The "New" Testament

[Bob]

Hi,

I am still occupied with the Christian claim to a “New Testament” and what that implies towards Jews.

If we read the Christian scriptures, we find that they first of all are called “The New Testament” and are said to transcend “The Old Testament” – which is valuable as the genesis of Christ, but which is dated and therefore in need of renewal. This is an affront to the Jews, who know that JHVH is their G-d “He is G-d, the faithful G-d, keeping the covenant, and the kindness, to those loving Him, and to those keeping His commands – to a thousand generations …”

For the solution to the problem we will have to look at Scripture itself. The fact is that the “Old Testament” itself in Jeremiah 31:31-32 talks of a “New Covenant” which will surpass the old, which Israel failed to keep. “Behold, the days come, says JHVH, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says JHVH).”

This “new covenant” however, to transcend the old, has a number of characteristics:
• The Law (torah) is put in the “inward” parts and is written “on hearts”
• Jhvh will be their God, and they shall be His people.
• No longer shall each man teach his neighbour, and each man his brother, saying, know JHVH. For they shall all know Him, from the least of them even to the greatest of them – declares JHVH.
• JHVH will forgive iniquity and remember sins no more.

The last point could be argued to be the result of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which we could look upon as being fulfilled. Equally, the fact that gentile Christianity worships the Jewish God seems to satisfy requirements. However, what about the other characteristics? In what way could the Law be “written on the hearts” or “put in the inward parts” of believers? In addition, isn’t the routine of the church dominated by teaching? There seems to be disparity in a number of important points despite the Letter to the Hebrews, which with many words underlines the fact that Christ is the High Priest of a new covenant.

I believe we can follow Paul and other Epistle authors in our seeking answers to these particular questions, who seem to pick up the words of Jeremiah in what they write. For example in 2.Cor.3:3 Paul writes: “you are Christ’s letter, served by us, not having been inscribed by ink, but by Spirit of living God, not in tablets of stone, but in fleshly tablets of heart.” Here he is saying that the revelation of God is not inscribed on paper with ink or even carved on tablets of stone, but “inscribed by Spirit of living God in fleshly tablets of heart” very much like Jeremiah had said.

In addition, whereas in the Old Testament the law was laid before the people that they might accept it and follow it, a sign of the “new covenant” is indicated in 1Jo 2:27: “And the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teaches you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and as He taught you, abide in Him.” The “Anointing” or “Chrisma” is the endowment of the inspiration of God, which itself teaches concerning all things.

However, both epistles (2Co 3:5; 1Jo 2:24) are eager to make clear that we are not “sufficient of ourselves to reason out anything as out of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.” We are dependent upon the unity with God, which is why the Gospel from the beginning must “abide” in us, in order that we too “will abide both in the Son and in the Father.” The spiritual life of prayer, contemplation and meditation is essential for those seeking life, because the interwoven intimacy breeds new life.

To my mind, this makes it clear enough that the “New Covenant” and the Christian “New Testament” can only be identical where this interwoven intimacy is practiced and from it a life resembling the words of the prophecy develops. This is the spiritual life which learns from Christ, from his gentleness and humility as well as from his teaching.

Any thoughts …?

Shalom

[detrop]

Any thoughts …?

Yeah, I have a question.

Okay, 2Co 3:5; 1Jo 2:24, as opposed to 4Fo 2:8, which was written after 5:13 verse 8 chapter 11, in book 9, once the revisions were made to 3Jo 7:04, but before it was approved by the clergy because of ramifications to 5Co 2:13 in section 6, that were explicitly contradictive to section 3 in chapter 4, specifically states in verse 5 that…

…GOD IS DEAD.

GO AWAY!

(Just kidding…you’re pretty cool, Bobby. Stick around. We’re gonna have some laughs.)

[Uccisore]

You know, I’ve heard it said that hate is closer to love than indifference. If that’s true. detrop, you sound like someone a half step away from conversion!

[Navigator]

@Bob

For the solution to the problem we will have to look at Scripture itself. The fact is that the “Old Testament” itself in Jeremiah 31:31-32 talks of a “New Covenant” which will surpass the old, which Israel failed to keep. “Behold, the days come, says JHVH, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says JHVH).”

