Your Jesus or the Bible’s Jesus? - The Illusion of Being “Non-Religious”
If every version of Jesus comes from the same book, can any of us truly claim to be outside religion?
I’ve been watching a growing trend in the spiritual coaching world.
It goes like this:
“I’m not religious. I’m spiritual. But Jesus was consciousness itself… and I follow his teachings.”
It sounds inspiring, doesn’t it?
Except for one thing — every single thing you “know” about Jesus comes from a book that is the foundation of organised religion: the Bible.
Let’s be honest.
Outside of the Bible and a handful of brief historical references, we know almost nothing about Jesus. No speeches written by him. No diary. No direct record of his own words. What we have are stories — passed down orally for decades, written by believers, interpreted through the lens of faith, not impartial history.
Paul’s letters — the earliest writings about Jesus — were already religious instruction, not biography. The Gospels were crafted to inspire belief, not to satisfy historians. And the only reason you can speak of the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, or even his crucifixion is because they’re recorded in the very text used by churches for two thousand years.
So here’s the contradiction:
If your Jesus is drawn entirely from scripture, then you are using a religious source.
You might not like the dogma. You might reject the institution. You might interpret it in a way that feels more mystical, more psychological, more universal. But the root is still religious.
You can’t separate the tree from its soil.
The Bible is the soil. Your “spiritual” Jesus grew in it.
And here’s where I have to ask:
When you think of Jesus, who do you see?
The image of whom — the one described in the Bible?
Are you stepping into the role of another prophet who receives messages from God — like Moses, or perhaps even more?
If so, how is that not the beginning of another religion?
And when you mention scripture — again, from the Bible — to explain how Jesus didn’t want to follow any religion or institution, you present that as a truth worth listening to.
But if you’re still talking about Jesus the way religions do — providing his teachings based on your understanding — what’s the real difference?
Religions speak about him from pulpits, temples, or gatherings. You speak about him on the internet. In both cases, people listen, follow, and try to live by what is said about him. The only change is the setting — the function is the same.
Because there are already thousands of denominations of Christianity, each with their own “true” interpretation of Jesus. Some see him as God incarnate. Others as a prophet. Others as a moral teacher. Every one of them claims the real meaning.
When you, as a spiritual teacher, reinterpret Jesus in your own way, you’ve simply created the 1,001st denomination — the Church of Your Version of Jesus.
The difference?
You don’t have stained glass windows or a pulpit. You have Instagram Reels and a coaching package.
I’m not saying your insights aren’t valuable. I’m saying: own what you’re doing.
You are working within a religious phenomenon — because the figure you’re invoking exists, for us, only through religious transmission. Even the earliest writings about him were born inside belief, not outside it.
So when you say, “I’m not religious, but I follow Jesus,” I have to ask:
If the only source you have for your Jesus is the same source religion uses… are you really outside religion — or are you just starting a new one?
