Author Archives: rennyo01

About rennyo01

Enjoyer of film scores, comparative religion, history, Jungian psychology.

Living in the Amida-Dharma

It has been said that religiously experienced people think differently because they see differently. They have a perspective on life that mere World cannot convey. Their view of life prior to religious experience changes after the experience.

The changed view of life changes our life-perspective. It causes us to see or perceive differently relative to ourformer view(s), providing light in the darkness, a wider perspective or higher prospect from which to see people, animals, and universe. Since my conversion to Jodo Shinshu/Shin Buddhism, I now see all good and bad things in a larger context of connection to the spiritually Transcendent “Other Power” of Amida Buddha.

Bad days in our lives are only to be expected because bad days are de rigueur in the Samsaric realm – and the same applies to the good days. I think it was Albert Camus who said, that despite the suffering and absurdity of life, still, “joy, too, is inevitable”. So days spent in connection with Amida Buddha and the Buddhist Dharma are days understood in a certain light, a light that illumines daily life with a new shade or tone. That’s the central core: Life lit from within by the Dharma’s immanent (“here”) presence, and by its Transcendent (“there”) existence.

Post-conversion, I have not done many new and different moral or social things, the chief reason being that Shin is not a works religion. The adherent is expected to follow the basic Buddhist moral code (but does not expect to be saved or Enlightened thereby). Amida Buddha provides Shinjin (perfect faith) and his grace alone is the factor that will spark the fulfillment of our innate Buddha Nature when we cross into the Pure Land. We do not, and cannot, do this for ourselves, or earn it as a reward. A bad day for me, consisting (say) of sickness, public humiliation, theft, assault, personal loss, affects me no differently than it would anyone else. The difference is that now I see both good and bad, suffering and joy, unfolding against a backdrop of the divine presence of Amida Buddha. It really makes all the difference in the world – at least, to my world.

In Jodo Shinshu, no “good works” are required of us – at least, if they are directed toward the goal of Enlightenment. Good works are required, however, to lighten the load of fellow suffering beings – the practice of “compassion in action”. But all kinds of people, religious and non-religious, already perform good works, whether or not in expectation of earthly or heavenly reward. What makes Shin different is that it teaches that no good work or self-effort practice can redeem us or erase our karma or “wipe out our sin” (except that there is no sin in Buddhism). Amida does all that for us.

Living in the Amida-Dharma means acknowledging our own powerlessness to save and Enlighten ourselves; it means throwing ourselves into the merciful arms of the Buddha’s Other Power; and it means “letting go and letting Amida”. Our outer lives may not change very much, but our “inner man”/”inner woman” is indelibly marked by Amida’s powerful yet gentle touch.



“You Know it’s a Myth” – But it’s True

The Christmas season typically brings out secularists and atheists who rush in to discredit and hopefully to demolish the Gospel Infancy Narratives as being “myths”. By which they mean fictive, untrue stories by turns implausible, improbable and impossible. These they identify as the biblical narratives’ “magic” star; a massacre of male infants that has never been documented; angels “on high” proclaiming a Messiah’s birth; a virginally-conceived Savior; an angel appearing to the Messiah’s mother and whispering to the father in a dream; in short, all the tales that depict heaven having commerce with earth. The present writer objects to this wave of snarky criticism for several reasons.

The first objection is the critics’ indulgence in what the late Huston Smith termed “fact fundamentalism”. Which is the notion that if something is reported, especially in religious texts, something which is materially-scientificallly doubtful or outright impossible, then it must be dismissed as a lie, because it goes against science and reason.

Things such as Jesus’s virginal conception and the guiding star, of course, would fall into this category. My objection is 1) that religious communication typically employs the language of myth, analogy, allegory and metaphor, and 2) that critics of religion are obligated to be familiar with this fact. There are, in my view, some truths and some dimensions of human experience that cannot be expressed by any other kind of language, and in any other kind of imagery. In this sense, mythological language is a “specialist language” employed by religion to get across a message that is transcendent to expression by any other form of language.