Bob, Jeremiah was predicting, throughout his whole career of prophecy, the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians, and the captivity of the people in Babylon. His message was that this event was a punishment meted upon Israel by JHVH for their breaking of the Law, worshiping of other deities, and general faithlessness.

To understand what was going on here religiously, and what followed, it’s important to understand that the religion practiced in Judah at this time was almost unrecognizable as Judaism. It had many of the same forms, but was so different in perspective and underlying belief that modern Jews would probably consider it crude animistic apostasy. JHVH, to begin with, was not regarded as a universal deity, but only as the tribal deity of the Hebrew people. He was one God among many. They were supposed to only worship Him – but of course, they broke this commandment repeatedly. But they were ready to do this because they believed, without serious question, that other deities besides JHVH existed, and often turned to them when they seemed to provide benefits, either spiritual or material that He could not.

Also, it’s important to understand that JHVH at this time was firmly associated with the land of Palestine and with the Temple in Jerusalem. It was impossible for a Jew to worship God in a foreign land, because He was not there.

The Babylonian captivity thus presented the Jews with a serious challenge to their belief system. How could they worship the Lord in a foreign land? Only if they changed their understanding of what He was and meant. If He were universal, and found everywhere, then being in a foreign land became no barrier. If He were the God of all, and not merely of the Hebrew people, then He could provide His people anything any other deity could, and indeed they ceased to be deities at all.

I do not believe it is too strong a statement to say that the people captured by the Babylonians entered Babylon as mere Hebrews, and emerged from it as Jews, in the sense we would understand Jews to be today.

This “new covenant” however, to transcend the old, has a number of characteristics:
• The Law (torah) is put in the “inward” parts and is written “on hearts”
• Jhvh will be their God, and they shall be His people.
• No longer shall each man teach his neighbour, and each man his brother, saying, know JHVH. For they shall all know Him, from the least of them even to the greatest of them – declares JHVH.
• JHVH will forgive iniquity and remember sins no more.

The last point could be argued to be the result of the Crucifixion and Resurrection

It could. On the other hand, it could also be argued to be the result of the Captivity, and the transformation of the Jewish religion into a truly monotheistic and cosmic faith. And since it was the Captivity that Jeremiah’s Jeremiad was all about, it seems to me that this is by far the more likely interpretation.

[detrop]

“For believe me that there is nothing, no heresy, no sin, nothing whatsoever so abhorrent to God as the official. And that thou canst well understand; for since God is a personal being, thou canst well conceive how abhorrent it is to Him that people want to wipe His mouth with formulas, to wait upon Him with official solemnity, official phrases, etc. Yeah, precisely because God is personality in the most eminent sense, sheer personality, precisely for this cause is the official infinitely more loathsome to Him than it is to a woman when she discovers that a man is making love to her—out of a book of etiquette.”

– Kierkegaard (Attack Up Christendom)

[Bob]

Hi Navigator,

Bob, Jeremiah was predicting, throughout his whole career of prophecy, the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians, and the captivity of the people in Babylon. His message was that this event was a punishment meted upon Israel by JHVH for their breaking of the Law, worshiping of other deities, and general faithlessness.

OK so far …

To understand what was going on here religiously, and what followed, it’s important to understand that the religion practiced in Judah at this time was almost unrecognizable as Judaism. It had many of the same forms, but was so different in perspective and underlying belief that modern Jews would probably consider it crude animistic apostasy. JHVH, to begin with, was not regarded as a universal deity, but only as the tribal deity of the Hebrew people. He was one God among many. They were supposed to only worship Him – but of course, they broke this commandment repeatedly. But they were ready to do this because they believed, without serious question, that other deities besides JHVH existed, and often turned to them when they seemed to provide benefits, either spiritual or material that He could not.

I believe I said this with less words too …

Also, it’s important to understand that JHVH at this time was firmly associated with the land of Palestine and with the Temple in Jerusalem. It was impossible for a Jew to worship God in a foreign land, because He was not there.

I disagree on this one slightly, since Jacob is said to have discovered that God is not only with his Father but also with him far off where Laban lived – but the promise of the Covenant was attached to the land and so to some degree you are right, something inherently important was missing in captivity.

The Babylonian captivity thus presented the Jews with a serious challenge to their belief system. How could they worship the Lord in a foreign land? Only if they changed their understanding of what He was and meant. If He were universal, and found everywhere, then being in a foreign land became no barrier. If He were the God of all, and not merely of the Hebrew people, then He could provide His people anything any other deity could, and indeed they ceased to be deities at all.

