edition. New York: Scribner's, 1963.

------. "Persia." Harper's Bible Dictionary. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.

Bamberger, Bernard J. The Story of Judaism. 3rd printing. New York: American Book-Stratford Press, 1962.

Collins, John J. "Daniel, the Book of." Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1985 ed.

Cook, Stanley A. "The Inauguration of Judaism." The Cambridge Ancient History. London: Cambridge UP, 1964. Vol. VI: Macedon 401-301 BC, 167-199.

Friedman, Theodore, Harold Louis Ginsberg, and Isaac Arishur. "Isaiah." Encyclopedia Judaica2nd ed. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1973.

Ginsberg, Harold Louis. "Daniel, Book of." Encyclopedia Judaica. 1973 ed.

Gitay, Yehoshua. "Isaiah, the Book of." Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1985 ed.

Grintz, Yehoshua M. "Zechariah." Encyclopedia Judaica. 1973 ed.

Habicht, C. "The Seleucids and Their Rivals." The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VIII: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 BC, 324-387.

Hanson, Paul D. "Zechariah, the Book of." Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1985 ed.

Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishna. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. New York: Abington Press, 1956.

Ringgren, Helmer. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1956.

------. "Messianism: An Overview." The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1987.

Scholem, Gershom. The Messianic Idea in Judaism, And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. 4th printing. New York: Schocken Books, 1978.

Silver, Abba Hillel. A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel: From the First through the Seventh Centuries. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959.

Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude. Judaism and Christianity: The Differences. 5th printing. New York: Jonathan David Publishers, 1965.

Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi. "Messianism: Jewish Messianism." The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York: Macmillan, 1987.

IF there was a historical Jesus, he was likely aspiring to become the messiah in this world.  That is the only option that would explain his execution by the Romans and many statements attributed to him in the gospels.  

• Mark 14.61-62: “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’   ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ ”

  • • This scene is most likely a fabrication by the author of Mark. However, it does reveal what the author and/or his Christian community claimed about Jesus. This is a Jesus who does claim to be the messiah, and he claims that his audience, the people of his own generation, will live to see "the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

    • The "Son of Man ... coming on the clouds of heaven" reference was an allusion to the book of Daniel, where it symbolized the hope for the political restoration of an independent kingdom of Israel. The writer of Daniel was hoping and intending that such a revolution would happen in his own day, freeing Israel from Greek rule. When Israel was eventually dominated by the Romans, some Jews continued to find inspiration for messianic hopes in the book of Daniel.

    • So IF a historical Jesus really did make such claims, then they certainly did have political implications, and he was expecting the whole set of apocalyptic events to happen in his own generation.

• Mark 13.30: “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. ...  I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

• Mark 9.1: “And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.’”

• Matthew 24.30-34:  30. "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the tribes of the land will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.  31. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.  ...  34. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." 

• Matthew 16.27-28: “For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.”  Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

• Matthew 10.23:  "Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

When the messianic hopes of such a historical Jesus failed and he was executed by the Romans, some followers were apparently devoted enough to his messianic vision to reinterpret everything, refusing to give up completely.  

• "Messianic hope still lives, but it's a spiritual hope."  ... 

• "But our teacher, our master, DID become ruler. He rose up into heaven after he died (like Julius Caesar and Augustus), and Yahweh made him messiah-king-Christ in the heavenly, spiritual realm, where he still lives. And one day soon he will return in power to fulfill prophecy and realize his and our political destiny as well."  ... Or, ...

• "The Romans crucified the Messiah. But Yahweh accepted him as a sacrificial offering, and raised him to heaven (echoing and rivaling Roman claims of the ascensions/ apotheioses of Julius and Augustus Caesar). And the messiah will return with vengeance to rule and judge the nations and reward all who follow him and do not give up hope!" 

Such a reinterpretation, such a symbolic "spiritualization" of the story, using concepts similar to Roman imperial propaganda (the ascension of the ruler to heaven after death), made it possible to continue revolutionary hopes, and an alternate ending remained possible.  Apparently the idea became rather popular, successful enough to amass a following, even though it also created rifts within Judaism, since not all Jews approved of such claims, whether they were being used cleverly as inspirational messianic propaganda, or whether people actually believed those claims literally.  

