Judaism as a Foundation for Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

I believe this topic is fundamental for discussions of Christianity and Apologetics.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew. And he often referenced the Torah. But how did Jesus himself view the Torah and Judaism in general? Was there even a consistent view of Judaism in those days? According to the gospels I think it's fair to say that the Pharisees held a view of the Torah and God that Jesus did not support.

Were the views of the Jewish Pharisees the orthodox views of Judaism? Or did many Jews, like Jesus, hold views that were quite different from what the Jewish Pharisees held?

I would very much like to hear views on this question:

Question for debate: "Was there a consistent view of Judaism in the days of Jesus?"

And if so, what exactly did that view entail?

[cnorman18]

I echo Kayky's personal note and want to add that I appreciate this perspective . . . tho' . . . I do not like admitting how ignorant I am of the state of Judaism immediately before and during the time of Jesus. What resources do you recommend for supplementing one's education in this area?

The Jewish Virtual Library is probably the best online resource. It's very evenhanded, giving precedence to no particular branch or denomination, its references are very well documented, and it's pretty comprehensive.

I guess I should note for the record that I AM aware that Divine Insight has manipulated me into staying, by dangling a bit of bait that I couldn't resist -- some tempting remarks about a subject on which I am passionate.

That's okay. Nothing wrong with being manipulated if it's well meant. And I'm rather used to it anyway -- this IS my second marriage.

[Divine Insight]

A couple of corrections: First, the Torah consists of the first five books of the Bible. The Old Testament, which is the Christian name for the entire Hebrew Bible, contains the Torah and all the rest of the books. The Jewish name for the whole OT is the Tanakh, a Hebrew acronym.

Ok, so the Torah is only the first five books of the Bible. But it's still included in the OT, and more to the point, those are the books that have a lot of commandments about when to stone people to death. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in particular.

Moreover, those books seem to me make it pretty clear that those are commandments of the LORD thy God. This why I don't understand how the Jews can say that these aren't commandments from God. I don't know how they are actually written out in the Torah, but in the Christian Bible they state pretty clearly that the are commandments of "The Lord they God" handed to Moses.

Although I think it's pretty clear in the New Testament that Jesus did not support the judging of others and stoning people to death. So there's some major conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and the teaching of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible)

Second, the Pharisees didn't accuse Jesus of blasphemy and want to stone him because he disagreed with them about reading the Torah literally. As I said, there was LOTS of disagreement in his day, over the Afterlife, the authority of the priests, and many other things -- and virtually no one read the book literally in the modern sense. He was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to have the authority to forgive sins -- ALL sins, even sins against other people. In the Jewish religion, God Himself doesn't have that authority; only the person sinned against can forgive. So Jesus was essentially claiming to be more powerful than God.

But according to the NT they accused Jesus of blaspheme on several different occasions for several differing things.

Here's one occasion where they accuse him of claiming to be God because he claims that He and the Father are one:

John 10
[30] I and my Father are one.
[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus even argues support for his position by pointing to the Old Testament what I guess would be called the Tanakh, (the book of Isaiah) and saying "It is not written in your law, I said ye are gods?"

If the Jews were open to hearing different points of view on scriptures then what's the problem with Jesus pointing out a different point of view?

This is why I feel that Jesus was most likely a mystic Jew who supported a totally different view from the view of the Pharisees.

I understand your disinterest in modern Judaism and am OK with it. I'll try to bear it in mind in the future.

More later.

Well, this is an important point because I'm trying to show where Jesus and the Pharisees had radically different views.

And what really seems extremely ironic to me is that fact that Christianity tends to actually support a very rigid view of the Torah, and the entire Tanakh actually, as being the infalliable "Word of God", where Jesus himself apparently didn't even hold that view.

He may have referred to the Tanakh when trying to justify his views to the Pharisees, but Jesus clearly didn't support the Tanakh (and especially the Torah with all the commandments to stone people to death) as the "Word of God".