Yes, I think too that Israel was making spiritual progress through their encounters with various cultures around them, but then again, I tend towards “interspirituality” anyway. Your explanation may well be the story on the surface, but there was a thread being woven through history that was leading to Y’shua and prophecy was always a case of “as it was then, so it will be again” or “what was said then is even more true today” – a sort of hindsight, agreed, but no less authentic.

I do not believe it is too strong a statement to say that the people captured by the Babylonians entered Babylon as mere Hebrews, and emerged from it as Jews, in the sense we would understand Jews to be today.

Of course a lot of the Jewish tradition was revised in Babylon and some was probably found there, but I am not such a keen person on exclusive spirituality. We mustn’t forget the heroic tales from Egypt that also found there way into the traditions about David and Moses … I am aware of all this. I am really looking for something else. I am trying to show Christians that their claim to a “New” Testament as against the “Old Testament” should at least fulfil some requirements before it supersedes the old Covenant.

Many Christians are oblivious of the historical facts, and they take the “baby-food” of their evangelists and “praise the Lord”, but they haven’t entered the relationship they believe to have, or gained a certain maturity. I want to show them that.

This “new covenant” does amount to a further step towards spiritual maturity, however, Christians should take it seriously and personal. To have the Law (torah) in the “inward” parts or have it written “on hearts” is the result of mature spiritual practise, which manages to overcome our wiles and ways by seeing ourselves as we are. Anyone who has seriously practised various techniques of meditation and contemplation knows how you come to know yourself – and recognise that each of us is being driven through life and thereby is guilty of the various “sins” that separate us from real life. It is far more effective than just having it written in books.

To make JHVH ones God and become one of His people may have meant what you wrote in the past – I’m sure though, that there was spiritual maturity amongst a few. Since Christ, we could understand that the metaphor “God” means the mysterious Unity of all existence and that the “Reign of Heaven” is where the higher truth of that Unity has authority. It means a break away from the “powers that be” and to lead a life in that truth.

Under such circumstances, should we adopt them, there is no need for each man to teach his neighbour or brother how to know JHVH, since they shall all know Him because the more I can understand the truth about myself, and I reduce in size of ego, the larger and more effective the divine Wisdom (Christ) becomes in my life, beginning with the fact that Christ allowed a great unrighteousness to be the upright sign of the forgiveness of iniquity, allowing us to live in an atmosphere of exoneration and love.

Thereby you can see that the Crucifixion and Resurrection is a mystical starting point, to which I can return whenever I have failed to keep up with the truth – which is not only a fact of life, but also the grounds for humility.

Shalom

[Navigator]

@Bob

I am trying to show Christians that their claim to a “New” Testament as against the “Old Testament” should at least fulfil some requirements before it supersedes the old Covenant.

Very well, and it wasn’t against that general position that I was arguing, but against your specific interpretation. Christians often reinterpret the Prophets as referring to Jesus, when there is a perfectly good interpretation available that Jews already understand to some degree. This is hardly showing respect for the Jewish tradition that underlies Christianity.

There is no need to go as far ahead as Jesus to find the new covenant that Jeremiah was talking about. The Jews came out of Babylon with a new covenant that precisely fulfilled the criteria that Jeremiah laid down for it: a more spiritual and less idolatrous understanding of JHVH, to which the Jews could be faithful, as they never managed to be to the old one.

I also understand what you’re saying in terms of syncretism, and that’s my own position as well. But if you’re interpreting a Jewish prophecy, it’s necessary to do so in Jewish, not syncretistic terms.

Here’s one way to see how the transformation worked. Before Jeremiah, the people of the Kingdom of Israel in the north had already been treated to the same fate, hauled off to Assyria after their land was conquered. They disappeared. This has given rise to all kinds of myths about what happened to the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, when the obvious answer stares one in the face: Nothing happened to them. They just assimilated. Their descendants are still living in northern Iraq and eastern Iran, and probably call themselves Assyrians. Today, they are Muslims for the most part. In the interim, they’ve been worshipers of the pagan Assyrian gods, and possibly Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, or whatever blew through. Their Jewish faith had no strong hold on them, and they gave it up under the circumstances.