And even Christianity, as it spread, developed its own rifts.  Some Jewish Christians wanted to grow the movement and build an empire-wide network by appealing to and recruiting Gentiles. Some wanted to make it easy for the Gentiles to join by relaxing expectations regarding the Mosaic law (Pauline Christianity).  Others wanted to remain faithful to the words of the "prophets" and have Gentiles keep the law of Moses too (see the "circumcision" group in Galatians 2.11-12).  The Pauline approach proved popular and successful.  

Messianic Jews were able to build a support network throughout the Roman Empire.  They even routinely raised funds to send back to Jerusalem, as evidenced by the Pauline epistles (1 Corinthians 16.1-4; 2 Corinthians 8.1-9.15).  Those funds for "the poor" in Jerusalem might actually have supported revolutionary causes. At minimum they supported people looking forward to Yahweh's imminent intervention in history to defeat all enemies of Israel and establish his kingdom through his messiah, the "Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven."  Early Christianity was heavily apocalyptic, believing Yahweh's renewed kingdom and triumphant messiah/Christ would be established soon (see my essay on Imminent Eschatology in the New Testament).

The first Christians killed by the Romans, as mentioned in Roman literature, were apparently messianic Jews. It is likely that their minds were full of all kinds of anti-Roman sentiment, religious zealotry, revolutionary hopes, and the kinds of apocalyptic superstitions that expected "the son of man coming in the clouds" (i.e. Yahweh would reestablish an independent kingdom of Israel through his messiah. 

• 41-54 CE:  According to the Roman historian Suetonius’ biography of Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE), “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome” (Life of Claudius 25.4).

  • • In other words, the early Christians were seen as Jews, and they were TROUBLEMAKERS, constantly instigating disturbances at Rome, to the extent that the Emperor Claudius kicked them out of the city to maintain peace.  

    • “Chrestus”/Christus is the Roman version of Greek Christos, a translation for the Hebrew word “messiah,” which literally meant “anointed one,” and was used to signify an anointed king.  A group worshiping a "Christ," a Jewish king, would clearly have been seen as subversive, because it would indeed have been subversive to Roman interests. But the fact that they were creating disturbances gives extra weight to the political nature of their intent.

• 64 CE:  In his biography of the Emperor Nero, Suetonius wrote about various abuses that the Emperor Nero punished and put down. According to Suetonius, as part of his crack down on various abuses, “Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous superstition” (Life of Nero 16.2).  Once again we see Christians associated with undesirable superstitious beliefs and abuse.

• The Roman senator and historian Tacitus (56-120 CE) mentions Christians and “Christus” in his Annals, a work of history written during the years around 109-118 CE, covering the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius (r. 14-37 CE), Claudius (41-54 CE), and Nero (54-68 CE).  Tacitus' account corroborates that of Suetonius, giving extra information. Tacitus writes about how the Emperor Nero blamed a hated group of people called Christians for the great fire in Rome in 64 CE:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (Tacitus, Annals 15.44.1)

What did this well-educated Roman senator have to say about the group of people known as the Christians?  He said they were:  

• hated as a group for their abominations; 

• considered themselves followers of Christus, who was executed during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius under the direction of a procurator named Pontius Pilatus; 

• a mischievous superstition; 

• evil; 

• hideous and shameful.  

That's quite a strong disapproval.  Did Tacitus have anything good to say about Christus or Christians?  No.  And he was certainly not biased toward Nero or trying to make Nero look good. He did not even like Nero.  While he did not necessarily believe the Christians started the fire, he seemed to think it made sense to punish them anyway, given how troublesome, hated, and superstitious they were.

Why would he say Christians were hated, shameful, full of superstitions?  Well, even if we look at the New Testament, we see that Christians were running around telling people that only followers of the Jewish god Yahweh and his only son Jesus the messiah-king of Israel could be saved from the coming wrath of Yahweh on the world. Anyone not believing in the messiah-king-christ would be condemned by the Jewish god Yahweh at a great judgement that was about to happen. Believers in the messiah-christ were “children of light.” Non-believers were “blinded by demons.”  All non-believers and idolatrous Romans who did not convert, repent, and worship Yahweh and his coming messiah king would be punished by the Jewish god.  And remember that these groups of Christians, messianic Jews, were all sending money regularly back to Jerusalem.  If you had been a Roman emperor or an average Roman citizen, you would have seen this as very seditious.

