What were Jesus' aims?

Jesus' motives were complicated. It seems that he knowingly played out two different politico-religious dramas: one of which esoteric - he accomplished the Osirian drama - and the other exoteric - he arose as the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. His ministry suggested a specific three-phase strategy: win over the masses by performing miracles and healings, promise them a golden age in his sermons (the "kingdom of heaven") and a better life, and cause them to see in him the heralded Messiah. As the authorities in power were extremely touchy, he had to express his claims as Messiah more implicitly than explicitly.

Many now admit that Jesus had political ambitions, but they simply see that as a secondary aspect of his ministry. For most people (all religions included), Jesus is the very embodiment of goodness and kindness. However, he was nothing of the sort. An objective analysis of the Gospels reveals Jesus as being completely different from the moralist that he was supposed to be; despite their propagandist nature, they provide a relatively inconsistent and vague image of the man and his doctrine.
The teachings given by Jesus, as presented in the New Testament, are contradictory. For instance, he advises his disciples to "turn the other cheek", to love their enemies and give away their belongings to whoever wishes to steal them (Matthew, 5:39-44), but then he says, "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew, 10:34). He reiterated the commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother" (Mark, 7:10), but he subsequently adds, "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke, 14:26). Theologists put these contradictions down to the fact that some declarations are to be taken literally, whereas others are intended as metaphors. The only problem is that theology was invented for the sole purpose of clearing up such contradictions. Christian theologists start from the premise that Jesus was God - a perfect example of circular reasoning. In their eyes, everything that Jesus said was true because he said it, and he said it because it is true. This theory does not stand up if it transpires that Jesus was not God in man's image, and the contradictions inherent in the words that he is credited as saying become obvious.

Miraculous healings or effective therapies?

When it comes to the "miracles", there are two schools of thought: on the one side, there is science, which concludes that the miracles are impossible (and implies that Jesus did not historically exist); on the other, there is the Church, which considers that the matter of the miracles is not even open for discussion, since they are of divine origin: science therefore has no say in the matter. Both antagonists agree on one point - only that their analysis is right and any other possibility is to be excluded. But what if there were a third avenue that had not been explored in 2 000 years? Namely that there was a real Jesus with medical powers…

To begin with, the Greek word tekton used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' trade is traditionally translated as "carpenter", but in actual fact it corresponds to the Aramean word ouman, which means "doctor"; in addition, even Jesus refers to himself as a doctor (iatros in Greek). Similarly, the title of "Saviour" (soter in Greek) was commonly applied to doctors at the time, and the Greek noun kurios, which translates as "Lord" and is used several times in the New Testament, was used during the 1st century to honour doctors.

Furthermore, if we compare the healings attributed to Jesus with those performed by the best doctors in antiquity, such as Hippocrates, Celsus and Galen, there are remarkable similarities. For example, with regard to the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark (8:22-25) tells us that Jesus, using his saliva, performed the ritual twice so that he could see "every man clearly". If Mark wanted to make Jesus a God, would he support this rather bothersome detail concerning the number of attempts, which detracts somewhat from the impact of the "miracle"? Likewise, John (9:1-7) gives us a perfect description of a therapeutic act when he says that Jesus spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle before applying it to the blind man's eyes. However, it is known that saliva was one of the most frequently used remedies in eye-related cases, as confirmed by Pliny the Elder in particular.

In addition, we know that the Greek words used to designate the different ailments mentioned by the Gospels are very often vague and incorrectly translated. For example, the words translated by "blind", "paralytic" and "leprous" do not have exactly the same meaning in the original text; in Greek, they have a wider sense that applies to other more benign ailments. Similarly, the Greek verb used to describe Jesus' action, therapeuo, which has been rendered as "to heal" by most translators, actually means "to treat", which is quite different.

Finally, the concept of "miracle" at the time was also different than what it implies today: a fortuitous but explainable event was also called a "miracle". For instance, when Jesus heals on the day of the Sabbath when work of any kind is forbidden, it is a "miracle", because in Judaism, even when the doctor treats, God is the one doing the healing. If Jesus breaks Moses' law that was supposed to have been given by God and ailments are nevertheless healed, then it means that God approves and shows his presence by a… "miracle".

If a carpenter heals, then it is obviously extraordinary, but it is a lot less surprising if a doctor treats (any maybe heals)…