If you grew up in (or are currently a member of) a protestant church, you have probably been allowed to believe that your faith has been relatively unchanged throughout the millennia. Catholicism (your church’s grand-pappy) has had a colorful history filled with all manner of exciting events among them the councils. The catholic councils would amend the faith from time to time; adjusting the theology and tinkering with dogmas. Most protestant churches (in USA at least) are not yet old enough to have undergone a similar process as most are twentieth-century creations. Many are incredulous that the faith they practice today is the result of a number of different faiths / philosophies that were absorbed into Pauline Christianity rather than what was believed by our twelve-disciple homeboys. In fact, he following questions launched my obsession into Christian origins and is the topic of today’s post: “If I travelled back to the time of the height of Jesus’ ministry, would they recognize my religion? Would they know all the Sunday-School stories so familiar to us in the 21st century?

I think the best approach is to take what we know as modern Protestantism and remove items that would not be there in the specified time. What we will be left over with will be the pure unadulterated Christianity; the true “twelve disciples experience.”

The first cut will be the hardest to accept but accept it we must. We must cut out Paul and his contributions. Yes, the apostle to the gentiles is responsible for much of the “non-jewish” aspects of the faith as well as almost all of the New Testament. Sadly, Paul was also denounced by the very twelve men Jesus had as companions and helpers during his brief ministry. The disciples did not agree with the teachings of Paul about their companion. Paul even notes this in several places even going so far as to mock them.

“I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.””
‭‭-2 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭5‬ ‭NIV‬‬

The twelve disciples were (of course) adamant that Jesus never would have said or even have approved of much of “Paul’s” gospel. (Yes, he called it “my” gospel!) Paul’s response for this discrepancy? Jesus underwent a deep and profound change when he died.

So who are we to believe about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; the men who were there with him witnessing the events or a man coming from the outside who had a vision as part of a mystical experience?

Paul actually brings with his Merkavah mysticism (look for an article on this soon) another gigantic “contaminant”; Platonism. Paul was steeped in and well versed in the cosmopolitan Roman culture of the time. During the first-century, the Roman Empire was absolutely obsessed with all things Greek. The eggheads call this Hellenization; “Greekified”…… Meanwhile, the Jewish concept of an afterlife was in flux during this period. The Sadducees (the upper-class Temple-managing crowd) did not believe in life after death and while the average person (Pharisee or Essene) did believe in an afterlife; it was not a great existence. (Picture sleepwalking in a dimly lit room for all eternity.) The Romans however, were all about the soul living on and being rewarded.

Plato was a big name in popularizing this view in Greece and thus in Rome. We see Paul (a man educated and experienced in Roman culture) making references to the same “glorified bodies”, raised souls and heavenly realms that Plato was so well known for. Paul seems to have believed Plato’s daimon to be our soul (glorified body after death). Plato teaches that the purified soul can ascend into the heavens and become like a god….”divine.” Paul applied this nearly word for word to Jesus as he described his vision of Jesus on the heavenly chariot / throne. (The very definition of a Merkavah experience.) Basically, our current concept of heaven and the soul comes to us from Plato by-way-of Paul with Plato providing the very outline for the Messiah as Paul saw him.

The next painful subtraction may be the very things that make Jesus unique amongst the other Rabbi of the day; his divine birth and bodily resurrection. Remember that the Gospels were written after the true letters of Paul and were heavily influenced by them . We only know any background about one of them; the Gospel of Mark. Mark was supposedly written by Peter’s former translator and Paul’s new buddy John-Mark. Mark wrote down what he recalled Peter teaching over and over as he traveled spreading the word. Explosively absent are the two biggest, most miraculous and messiah defining aspects of the modern Jesus story; the virgin birth and the resurrection from the tomb. There is absolutely no way that an original disciple of Jesus would simply leave these points out or forget them if they were part of the faith at the time. The fact that they aren’t in the earliest gospel seems to show that Peter was not including them in his many bazillion tour stop sermons.

Furthermore we have a pamphlet written for new converts that outlined the faith for the earliest recorded Christians. Many attribute this document to the Ebionites; which many believe to be the original Jerusalem church headed by Jacob (James, if you’re nasty like King James.) It is called Didache and it offers an amazing and rare glimpse into what may have comprised the faith with as little adulterations as possible. In this amazing document, there is a communion ceremony similar to ours but with no references to blood or flesh. (Something second century Jews would’ve found repulsive.) Notably there are no references to bodily resurrection nor divine birth.

“We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you have revealed through Jesus, your Son. To you be glory forever. We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your Son. To you be glory forever.

As this piece of bread was scattered over the hills  and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.“– Didache; Eucharist Blessing.

The final cut that we will make here will be to many of the stories of Jesus themselves. While Jesus undoubtedly preached many public sermons, it is doubtful that the sermon on the mount / plain actually happened. Scholars believe there to be a common source between Luke and Matthew that is simply a list of Jesus quotes; a format not uncommon for the time. There would be no way to give the story around each and every “beatitude” without making the book super long. Thus the authors bundle them up and relayed the important parts as if Jesus was delivering a sermon.

Many of the Jesus stories also suspiciously mirror the ones present in the Roman mythology / religion at the time. For example, the water into wine was a story about Dionysis. Before everyone gets mad, one must remember how religions worked in the first century. Gospels were not a record of history. They were written to convey the message of the Lord in a digestible way. Often, religions overlaid the new figures and teachings onto already popular folklore in order to make it familiar to new / potential converts in a way that still conveyed the purpose of the teaching. The reason that Flavius Josephus is such a huge deal to us is the fact that he actually recorded a history. Religious works were never recorded as histories. What our literate population of 2025 demands for our faith is not what an illiterate group on 40 CE needed. They needed to be laid on already familiar stories as to facilitate transmission via word of mouth.

So, what’s left? To me, it is all still valid. Paul himself did not believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus (despite popular belief.) Non of these subtractions mean that he wasn’t the Messiah, that he wasn’t the son of God. It is natural to assume that through word-of-mouth and the presence of an overbearing, oppressive occupying power would bleed into the story of Jesus. Even the big guy, JC, picked up some Greek with the concept of hypocrite. The authors didn’t care one bit about recording a historical account for a modern audience. In fact, they would be massively blown-away that we are STILL here reading their works as they believed Jesus’ return was imminent. What they wanted you to hear are the red-letters; the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was born, lived and was crucified as a devoted Jew. His disciples were all devoted Jews. While he did add some radical concepts to his theology, he still valued the “law” and strove to clarify what it should mean to us all. I think what is left after removing all of the outside influences looks exactly like how he lived and spoke. Going back into time, your religion would’ve looked very Roman to the disciples while Jesus and his crew would’ve been far more similar to the Pharisees than your Sunday morning coffee crew. Jesus is often stripped of what he held most dear; his faith. The modern faith has done what Jesus himself actively worked against; we have removed / changed “the law.” In my opinion, if one wants to worship in the way Jesus and his companions did, they should observe the Jewish faith in the way Jesus did.