Whether groups funded by the empire-wide Jewish-Christian/messianic network were heavily influential in the Jewish War effort 66-70 and beyond may remain a mystery.  But an attempt to bring about the messianic age was certainly underway.  When the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE put an end to many revolutionary hopes and destroyed the center of Jewish Christianity, the new Christian sect would move even further from its original founder's or founding group's actual messianic hopes. Christianity would become "spiritualized" even further, as the original Jewishness of the new religion and any further Jewish influence faded, and Christianity became Gentile dominated, then exclusively Gentile.  After 70 CE, amid continuous Jewish failures to mount a successful revolt, the message could be edited to have the Jesus character claim, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). When believers continued to die after so many decades,  expectations of the messiah's imminent return and triumph over Rome, ideas that left a mark on the earlier layers of New Testament literature, had to be reinterpreted and delayed indefinitely, in order to cover over the great embarrassment that they had all, even their alleged founder, been wrong about the apocalypse. The return of the messiah/Christ became an unknowable event that could happen at any time. Statements were added to the scriptures to ensure reinterpretation. And the rest is history.

IF there was not really a historical Jesus behind Christianity and its literature, how would the story of a dying and rising messiah come about?

This is admittedly speculation, and it will have to be an incomplete work in progress.  With the most important actors and evidence lost, and the remaining evidence corrupted, a thorough and provable explanation for why people might have invented and over time augmented and embellished the Jesus stories to such a grand degree may be beyond our firm grasp. 

I do readily admit that IF Jesus had been anything like the character portrayed in the gospels, we should expect to see lots of contemporary evidence.  Strangely, it is not there. He is not mentioned by contemporary authors and thinkers at all. Zero. Roman mention of Chrestus/Christis come late, well after his alleged death, and they seem to be aware only of the main superstitious claims being made about his death and resurrection.  We would expect the Jewish historian Josephus to mention him, but instead we get a very bad later Christian interpolation into Josephus, in an attempt to fabricate positive evidence for their savior in a historical work.  These are very odd circumstances indeed.

What is clear is that the theme of death, 3 days of darkness, resurrection, and ascension follow a very well known pattern in ancient myths, religions, and mystery cults.  As to why people would make such a story, I suppose one could ask the same question of those who invented or embellished the myths behind Osiris, Inanna, Herakles, Asclepius, Mithras, Orphism, Zalmoxis, the Isis cult, other ancient mystery religions, Zoroastrianism, or any religion with a mythical sset of stories as its centerpiece.  But the fact that the central story of Christianity so closely parallels these other myths certainly gives the appearance that it is also a myth, at least in the mind of one unbiased and well-versed in the literature of the ancient world.  Some of the central figures of these other myths may also have started off as real people, whose stories were subsequently mythologized. The ancients believed Osiris, Herakles, Asclepius, Orpheus, Zalmoxis, and others were real flesh-and-blood men. Yet clearly, if they were real to begin with, their stories became mythologized in a way that clearly -- to us -- stretches beyond the real world.  Such could be the case with the Jesus story too.

But IF it was not the case, are there other plausible explanations?    

Mere speculation:  

The core myth of crucifixion and resurrection may perhaps have originally been symbolic of the hoped-for resurrection of Israel's political aspirations. That is, after all, what the "Son of Man" title originally referred to.  In Daniel, it was a dream.  But that dream symbolized a real hope for a future independent Israel. One could speculate that the Jesus character, whose very name meant "Yahweh will deliver," might have been a symbolic embodiment of the "Son of Man" dream, Jewish messianic hopes for political independence and power. Those messianic hopes were crushed by Rome. Messianic hopes seemed dead and buried.  Paul's "Christ crucified" was the messiah crucified, the death of Israel's hopes.  But some people wanted to believe or claim that their god Yahweh looked down and accepted that death as a sin offering, and Yahweh would then forgive the Jewish people and anyone with faith in the sacrifice and in the resurrection of messianic hope.  All who believed would be granted eternal life and a place in the coming kingdom.  The messianic hope was alive, reborn, and has risen to heaven, awaiting the time of its return and success, when it will establish a kingdom of Yahweh on earth, ruled by his messiah, his son, the king of Israel, and all the faithful would be rewarded.  To join this group of hopefuls, to be initiated into the cult, meant death to self and a new life as part of messiah. "I have been crucified with the messiah, and I no longer live, but the messiah lives in me" (Galatians 2.20).  Death to self meant rebirth/ resurrection as messiah.  All Jews and even Gentiles ready to join this group must put to death their selfish desires, their former lives, and let messiah live in them. This was the way. This was how Yahweh would restore Israel.