But the Jews held captive in Babylon not only retained their (transformed) Jewishness, but today it is almost impossible for us to conceive of Jews assimilating like that. The Jews have a reputation for resisting assimilation which no other culture can match. But that’s the new, universal Jewish faith, not the old tribal one.

There is some connection between Jesus and Jeremiah, in that we can see the Jews of Jesus’ time as having somewhat lapsed back into the anti-spiritual and idolatrous practices of the past, and he reminded them of where God resides – not in the letter, but in the spirit. But this is a reminder to keep to the new covenant, not the first offering of it. I am here talking about Jesus as he apparently saw himself, i.e. as a Jewish leader, not the founder of a new faith.

Thereby you can see that the Crucifixion and Resurrection is a mystical starting point, to which I can return whenever I have failed to keep up with the truth – which is not only a fact of life, but also the grounds for humility.

Perfectly true. But the great flaw in Christian theology, as I see it, is the insistence on historical reality for its mythos (which is extremely dubious), as opposed to mystical reality (which it obviously does possess).

[passion]

Hi detrop. You quoted Kierkegaard with; "For believe me that there is nothing, no heresy, no sin, nothing whatsoever so abhorrent to God as the official…

Kierkegaard was a passionate and true Christian and arguably the greatest thinker of the 19th thru 21th Century. His expression(s) often exposed the “corporate church” and the officials within it (priests, pastors, ecclesiastical bodies) but never against Christianity itself. On the contrary, Kierkegaard was an extreme Christian who rightly recognized that salvation – true Christianity – is a direct affair between the individual and GOD.

Kierkegaard pointed to, and I think demonstrated, that a large number of church officials were simply careerists and opportunists interested in a job and the earthly benefits and comforts it might provide. He felt that these false Christians were not anything like New Testament Christians: who lived under dangerous, difficult and entirely different circumstances than the bourgeois lifestyles of the high-church of Kierkegaard’s day (and today).

Kierkegaard was the exact opposite of the “god is dead” falsehoods of the vulgar and insane Nietzsche. On the contrary, for Kierkegaard GOD, Christ, and true Christianity were everything that mattered; representing the highest state of authenticity in Kierkegaard’s 3 stages. Passion

[passion]

Hi Bob. Very nice post. Just a few thoughts. You said; ” I am still occupied with the Christian claim to a “New Testament” and what that implies towards Jews.

The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old. Apostle Paul wrote about the “Jewish” remnant chosen according to grace (Rom. 9:27, Rom. 11:5). Such ones are Jewish people(s) who recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior.

You said; ” The spiritual life of prayer, contemplation and meditation is essential for those seeking life, because the interwoven intimacy breeds new life.”

The problem here is that it implies “works” on the part of a person to become saved; which is not possible. There is no “essential” human effort for “seeking life” as you say. Only GOD can save a person by His sole action. Therefore, these contemplations and meditations you mention are purely human pursuits that cannot save anyone. Only grace can save a person (Rom. 11: 6, Eph. 2:5-8.

You said; ” This is the spiritual life which learns from Christ, from his gentleness and humility as well as from his teaching.”

Yes on the humility part. So, in our own lives the evidence of true salvation, after all of the “fear & trembling,” will be evidenced by a natural and unforced love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). Passion

[kingdaddy]

Arguing over what was written over what is observed seems like a priority misalignment to me, I see no proof in reality of the Old Testament God. The OT God is completely different from the Red letters of the New Testament God. If I had to choose I would pick the NT God any day. The OT God is a jealous, angry, vengeful and uneven handed God that wipes out entire populations to punish the majority, the NT God is about forgiveness and service and Love with a free choice to accept or reject (with logical consequences). The OT God is far too humanized for my taste.

No writing is compleatly correct, its sick that so many worship the pen and ink more then God.

[Bob]

Hi Navigator,

Very well, […] I was arguing […] against your specific interpretation. Christians often reinterpret the Prophets as referring to Jesus, when there is a perfectly good interpretation available that Jews already understand to some degree. This is hardly showing respect for the Jewish tradition that underlies Christianity.

Exactly, although I believe that it would be more difficult to expect Christians to go back to Judaism and march through to Christianity than to appeal more to the “newness” of what Christ was bringing to both to Christians and Jews. This “newness” is what we could term as the covenant of “pistis and pneuma”, faith and spirit. It is the trust in the spiritual truth of the pledge of prophecy, which underlies not only Christianity, but Judaism as well. It is the thread that Y’shua picked up and continued to weave, which his followers picked after him, but which often gets lost for a while – until someone else picks it up again.