If critics wish to challenge the validity of religious mythic language on the principle (say) that no Transcendent realms or beings exist, fine. But most of them whom I have read and encountered in online discussion groups have not the slightest inkling that religious narratives like Matthew’s and Luke’s Nativity stories seek to communicate non-secular (and Transcendent) truth in language and imagery that is chiefly “archetypal” in nature. I have found that lack of this kind of information and understanding, more often than not, makes “Christmas critics” disappointing conversation partners. They do not, or will not, understand that there can be true, as well as false, myths.

So what kind of (non-scientific, non-secular) truths might be expressed in the mythic language of the Infancy Narratives?

When a holy person is said to have been born or conceived of a virgin, this might signal that the life so originated and birthed is a completely new form. A new beginning. One that is not burdened with humankind’s heavy, sordid history; one that is unfettered by the clinging vines of the Edenic “Fall”; one that has capacities for teaching, healing and/or redemption unlike those of us “commonly born”. As such a being, Jesus emerges in the Infancy Narratives, even at birth, as one marked by the Transcendent and to whom salvific expectations can validly be associated. Matthew and Luke use their Infancy stories to communicate to the reader how Jesus was the same person at his birth as he would be during his mission and after his resurrection, i.e., “Jesus Messiah, Son of God, Savior”.

Some famous Christian art portrays the Nativity as occurring in a cave wherein lies a diminutive stable, a feeding trough for animals serving as a crib for the new-borne Son of God. A cave is a gash, a hollow, an opening in the earth. The association of cave and trough or manger suggests the idea that Jesus is not only born of heaven, but also of the earth, and the animals’ presence firmly emphasizes this conceptualization. When Luke’s Gospel mentions the manger, he is referencing a prophecy that the Messiah’s own people will recognize him when he comes – Israel, in the guise of its faith-seeking shepherds, has come to pay homage to the birth of its messianic Lord. And Matthew’s Magi, too, following the beckoning star, signify that Gentiles, too, have found and revere the divine child. “…the star does not make a statement about an astronomical phenomenon, but about Jesus: his birth is about the coming of the light that draws wise men of the Gentiles to its radiance.” 1

Considering the Infancy Narratives’ symbols and imagery, and employing our capacity to think allegorically and mythically, these stories begin to emerge as disclosures of the divine, expressed in specialized language.

New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan examined Luke’s resurrection story about two pedestrians encountering a wise teacher on their way to Emmaus after Jesus’s execution. Little by little, they are driven to the conclusion that this is no ordinary traveler. He knows too much about scripture and too much about Jesus’s role as agent for God’s Kingdom on earth. Finally, the three stop to rest at an inn, where the two travelers’ uncertainty is resolved when they see the stranger – whom they now recognize as Jesus – break the dinner bread. The Messiah, hidden, unmanifest, had been traveling with them all along but was only unmistakably disclosed through his Eucharistic actions.  Crossan says of this story, “Emmaus didn’t happen. Emmaus always happens”. The divine can remain “occulted” but then emerge by way of some of the simplest commonalities of life.

Similarly, the Infancy Narratives “hide” the divinity present in Jesus under a certain common, simple, but somewhat “coded” terminology. But it doesn’t take genius-level intelligence or high level scholarship to “break the code”. It’s there to be deciphered by anyone with the requisite curiosity and enough knowledge of mythical, allegorical language to appreciate its archetypal setting and unlock its allegorical meaning. Christians might even observe, with Crossan, “Bethlehem didn’t happen. Bethlehem always happens”. For them, the Son of God is made manifest in the believer, is born into the very heart of the soul, even now, some 2,000 years after the story’s origin.

1 The First Christmas, p. 182







“Prove God!” as an Inept Question

(Cross-posted from a Diqus Forum discussion. This has been touched upon here earlier, but might legitimately bear repeating:)


Atheist Gore Vidal:

“God or what have you, is not to be found at the far end of a syllogism, no matter how brilliantly phrased.”

Philosophy, therefore, can’t disclose God (except perhaps intellectually, but then we are only left with the God or the non-God of the intellect, which is not “the real God”).