For me, this is an important observation I think.

~~~~

I have a question for you:

Do you believe that "Jesus" even existed at all?

Or perhaps to put that a better way, "Do you believe that an actual person existed that gave rise to the rumors about Jesus?"

And if so, have you ever given any thought to who that person might have actually been, if not the Son of God, as the NT claims?

Does it make sense to you to ask "Who was Jesus?"

Or do you dismiss the rumors of Jesus as being totally made up fiction?

[Divine Insight]

I guess I should note for the record that I AM aware that Divine Insight has manipulated me into staying, by dangling a bit of bait that I couldn't resist -- some tempting remarks about a subject on which I am passionate.

That's okay. Nothing wrong with being manipulated if it's well meant. And I'm rather used to it anyway -- this IS my second marriage.

Hey don't be blaming me for manipulating you. You're not a marionette doll and I don't hold your strings.

My concerns are indeed well meant.

And surely you're aware that the Christians hold Jesus up as an excuse to further hold up the Old Testament as the infallible Word of God.

So that's the vantage point I'm concerned with addressing.

If modern day Judaism is being wounded in this war, it's purely unintentional collateral damage.

[Goat]

cnorman, you are a very important voice here. I hope you will hang around--at least occasionally.

I think it's clear enough by now that I will, at least to some degree; but I will also protest when "religion" is spoken of as if it were a monolithic and homogenous thing -- and ESPECIALLY if it is so characterized by longtime members who should know better.

PS -- Jesus may have had some contact with the Essenes, but besides being hard to prove, the few common points in his teachings and theirs are as likely as not to be coincidence as direct influence. Even then, there was a lot of "cross-pollination" among the various schools of thought.

I would think that the writers of the Gospels are more likely to have come in contact with Essene philosophy at least. What we know about Jesus is filtered through the Gospels, and through a theological filter just too much to know what Jesus actually taught.

[Mithrae]

The "'foundations" for Christianity are more Greek and Egyptian than Jewish. Think about it; the Greek and Egyptian gods fathered literal children, who had godlike qualities themselves; the God of the Hebrews did not. Greek and Egyptian gods rose from the dead with predictable regularity -- Persephone, Osiris, Mithras, etc. Nobody rises from the dead in the Hebrew Bible but the ghost of Samuel at the call of Saul and the witch of Endor -- and Samuel himself wasn't happy about it, and that act was called an "abomination." There are no magical "saviors from sin" in Jewish religion, not even in the (abolished after the fall of the Temple) animal sacrifices; those were for unintentional sin only. The Greeks, and especially the Egyptians, were much concerned with the Afterlife; the Hebrew Bible, and Jewish teachings from that time to this, contain little on the subject at all, and what there is is clearly speculation, not "doctrine." And so on.

Excellent post; just a few comments on this paragraph:
- TGA posted some interesting comments elsewhere suggesting that Philo believed God himself had fathered Isaac and several other notables. Admittedly not representative of Jewish thought in general (and from Alexandria no less!) but worth noting that the idea may not have been entirely contrary to 1st century Jewish thinking.

- There's two cases of physical resurrection in the Tanakh; the widow's son raised by Elijah (1 Kings 17), and someone returned to life when thrown into Elisha's tomb (2 Kings 13).

- It's much overlooked that the NT similarly teaches that "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27); not quite a magical get out of jail free card!

------

Moreover, those books seem to me make it pretty clear that those are commandments of the LORD thy God. This why I don't understand how the Jews can say that these aren't commandments from God. I don't know how they are actually written out in the Torah, but in the Christian Bible they state pretty clearly that the are commandments of "The Lord they God" handed to Moses.

Although I think it's pretty clear in the New Testament that Jesus did not support the judging of others and stoning people to death. So there's some major conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and the teaching of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible)

That depends on which gospel you're reading, and how you interpret it. The story in which Jesus stopped a woman being stoned is actually a later addition to John's gospel, as most bibles will mention. Matthew's gospel goes to some length portraying Jesus as the new Moses, and says that "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19) - though Matthew's also the one who says "judge not, that you be not judged" (7:1).

Well, this is an important point because I'm trying to show where Jesus and the Pharisees had radically different views.

And what really seems extremely ironic to me is that fact that Christianity tends to actually support a very rigid view of the Torah, and the entire Tanakh actually, as being the infalliable "Word of God", where Jesus himself apparently didn't even hold that view.

He may have referred to the Tanakh when trying to justify his views to the Pharisees, but Jesus clearly didn't support the Tanakh (and especially the Torah with all the commandments to stone people to death) as the "Word of God".

For me, this is an important observation I think.

There's never going to be any 'clearly' about it; each gospel writer tailored their story of Jesus to suit their purposes, and there'll always be disagreements on which bits were really Jesus and what he actually meant by it. One of the key questions is whether Jesus actually considered himself Messiah, or was it something his followers came up with later on? And if he thought himself Messiah, what kind of Messiah - a king type who'd bring political change, or a priest type who'd bring religious change?

I dunno about this 'mystic Jew' idea - seems pretty vague and unsupportable to me - but you might be interested in glancing at Jeremiah 31:31-34. In fact have a read of Hebrews 7 and 8 too; is that vaguely along the lines of what you're getting at?
"For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." ~ Hebrews 7:18-19

[cnorman18]

A couple of corrections: First, the Torah consists of the first five books of the Bible. The Old Testament, which is the Christian name for the entire Hebrew Bible, contains the Torah and all the rest of the books. The Jewish name for the whole OT is the Tanakh, a Hebrew acronym.

Ok, so the Torah is only the first five books of the Bible. But it's still included in the OT, and more to the point, those are the books that have a lot of commandments about when to stone people to death. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in particular.

Moreover, those books seem to me make it pretty clear that those are commandments of the LORD thy God. This why I don't understand how the Jews can say that these aren't commandments from God. I don't know how they are actually written out in the Torah, but in the Christian Bible they state pretty clearly that the are commandments of "The Lord they God" handed to Moses.

