The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom by Tim Freke

The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom Reviews

• 
  Linda Branham

  The first half of the book is a dissecting of the world religions - what the authors call the Literalist viewpoint. If you are fundamentalist you would not like the book. However, I am not fundamentalist and the authors expressed many of the views that I already have. Will the book change anyone - probably not. But if you already believe this way - it will "reawaken" you :)
  In this current world we are living in the Literalists - fundamentalists - of all religions are becoming more outspoken and hate filled. They are us - they are the part of us that is fighting the idea of awakening. Awakening to what? That we are all one. When we bomb people in other countries - we bomb ourselves. When we hate others - we hate ourselves. God is not out there - God is inside each and every one of us. As Thich Nat Hanh said "We are all drops in the ocean of God"
• 
  Miles Fowler

  The twinned purpose of this book is an attack on organized, Fundamentalist (or in the word preferred by the authors, 1CLiteralist 1D) religion combined with the promotion of an alternative, the 1CPerennial Philosphy, 1D which is an idea associated especially with Gottfried Leibniz and, later, Aldous Huxley, holding that certain philosophical and mystical insights into mind and reality are eternal and universal--by implication because they are rooted in human nature as much as in the true relationship between consciousness and the underlying order of the universe. Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy have a rather relentless agenda in the first part of their book that is somewhat unfair to religion. On page 17, they contend that Christianity opposed the abolition of slavery. This is simplistic enough to be a lie, because the abolitionist movement was riddled with clergymen and Bible-thumping laymen. John Brown, the white American who tried to lead a slave revolt in 1859, believed that God compelled him to do this. The song 1CAmazing Grace 1D was written by a Briton who, after being born-again, became an abolitionist. And, after all, the Catholic Church, while in many ways being rightly classified by the authors as 1CLiteralist, 1D has also made many concessions to modernism including a willingness to entertain the idea of evolution and other scientific innovations. Many pious Protestant sects have done likewise. Nevertheless, the authors state their position, with only mild apologies for 1Cbeing deliberately provocative, 1D that Literalist religion is 1Cthe Devil 19s greatest achievement 1D (p. 12). In the second part of the book, the authors present their alternative, which makes for a different book to some extent, more amiable and at least a little less combative in tone.
  
  In the first part of their book the authors survey the Western religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in that order, giving each its own chapter in which to be mercilessly skewered. Perhaps the principal way in which the authors do violence to the facts of theological history is by twisting the context to fit their agenda rather than giving any attention to other implications that are presented in the facts. To make this understandable, I might as well outline their position. Most religious doctrines, especially though not only in the Western religions, are presented through written scripture and have come to be understood by dominant sects within each major tradition as more or less literal accounts of how the world was made, how humanity was brought into the world and what our relationship to the universe is supposed to be. Most of the stories in the Bible and Quran, if presented to the world for the first time today, would be recognized as being too simplistic and bizarre to be true and would consequently be roundly derided from almost all quarters. This is what Freke and Gandy point out more than once. They have a point, but their relentless task becomes one of claiming that almost every single claim in the Bible and Quran is allegory masquerading as fact. Only Saint Paul and Muhammad are regarded by them as historical persons. All the rest, from Abraham to Jesus (and including the Apostles) are fictional characters in stories originally meant to explain spiritual truths by analogy.
  
  While the authors pepper their text with citations, they do not tell the reader that many skeptical scholars are not committed to the idea that the characters in the Bible do not have actual historical counterparts 14though it is true that it would be of little comfort to Literalists if a historical Jesus, for example, bore only the slightest resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament. Freke and Gandy also suggest that the history laid out in the Biblical books Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Kings and Chronicles is fictitious and does not correspond to actual history. This is often problematic because the lack of evidence for the Bible as history is an artifact of the misuse of the Bible as history. When the authors say that Moses or Solomon did not live when they are supposed to have lived, they gloss over a conundrum: because the dating of Biblical history is suspect, there is no certainty as to when they were 1Csupposed to have lived. 1D Yes, historians have constructed a timeline, but that merely begs the question of whether the timeline is reliable since it is based on nothing other than an interpretation of the scriptures made by early nineteenth century historians in light of new Egyptological discoveries at that time, which scholars calibrated to Biblical history 14arguably erroneously. (See David Rohl 19s book 1CPharaohs and Kings 1D for one argument along this line.)
  
