Common stories, different conclusions

Two more questions posed during my post-doctoral research with an inter-faith seminary in the States.

Question: The pagan fertility cults which came long before Jesus’ lifetime, seem to have already told the story of his death, resurrection, empty tomb, women finding him risen, and so on. Does this negate his life or his message? Does it shake your faith or strengthen it? 

I think it is fascinating that different cultures tell such similar stories. It perhaps indicates a commonality of spiritual understanding and experience which goes far beyond the labels that we classify ourselves and others by, and the boxes we hide them or ourselves in.

I don't think that such similarities in any way negate the life and/or message of Jesus, but I do doubt that Jesus was the Messiah expected by the Jews – the one who would liberate the Jewish people from oppression and then establish God's rule of justice and peace. Gradually this had come to be understood more in political than theological terms.

According to gospel accounts, Jesus forbade his followers from using the title Messiah/Christ, perhaps in order to dissociate himself from these political overtones, but after his death the title was used increasingly, and, not least through the theology of Paul, radically altered the understanding of Jesus' life and special transcendent purpose – he became a salvific figure, rather than one who taught and lived at one with the immanent God. As far as we can tell, Jesus chose the submit to his premature and horrific death in obedience to what he understood to be God the Father's will, and, perhaps, to spare his followers and ensure their survival, not, I believe, in order to 'save' anyone as a ransom or sacrifice.

I believe that Jesus' ministry of teaching and healing manifested the fullness of life which he experienced and which we could all experience, if we were only open to it and could only disengage from the tangled web that enmeshes us and holds us down. That fullness has to do with being fully present in the Now, and thus being linked, and eventually united, with everything, with the absolute Being, which is God, which is all.

Question: Why do you think they ignore the Anointing part of the Anointed One’s story? Surely the Messiah would have to be anointed at least one time in his life, or how else could he hold the title? Why in the heck is this never pointed out to us?

Anointing – usually of the head with holy oil – is a rite of consecration, the setting apart of someone or something for a special, usually divine, purpose. For example, at the coronation ceremony of Queen Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey in 1953, the anointing, which consecrated her as sovereign, was the one part of the service that was concealed by a canopy from being shown on the TV broadcasts, as it was considered too holy. The oil is said to have been made from a 'secret mixture' of ambergris, civet, orange flowers, roses, jasmine, cinnamon, and musk, contained in an eagle-shaped vessel. During the anointing the choir sang Handel's anthem 'Zadok the priest'.

It was indeed Zadok, a descendent of Eleazer, son of Aaron (brother of Moses, and prophet and priest to the Abrahamic people) who anointed Solomon himself, and who became the first High Priest of Solomon's Temple. I think it was from this time on that the kings of Israel were referred to as the 'anointed of YHWH' – indicating perhaps that they represented the kingship of YHWH over the people, and that YHWH worked through them. When the kingdom of Israel was destroyed, the people began to look towards a Messiah who would deliver them and establish God's everlasting kingdom among them.

However, as I have already said elsewhere, I don't believe Jesus was the awaited Messiah. His purpose was something other, but this neither denies nor negates the significance of his anointing at Bethany by Mary, the Magdalene.