Paul of Tarsus vs. Jesus of Galilee
Paul taught a religion in which people remain as egos, made hopeful (and, it is expected, more loving and benign) by what they believe about Jesus. Therefore, in Paul’s view, one’s actual and full entrance into Divine Union must wait for an always yet future event-either in the universal righteous final judgment and aggressive transformation of humankind at the “second coming” of Jesus or else in some other Divinely-destined time or place or circumstance after death.
The Spiritual teaching of Jesus of Galilee stands in direct contrast to the conventional (or “substitutionist”) religious views of Paul of Tarsus. Jesus would not at all have agreed that human beings are sinful inherently-or, as it is said, “fallen”, or inherently, rather than merely ignorantly and actively, separated from the Divine-nor would Jesus have agreed that human beings (therefore) need a mediator (rather than a Spiritual Master, or Sat-Guru), or that human beings require (or could even use) a substitute for their own necessary (and inherently salvatory) free action of repentance and Divine Communion. Indeed, one of Jesus’ primary efforts was to criticize such conventional religious views. Jesus (as he is reported in the “New Testament” Gospels) was committed to the view that every human being is inherently free to repent of the acts of egoic (or “sinful”, or separate and separative) self, and to turn directly to the Ever-Living (or All-Breathing) Divine Spirit in Which all exist.
Jesus of Galilee clearly felt that his role, as a Spiritual Master, was to criticize and purify the minds and institutions of his time, and (by means of Spiritual Baptism and right Spiritual instruction) to Awaken people to the Spiritual practice of life. Thus, Jesus served his intimate (or “inner-circle”) devotees as a Spiritual Transmitter (or Spirit-Baptizer) – and, thus, as a Spiritual Master with the unique Power to directly Awaken committed practitioners to profound Awareness of the Spiritual Divine. However, Jesus was not otherwise disposed to be regarded or proclaimed as a priestly (or “objectified” cultic religious) substitute for the necessary personal practice of others. Therefore, Jesus always shunned the attempts of people around him to declare him to be the “Messiah”, or, otherwise, to put him in a position of worldly or institutional responsibility.
Therefore, it was only after Jesus’ purported death that an institutional cult (or emerging new religion) began to develop around the person of Jesus of Galilee-and Paul of Tarsus made himself the leading literary (or doctrinal) exponent of that new religion.
–Adi Da Samraj, from the book Up?