  The footnotes in this book are not always reliable, turning out to be explanatory annotations of the authors 19 thesis as often as citations of sources. When there are citations, they are often used in support of conclusions with which the cited author(s) might not be quite in agreement. At some points, such as in the last full paragraph on page 67, the authors make a number of contentions including this one: 1CFor the first three centuries CE [ 1CCommon Era, 1D or A.D. to most people] Literalist Christianity was the fringe sect and Gnostic Christianity was far more popular 26. 1D Not a single citation is offered in support of this remarkable assertion; nor are there any citations for immediately succeeding sentences in spite of the fact that remarkable assertions just keep coming. Of course, it would be pointless for me to refute such assertions based on the strictly historical and technical meaning of the term 1CGnostic 1D because the authors 19 assertions are dependent on their special definition of the term 1CGnostic 1D which they identify with the Perennial Philosophy.
  
  1CThe different individuals who make up this tradition didn 19t all use this name, of course, but grouping them together as 18Gnostics 19, in this broad sense in which we use the word, enables us to treat this important movement in the evolution of ideas [that is, the Perennial Philosophy] as one identifiable tradition 1D (p. 112).
  
  Then why not consistently refer to it as the Perennial Philosophy or something along that line instead of muddying the water by using 1CGnosticism, 1D which refers to a particular set of ideas that can be located geographically, historically and theologically?
  
  Gnosticism actually does not always agree with Perennialism. On page 104 the authors refer, in passing, to the world as belonging to God, although they know that, strictly speaking, Gnostics generally did not believe that God created the world, but rather that it was created by a lesser being who created the world as an act of rebellion against God. One implication of this admittedly allegorical understanding of the universe and humanity 19s place in it, is that Gnostics found most of humanity to be so mired in the false appearances of the world that a Gnostic need not trouble himself with their salvation but should seek his own instead. This is not always believed by Perennialists and is decidedly not subscribed to by Freke and Gandy who are, after all, writing a book aimed at the general reader whom the Gnostics, in the narrow sense, would likely have written off. So now we can see why it is startling for those of us who know something about Gnosticism to read that it was more popular than Literalist 14or what historian Bart Ehrman calls 1Cproto-orthodox 1D--Christianity. The true Gnostics were not popular and did not wish to be; if anything they were widespread, being found everywhere from the eastern to the western reaches of the world known to the Roman Empire, but they were often embedded within other Churches, going about their teaching in secret. What Freke and Gandy include within Gnosticism are any and all of the forms of early Christianity that would come to be regarded by the Catholic Church as heretical even where these sects were not strictly Gnostic or even Perennialist. A good example would be Marcionite Christianity which Freke and Gandy lump together with Gnosticism. Marcionism was very popular indeed but, while it has things in common with hardcore Gnosticism, these are rather superficial correspondences. Marcionism was, in fact, rather Literalist. The real Gnostics were so individualist and free-thinking that their communities, such as they were, were not hierarchically organized; as loose associations of thinkers, they were politically vulnerable to better organized Marcionite and proto-orthodox groups. What is more, while it is true that there were many churchmen who were influenced by Gnosticism, they were not full-fledged Gnostics but saw themselves as loyal members of the same Church as their Christian neighbors. Besides, they recognized that many aspects of Gnosticism could only truly be appreciated by intellectuals; so they did not expect most people to understand let alone follow their views.
  
  Another example of a distortion arising from the authors 19 polemic is their account of the New Testament conflict between Peter and Paul. The authors deny Peter any historical existence, maintaining that Paul 19s 1Cfrenemy, 1D Cephas, is not the same man as the Apostle Peter. (This idea and their evidence for it has some basis: they contend that later editors of the New Testament changed a 1CCephas 1D to 1CPeter 1D in Paul 19s letter to the Galatians and added the identification of Peter with Cephas to the Gospel of John; while this is controversial, it is interesting to note that some versions of the Bible such as the King James have 1CPeter 1D at Gal. 2:14 while the Revised Standard Version has 1CCephas, 1D as if different ancient manuscripts offer a different name here, supporting the authors 19 charge that a substitution of names is responsible for creating the illusion that Peter and Cephas are the same.) This point has several consequences. One is that it helps the authors 19 to focus exclusively on the Literalists 19 re-writing of Paul 19s ministry to demote him before Peter who knew Jesus personally whereas Paul did not. This helps their earlier contention that Paul 19s reluctance to discuss the earthly life of Jesus is significant evidence that Paul did not believe Jesus to have been a man of flesh and blood to begin with. By suggesting that Peter and the other apostles are fictional so that no one had any claim to have known Jesus in the flesh, the authors cut much support from under the best alternative explanation for Paul 19s reticence about the historical Jesus, which is that since Paul did not know the historical Jesus and since those who might have claimed to have known him 14and to have seen him in his resurrected corporeal form, as well 14would have commanded the most authority, it was in Paul 19s interest, if he wanted to command authority of his own, to downplay his lack of acquaintance with a flesh-and-blood Jesus while playing up his experience of an entirely non-corporeal Jesus. Secondly, the conflict between Peter and Paul also had to do with the conflict between Jewish and gentile Christians, and in this instance (Galatians) Paul is portrayed as shaming Peter. So much for the Literalists trying to raise Peter above Paul in stature.
  
  The authors also get many facts plainly wrong. Where they write, 1CThere are over 150 references to 18Peter 19 in the New Testament 1D (p. 72), they should make that 1Cover 50. 1D (There are exactly 51 in the King James Version, but as shown below, this varies depending on the version.) On the same page, they write, 1CThe name Cephas appears only once in the whole New Testament and the name Peter appears only once in all the letters of Paul 26. 1D They must have meant to add the word 1CGospels 1D after 1CNew Testament, 1D which makes a big difference: There is no mention of 1CCephas 1D in any of the three synoptic Gospels while there is only one in John; however, there are about six uses of the name Cephas in the whole of the New Testament, which includes the Gospels AND the letters. No such excuse can be made for the authors saying that there is only one use of 1CPeter 1D in all of Paul 19s letters: the name appears at least twice at Galatians 2:7-8 in the Revised Standard version and in the King James Version it also appears at 1:18 and a fourth time in some manuscripts at 2:14.
  
  On page 78, the authors enter the territory of Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" when they assert that "The Nicean Creed was designed by a despotic Roman emperor [by which they mean Constantine] and imposed on Christianity by force." Actually, Constantine only knew that he wanted the Council of Nicea to come to agreement about some divisive issues so that the Church could be unified, and he did not care how these issues were resolved, much less have the ability to write the Nicean Creed himself. That is nonsense.
  
  By the time the authors get to dealing with Islam, they have already spent most of their credibility with me. In the second part of the book, where they discuss the Perennial Philosophy, my favorable inclination toward that general orientation is tempered by my having put them on probationary status. Throughout this book, for all of their talk of free-thinking and independent inquiry, the authors tend to tell their readers what to think not only about reality but about mundane political questions and even (this already begins to make their book dated) particular political leaders. Nevertheless, the second part of the book needs to be regarded as much as possible on its own merit. Some of their assertions seem quite appealing to me, such as this on page 153:
  
  1CThose who attempt to deny their own desires end up as distorted as those who are driven by them, because both approaches to life arise from a misunderstanding of the human predicament. 1D
  
  There is a middle way, then, between the conflicting visions of altruism and selfishness. The authors suggest that there is an enlightened selfishness. (I have observed that altruists are like psychics: even if you believe they exist, you must admit that they are outnumbered by imposters.)
  
  Their thesis is that life is like a dream in that the dreamer is not only the figure he identifies with in the dream but everyone and everything in the dream; so too are we connected to each other and to everything in the world. If we allow ourselves to be aware of this, our relations with others and life in general will be transformed. Much of this insight is contained in religion, but 14and this is the reason for the first part of the book 14we need to view scriptures as speaking allegorically to this lesson rather than taking them literally if we are to get such insights out of them. Hence the plan of the book, which labels the attack on literalism in Part I, 1CThe Bathwater, 1D and the presentation of 1Cspirituality without religion 1D in Part II, 1CThe Baby. 1D
  
  While this book contains a lot of valid information and attractive speculation, the authors 19 relentless special pleading makes someone who already knows something about these issues wince to say the least, and that has made my reading experience less than enjoyable. I prefer to take my skepticism straighter than this. If you want your Perennial Philosophy straighter, you might turn to Freke 19s little book 1CLucid Living, 1D so that you don 19t have to wade through the dreck before you come to the treasure.
• 
  Chris