There is no need to go as far ahead as Jesus to find the new covenant that Jeremiah was talking about. The Jews came out of Babylon with a new covenant that precisely fulfilled the criteria that Jeremiah laid down for it: a more spiritual and less idolatrous understanding of JHVH, to which the Jews could be faithful, as they never managed to be to the old one.

Yes, this is the “thread” that I’ve been talking about, which we can read about in Nehemiah and Ezra, as well as the second and third Isaiah. However, I feel that during the trials of Roman occupation it needed something substantial for it to be grasped and be a source of strength, which is why the pedantic fundamentalism of the Pharisees, although it was “meant good”, had to be criticised – just like all forms of fundamentalism – and the crucifixion and resurrection became a depiction of the paradox of one-sided reconciliation (even the abrahamic covenant is portrayed as one-sided) – but, surprisingly, not so much for Jews, but for Gentiles. Unexpectedly, the “Gojim” were in the boat, praising the Jewish God as never before and causing a disturbance within Jewish society.

This enormous change and the consequent theological work of Paul, which Acts and the Epistles obviously doesn’t acknowledge in the way it would be fitting, found no echo within the rabbinic (pharisaic) tradition and Paul was punished with indifference and expulsion. Rather, the followers of the Way of Christ were accused of idolatry and blasphemy, instead of understanding that spiritual change was in the air. In a conversation with a young Dutch Jew, I was informed that scholars today have attributed the traumatic Dispersal to a lack of benevolence and social cohesion within the Jewish society of the time. This found new forms in the years following, but the damage was done – and was to be continued. But the spiritual change came as well, and the Kabbala for example followed later.

Here’s one way to see how the transformation worked. Before Jeremiah, the people of the Kingdom of Israel in the north had already been treated to the same fate, hauled off to Assyria after their land was conquered. They disappeared. This has given rise to all kinds of myths about what happened to the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, when the obvious answer stares one in the face: Nothing happened to them. They just assimilated. Their descendants are still living in northern Iraq and eastern Iran, and probably call themselves Assyrians. Today, they are Muslims for the most part. In the interim, they’ve been worshipers of the pagan Assyrian gods, and possibly Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, or whatever blew through. Their Jewish faith had no strong hold on them, and they gave it up under the circumstances.

Agreed, but this was also a covert hope in Paul, that the Gospel could pull those lost tribes back to JHVH, in a new spiritual covenant under the sign of reconciliation (which later became the Cross). The umbrage caused by the thought of divine wisdom being executed on a Roman cross created a social-criticism that could only be met by the idea that it was the sin, or the lack of trust, of the believers that put him there. This backfired of course, and caused the widespread oppression of Jews by a Christian society that had lost its Jewish background and was far less self-critical than was fitting. Because this reached its pinnacle only 60 years ago, we must understand that there are generations who are understandably tender when it comes to this subject.

But the Jews held captive in Babylon not only retained their (transformed) Jewishness, but today it is almost impossible for us to conceive of Jews assimilating like that. The Jews have a reputation for resisting assimilation which no other culture can match. But that’s the new, universal Jewish faith, not the old tribal one.

Agreed.

There is some connection between Jesus and Jeremiah, in that we can see the Jews of Jesus’ time as having somewhat lapsed back into the anti-spiritual and idolatrous practices of the past, and he reminded them of where God resides – not in the letter, but in the spirit. But this is a reminder to keep to the new covenant, not the first offering of it. I am here talking about Jesus as he apparently saw himself, i.e. as a Jewish leader, not the founder of a new faith.

I think that humility played a far greater role in the life of Y’shua than we acknowledge. He would not have wanted to be seen to aspire to be anything more than a servant of God. The covenant is Gods – and it is one-sided, as always. What people would call him was not important, what was important was the will of God, to which he gave his whole life (and death). Equally today, Christians are far too concerned with what people think and the “marketing value” of what they can portray themselves as. This isn’t witness, it is vanity – and we are all guilty of it. It is to some degree the repetition of those things that the Pharisees (and others) are accused of in Christian scripture.