Science cannot disclose God because science only deals with matter whereas God by most standard definitions and connotations (except perhaps pantheism) is non material spirit.

This leaves personal experience, the direct apprehension of the divine or the Spirit, as happens in “gnosis”, intuition, and/or the specialized perception that occurs in mystical states and/or as a result of contemplation, prayer, and meditation.

Note that all of these latter things are private, non material, and completely subjective. Neither science, doctrine, the “rational intellect” nor philosophy can enter into this most intimate experiential field. Its contents, like the qualia, are not communicable and cannot be brought out into the external material world. For that reason, it is simply erroneous to think that they can be externalized or publicly shared and quantified.

“Prove to me that God is real!” is one of those inept questions. It’s like asking, “Prove that you love the pursuit of the good/the true/the beautiful”. At most, such things can only be suggested or hinted at. They cannot be shared. However, they are “invitational” and hinge on attainment of personal experience.

There are three steps in knowledge-acquisition:

1. The Injunction: If you want to know “X”, then DO “Y”.

If you want to know if it’s raining, then look out a window. If you want to find God, then look through the “windows” and “lenses” designed for that purpose.

2. The Experiment: Apply the Injunction; proceed along established lines; take notes.

3. The Conclusion and Peer Review: share the process and your conclusion with those who have previously, adequately performed steps 1. thru 3. This happens, for example, in the Zendo, where students submit their experiments and conclusions with those (the senseis) who have previously, adequately performed the process.

God-experience is open to all for confirmation or disconfirmation. It is not a matter of someone else being capable of, or obligated to, “prove God”.

THAT is only up to the individual who is willing to perform the three steps of knowledge-acquisition – and with the awareness that the knowledge so acquired is private, and can only be publicly “circumambulated”, not “proved”, with those who have already done the three step process.

Which makes the Conclusion in one sense open to being shared, but not to public confirmation, as with scientific/material quantification. The confirmation only comes individually, privately, and subjectively.

Thus is disclosed the folly of asking someone or anyone to “prove God”. The “proof” either comes spontaneously, or it comes at the Conclusion of the three step process. It cannot come from some other person, or from any other external source. “Only YOU can do it for yourself alone.”

Best to stop asking the question altogether.


A short coda from the Jodo Shinshu point of view:

For Shin Buddhists, Amida Buddha has saved us from the three step process as surely as He has saved us from our samsaric plight. The three step process is perhaps important to those who are still seeking. But Shin people are no longer on the seeking path. Amida has found them.


Spending A Day With God

This is posted from the Disqus discussion boards, with a few modifications, in answer to a thread inquiring about what spending a day with God would be like.  I wrote:

= = = = = = = = = =

From the Eastern/mystical perspective, I don’t have or believe in a creator-deity. I do have certain functional equivalents of God, as defined in the global mystical literature, i.e., God as Ultimate, Absolute, Bodhi, the Tao, the Sacred, the Ground of Being, the Dharmakaya, Buddha-Mind, Nirvana, the Unborn-the Unconditioned, Peace, Silence, etc.

From a more Western-philosophical perspective, I am a Panentheist (not Pantheist) – for whom “God” or “the Spirit” is real but is not a creator. The universe has its existence IN (“EN”) the God – or the Divinity in Which/Whom we move and live and have our being (as Luke-Acts portrays St. Paul’s panentheistic preaching).

Because my God-definition excludes the notion of God as a creator, I do not have a theological bone to pick with God for the simple, primary reason that God is not responsible for the existence, behavior, and maintenance of a universe that “He” did not create to begin with.

That is: God does not intervene with miraculous manipulations, God does not judge or condemn, God does not apologize for a universe that God had no hand in creating.

That is, I have no complaints to make, no gripes to air, but only gratefulness and gratitude.

Gratitude, but for what? For God’s unimpeded light, infinite compassion and infinite wisdom, based not on philosophy or doctrine, but rather upon personal experience.

My personal faith is that of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism (Shin Buddhism). For we “Shinners”, “God” as ultimate reality, the Unborn, the Unconditioned is expressed in-and-as Amida Buddha.

