When one reads religious writings, such as the Abrahamic Texts, in my view they should be treated no differently to any other works. One can analyse or parody Shakespeare, and I wish to do the same with religious texts and religion.
For me it is clear in religious terms that Christ was a prophet – the second Messiah and Son possibly. He was from the line of King David (who was the first Messiah), which King Solomon (the Second Messiah and first Son), which Mohammed (the Third Messiah and Son) also was. Christ made claims about the origin, nature and future of the planet.
In my self-determined faith/religion I am making up, best called ‘Non Conformist‘ – I have decided to also regard Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking to be prophets like Moses was, but not Messiahs. They made claims which on the basis of current science at the time they made them they were not entirely provable.
In is my view that Christ was not ‘crucified’. I personally think he did a deal with Pontius Pilate to pacify the Jews. Pilate said that Christ had committed no crime, and that he’d ‘wash his hands’ with the Jews.
So, reading the Gospels, there was this part where Doubting Thomas trues to prove Christ has ‘resurrected’ by putting his fingers though his hands. Thomas put his fingers through the centre of Christ’s hands and not his wrists, which proves to me Christ was not crucified the same as the others. Also, it is claimed that Christ spent 40 days in the desert, yet he only lasted a couple of hours on the Cross, so I find it unconvincing from a consistency point of view also.
It is known that the Roman’s ‘auctioned off’ all of Christ’s property between themselves. I think the purpose of this was so that when Christ was meant to have taken part in ‘assentation’, he was propertyless and therefore meek, like all those he said would inherit the earth. If he had not been ‘meek’ when he was ascended into heaven then he would have been a hypocrite.
Now turning to Paul and his conversion from Saul. I think it was Saul who wrote many of the unsigned letters to the Romans and in fact Paul was a pseudonym used by Christ in the various letters he dictated to others following crucifixion. Christ had to dictate these letters because as he had holes in his hands and couldn’t write from his plams being nailed to the Cross and so Saul and others acted as a reasonable adjustment for him in continuing his good news message. Saul was not the only transcriber in my view, as one can see from Romans 16:22 another person, “Tertius”, transcribed that letter in place of Saul.
My interpretation of Romans 1 and 2 will be controversial from some, but reading them was essential to the inner-peace I find in myself today. In Romans 1, Paul has a complete condemnation on homosexuality, and in Romans 2 he defends it, saying those who condemn homosexuality will become homosexual themselves. I think this was based on Christ’s personal experiences working with Saul.
When I started having thoughts and feelings towards men, I found it completely disturbing. I thought I was becoming gay, and would therefore no longer be attracted to women, whose ‘assets’ I hold dear as desirable adornments to them, especially those which have been Photoshopped in ‘lad-mags’, but for which Photoshopping was not necessary in my first love!
So I became homophobic towards myself, but not towards other homosexuals in the way I treated them. In fact, while I was coming to terms with these experiences, I recruited the first two openly gay members to the Treforest Labour Party, and designed the discussion programme around things I thought they would be interested in, so that they felt more included and willing to participate.
My auto-homophobia didn’t reduce the thoughts they made them more powerful. And then I would have no control over them coming into my mind at times I would not want them. I have now accepted these thoughts.
So it could be that the reason Christ wrote Romans 1, was because he was having thoughts that he didn’t want towards Saul, who he became close to, and this was his way to deal with it. So although his auto-homophobia his thoughts then increased so that he became orientated towards men, which led to him writing Romans 2, where he said condemning homosexuality will make one homosexual also.
So as you can see, I don’t think Christ had any supernatural powers. I am not willing to believe in anything supernatural until the day science can fully explain it so it can become natural. I think Christ was a very advanced psychiatrist of his days. None of his miracles including making those whose legs were amputated grow again. Most of the people he helped had neurological problems that were acute and treatable. Though talking to people at length and knowing which parts of the mind to manipulate he acted like a placebo, giving people a sense of confidence and home they had overcome their problems. Nothing is said in the Abrahamic Texts about whether Christ’s interventions actually had any long-term efficacy. And so called miracles like ‘walking on water’ were actually misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Texts, as in this case it was simply a case of when Chris’s boat approached the seashore that he walked on the wet sands, or something like that so I’m told by a Christian Minister.
I’m convinced that Christianity was created not by Christ, but by the Romans. Many stories in the New Testament have been shown to relate to local folk-law, like the rolling back of the stone to Christ’s resting place. So the Muslims may be right that Christ was not actually crucified, nor may he have ascended into heaven. By being of David’s line, however, he could have be a Son, and also Messiah.