In later elaborations of the myth, the resurrected Jesus ["Yahweh is deliverance"] would be portrayed as unrecognizable, or looking different from before, or being doubted by even his students, unless the perceivers had their eyes opened by Yahweh.  Even some faithful disciples would fail to recognize it was him, until suddenly their eyes were opened.  Why were the stories written that way?  Because some began to recognize that as long as believers in messiah were still alive, the messiah was reborn, not dead. They came to think that the resurrected messiah, the dream of the "Son of Man," was itself composed of all faithful people who believed in the resurrection and the imminent return of the "Son of Man."  And until one recognizes that one's brothers and sisters and fellows ARE the messiah, one cannot see that the messiah has risen from the dead. 

• John 20.13-15: Mary was morning the death of Jesus [Yeshua = "Yahweh is deliverance"], her messianic hopes. When the resurrected messiah first spoke to Mary, right there at the tomb, "she turned around and saw Jesus [Yahweh's deliverance] standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus [Yahweh's deliverance]" (20.13).  She thought it was just the gardener (20.15).  What was that gardener doing? Planting seeds. Let him who has eyes, see ... 

• Luke 24.13-35:  "13. Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles a from Jerusalem. 14. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16. but they were kept from recognizing him."  ...  "30. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight."  ...  "33. They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34. and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35. Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread."

• John 21.4: "Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus."

• Mark 16.12: "Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country."

Look again at Luke 24.13-35.  Why is the messiah not recognizable at first?  Because it's an idea, a "spiritual" notion, and one cannot see it with normal eyes.  

For the same reason, the gospel writers were clever enough to portray the disciples as doubting that the resurrected messiah was really the messiah.

• Matthew 28.16-27: "16. Meanwhile, the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted."

Why?!  How could they doubt if a resurrected man was standing right there in front of them in flesh and blood?  Because this is a parable, not a story to be taken literally. It is making fun of people who know others who still maintain messianic hope, yet have failed to recognize that as long as the hope lives, the messiah lives in the people, "spiritually."

For the same reason, another parable states that whatever believers do for the least in the community, the poor, the children, they are doing for the messiah.  Why is helping a fellow actually helping the messiah?  How can that be? Because the messiah IS the people.

• Matthew 25.37-40: "37. Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38. When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39. When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’   40. “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

• Matthew 18.5: "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me." 

Why is welcoming a child the same as welcoming the messiah?  Because children are the messiah.  Because all who believe, who maintain hope, are members of one body of believers, and that one body IS the messiah.

• John 17.20-23: "20. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23. I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Even the prayer is a parable.  It is not the prayer of a real, historical Jesus.  It is the composition of a believer wanting to create a story that inspires and teaches a coded message.  Yahweh is in the Messiah, the Messiah is in the people, and all are one.

If you were to begin to look, you could see an abundance of teachings that initiates, believers themselves, ARE the body of the messiah. That is how the messiah is reborn, resurrected, not dead, but alive "in the heavenly realm." 

Teachings that Believers in the Messiah ARE the Body of Christ, the Body of the Messiah:

• 1 Corinthians 12.12: "Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ [messiah]." ...  "27. Now you are the body of Christ [messiah], and each one of you is a part of it."

• 1 Corinthians 6:15: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ [messiah]?"

• 1 Corinthians 10.16-17: "16. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ [messiah]? 17. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

• Romans 12.5: "... so in Christ [messiah] we who are many are one body, and each member belongs to one another."

• Colossians 3.15: "Let the peace of Christ [messiah] rule in your hearts, for to this you were called as members of one body. And be thankful."

• Ephesians 3.6: "6. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus."

• Ephesians 4.3-16: "3. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6. one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. ...  12. ... so that the body of Christ may be built up 13. until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ [messiah]. 16. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

• Galatians 4.19: "My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, ..."

• Ephesians 1.18-23: " 18. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19. and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20. he exerted when he raised Christ [messiah] from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21. far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

• Galatians 2.20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ [messiah] lives in me." 

The messiah is an IDEA, a "spiritual" man. So the body of the messiah can take on other forms.  Note especially the symbol of bread. 