Not a creator, a judge, or an intervenor, Amida Buddha rather represents our own Buddha-Nature realized and dwelling in a perfect state called “the Pure Land”. What Amida is, we shall become, through His freely-granted gift of Shinjin, or perfect faith. A faith which is deemed “perfect” for the simple, crucial reason that we ourselves did not design it. It is the transcendent gift of Amida – “the Raft from the Other Shore” – whose sudden sharp arrival is redolent of otherworldly “fragrances of Light”, unlike the earthly light with which our physical eyes are familiar.

Moreover, there is not much of an adherent-Amida “wall of separation”. The only real difference is that while I am a deluded being led by blind passions (a “bombu”), Amida is already a celestial, primal Buddha, whose earthly adherents are – as of now, temporarily – only on the Path. But once we pass into the Pure Land state, our own Buddha-Nature will come to fruition and we ourselves will become Buddhas. We become like Amida Himself. This may sound spectacular, but it is “merely” the fulfillment of the basic Mahayanist “aspiration toward Buddhahood”.

Because of this blessed situation, I don’t really feel an insecure, pressing, or desperate need to “walk and talk” with my Absolute/”God”, for the simple reason that the Buddha and I are already united, and because ultimately I will become a Buddha myself. The walking and talking come naturally. We Shin people do not worship what we already are in potential, and we do not worship what we will become. We revere Amida Buddha for His grace and his role as life-vivifying Savior.

In this sense, Shin adherents are Amida’s “little brothers and sisters”, walking the Path set by Amida himself eons ago when he was the wandering, Dharma-seeking monk Dharmakara in a dimension that was perhaps far removed and probably quite different from our own.

Walking with my “older brother” Amida Buddha every day, I can only repeat Jodo Shinshu’s primary recitation of sheer gratitude:

“Namo Amida Buddha.”

“I take refuge in Amida Buddha.”

In that phrase resides my entire, daily interrelation on the Enlightenment Path with my Absolute,my  inspiration, my salvation and my fully-realized “elder brother”.

= = = = = = = = = =


Jihadist Terror

Recently I have been embroiled privately and publicly in condemning Islamic terrorism. Because I pulled no punches, I have alienated and lost some old friends. The following is from the Dharma Wheel website forums which I wrote in response to the thread.

= = = = = = = = = =

Postby steveb1 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:26 pm

Dharma Flower wrote:

“He’s saying that we’re at war against international jihad, which is the drive to take over the world for Islam that has been part of Islam from the beginning. Millions of Asian Buddhists have died at the hands of Islamic conquest. Is there any Asian Muslim country that wasn’t converted by the sword?

“What Sam Harris is saying is that the Muslim world needs an enlightenment and a reformation, the same way that the West had an enlightenment and a reformation. Christianity had a very violent, brutal history too, but the West is different today because of the reformation and the enlightenment.”

Exact and to the point.

[Requisite PSA: Not all Muslims are terrorists! Only a small minority. Most are peaceful!]

Jihad is a toxic, ugly truth at the heart of Islam. Sadly, only Muslims can rid the religion and the world of Islamic terrorism via “reform”. The odds are stacked against it, because Jihad is embedded in the Quran and the life of Muhammad. Allah is the first deity to teach the principles of Jihad to a human being – that is a rock-solid, ground truth. It is not an argument to say that most Muslims are not Jihadists or supporters thereof. As everyone can agree: “THEY are not the problem”. The terrorists ARE.

The “peaceful Muslims” gambit is being used by the Left and by the cucked Right as a dodge, a red herring, a ploy with the intent to try to distract the public’s gaze from the true horrors of Islamic terrorism, a crime that has no foreseeable end. To reform Islam is, according to everything stated and implied in the Quran, to reform Perfection. Can’t be done, and all attempts to do so will end in fire and sword.

Harris is a mixed bag. On religion, I think he’s mostly misled, but on political Islam he’s mostly correct. And it is beneficial to recall that condemnation of Jihad is not condemnation of religious Islam.

