Jesus Christ As an Atheist

Jesus Christ as an Atheist: A Hypothetical Reconstruction of the Original Message of Jesus By W. J. Whitman “He who is not wanted to make the world. I use the word ‘wanted’ to make myself intelligible, but in fact there was no thought, no desire, no feeling. And the God who is not made the world of that which is not.”—Basilides (ca. 117AD) It has been roughly 2,000 years since the time of Christ. Obviously we are not in a position to objectively determine what Jesus taught. For one thing, the Christ left us with no first-hand accounts. He did not write anything to tell us what he actually thought. As far as we can tell, there are not even any second-hand accounts of the teachings of Christ. There are no known records of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ written by his original disciples or by people that knew him personally. The Gospels are known to be records of oral tradition, rather than accounts written directly by his disciples. The names associated with the Gospels are a latter addition. The original texts of the canonical Gospels bore no titles, nor did they specify their authors’ names. Furthermore, we know that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are both forgeries. The author of Acts was writing revisionist history. In reality, we know from the authentic letters of St. Paul that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul did not agree about the nature of Christian dogma. We know that there was a conflict between Peter and Paul. The Book of Acts was written as an attempt to reconcile the views of Peter to those of Paul. Furthermore, the author of Acts used his revisionist historical account in order to paint Simon Magus as being in opposition to the teachings of Peter and Paul. In Forged, Bart Ehrman explains why the majority of the New Testament texts should be regarded as forgeries.1 Regardless of the nebulousness of Christ’s message in the absence of any first-hand accounts, we do have sufficient evidence to postulate a probable reconstruction of the core of his teachings. For instance, we do know quite a lot about what was being taught by Christians in the 1 Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are first century. Firstly, there are some first-hand accounts, like the writings of St. Paul, the canonical Gospels, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. We know from these texts, and from the writings of second and third generation Christians in the early Church, that there were two strands of thought in the first century Church.2 There were the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostics. The most important figures in the early proto-orthodox movement were Paul, Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Papias, Clement of Rome, and Hermas. The most important figures in the proto-gnostic movement were Simon Magus, Mariamne, Cerdo, Monoimus, Cerinthus, Menander, Elchasai, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Basilides, Valentinus, Ptolemy, Marcus, Colarbasus, and Marcion. The proto-orthodox faction and the proto-gnostic faction taught quite different things about the nature of God and the message of Christ. The standard view has been to assume that one of these factions was teaching the authentic message of Christ and the other faction was teaching a heresy or false gospel. Personally, I think that this view is false. I think that both factions were likely entirely Christian. Both factions, I believe, were likely teaching exactly what they had learned directly from Christ himself. For one thing, we have the writings of St. Paul (seven letters), the canonical Gospels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (roughly fifteen separate works), and the pseudo-Pauline letters (seven in number), along with the rest of the New Testament texts.3 In all of these proto-orthodox texts, there is no clear condemnation of any of the teachings of the proto-gnostics. We do know that proto-gnosticism was wide-spread at the time and that the proto-orthodox were preaching their doctrines to a lot of the same people. It is hard to believe that the proto-orthodox would have neglected to write any damning condemnations of the proto-gnostic “heresy” if they really viewed it as an absolute negation of the teachings of Christ. I do not think that the two factions were really as antagonistic in the first century as latter historians make them out to have been. For instance, we know that Monoimus, a gnostic, was a disciple of Tatian, who was orthodox. Valentinus, although he was a gnostic leader, was at one time so respected by the orthodox that he was actually a candidate for the office of the Bishop of Rome. Marcion and the other proto-gnostic leaders were actually prominent figures in the orthodox churches. In the earliest times, there were not two 2 Among the 2nd and 3rd generation of Christians who recorded a great deal of historical information for us are such people as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. 3 Even though the letters of James and Peter were forgeries, the Book of Revelation is either a forgery or a book by a different “John” that was misattributed to the Apostle himself, and the letters of John are not authentic, these are still first-century works that do shed light on what Christians in the first century thought. churches side-by-side. On the contrary, the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostics worshipped together and took communion together as part of the same Christian community, united within a single ecclesiastical body. The schism that divided them developed over time, as the two groups became more antagonistic towards one another. My hypothesis is that Christ’s teachings had two aspects—an exoteric doctrine that he taught openly to everyone and an esoteric doctrine that he taught only to those initiated into the higher mysteries. We know from the writings of the Church Fathers in general that there was an esoteric aspect to early Christianity. For instance, sacraments or “mysteries” were reserved for baptized initiates. Even today in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy there is a point where the priest shouts “The doors! The doors!” This is the point, at least historically, where the non-initiates and outsiders were required to leave the sanctuary of the church building and wait outside or in the narthex until the secret rituals and teachings were concluded. Christ taught in parables, meaning that much of what he taught openly still had to be interpreted and explained by initiates. I believe that Christ taught an exoteric (outward) message to non-initiates and an esoteric (inner) or secret doctrine to initiates. It even seems likely to me that he taught different levels of secret doctrines to initiates of different ranks. It seems to me that there were probably four levels of doctrine taught by Christ. The first level would have consisted of the absolutely exoteric. This probably consisted of plain ethical teachings like those found in the Sermon on the Mount and the somewhat obscure parables that he taught in public. The second level would have consisted of the explanations of those parables which he gave to his disciples in private. The third level would have consisted of the esoteric myths and parables that would be described as “gnostic.” The fourth level would have consisted of the explanation of the meanings of the gnostic myths and parables. This fourth level would have been very secret and only revealed to those in his innermost circle. It is my belief that proto- orthodoxy was teaching exoteric Christianity, espousing the first and second level doctrines, while the proto-gnostics were openly espousing the esoteric/secret third and fourth level doctrines. After the time of Christ, the proto-gnostic leaders began to openly teach the esoteric secrets. This resulted in a misunderstanding between the lower level initiates (proto-orthodox) and the higher level initiates (proto-gnostics); and the two factions eventually split and began to view their two perspectives as mutually exclusive and antagonistic. By looking at the teachings of Christ as espoused by the proto-orthodox and the proto- gnostics, I believe it is possible to recreate a rough outline of the authentic teachings of Christ and reconstruct the nucleus of the dogmas that constituted each of these four levels of ancient Christian doctrine. Exoteric Christianity: The First & Second Level Doctrines There is not much need for us to dwell extensively on the exoteric message of Christianity. The first and second level doctrines are pretty well represented by the teachings of mainstream Christianity today. By reading the New Testament, the works of Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, or attending an Orthodox or other mainstream church, you can easily become familiar with this aspect of the Christian teachings. The esoteric or secret aspect of the gospel is, however, largely lost today. None of the mainstream denominations or churches teach Gnosticism. They are leaving out half—and, I believe, the most important half—of Christ’s teachings. Esoteric Christianity: The Third Level Doctrines The third level doctrines would consist of the general mythos espoused by the Gnostics. The Gnostic myth is quite literally the mainstream Christian doctrine, the exoteric teachings about the nature of God, turned upside down. Now, in the Gnostic mythos, the story remains the same but becomes totally different too. According to Gnosticism, the ultimate reality is called Bythos (the Abyss). The Gnostic teachers tell us virtually nothing about the Abyss. The ultimate reality is not “God” in the conventional sense.

Load more