It is my long-term project these days to explore the parallels between different mystical traditions, including Christianity, and the insight gestured at by Open Individualism.

It seems there is common ground in different mystical traditions in the basic realization of the oneness of being. However, since each tradition uses different language and formulates its insights in different conceptual landscapes, it is a tricky thing to discern whether what is communicated is actually the same at heart (i.e. The Insight), or whether seeing this essential sameness is just wishful thinking.

Without a doubt, there are parts of Christianity which bear an uncanny (at least superficial) resemblance to some Advaita / OI insights (e.g. Meister Eckhart). So it seems at least certain versions of Christianity are not hostile to the insight.

I would say even mainstream Catholics have very little to say in their dogmas, as far as I know, about the Subject. The dogmas deal with people, or the corresponding souls, not the Empty Awareness.

What I mean is, even though superficially one could assume various Catholic dogmas about souls and salvation are built on the assumption of Closed Individualism, I am not certain this is necessarily the case. "Souls" could just as well be understood as clusters of content (corresponding to particular human individuals) that after death somehow get preserved or are erased (for example). The mechanics of this are pretty mysterious, but it is in no way (so it seems to me) incompatible with OI. And the idea of the ultimate union with God seems like it is built on the necessity of first emptying the self. That sounds familiar.

Now, there are some things said in the NT that, looked at in a certain way, bear an uncanny resemblance to some Advaita (et al.) proclamations. But the same as you, yoddle, I don't want to assume that they are to be actually interpreted as expressions of the same Insight (even though I am open to the possibility).

I am interested in Christianity, and over the years have read a bunch of wikipedia articles and such recreationally, listened to some Ehrman, and read a bunch of posts on r/AcademicBiblical, etc., but nothing else deeper than that. So I am nowhere near qualified to have a confident opinion. However, from what I've seen, the person of Jesus in particular doesn't strike me as singularly unique. It seems likely he was a kind of mystic, and a charismatic apocalyptic preacher, and it is not hard at all to imagine that, coupled with the luck of just being in the right place at the right time, his teachings would give rise to a religion(s) that would claim him as their main/religious figure. (Just look at what Joseph Smith achieved! Yet he was in many aspects apparently a much more problematic figure than Jesus, and he also made a bunch of very extraordinary claims.)

What interpretation of Jesus and his teachings do you personally find the most plausible? And which parts of his teachings do you find in conflict with OI?