Religious Islam began fairly peacefully in Mecca until the Prophet became increasingly megalomaniac and political, and the Meccans kicked him out. He then went to Medina where he became a politician, a judge and a warlord. When he had assembled a strong following there, he returned to Mecca to exact a frightful vengeance upon those who had so sensibly rejected him earlier (his revenge fell especially on Jews who had rejected him).
Thus Islam, as we have it, contains both the Meccan/pacifistic religious “Surrender” as well as the Medinan/terrorist “Surrender”. Unfortunately, both are woven of the same cloth and so cannot be separated and still be called “Islam”.

Westerners whose first reaction to a Jihad attack is to rush to protect “innocent Muslims” from Western attack are simply wrong-headed. The first response needs to be quarantining, jailing, and punishing the perpetrators and their networks – plus strong, legal expressions of outrage and public protest, including demonstrations and marches. The second response should be taking care of all the victims, their friends-and-families, as well as any physically uninjured witnesses who are suffering from emotional trauma. The third response is to keep peaceful Muslims on the back burner of “Concern!” – because, after all, that’s where they belong, since …THEY are not the Problem.

= = = = = = = = = =

“God” as Real, but not as a Creator

It seems to me that one major problem with the modern God-conversation is that God is constantly being defined as some kind of responsible world-agent – a creator. Of course, a creator – especially one who is held to be all-knowing and all-good – is ultimately responsible for “His” creation. No excuses can be offered for the putative creator’s misbehavior. And I’m not even (yet) talking about the depredations of the Biblical deity. No, the creator – as we now have “Him” – is sufficiently evil, indifferent, inept, mute and incompetent to be existentially and morally condemned under the Epicurean mandate.

However, I personally believe that “God” is real, but is not a creator, intervener, or judge.
For me – a panentheist (not pantheist) – God is much less a creator and much more the being Who and Which is spoken about in Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and by the mystics of all traditions. A silent Presence, the Tao, the Absolute, the Dharmakaya, Bodhi, the Unconditioned/the Unborn, Salvation, Light, Wisdom, etc. … a being and/or a category, that is, whose only “doing-ness” or activity is limited, and natural, to its transformative effects in sentient beings, but which is non-functional and irrelevant vis-a-vis the creation and maintenance of physical worlds, universes, things and processes.

Thus, as pertains to the world/cosmos/”life”, God is not all-mighty; in fact, God is not “mighty” at all,  the word “might” being a crude projection of gross material, physical “power” onto a spirit being.

This type of God is immune from both the Epicurean critique and the normative Western theistic view, because both base themselves on the idea of an all-powerful creator deity. They assume that, for God to be real – “for God to BE God” – God must be a creator – or “He” isn’t God , and “He” does not, or cannot, exist. But that is as silly and inept as saying that either the moon is made of green cheese, or it does not, or cannot, exist.

The conception of a non-creating God immediately releases one’s God-definition from the burden of creating a theodicy. A theodicy is an argument that claims to explain evil – and more importantly, the persistence of evil – in a cosmos that was supposedly created and is currently being maintained by an all-good, all-powerful creator deity. If we remove from our theological perspective the conception of an all-good/all-powerful creator deity, we also remove the conception of divine intervention, as well as the embarrassing necessity of needing to account for “God’s” obviously neglectful behavior.

The non-creating, non-almighty God thus cannot be blamed for the world’s evils, nor can this God be praised for the world’s goodness. There is no one – “no One” – to praise or to blame. The universe goes its own “samsaric” way without deity-influence, interference, or manipulation, while God simply, deeply, remains as the silent Presence within the depths not of matter, but rather in the perceiving souls of the sentient beings who seek divine union.

In one narrow sense, Jodo Shinshu’s Amida Buddha can be seen as a kind of functional equivalent to the non-creating but spiritually-transformative God. Buddhas are not gods or creator deities, and neither is Amida Buddha. However, if by “God” is meant an all-compassionate, all-wise, luminous, transcendent Being who saves and enlightens not by physical intervention but by sheer grace – in the form of Shinjin in Jodo Shinshu – then, surely, Amida “fits the bill”. Not a creator, not a physical intervener, not a judge, not a divine warrior or apocalyptic vengeful destroyer, not a dying-and-rising savior, Amida can be seen as the compassionate, transforming, transcendent spiritual Ultimate – a “God” for all sentient beings, who at the same time is source and spark of their future Buddhahood in Amida’s Pure Land, where those beings recognize and realize their own “godness” as Buddhas in their own right.


