Like all the posts in this 2026 series of my personal efforts to make lived-experience sense of the story I raised with. This one continues the theme of The Jesus K.I.S.S. Truth That Sets You Free? By exploring what history understands about the historical purpose of Jesus' story, and what the quotation above actually means. Because for a storytelling species like ours. I doubt whether even the most ardent Atheist would disagree with the notion, that the Jesus' story is the most intriguing story in human history. What do you think? True or false?
A question I ask because I was an ardent Atheist during my early adulthood, right up to age 28 when I experienced a profound sense of rebirth. Which cemented a felt-sense of curiosity and intrigue about the historical purpose of the Jesus' story. Because my experience of sensory rebirth touched the inborn nature of my intuition, and I've never been able to shake this off. Despite an obvious need to go along and get along with the "consensus-reality" beliefs of my character shaping culture. Please consider:
"Consensus reality is the generally agreed-upon set of beliefs, norms, and shared assumptions that a community or society accepts as real. It is a social construct rather than objective truth, dictating practical everyday agreements like the value of money, the measurement of time, and basic behavioral rules.
While it acts as a pragmatic guide for social organization, it is highly dynamic. Individual perceptions and societal shifts constantly influence, and are influenced by, this overarching shared framework. Ultimately, this collective agreement is what holds communities together." A Google AI Overview
And born in 1951, into a post-world war two Britain, (Manchester, England) I lived through the cultural revolution of the 1960s and developed a strong faith in science revelation and the promise of a peaceful and prosperous future. And I remember discussing the idea that a Messianic Age had truly begun, with the female friend mentioned in the post: The Era of Natural Philosophy & End Times Prophecy? A blog post title you may agree sets the intuitively intriguing tone for this post? What do you think? True or false?
(The historical purpose of Jesus’ story depends on whether one views it through the lens of critical academic history, theology, or comparative mythology. The story originated to make sense of a traveling Jewish prophet who challenged the religious and imperial powers of his day. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The Academic/Historical Perspective: Scholars suggest Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet and social reformer. His purpose was to announce the arrival of a new era of social and religious renewal—the "Kingdom of God"—which prioritized the marginalized, upended established economic norms, and opposed the rigid control of religious and Roman authorities. This defiance ultimately led to his execution by crucifixion, the Roman Empire’s signature punishment for rebels and political agitators. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The Christian Theological Perspective: For Christians, Jesus’ story serves a divine purpose as the prophesied Messiah and Incarnate Son of God. His story is centered on the incarnation, living a sinless life, and voluntarily sacrificing himself on the cross to offer salvation, cancel the penalty of sin, and grant eternal life. His resurrection is seen as the ultimate victory over death. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- The Comparative Mythology Perspective: Some historians and mythicists argue that the narrative of Jesus was heavily influenced or constructed from ancient mythological and astrological frameworks. In this view, the story's purpose was a syncretistic cultural and religious synthesis, used by early communities to historicize archetypal spiritual ideas. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Read about academic reconstructions of his life through the Wikipedia Historical Jesus article.
- Explore the cultural and political context of first-century Judea in this analysis from the Biblical Archaeology Society.
- Compare secular and religious interpretations of his biography on the Britannica Jesus page. [1, 2]) A Google AI Overview
What are you feeling & thinking after reading this AI generated explanation of the differing interpretations of the historical purpose of Jesus' story? Do you favor one over another? Do you find all three perspectives intriguing? And stimulating of your natural born curiosity & intuition? Is there any intuitive resonance, with the notion of being spiritual but not religious, in any of these three perspectives? Even a possibility that the historical Jesus himself, was far more spiritual than religious?
The Paradox of Consensus-Reality & True Spirituality?