The Messiah is the Bread of Life, and All Who Eat the Bread Become the Body of the Messiah:

• 1 Corinthians 10.16-17: "16. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ [messiah]? 17. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

• Mark 14.22-25: "22. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24. “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

• Matthew 26.26-29: "26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”  27. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

• Luke 22.17-20: "17. After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”  19. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”  20. In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

• Luke 24.13-35:  [Set after the resurrection.] "13. Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles a from Jerusalem. 14. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16. but they were kept from recognizing him."  ...  "30. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight."  ...  "33. They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34. and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35. Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread."

• John 6.47-64: "47. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48. I am the bread of life. 49. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”  52. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  53. Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.   60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”  61. Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62. Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are spirit and life. 64. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Read again the passage from Luke 24. Why is the risen / resurrected messiah not seen at first, but then recognized when breaking bread?  Because the messianic cult was much like an ancient mystery cult. They would gather together and break bread in a symbolic manner, saying, "This is the body of the messiah. Take it and eat."  And all who partook, all who had faith, became part of the body of the messiah (1 Corinthians 10.16-17).  What was the true body of the messiah, the resurrected body, the "Son of Man" than would come from heaven to earth?  The people, the believers, the faithful, those who died to selfish lives and chose to live for the messiah instead were the body of messiah.  The story is not honestly sensible if taken literally, at face value.  It only really makes sense if it is symbolic, if a person reads it not with normal eyes, but "spiritual"/ metaphorical eyes, eyes that see and understand the language of symbol.

Why does the writer of the gospel attributed to John say that the messiah is living bread that comes down from heaven?  Because heaven represents the "spirit" realm, the realm of ideas, dreams, hopes. That's why the "Son of Man" is said to "come in the clouds of heaven."  How can a person "not die" but "live forever" by eating this kind of bread?  Because those who take in this bread, this idea, become the idea, become the embodiment of the idea, and the idea can live on perpetually, as long as there are faithful believers willing to die to self and become alive in the messianic hope.

Christianity is itself a big Parable, not originally to be taken literally. Words were to be interpreted "spiritually," not according to "the flesh":

• Matthew 13.10 ff.: "10. The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”  11. He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13. This is why I speak to them in parables:  “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

• Matthew 10.34: "34. Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable."

• Matthew 7.6: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Why is the message in parables?  To hide it from ordinary people not part of the in-group, people not worthy.  Some believers came to think of the use of inspirational parables and symbols as a kind of "spiritual" language. 

• John 6.47-64: "47. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48. I am the bread of life. 49. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”  52. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  53. Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.   60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”  61. Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62. Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are spirit and life. 64. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

• John 3.3-6: "3. Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”  4.  Nicodemus asked, “How can someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”  5. Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

• 2 Corinthians 3.6: "And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

• Galatians 5.22-25: "22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23. gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25. ... we live by the Spirit."

To interpret the stories at face value, to believe in eating human flesh and drinking human blood, is absurd. To believe in being born a second time literally is absurd. This is not intended to be literal language.  Plenty of people are capable of grasping this to some degree, but then they start missing the subtler realization that the entire setup is a parable.  Not only does the main character speak in parables, but the main character IS a parable.  "Let the one who has eyes see. Let the one who has ears hear."  Why is Jesus portrayed as saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and in his joy he went and sold all he had and bought that field" (Matthew 13.44)?  It is a kingdom of heaven, a kingdom in the realm of ideas, "spirit."  It is "hidden" because one cannot see it if looking with normal eyes. One must dig a bit.  And when one finds it, one should hide it again and devote everything to the kingdom.  Why devote everything? Because these ideas were started by hyper-religious nationalists, zealots who believed they could never realize the dream of an independent Israel without ultimate sacrifice. That's why they had to "crucify the flesh, and live in the spirit."

These messianic believers wanted to teach a new language, a language of code, "spirit," metaphor, parable.  Why?  They were forced into it by failure to achieve the vision in the real world.  But if they could keep the vision alive in metaphor, in parable, in the "spirit" realm of ideas, and if they could keep the faith/belief/trust/loyalty, and not give up hope, then the "Son of Man" was not dead, but alive "in the spirit," and in the bodies of all who believed.  If one could see with eyes of "spirit" rather than mere fleshly, "literal-minded" eyes, then one could see that the "Son of Man," the messiah, is the bread of life, the bread that sustains believers. Normal bread only feeds the body, and you'll still die eating only that bread.  But with this kind of bread, faith, eternal life is possible in the "spirit" realm.  Why?  Because it is an IDEA. And if one kills a body of a believer in messiah, but the IDEA, the faith, remains in the hearts and minds of other believers in messiah, then messiah still lives!  Forever!  Messiah cannot be killed. This was the shift in thinking that made Christianity possible.  Ironically, most people simply reverted to literal-minded thinking over time.