Mythicism, Resurrection, and the Historical Question

Let’s begin with the Mythicist claim that the earliest Christian writers – Paul and other Epistle authors, had no concept of an earthly Jesus, but only a concept of an eternal, heavenly “Son” figure unconnected to the purportedly historical Gospel Jesus. However, Jews in Jesus’ time did have a concept of body-soul dualism, and a belief in congress between mortals and non-corporeal spirit beings, among which beliefs was that the eternal Son was known via scripture and revelation – but not necessarily as a human being who had recently lived on earth.

For example, there is the account of Saul bidding the Witch of Endor to summon up the spirit of Samuel. Now if Samuel had not been called up as a spirit or soul, how then could he have been called up at all?  Jews believed that the righteous would only be raised up bodily on the last day at the general resurrection, but of course, this had not yet happened, and Samuel was not excluded from this condition. This almost coerces us to think that Samuel manifested to Saul as a spirit entity, not a physical body. The whole concept of Sheol demands some kind of a spiritual survival, no matter how minimal and subdued. People in Sheol had a dim consciousness, but had not yet received a resurrection body. The same holds true for Jesus’  reference to dead people dwelling in Abraham’s Bosom – where conscious beings live, but not in-or-as-bodies – again, because of the simple fact that the general resurrection had not yet occurred. And it is assumed in Jesus’ promising the “Good Thief” on the cross that “this day you will be with me in Paradise” – obviously Paradise was a repository for the souls of the dead, at least until the last day when the dead would be reunited with their former bodies.

Jews also “peopled” heaven with non-bodily figures who could be perceived in spontaneous mystical experience, or achieved through a practice of  “ascent to the heavens”. Paul himself expresses body-soul dualism when he says he ascended to heaven, “whether in the body or out of it, I do not know”. Thus for Paul, his own consciousness was separable from hisbody and could have experiences – even revelations – that are separate from physical sensation and data transmitted through the senses.

Jewish non-bodily thought can be found in any number of particular situations, e.g., Herod’s belief that Jesus was “John the Baptist – returned”. Obviously Herod was thinking of the Baptist’s spirit, surviving in the afterlife for a brief time, and then “incarnating” or even possessing Jesus. Both Jesus’ friends and foes insisted that he “had” – i.e., that he possessed, or was possessed by – a spirit. His friends called it the Holy Spirit, and his enemies called it Beelzebub. In those days, the spirits of the dead could also possess the living (and this type of possession is the most common in Judaism to this day in the form of the dybbuk). In any case, physical resurrection cannot be fit into the “Jesus is the return of the Baptist” scenario. Nor does it match the concept in the books of Maccabees, which invokes prayer for the dead, an idea that presupposes that there are conscious souls in the afterlife.

It is important to know that, pertaining to Christian origins, we are not talking mainstream theologies,  but rather with idiosyncratic sectarian ideas, such as the notion that Jesus’ resurrection was merely the first “rising” in preparation for the general resurrection, and as such, it signaled that the end times had begun. The Jewish elite never persecuted “the Twelve” et al for believing that Jesus had been raised – they may have considered it a strange idea, but they didn’t condemn it as heresy. The question before us is the nature and quality of resurrection as it applies to the specific case of Jesus and primitive Christianity.

Regarding  Jesus’  “bodily” resurrection, the Gospel narratives are ambiguous. If the risen Jesus was a resuscitated corpse, then all of his appearances should have been reported as being bodily. But they aren’t. His “body” does things that no body can do: it can levitate, bilocate, appear and vanish at will, disguise its form, and pass through solid obstructions.