Although I think it's pretty clear in the New Testament that Jesus did not support the judging of others and stoning people to death. So there's some major conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and the teaching of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible)

Once more: these matters are not as simple as some, particularly Christians, would like to make them.

Here is a reference, again from the Jewish Virtual Library, that might be helpful. You might want to read the whole page, but below are a few relevant excerpts:

....The sages of the Midrash in answer to the question whether Moses learned the whole Torah in 40 days while he was on Mt. Sinai, answered that "God taught Moses the principles" (Ex. R. 41:6). These words are interpreted by Joseph Albo to mean that "the law of God cannot be (given) in complete form so as to be adequate for all times… and therefore at Sinai Moses was given general principles… by means of which the sages in every generation may formulate the details as they present themselves" (Ikkarim, 3:23). A study of the statements of the halakhic scholars reveals that just as they emphasized in unequivocal terms the supra-human and divine nature of the source of halakhah [Jewish law -- CN18], so too – and with the same degree of emphasis – they insisted upon the human element, the exclusive authority of the halakhic scholars to continue to develop and shape the halakhah. This dual image of halakhah finds expression in two basic and apparently contradictory dicta: on the one hand, the basic tenet that "the Torah is from Heaven" (Torah min ha-Shamayim) – on the other, the principle that "the Torah is not in Heaven" (Torah lo ba-Shamayim; BM 59b based on Deut. 30:12; Maim., Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 9:4). In other words, the source of the halakhah is divine, but its place, its life, development, and formation, is with mankind, in the life of society. The halakhic scholars saw no inconsistency in these two principles, believing as they did that in their exegesis, enactments, innovations, and creativeness, they were merely giving practical expression to a further unfolding of the revelation at Sinai, destined from the beginning for the needs of each particular generation (Ex. R. 28:6; Tanḥ. Yitro 11).

There is much more. Even in Jesus's day, it's very clear that though the Torah was considered to be "God's divine Word" (though that is a Christian phrase, not often used by Jews), it is not necessarily binding in its details. Capital punishment in particular was so hedged about with caveats and technical requirements as to make it all but impossible to apply, which was exactly the intended effect (the near-stoning of the "woman taken in adultery" in the Gospels was pretty clearly the action of a mob and not one of a Jewish court).

Second, the Pharisees didn't accuse Jesus of blasphemy and want to stone him because he disagreed with them about reading the Torah literally. As I said, there was LOTS of disagreement in his day, over the Afterlife, the authority of the priests, and many other things -- and virtually no one read the book literally in the modern sense. He was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to have the authority to forgive sins -- ALL sins, even sins against other people. In the Jewish religion, God Himself doesn't have that authority; only the person sinned against can forgive. So Jesus was essentially claiming to be more powerful than God.

But according to the NT they accused Jesus of blaspheme on several different occasions for several differing things.

Here's one occasion where they accuse him of claiming to be God because he claims that He and the Father are one:

John 10
[30] I and my Father are one.
[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus even argues support for his position by pointing to the Old Testament what I guess would be called the Tanakh, (the book of Isaiah) and saying "It is not written in your law, I said ye are gods?"

If the Jews were open to hearing different points of view on scriptures then what's the problem with Jesus pointing out a different point of view?

I don't really see how this conflicts with what I said before; Jesus claimed to be equal to or even greater than God. That is blasphemy to any Jew, and it has very little to do with a literal or nonliteral reading of the Hebrew Bible. Different points of view were promulgated by different schools or parties in 1st-century Palestine, but NONE of them taught that a man could be God. That is WAY over the line, and yet again, the issue there is NOT about the way one reads the Bible.

This is why I feel that Jesus was most likely a mystic Jew who supported a totally different view from the view of the Pharisees.

There are some indications of that, particularly in John, where Jesus seems to be imparting some esoteric teachings to the other disciples; but Goat's and Mithrae's comments below are pertinent, too. We have no assurance that the events we read about in the Gospels actually happened, or that the teachings of Jesus portrayed there are the ones he actually taught. In particular, it seemed to me odd, even when I was a Christian, that Jesus never quite said, straight out, "I am the Lord your God in human form." I suspect that many of the words that hint at that were put into his mouth by a later generation. He seems to have been much more concerned with healing the sick, with the plight of the poor and downtrodden, and with corruption in the Temple hierarchy -- and with some (admittedly) mystic understanding of a "Kingdom of God" that was "not of this world" -- than he was with being God Himself in the flesh.

I understand your disinterest in modern Judaism and am OK with it. I'll try to bear it in mind in the future.

More later.

Well, this is an important point because I'm trying to show where Jesus and the Pharisees had radically different views.

On the subject of Jesus himself as portrayed in the Gospels, yes indeed they did differ; but those passages may be a polemic addition to the actual events of the time, since it seems clear that the Gospel writers were concerned with, among other things, distinguishing the early Christians from the rebellious Jews and exonerating the Romans for Jesus's death. Jesus's actual interpretation of halakhah and that of the Pharisees were otherwise pretty much the same.

And what really seems extremely ironic to me is that fact that Christianity tends to actually support a very rigid view of the Torah, and the entire Tanakh actually, as being the infalliable "Word of God", where Jesus himself apparently didn't even hold that view.

He may have referred to the Tanakh when trying to justify his views to the Pharisees, but Jesus clearly didn't support the Tanakh (and especially the Torah with all the commandments to stone people to death) as the "Word of God".

For me, this is an important observation I think.

Those are Christian terms -- "infallible Word of God" -- and I doubt very much that any Jews of Jesus's day or any other ever subscribed to those ideas in the Christian sense. Belief in a literal six-day Creation, for instance, had been discarded at least by the first century, and probably long before.