…the great flaw in Christian theology, as I see it, is the insistence on historical reality for its mythos (which is extremely dubious), as opposed to mystical reality (which it obviously does possess).

I believe that the Lukan requirement for a “fitting” portrayal of Y’shua is to some degree in us all, but it wasn’t in the mind of Y’shua. Spiritual people are not people who make a big fuss – they serve and live their spiritual lives. That is why they have been inconspicuous in history and it is rather their effect, rather than the people themselves, that people notice. Of course those personal relationships have a lasting effect for individuals, but that isn’t what is written about in history books.

Shalom

[felix_dakat]

Excuse me for interjecting something superficial into this interesting discussion. The word “old” when coupled with the word testament seems to suggest something passe, obsolete or not- as- good- as the “New.” This could be the source of offence to Judaism. It also could cause Christians to under-appreciate the value of these scriptures. Would it help if we were to refer to the Tanak as the “Hebrew Bible?” I anticipate someone here will accuse me of political correctness for this suggestion, but perhaps this kind of reframing could be helpful.

[Yme74]

Hi passion

The problem here is that it implies “works” on the part of a person to become saved; which is not possible. There is no “essential” human effort for “seeking life” as you say. Only GOD can save a person by His sole action. Therefore, these contemplations and meditations you mention are purely human pursuits that cannot save anyone. Only grace can save a person (Rom. 11: 6, Eph. 2:5-8.

I must respectfully disagree with you here. While the initial Christian experience is an act of grace leading to new ears to hear and new eyes to see, there is a lot of warning in the Bible on how easily it can be lost. What ends up being saved is the results of the perversion of the teaching within oneself and lets just say that it is not the desired goal.

[i]Matthew 12:

43"When an evil[f] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

1 John 2:

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[d] 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.[/i]

You’d be surprised as to how easy it is to lose it. There is a very strong need in us to secularize the teaching making it impotent. This need is so strong because our ego is our normal dominating motive. The treaching threatens its very life. Is it any wonder that so much of what we are seeks to secularize it into impotence?

It is so fashionable in these times that the Trinity is denied? Understanding the Trinity leads to understanding the message of re-birth, or transcendence that is the soul of Christianity. Secukarism cannot understand its purpose.

I’ve been reading articles on this modern attempt to secularize Christianity into a sect of Judaism defining Jesus as some shrewd political rabbi who was forming this sect.

The irony is that the struggle is not between Christianity and Judaism but between transcendence and secularization. When secular Judaism fights secular Christianity, it is man made meaningless struggle for prestige.

Christianity must be seen for what it is but it cannot because of the eyes and ears problem. So even though there is so much secular man made Christianity, Christianity itself that understands and is humble in front of its goal of re-birth is very much a minority religion

[i]Mathew 13

10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.[/i]

Naturally this appears as insulting, elitist, and the whole nine yards. Yet it is the truth for those that have experienced it and adds the Christian dimension to secularism. Secularism doesn’t want any part of this dimension so seeks to destroy it in whatever means possible.

Christian “works” then are those that are done in accordance with the teaching but retaining the Spirit within. This is an awakening lamp the light of which helps others lost in secularism to turn to the light. This isn’t preaching, it is genuine works, not as the Pharisees did for appearance but because it is natural for us at that stage of awakening.

As I’ve come to understand it, the question of both salvation and the Kingdom are not as simple as many believe

[passion]

Hi yme74. Thank you for your comments. You said; ”I must respectfully disagree with you here. While the initial Christian experience is an act of grace leading to new ears to hear and new eyes to see, there is a lot of warning in the Bible on how easily it can be lost.

Salvation cannot be lost once it is truly gained (John 17:12, John 18:9). For those who are truly saved, GOD promised to never leave us or get rid of us; thus you cannot lose salvation (Heb. 13: 5). Hebrews 12: 2 also demonstrates that true salvation is final, and that Christ, rather than man, is the author of it.

True salvation means relying upon GOD’s grace only. It requires a complete and total rest from human works as GOD Himself rested from his own in Creation on the 7th day; “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10) (emphasis is mine). Very clear.

You said; ” There is a very strong need in us to secularize the teaching making it impotent.”