The Gospel resurrection appearances are a mix of physicality and non-materiality … but Paul’s risen Christ is completely non-corporeal. Paul’s Christ doesn’t look like any person – on the contrary, He is only a light and a voice – and of course from then on, an indwelling Spirit. Paul never sits down with Christ to break bread as in Luke’s Emmaus account, or probe His wounds, as in the Johannine “doubting Thomas” narrative. That’s simply not Paul’s Christ, even if Paul acknowledged some kind of prior earthly existence for Him. For Paul, the heavenly Christ apparently eclipsed Jesus of Nazareth, to the point that Paul rarely if ever mentions the Nazarene.
Relative to Mythicism’s claims, opponents remind us that the Epistles are not biographical texts, so of course we wouldn’t expect them to say much about the historical Jesus. I don’t really buy that argument, because since Paul and the Epistle authors were preaching a celestial Son revealed in the hearts of believers (Paul: “God was pleased to reveal his Son IN me”), they would have needed to cite – and cite frequently – the heavenly Son’s direct connection to the purported existence of Jesus the Galilean carpenter – if such a tradition preceded the Epistles. And the more citations, the better the buttressing of the supposed connection between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Son.

But the Epistles – whether Pauline or not – don’t give any hint of their cosmic Christ being meaningfully connected to the so-called historical ministry of a human Jesus. They make no citation of foundational themes such as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain; no mention of Jesus’ cures and exorcisms; nothing about Jesus forgiving the woman who washed his feet; no mention of Jesus’ “Parables of the Kingdom” which are acknowledged by most scholars as the most distinctive aspect of Jesus’ teaching; no mention of the calling of the disciples, whether in Galilee or in Judea; nothing about Jesus’ own foundational experience – his baptism by John in the Jordan; no mention of Pilate, Judas, Peter’s cowardice; no reference to the scene of the Beloved Disciple leaning back on Jesus’ breast at the last supper; no Mary Magdalene; no Lazarus; no Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

How much more effective their preaching would have been, had they buttressed their mystical, non-material Christ with examples from his earthly career. But there are virtually none. (Paul, at most, seems to think that Jews of his own generation were being persecuted as punishment for crucifying the Lord in Sion/Jerusalem; and he also mentions that Jesus’ mission had only been to Israel [an idea that is supported by the Gospels], just as Peter’s was to the Jews and Paul’s was to the Gentiles. But beyond very minor “nods” like these, the Epistles do not bring the ministry Jesus and his world-changing message into their argumentation.)

Again, how much more effective their efforts would have been had they said things like, “Brethren, we are blessed to have seen His glory in visions, and to know him in our hearts. But how fortunate are those who knew Him according to the flesh, who felt His touch, heard his words, and traveled with Him throughout Judea. Seek out their testimony and learn from them”. Or, even better yet, had they said things like, “You have suffered much from lack of meat, wine, and shelter. We are the poor. But take heart from the example of the Lord, who when he was still on the earth, like us, thirsted, was hungry, and had no place to lay his head”.

Had Paul and the Epistle writers actually possessed a store of extensive knowledge about the historical Jesus, surely they would have written multiple texts in the vein of the above two examples. But they didn’t. This implies one of two things:

Either they deemed Jesus’ earthly ministry, acts, wonders, and teaching as unimportant (at least in contrast to the importance of the cosmic Son);

or there was simply no actual record of a historical Jesus for them to consult and quote – hence his example wasn’t there to be cited.

Otherwise, they would have cited his earthly example almost ad nauseam as the originating, reliable buttress for their heavenly Son teaching. But they don’t. And to me, this is not just a remarkable lack. It is a Screaming Silence.

I’m not a Mythicist, but this Silence is deep and dark. A few Epistolary peeks into-and-about Jesus being recently crucified in the capital, preaching only to Israel, etc., are simply not enough to effectively penetrate the great Silence.

Thus, if Jesus did most of the historical things recorded in the Gospels, why did virtually none of these crucially important things make it into Paul and the Epistles? As already mentioned,  the Epistles weren’t trying to be biographical documents. But even so, their utter separation of their cosmic Christ from the purported historical existence of the Galilean sage – on whom the visionary revelations are traditionallly assumed to be based – is, for me, jaw-droppingly astonishing.