Jesus, son of Mary and his Abba/Daddy
December 7, 2009
I find it difficult to maintain that Jesus was fraudulent (and which is much easier to make with Mohammed or Joseph Smith). I find it easier to think of him in a sort of semi-supernatural way, as this rarest of all children, the one who was born with one rule innate: always do what mother says. Now couple this with the person of Mary (as related in the Christian histories), a girl so marvelous that she was thought as a miracle herself. She is prenant (and the how can be speculated) and has an hallucination (let us say) that her child will be the savior of his people, the very Son of God in person. She raises that little boy to believe that he was the Son of God and that it was important for the work of his Abba/Daddy that he always do as his mother says. The first thing she tells her son, when he is older, is that he has all power and can make the mountain move by the mere sound of his command. And couple with this is the command that he is never to test what his mother has told him, but simply to accept it and know it and be ready for that time when his Abba/Father will call on him to take charge of the world and to set it straight.
And so we can have a man in Jesus who could be considered no different from any human except that he never considered breaking the moral law nor the commands of his Abba/Daddy in the proxy of his mother. And, as Kant observes, that should not be counted as a miracle, for the like is expected of every human, i.e., utter devotion to the moral law.
So a natural man with a remarkable mother whom he never disobeyed until after he was grown, appears in a way that suggests replication were possible.
Now a semi-supernatural aspect enters in a here hypothesized fact that any one who asks for something of God in pure, i.e., innocent faith, what is asked for will attain. Accordingly Jesus, who never doubted the teaching of his mother, would have happening what he demanded by voice (just as any one could do in a state of innocence and purity and sincerity and candor). So the event is a miracle when seen by eyes of the impure and weak in faith, i.e., our scientific eyes, but when seen on the pure level is a matter of fact and the reason there is no contradiction in the demands of the pure is because they are all part of a common realm, expressed humanly as a commune.
I guess the hypothesis cannot be tested very well, for it is hard to find a pure heart and a dedication to one’s parents, and hard to imagine a mother providing the environment for the child to always be candid with her.
This hypothesis then is the introduction to the great confrontation of Mary and Jesus at the Feast of Canna. The slaves are out of wine and a beautiful wedding can be ruined and Mary tells Jesus to act. For the first time ever he disobeys her and stands on his own feet. Then Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them and then turn and face Jesus. Jesus takes this to be the command of his Abba/Father. He had often wondered how the call would come, e.g., before a king or in the temple. Here it was in the plight of some very ordinary people, a few servants and a wedding feast host. So he tells the servants to serve water instead of wine and they comply and end up pouring the “finest wine†and making the host’s and wedding couple’s day.
So as a Christian I should be able to tell the bed I am reclining on to levitate and have it happen, except that I do not have the certitude of Jesus and must rather ask, often in ignorance, for him to work in this way or that.
So according to this theory, Jesus and Mary started out as very special people, and yet no different from other people with regard to their nature, they ended up discovering the First Law of Miracles, but which is not a miracle when considered in the grand scheme of things (according to my conception here). Like Newton after him, Jesus discovered or rather exhibited the Law of Miracles (perfect acceptance coupled with a pure heart begets whatever is desired) and which is part and parcel with the Laws of Nature of a single world. The Law of Nature and the Law of Miracles are particular manifestations then of a single realm and there is no conflict when considered in light of that single realm.*
[* This might tie in with the Highest Good that Kant requires for moral sanity, and where God has produced the superior realm reflected equally by the laws of nature and the laws of miracles which makes it possible for happiness to be made available commensurate with the degree of one’s moral perfection. Perhaps a perfection is achieved in moral life such that things can be commanded, and safely and consistently with the commands of others.]
Filed under: Christian