In the context of the historical meaning of Jesus' then the end will come prophecy, and its intended significance for personal experience? The possibility that this prophecy is based on the embodied wisdom nature of natural philosophy? And that it represents the "riddle-me-this" nature of questions about a natural reality? As opposed to the answers about a supernatural reality, generally assumed by religiously minded people? Might it be worthwhile exploring current knowledge, about the paradox of consensus-reality & true spirituality? Please consider:
(Consensus reality is the collectively agreed-upon social construct of what is "real," acting as a necessary, functional hypnosis for daily survival. True spirituality is the pursuit of objective, unconditioned truth. The paradox emerges because pursuing true spirituality requires dismantling the very mental structures that allow you to function within consensus reality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The fundamental tension between these two states of existence highlights this paradox:
- Being in the world, not of it: True spirituality does not demand physical isolation from the world. Instead, the spiritual paradox is that you must fully engage in consensus reality—playing the roles of citizen, worker, and friend—while maintaining the inner realization that these roles are merely temporary vehicles rather than absolute reality. [1]
- The trap of "knowing": If you become overly attached to your spiritual knowledge, it becomes a new egoic construct. True spirituality is defined by humility and the willingness to let go of certainties and concepts. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The ego as gatekeeper: To safely navigate this duality, your ego must be strong enough to manage the requirements of the physical plane without identifying with them. You must hold two opposing truths simultaneously: the human experience matters deeply, and ultimately, it is a fleeting play of consciousness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Read a philosophical essay on navigating duality from Q'enti Wasi – House of the Hummingbird.
- Explore how psychological conditioning shapes awareness on Mind That Ego.
- Discover teachings on embracing seemingly conflicting truths on Spiritual Awakening Process. [1, 2, 3]) A Google AI Overview
What are you feeling & thinking after reading this AI generated explanation of the paradox of consensus-reality & spirituality? And the suggestion that Jesus' natural philosophy includes "riddle-me-this" questions, like the popular proverbs from oral traditions that pre-date the development of any written language. Like the still popular in Africa: "the sun never forgets a village, no matter how small."
And does this proverb create any intuitive feelings, that the paradoxical need of a shared consensus-reality & a true form of shared spirituality, has been understood for thousands of years? Or that Jesus' own riddle-me-this saying of "and then the end will come," was intended to be an antidote against the misuse of a shared consensus-reality & spirituality? That it is truly spiritual, but not religious? Please consider:
("Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR) describes a life stance that values personal, individualized connection to the sacred or a higher power over the dogmas, rituals, and hierarchies of organized religion. Instead of following institutional doctrine, SBNR individuals often curate their own eclectic practices to cultivate a sense of interconnectedness and inner peace. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The SBNR identity is characterized by several key traits:
- Focus on the Individual: SBNR practitioners trust their own intuition and personal experiences as their primary spiritual compass. [1, 2]
- Rejection of Dogma: They often view organized religion as dogmatic, restrictive, or overly institutionalized, choosing instead a non-dogmatic approach to the divine. [1, 2]
- Eclectic Practices: Their spiritual "toolkit" is often a "do-it-yourself" mix, frequently incorporating practices like meditation, yoga, mindfulness, and time in nature. [1, 2, 3]
The SBNR designation is particularly common in Western and secular societies. According to research by NCLS Research, over 10% of Australians identify as spiritual but not religious, and similar demographic trends exist in North America and across Europe. [1, 2, 3]
While SBNR is widespread, the exact meaning varies from person to person. A deeper look at this diverse life stance is available via the Harvard Divinity Bulletin. [1, 2]) A Google AI Overview
What do you think? Does this explanation of being spiritual but not religious feel plausible, when we are mindful that the root meaning of the words spirit, spiritual, & spirituality, is; Breath? Please consider:
The root of all three words is the Latin noun spiritus, which literally means "breath" or "breathing". This derives from the verb spirare, meaning "to blow" or "to breathe". Historically, the act of breathing was seen as the essential, invisible force that gave life to living beings
Along side the "riddle-me-this," possible intention of these words: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit,” (John 3:8). And please consider the natural philosophy possibility that Jesus is talking about the "biologically-receptive" nature of the whole-spirit of being human? Not the "psychologically-projective" nature the holy-spirit of religious ideology, and the dark side of human language, imagination, & belief? As unseen and unknowable entities like God's & Demon's are subconsciously projected into the sounds & symbols nature of mere words?