~~~~

I have a question for you:

Do you believe that "Jesus" even existed at all?

Or perhaps to put that a better way, "Do you believe that an actual person existed that gave rise to the rumors about Jesus?"

That seems much more likely than that the Gospel accounts are factual, objective reporting in the modern sense.

And if so, have you ever given any thought to who that person might have actually been, if not the Son of God, as the NT claims?

Does it make sense to you to ask "Who was Jesus?"

No to both questions. Healers and wonderworkers were thick on the ground in Jesus's day (like today), and Messiah claimants were ten cents a hundred. More than a few of them, as it happens, were named "Jesus" (in Greek; Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic). Some of them were even executed for sedition by the Romans, as Jesus apparently was. Even if one were intent on fabricating the Gospel story out of whole cloth, it would make more sense to choose one of those figures to build the story around rather than making up a new person out of nothing; besides, the objective historical existence of some of the characters AROUND Jesus is well established.

Or do you dismiss the rumors of Jesus as being totally made up fiction?

I know that's a popular view among members of this forum, but among actual historians and Bible scholars, it's virtually nonexistent. I think that's as polemic and agenda-based a view as the fundamentalist one.

I shall respond to other posts later; I have to go to actual work.

[Divine Insight]

I dunno about this 'mystic Jew' idea - seems pretty vague and unsupportable to me - but you might be interested in glancing at Jeremiah 31:31-34. In fact have a read of Hebrews 7 and 8 too; is that vaguely along the lines of what you're getting at?
"For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." ~ Hebrews 7:18-19

Well, my suspicions that Jesus was a "mystic-minded Jew" come together from many different experiences.

