Why include the Gospels in a Spinoza Study?

"...I therefore conclude, that the resurrection of Christ from the dead was in reality spiritual, and that to the faithful alone, according to their understanding, it was revealed that Christ was endowed with eternity, and had risen from the dead (using dead in the sense in which Christ said, "let the dead bury their dead"), giving by His life and death a matchless example of holiness. Moreover, He to this extent raises his disciples from the dead, in so far as they follow the example of His own life and death. It would not be difficult to explain the whole Gospel doctrine on this hypothesis." - Spinoza, (Letter 23)

The New Testament Gospel itself indicates that Jesus spoke differently to the masses than to his own students and unfortunately what he taught his students can only be gathered indirectly and in fragments. Still, since Spinoza held Christ in such high regard, and the New Testament Gospel is one of the only places where he would have found Christ's words (though possibly distorted by the writers), it seems worthwhile including them for study.

Many Christian Gnostic writings have become available in recent years and they may more clearly represent the ideas behind Christ's private teachings. Gnosis (the act of inner "Knowing") is contrasted with Faith and Theology and seems to have much in harmony with Spinoza's ideas. The early Christian Church did its best to destroy Gnostic writings but fortunately some have survived (see the link to Gnostic writings above).

Jesus, like the Buddha was a man who had awaken from the ordinary dream state in which men spend most of their lives. What is related in the New Testament Gospel is for the most part his interactions with the sleeping or drowsy people around him. How does an "awake" and "aware" adult speak to a child who has not yet experienced ordinary life? Those among whom Jesus spoke publicly were like ourselves, lost in a dream state and unexperienced in Eternal Life.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Matthew 13:10-11.

Not that it was given to them by supernatural Divine means but because they were students of Jesus and had begun, in varying degrees, to understand their own nature as it derives from God. The writings selected for the New Testament reflect the already widening gap between the private teaching of Jesus and the theology that surrounded his public teaching and rapidly took over following his death.

I had often wondered why Spinoza didn't just come up with a different term rather than use "God", or perhaps just use "Nature" without equating the term with "God". One reason may be that the "theological god" of the imagination is so prevalent and it does reflect, in a confused way, the sense that most humans have of a greater reality. By using the same term he forces us to distinguish our own imagination from our understanding and to seek to clarify the two. Had he made up or used some other term we might just go back and forth between two imaginations (one associated with "God" and the other, separate in the imagination, associated with "SomeOtherTerm") never coming to a clear and adequate idea of God.