What is the messiah?  Who is the resurrected messiah?  The resurrected messiah, the "son of man coming in the clouds," IS the body of loyal initiates into the mystery, believers who maintain the messianic dream and keep the faith.  So by building a body of believers in messiah throughout the Roman empire, Paul and those like him believed they were fulfilling Yahweh's plan for the resurrection and return of messianic hope, the coming kingdom.

Originally, it was hoped that the new kingdom was to be established in that generation.  When those hopes failed as the Romans maintained their dominance over Judaea, the tendency to "spiritualize" messianic hopes became even more dominant.  What may have started off as a kind of code language for messianic Jews to spread their revolutionary sentiment and build a network of support for revolution throughout the Roman empire ended up becoming quite popular among Gentiles. The crucifixion-resurrection-ascension story can easily be interpreted as spiritually symbolic of death to the flesh and life in the spirit?  The whole idea of reestablishing an earthly kingdom in Israel could be mostly forgotten or put on the back burner.  That was the only way to handle the embarrassment of abysmal failure.  

Christians chose also to embody the solar myth. As the sun (light of the world) dies at the winter solstice but rises again every year and triumphs over darkness around Easter, so did their light, their messianic hope, die but come back to eternal life.  And every individual could have that experience. Every initiate was to be dead to his/her former self, but alive to their new status in the spiritual kingdom.  Many myths and religions around the Mediterranean embodied these elements. 

But IF it all started as a symbolic story that grew, why it was ever made into a piece of historical fiction that people eventually took literally?  

Cloud it be that when the front story of the dying and reviving messiah was initially presented to initiates, it was presented as a simple story, and they took it literally. But upon reaching higher levels in the organization, they could come to understand otherwise.   What if, after so many generations passed, and no real independent kingdom of Yahweh was being established in Judaea, and Gentile Christians were beginning to far outnumber Jews, and the Jewish influence waned after 70 CE, things simply headed in a different direction. New leaders grew up and realized how popular the stories were, even when simply taken literally.  With increasing Gentile influence, many aspects of the stories sounded increasingly like Gentile myths, but unique elements remained. 

In the case of Roman imperial propaganda, they were starting with real men, at least in the case of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and they were mythologizing certain aspects of the stories of these men.  It seems clear that literary-minded and influential Romans wanted to imitate the best ancient myths in their imperial propaganda. So they said Aeneas, Romulus, and Augustus were actually of partially divine parentage. They said Romulus was born of a Vestal virgin impregnated by Mars. They said Apollo was Augustus true father. Plus Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, who -- they said -- had risen up to heaven as a divine being, a god, after his earthly life. So Augustus had the honorary title, "Divi Filius," Son of God.  The Romans said the sun went dark in the sky at the end of earthly life for Romulus, Julius Caesar, and Augustus.  So they embodied solar symbolism, as the Christian story of Jesus would eventually do by way of imitation.  And the Romans said that each of these men rose up into heaven after they died, to enjoy eternal life in heaven with the rest of the gods and to watch over Rome.  People offered sacrifices and prayers to these men.  

Maybe a very similar process happened to a historical Jesus, a delusional messianic hopeful who got himself crucified by the Romans while spreading his message of a new kingdom soon to arrive. Or maybe some messianic Jews were clever enough to fabricate a set of revolutionary symbols that were eventually elaborated on and turned into historical fiction, especially as time passed, as the original Jewish mission was abandoned after repeated failures to obtain an independent Jewish state, as the Romans crushed Jerusalem and the seat of Jewish Christianity, as the Jewish influence waned, and as the whole enterprise turned into a new religion.   

Even if it started with a historical Jesus, it is very clear that the New Testament gospels are not literally true or historically accurate accounts. And many of the observations made in this speculative section could still have come into the picture, whether the original impetus was a historical Jesus or a fabricated symbol.

Either way, in summary, neither any historical Jesus nor the Jesus of Christianity was really the Jewish messiah as predicted by the Hebrew prophets. That much is as clear as can be.