In the beginning, when I first realize that the Biblical story cannot be true as laid out in the biblical cannon, I simply concluded that Jesus could not have been the son of God. I really didn't have an alternative explanation for who he might have been, or even if he existed at all. Some people have claimed that he is totally made up fiction (which may still be true, and I'm going to address that in my next post to Charles)

It wasn't until I had studied the entire history of Buddhism that I realized that the moral and behavioral philosophy that Jesus taught was totally compatible with Mahayana Buddhism, right down to teaching that "I and the Father are one", and "Ye are gods". Two views that had been attributed to Jesus in the NT.

When I realize that Mahayana Buddhism was both very popular, and and successful, and that it was at its peak right at the time when Jesus would have lived, that pretty much sealed it for me. At least in terms of Jesus having been influenced by this philosophy (not necessarily that he became an official Buddhist).

Speaking with many Jews, I also began to realize that Jews (like Charles) did not necessarily view the biblical God as a personified Zeus-like character as the Christians tend to portray God, but instead many of them thought of God in a far more mystical sense. As Charles often states, there is no single way that a Jew must believe in God or think of God.

Much later I actually got into studying magick just to see what different people have to say about it. One book I bought is called "Modern Magick", it is written by a former Jew who ultimately left Judaism to embrace "Magick", and the reason for this is because as a Jew he questioned where all their traditions came from, so he looked into it. What he found was that many of the Jewish traditions actually had their origin in Egypt. He suggests that the Jewish Kabbalah actually came from the Egyptian magicians, and was of course highly modified by the Jews then.

None the less, he suggests that many of the very early Jews were actually "magi" (i.e. magicians) who believed in a very mystical view of God and that all humans are endowed with mystical powers.

In fact, bringing that right back into the New Testament we see Jesus telling his disciples that if they had the faith of a mustard seed they could say to a mountain "Move" and the mountain would move. Hey, if that's not an implication that just anyone can have powerful magical abilities I'm not sure what is.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was right about magical abilities. But it's clear from some things he said that he must have believed in magick (or the power of a God acting through a person).

That's of course assuming that anything in the NT can be trusted to have any merit at all. But since these are the scriptures that are under consideration we really have no choice but to comment on things that they claim were said.

So I see many reasons to believe that there may have been mystical-minded Jews around in those days, and Jesus may very well have been one of them.

And if he was one, then there's also a high probability that he would have embraced the mystical philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism which would have certainly been available to him at that time in history. Perhaps not even embraced as "Buddhism". It may have simply been the same philosophy twisted a bit to make it more compatible with various Jewish views.

But I think it's pretty clear that over-all the teachings attributed to Jesus are far more compatible with Mahayana Buddhism than they are with the teaching of the previous Old Testament. This is why I feel that this must have played a role in some way.

[Divine Insight]

No to both questions. Healers and wonderworkers were thick on the ground in Jesus's day (like today), and Messiah claimants were ten cents a hundred. More than a few of them, as it happens, were named "Jesus" (in Greek; Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic). Some of them were even executed for sedition by the Romans, as Jesus apparently was. Even if one were intent on fabricating the Gospel story out of whole cloth, it would make more sense to choose one of those figures to build the story around rather than making up a new person out of nothing; besides, the objective historical existence of some of the characters AROUND Jesus is well established.

What ultimately may be true is that the stories of the NT were actually rumors that were constructed by taking various stories from many different historical people and treating them as if they were all just the life and times of a single individual.

In this sense the Jesus of the NT would be both a fictional creation, and rumors of actual people who lived. Albeit highly exaggerated rumors. That would give the story historical credence in that the people the rumors were being drawn from had actually existed.

[kayky]

Well, my suspicions that Jesus was a "mystic-minded Jew" come together from many different experiences.

In the beginning, when I first realize that the Biblical story cannot be true as laid out in the biblical cannon, I simply concluded that Jesus could not have been the son of God. I really didn't have an alternative explanation for who he might have been, or even if he existed at all. Some people have claimed that he is totally made up fiction (which may still be true, and I'm going to address that in my next post to Charles)

I also came to the conclusion long ago that Jesus was not "God in the flesh." It's actually a nonsensical idea unless you have an extremely primitive idea of what "God" is. I have no reason to believe that Jesus was not a real person, but I think there is very little evidence that he ever made such claims about himself. Since then, I have begun to notice the esoteric nature of both the Gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul.