And in the context of the historical purpose of Jesus' story, why did he teach the parable of the sower? And just like his clearly stated reason for teaching parables of awakening, why did he say to his disciples: "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word," (Mark 4:13-14). Is this a prime example of the historical era of natural philosophy, and the creation of "riddle-me-this" sayings and stories? Is the parable of the sower about "psychological-deconstruction," to use a notion popular in spiritual but not religious circles? And could it be that this parable is based on "awareness" of the twofold nature of our human form of consciousness? Please consider:
The Parable of The Sower Key to Jesus' Spirituality?
Is the historical purpose of Jesus' story about the perceptual confusion inherent in our human languages & the habituated nature of our human behavior? Like sowing descriptive words, so to speak, onto the surface-level impressions of reality, being received by the biological reality of our eyes? And is the "riddle-me-this" purpose of the parable of the sower, about the biologically receptive & psychologically projective nature of our human consciousness?
For example, as you look at reality around you, right now? Are your eyes receiving an awareness of the surface-level of everything you can see? I mean, do you have a natural form of x-ray vision, to see inside the reality of anything you see? And is it true or false, that you're only seeing the surface-level appearances, of the world around you? And to paraphrase Jesus, are sowing descriptive words onto a surface-level sense of reality, when you think about whatever it is, that you are seeing?
Like all human beings regardless of place or race, when asked "what do you see," does your subconsciously automatic response, involve words? Yet, in the context of the spiritual purpose of the parable of the sower? Is the "actual-reality" of anything and everything you can see right now; a Word? And is this the simple-truth reason for Jesus' saying to his disciples: "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word?" And the "riddle-me-this" historical purpose of the whole Jesus' story?
And is this historical story about a supernatural reality we cannot perceive with any or all of our inborn natural senses? Or a natural reality we can perceive with all our inborn natural senses? Is the Jesus' story about the spiritual nature of our personal experience? Or our politics of experience, use of reality-labeling words? Was the "riddle-me-this," historical purpose of this world famous story, intended as a antidote to the perceptual-confusion of "conflating" the subjective nature of our human mind, with objective nature of Reality? Please consider:
(The subjective nature of the mind and the objective nature of reality describe the deep gap between personal inner experience and the outer physical world. The mind relies on feelings, thoughts, and private awareness, while objective reality consists of facts that exist outside of any single observer. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Inner Experience: Your private thoughts, feelings, dreams, and pains make up your first-person point of view.
- Qualia: These are the raw qualities of what things feel like to you, such as the brightness of a red color or the sting of a burn.
- Independent Existence: This is the physical world of matter, space, and time that stays the same whether you look at it or not.
- Measurable Facts: Science and math test things using hard numbers and physical proof that anyone can check, regardless of their personal feelings.
- The Bridge: Your subjective mind acts as a lens or a filter to interpret the objective world around you.
- The Conflict: Suffering or confusion happens when a person treats their changing personal thoughts as if they are hard, unchangeable physical facts.) A Google AI Overview
Furthermore; is Jesus' cross of crucifixion, symbolic of a need to balance our personal experience of consciousness? Is the Cross the greatest "riddle-me-this" symbol in the whole history of the "sounds & symbols" nature of human languages? When we consider how there is no photographic or video technology evidence of Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Today, there is only the textual evidence of written words, that paint a picture so to speak, of what the story is actually about?
And is it about the supernatural reality of a heaven that actually awaits us after we die? Or is it about the natural reality of earth, being actual heaven we live in? As explored in my 2022 post: The Sentient (feeling) Experience of Heaven. Which included a video critique of Jordan Peterson's call for Christians to fix themselves and Jesus' resurrection philosophy. Or how to embody the earth-turning reality of your existence in time & your own divinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment