LOL!
The whole point is that it is not an “Indian spiritual idea” but a universal experience available to any human. Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Socrates and Plato all discovered the same thing, but lived in different times and places. As have a lot of people since then. Buddhists call it Consciousness or Buddha nature, Hindus call it Brahman or the Supreme Reality, Christians call it God… same thing.
This seems to be something a lot of mainstream Christians have missed…
Krishna isn’t a historical figure and the four others had vastly different ideas.
The idea that “All is one” is antithetical to the core tenets of Judaism, that God is holy (literally, apart from) humankind, and the universe is God’s creation. You’re denying Jesus being a Jew. If you’re tossing out the Bible in favor of Gnostic texts and then reading some kind of hybrid eastern mysticism into them, you’ll forgive me if the Holy Spirit doesn’t nudge me into further investigation.
Of course I am denying that Jesus was a “Jew” in the religious sense (ethnically/culturally yes), anything else would be preposterous.
And of course this does not square with dualistic Judaism.
That was the whole point…
Jesus was not a supporter of the Old Testament or the angry dualistic Sky-God of the jewish people. He was an enlightened human who had seen beyond the apparent dualism and realized the Self. Just like every other enlightened human being ever. He was a son of God, not the son of god. Then the sect that becomes Christianity decided to make him the chief saint of their dualistic pseudo-jewish faith after he was dead, and everything went down hill.
And you have no evidence for this beyond your own conjectures and pseudo-Gospels compiles centuries after Christ’s death.
Yes. Look the Synoptic Gospels at least are based upon Q, a timely collection of quotes from Jesus. The rest of the stuff is , well… So, the actual 'red letter" Words of Jesus there are very likely correct.
John is an old man’s personal recollections, likely edited. John at least walked with Jesus. His concepts about what Jesus meant are the best (and the least Miracles, too)
Both have value., as long as you take those caveats into account.
But Gospel According to Thomas ? The added sayings are very late and have little value, except as a footnote to what one camp of early Christians promulgated.
Yeah, those 1.5 billion+ Christians missed the boat on what Jesus was really about. Thankfully, a group of a few thousand really know the truth and have preserved it through the ages. Are you really Dan Brown? 
And your evidence for him being the only son of God, being able to walk on water and raise the dead is…?
Actually the truth is self-evident when the injunctions are followed, you can see for yourself, no need to ”believe” anything. But unfortunately what was a self-transforming mystical practice has been turned into yet another exoteric religion. It’s not rocket science. In fact, what Jesus was talking about is being approached today in psychology. It’s about transcending the ego. Jung called it ”psychic death”, buddhists call it ”enlightenment”, hindus call is ”moksha”, contemplative Christians call it ”mystical union” etc etc. Same thing, different names. That is how you find out what “God” really is. shrug
You have an amazingly low standard for very likely.
You might want to add a, supposedly in there someplace.
The synoptic gospels were mostly likely based on Q and each other a within a few decades of Jesus life. Even if you take just the quotes from Jesus that are recognized by critical scholars to be most likely genuine, you don’t get anything like the new agey stuff you’re claiming. To say he rejected Judaism and its scriptures altogether is completely specious.
John was written even decades later by a gnostic (-ish) community that apparently did not have the same sources. It’s much more mystical but not likely more historical. Even John recounts Jesus observing Jewish religious practices of the day.
So you keep the things in there that are similar and that you like, and you toss out all the stuff you don’t like - such as reincarnation. Easy if you are allowed to do that.
And besides the fact that there is no god to be son of, who else is a son of god - except in the general sense that if god is the father all people are his sons and daughters. Which of course means nothing.
BTW, Jesus saying that no man can mount two horses just means he never went to a circus or a Wild West Show.
I am not claiming either one. Who are you talking to?
This might maker sense if your straw man claim about the Hebrew Scriptures was not borrowed from other New Age authors, (with mild reliance on Marcion).
The notion that the Hebrew Scriptures were all about a raging, vindictive god while the Christian Scriptures are all about love and harmony is an a-historical invention that is not real. Yes, there are many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures where a God, angered by the sins of humans, threatens or carries out violence. But claiming that as the basic nature of those scriptures or the God they portray displays ignorance of, (or chooses to ignore), the great passages of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, the comforting words of Ezekiel, the forgiving parable of Hosea, most of the Psalms, and the many other passage that are central to Jewish belief in which God is portrayed as forgiving, kind, benevolent, encouraging, and merciful.
There is not the dichotomy between the two testaments that you wish to claim and your revisionist history fails on that misunderstanding.
The point is that Jesus is not talking about a personified (angry or not) dualistic God that is judging people, Jesus is talking about the same thing as everyone else who was ever enlightened is talking about when they talk about God.
I would say that You are the one strawmanning because I’m not defending the NT or Christianity at all in my previous responses. I’m saying that God is real and that Jesus was trying to show this to people the same way that all other sages have, and that the NT does not do a very good job of explaining it. And that the Jesus character absolutely did not subscribe to the dualistic religions at the time. He was a mystic, not a priest.
Also, this is not “New Age”, whatever that means to you. Zen or Vayrajana Buddhism maybe, or Advaita Hinduism, not new age. And Jesus is revered as an enlightened master in many systems, he does not belong to Christianity. In fact todays Christianity would probably be seen as an abomination by the dude. Bunch of idol worship, rules and moralism. What he said 2000 years ago is still true: “The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.”
Any serious student of religion ought to know that religions have an esoteric model and an exoteric version. This is not some occult teaching, but it is historic and taught in universities and by famous historians like Karen Armstrong.
When the atheists/rationalists/Progressives/humanists attack say religion is dumb and evil, they are really speaking about organized religion as practiced by the sheep in the exoteric tradition.
Unfortunately, the esoteric meanings and original symbols from the original shamans or holy men have for the most part been lost. But the shreds that remain point to what Stoneburg is talking about.
Alan Watts believed Jesus’s main message was that the kingdom of God is within us, as mentioned in Luke 17:20-21 and The Gospel of Thomas, as Stoneburg mentioned. He believed Jesus had cosmic consciousness, as did other “Holy men” (and regular dudes who see the universe/time/life differently).
Numerous Youtube videos and books on Amazon if any lurker is interested in some of the things Stoneburg is mentioning:
Nah. Your claims about what Jesus “was” or “was not” are based on the preconceived notion, (that arose in the late nineteenth century and has proceeded to the current period), that a number of “enlightened” teachers have all been trying to lead people to the same place, generally by stripping away what any of them said that contradicted any statements by any of the other “teachers,” and presenting a skeleton of the actual teachings that each of them proposed.
That is OK. You are welcome to your beliefs on the matter. They are not actually supported by the evidence of what the “teachers” said when we look at the complete body of ideas that are attributed to each of them, but I have no problem with you believing or even preaching that stuff.
I do, however, reject your straw man argument that creates a false dichotomy between the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and I see no reason to let such claims go unchallenged. That was my sole point. What you choose to believe about Jesus and other “teachers,” (with most of their teachings stripped from them), I do not challenge.
I do note that your claim that Jesus was a mystic can only be established by ignoring what was actually written in the Christian scriptures, (that “did not do a very good job” portraying him), while you and your like-minded believers have been able to suss out what he was “really” saying, despite having no serious record of such sayings, the Thomistic Gospel notwithstanding. If you want to persuade me that you have uncovered some Truth that has lain hidden, lo these millennia, you will need to bring more evidence than you have. I have no problem with the notion that many people have come to similar world views. Similar, however, is different than identical and your claims appear to be little more than proselytizing for one more Gnostic-like belief system.
I would be interested in seeing Armstrong’s actual statement in regard to esoteric vs exoteric belief. Her work that I have seen has never fallen into that sort of claim.