It wasn't until I had studied the entire history of Buddhism that I realized that the moral and behavioral philosophy that Jesus taught was totally compatible with Mahayana Buddhism, right down to teaching that "I and the Father are one", and "Ye are gods". Two views that had been attributed to Jesus in the NT.

When I realize that Mahayana Buddhism was both very popular, and and successful, and that it was at its peak right at the time when Jesus would have lived, that pretty much sealed it for me. At least in terms of Jesus having been influenced by this philosophy (not necessarily that he became an official Buddhist).

I used to have a coffee table book that placed the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha side by side in parallel columns, along with beautiful illustrations (when I got a puppy five years ago, he chewed it up). Not only are the parallels striking, my study of Buddhism has actually shed light for me on some of the teachings of Jesus that I had only understood on a shallow basis previously.

Speaking with many Jews, I also began to realize that Jews (like Charles) did not necessarily view the biblical God as a personified Zeus-like character as the Christians tend to portray God, but instead many of them thought of God in a far more mystical sense. As Charles often states, there is no single way that a Jew must believe in God or think of God.

Much later I actually got into studying magick just to see what different people have to say about it. One book I bought is called "Modern Magick", it is written by a former Jew who ultimately left Judaism to embrace "Magick", and the reason for this is because as a Jew he questioned where all their traditions came from, so he looked into it. What he found was that many of the Jewish traditions actually had their origin in Egypt. He suggests that the Jewish Kabbalah actually came from the Egyptian magicians, and was of course highly modified by the Jews then.

What is Magick?

None the less, he suggests that many of the very early Jews were actually "magi" (i.e. magicians) who believed in a very mystical view of God and that all humans are endowed with mystical powers.

In fact, bringing that right back into the New Testament we see Jesus telling his disciples that if they had the faith of a mustard seed they could say to a mountain "Move" and the mountain would move. Hey, if that's not an implication that just anyone can have powerful magical abilities I'm not sure what is.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was right about magical abilities. But it's clear from some things he said that he must have believed in magick (or the power of a God acting through a person).

Is it possible that Jesus was speaking metaphorically?

That's of course assuming that anything in the NT can be trusted to have any merit at all. But since these are the scriptures that are under consideration we really have no choice but to comment on things that they claim were said.

I think the the New Testament has a great deal of merit, but not as historical records. The Gospels, for example, are works of religious literature; and even if they do contain some historical material (and I think they do), they should be approached with all of this in mind.

So I see many reasons to believe that there may have been mystical-minded Jews around in those days, and Jesus may very well have been one of them.

The Gnostic view is that both Jesus and Paul were speaking to two different audiences: one with limited spiritual understanding and one whose spiritual maturity had prepared them to understand the esoteric nature of their words. I think evidence can be found in both the Gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul that this is the case.

And if he was one, then there's also a high probability that he would have embraced the mystical philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism which would have certainly been available to him at that time in history. Perhaps not even embraced as "Buddhism". It may have simply been the same philosophy twisted a bit to make it more compatible with various Jewish views.

But I think it's pretty clear that over-all the teachings attributed to Jesus are far more compatible with Mahayana Buddhism than they are with the teaching of the previous Old Testament. This is why I feel that this must have played a role in some way.

It's very possible. Traders from distant lands would have been passing through Judea all the time and could have spread their religious ideas in the process.

[kayky]

What ultimately may be true is that the stories of the NT were actually rumors that were constructed by taking various stories from many different historical people and treating them as if they were all just the life and times of a single individual.

In this sense the Jesus of the NT would be both a fictional creation, and rumors of actual people who lived. Albeit highly exaggerated rumors. That would give the story historical credence in that the people the rumors were being drawn from had actually existed.

I don't know if you are familiar with the work of an English theologian named Michael Goulder. He makes a compelling case that the Gospels were written to create Christian liturgy similar to that used in synagogues. He demonstrates how the order of events in the Gospels (and the book of Acts) align with the Jewish calandar of feasts and festivals; and depending on the book, follows the order of the Torah or, more specifically, the life of Moses. His ideas were popularized in the book, Liberating the Gospels by an Episcopalian bishop named John Shelby Spong. Not too long ago, I did a thread on this subject.