  This slim volume kept me entranced, it is one of those books I didn't want to put down. The authors present a very clear case for the hijacking of Gnostic Christianity by the power-hungry Roman church. Read this and you will learn how the modern "Christian" churches are based on 1500 years of lies, distortions, and mistranslations. The also veer into a discussion of Islam, how Muhammad's original message of submission to God gradually changed into a mission of domination, hatred, and opression.
• 
  Timothy Boyd

  A well written and interesting view of religion and religious history. Good read. Recommended
• 
  Ryan Sloan

  I'm not a religious person, but I do think we can learn something from just about every religious tradition and philosophy. There were parts of this book I liked a lot, and there were some parts I didn't like so much.
  Likes:
  1. The historical look at some of the major religions was interesting (though see point 1 under dislikes)
  2. I think the "imagine you were hearing this story for the first time" approach to some of the fantastical religious tales was an effective rhetorical device, but if it hasn't persuaded adherents for the last few hundred years I'm not sure it will do so today :)
  3. Looking to a variety of religious and philosophical traditions to learn about ourselves and the world around us.
  4. The importance of awareness and presence in the moment. The philosophies they describe share a lot with Zen Buddhism in this respect.
  5. The notion that organized religion is organized around the agendas of the people organizing it.
  6. Eschewing literalism in favor of contemplation and the search for a deeper understanding.
  7. The idea of the good and bad in everything is something that I've long believed in.
  
  Dislikes:
  1. Some of their historical/fact-based stuff was light on citations, but that's fairly typical of these books.
  2. In addition, their tone was a bit combative for my tastes. I understand it was framed as a "takedown" of those religions, but it still came across a bit too arrogant for a couple of guys who promote the idea of "Big Love." I also found it humorous that Gnosticism got to claim all the positives of World religions, while avoiding responsibility for the negatives.
  3. The idea of the I vs. the It wasn't inherently bad, but a lot of their talk of one shared consciousness made me roll my eyes - it starts to sound an awful lot like the the superstitious stories they were deriding in the first part. (more on this later)
  4. There is a section that promotes the unity of Gnotsticism with science. In that section they state that since science can't fully explain conscious thought, consciousness must be something bigger than just a byproduct of our physicality. This shows a frustrating lack of understanding about what science is - the fact that we can't scientifically explain something doesn't imply that it can never be explained. (The excerpt: "But the fact is, even if someone knows what every neuron in your brain is doing, that won't give them access to a single one of your thoughts")
  
  That said, I think if one looks at their beliefs the way that they suggest looking at other religions I think there is a lot of value there. If we set aside the idea that our "I" is literally some shared awareness that exists beyond the physical world and unites us all, we are left with an interesting symbolic philosophy. We are all one in the sense that we are all conscious beings (whatever that really means) and we are more similar than different - everyone is the protagonist in his or her story, and we're all here to confront the world's events, for better or for worse. The notions that by being aware of the moment and all that comes with it, looking to the entirety of the World around you for inspiration and wisdom, and spreading love and happiness to your fellow man are all noble...well I think those are certainly things I can agree with.
  
  I'd recommend it to anyone who's open-minded about spirituality and interested in learning more about alternatives to literalist religions, but I'd advise you to take their more spiritual claims with a grain of salt. To those who take affronts on their beliefs as affronts on themselves: you will probably hate this book (although you just might need books like this more than anyone else.)
• 
  Jon Y.

  An excellent primer on the true history of Palestine and the religions that grew from that region that morphs halfway through into a gnostic self-help book (a commendable self-help book that many people could benefit from reading, but a self-help book nonetheless). Fascinating for the amount of time it concentrates on tossing out "The Bathwater", but "The Baby" bored me to tears with sentiments that should be obvious to anyone who has every dotted their tongue with some LSD-25 and a copy of "Be Here Now".
• 
  Shavawn Berry

  This is an amazing indictment of the literalist perspective on religion. Its scathing view of those who believe that the bible is a history book is palpable. Instead, Gandy and Freke encourage the Gnostic view of rejecting separateness and embracing oneness. The second half of the book on gnosis (awakening) is some of the most encouraging, heartening, lovely guidance I've read in a long while. This book offers spiritual solace to anyone who has been wandering the wasteland of modern life, searching desperately for the "water" of spiritual love and understanding. It is a beautiful book.
• 
  Blair Runde

  Stopped reading the last half of the book. The first half I loved.
• 
  Jennb_9

  2.5
  
  Overall, I’m not sure who the intended audience for this book is (especially the first part discussing fundamentalism and literalism). I think most people would agree that religious fundamentalism is not good but how many people agree that Literalism also isn’t good? If this book is to convince those who practice the Abrahamic religions that the way they believe and practice is dangerous to having a peaceful and harmonious society, you aren’t going to convince them with the harsh and insulting tone of this book. If this book is for those of us who don’t practice the Abrahamic religions, I don’t think we need convincing that fundamentalism and literalism isn’t good and very problematic. So...
  
