My final opinion of the New Testament is that Jesus was another repressed homosexual (I mean politician…) – only his relation to John was accidentally true. Jesus shared the best ever message of tolerance without telling the full truth, using scenarisation to pretend divinity because it was simply a political campaign : he learned of the curative use of cannabis oil, performed healings but found it was not enough to share his words of peace, so he decided to :
1. Claim everywhere he was bound to die because of his wisdom and especially criticism of political power
2. Fake his own death
3. “Ressuscitate” after having simply hidden himself somewhere else and in fact tell the story of the crucifixion to disciples that would simply believe him and write it down.
French philosopher Onfray points out in his book Traité d’Athéologie to several factual issues in the New Testament regarding for instance crucifixion that was not used against Jews but against those who threaten the sovereignty of the Empire (for instance slave rebellions) and that a victim of execution would have been thrown into a mass grave, his body defaced. By claiming he was crucifixed Jesus attempted to support his claim to be the main threat to the Emperor. And even if it were true he would not have been put in a beautiful cave blocked by a rock (exactly as Lazarus was) but thrown into a mass grave and defaced by surrounders as in any lynching process (by the Jews) and nobody would have been allowed to take his corpse in beautiful clothes and lay it to rest in a cave… Jesus, as an excellent manipulator, felt he needed to have ANOTHER resurrection before his own in the writings. To very well implement in the minds of the readers how his own was real, he needed to have them to happen both on the same model (under a cave blocked by a rock). Lazarus’ revival is a story told only by John, the most loyal to also tell that miracle (Lazarus’ resurrection) that certainly was a lie Jesus insisted to have included in the “tract” – only John obeyed for he wholly loved Jesus.
Quakers have the belief that your inner voice is what has to be followed first and Scripture comes second. It may be that after telling disciples what to write he simply left and lived another life (with Maria Magdalena in this case quite certainly, or with Mary, simply as an eternal children in a quite incestuous relation). The plot would remain quite a good idea if it were naive but machiavelism and naiveness come rarely together and I think he intended to stay and involve himself in local politics after national liberation was achieved YET lying was and is utterly a sin (and, 1. of course, so much persons actually suffered because of the secret on the cannabis plant 2. also, he promotes alcohol which is even more evil (the demultiplication of alcohol at the wedding and “his own blood”, implicitely acknowledging he suffered from alcoholism)). So at the end he is a very bad person. He is lying from end to end. See my article on why repressed homosexuals are Statists and vice versa (as it is obvious the “strong relation” between him and John is another evidence as that relation was never acknowledged and Jesus implicitely condemns homosexuality in his preaches) – Jesus was clearly and evidently one of them. The evidence is that he didn’t live by his own words… and I hope he didn’t mean it (pedophilia is an obvious outcome of repressed homosexuality) when he said “let the little children come to me”.
My guess is that just after he told them the story he was secretly executed (and eaten ? quite possibly – as a kind of vengeance for his lies together with nostalgia) but that disciples kept the scripture and themselves bounced into politics. The cycle of executions presented as martyrdoms started from there…