  The gnostic part of this book has interesting ideas which align with some of my beliefs and gave me some new ways to look at life. Like this part, “We are suggesting that the awareness which is conscious through each one of us is the same awareness experiencing the life-dream from different perspectives.” Whoa. Some of the gnostic ideas can be a little hard to wrap your brain around but once you get a handle on it, the books becomes quite repetitive.
• 
  Morgan

  "Imagine what would happen if we actually began to wake up and live by the Gnostic teachings of oneness and love. If we started to truly love our neighbors, and even our enemies, because we recognize that they are actually expressions of our own deeper self. If we saw through to the reality that there are no Jews, Christians, or Muslims. There is no 'us versus them'. There is only us. This is the Gnostic vision that has inspired us to write this book." (page 8)
  
  Wow! And what a book it is! Most of Freke's arguments aren't new (far from it!) but the way in which he so frankly presents his case for gnostics is invigorating.
• 
  Aria

  So many good books on gnosticism exist. This book is not one of them. Additionally, the authors seem to think anarchy means chaos.....ah, no. In fact, they seem confused about a few diff. words, so I just don't trust them to interpret anything. Finally, they come off as assholes. The writing is flat & tedious, & the tone is assholish. It was neither informative nor enjoyable. That about covers it. If seeking out gnostic-related reading material, my recommendation is to avoid this one. DNF p. 106.
• 
  Jsrott

  Not a convincing book. While I did see the merits in distinguishing between literalist versus symbolic interpretations of various religious texts, I did not find the authors arguments for their own beliefs to be any more convincing. I fully support the concept of enlightenment, I just don't see the authors as particularly enlightened.
• 
  Geraldine

  This is the Truth!
  
  Another excellent book by Tim Freak and Peter Gandy. I feel I now have 'permission' to drop all the bogus theological BS that I have been wrestling with for years. Thank you for putting the truth out there in such pleasant and easy to understand terminology.
  
  
• 
  Bimo Pratama

  This is the worst conspiracy book i’ve ever read..
  My cat is smarter than the author of this book
• 
  Tammy Vermeulen

  Really insightful
• 
  Rob Haas

  It has a very interesting slant on Western religion which I still bring up from time to time when discussing religion.
  
  Highly recommended for anyone struggling with spirituality.
  
  Anyone interested in this should probably know a little bit about the old and new testaments as well as the Koran before reading it to get the most out of what the book is trying to get across. Its a little difficult and dry at times but overall it was a winner once you get through the tougher parts.
  
  
• 
  Charuga

  Currently reading, it's the last in Freke & Randy's books on Gnostic Christianity BEFORE they wrote the Gospel of the Second Coming.
  
  I find it so thought provoking my book has all these notes in the margins. It answers a lot of questions I've had about the Bible, and has helped me understand the Bible better as an allegory instead of a literal account of history. After I'm done, I'll have to re-read the Gospel to catch all the nuances and references.
• 
  Lisa

  T. Freke had me thinking & wondering again over another one of his books. Strong stuff, could be offensive to the sensitive Christian. Although I do not agree with all things he covers (is he THAT sure that the man named Jesus (Yeshua) never existed?) i do so appreciate his passion for gnosticism.
• 
  Sally

  The first few chapters point out the absurdities, doctrinal and hsitorical, of the major monotheistic faiths and their texts before the authors turn to the teachings of gnostic wisdom. These are discussed in contemporary terms, with inspiration and enthusiasm.
• 
  Carey

  Don't throw out the Baby with the Bathwater! The authors differentiate between the political manipulations of classic spiritual texts and the "Baby", or the Gnostic truths. Written for a layperson, it is a great introduction or expansion on Gnostic thought. Very enjoyable.