Yes, I agree. However, human beings who believe they can do “good works” unto salvation (i.e. the vast majority in Christendom) secularize while those who rely entirely upon Grace – as Ephesians 2, Heb. 4:10, and elsewhere demands - reject the secularization and rely upon the spiritual. Works based doctrines are earthy and secular by definition, relying upon human action in the earthly setting: Kant’s “categorical imperatives” of morality and Hegel’s systematic theories of “the ethical” may apply to works based ideologies.

You said; ” Christianity itself that understands and is humble in front of its goal of re-birth is very much a minority religion”

If you are saying that the number of Christians who believe in a Grace only salvation, and who reject the far more popular but erroneous human works idea unto salvation, then I agree with you that the grace-only ones are a minority. It is fortunate that for them that they are the minority in this too (Matt. 7:14).

You said; ” Christian “works” then are those that are done in accordance with the teaching but retaining the Spirit within.”

If by this “Spirit within” you mean that the fruit of the Spirit which is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23) will be present in a believers life after they have become saved by Grace, then I agree with you. However, if you are saying that these fruits of the Spirit precede salvation by Grace unto salvation, then I would respectfully disagree. We are saved by Grace not by works lest any man should boast (Eph. 2: 5-9).

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6). Thank you again for your comments yme74. Passion

[passion]

Hi felixDaKat. You said; ” Excuse me for interjecting something superficial into this interesting discussion. The word “old” when coupled with the word testament seems to suggest something passe, obsolete or not- as- good- as the “New.”

Interesting point. However, Jesus made clear that he did not come to destroy the Old and replace it with the New, but rather to fulfill the Old through the New; “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). Passion

[Yme74]

Hi Passion

I still must disagree since I believe that it is important to consider these things. I think that many public TV evangelists and the like have lost their salvation since their initial experiences have been corrupted through egotism.

People that are tempted in this direction should have an idea of what they may be sacrificing.

How do you interpret Hebrews 6:

4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

I don’t know how else to understand it but the potential to lose something impossible to regain because of falling into this level of inner corruption even after having tasted the Spirit. Do you see how well it fits with the passage about the “Seven Devils” from my last post? A person can become clean but that cleanliness is also inviting to what feeds on the results of inspiring religious egotism

I am referring to our potential loss of grace by creating something within ourselves based on pride and or vanity that becomes so strong that it blocks the spirit and a person is lost again in their egotism. They may make a lot of money from this loss but is it worth it?.

This is different then the question of the relationship between faith and works.

Fortunately, it is very difficult to acquire such a state of inner purity so in reality only a minority is in danger. Thje vast majority are just asleep in the body of Christ and only talking in their sleep which doesn’t touch the “inner man.”

[Bob]

Hi Passion

Sorry about the late reply …

The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old. Apostle Paul wrote about the “Jewish” remnant chosen according to grace (Rom. 9:27, Rom. 11:5). Such ones are Jewish people(s) who recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior.

Thanks for your kind words. I am an old hat and have been around the church for some time now, so I appreciate what you are saying. My problem is that I experience the idea of fulfilment amongst Christians as tantamount to superseding that “old” Covenant – without being aware of what that means. If the “New Testament” is a “a better covenant … established upon better assurances” (Heb. 8:6) and the writer of Hebrews goes on to tell us about Jeremiah 31:31f, then we must look at those things carefully before we assume to be a part of it.

You said; ” The spiritual life of prayer, contemplation and meditation is essential for those seeking life, because the interwoven intimacy breeds new life.”

The problem here is that it implies “works” on the part of a person to become saved; which is not possible. There is no “essential” human effort for “seeking life” as you say. Only GOD can save a person by His sole action. Therefore, these contemplations and meditations you mention are purely human pursuits that cannot save anyone. Only grace can save a person (Rom. 11: 6, Eph. 2:5-8. )

Again, because I’m such an old chap, I have heard these things and am always amazed that the spiritual life of prayer, contemplation and meditation is regarded as “Works” – if you give a baby food, it still has to swallow. When God breathes in his Holy Spirit, Mankind still has to breathe out. The action of God requires a reaction of man. If I do not discipline myself, salvation can be lost. We are not talking about being saved – that isn’t the only thing to be concerned about – it is the starting point for a new life. How should we live?

Shalom

[detrop]

I got some irony for you. For me, the proof, or should I say the possibility that God exists, results from my conclusion that because you people are so stupid, such stupidity couldn’t have evolved by itself. God proves himself to the atheist through the fact that someone could be so stupid. Its too perfect. There has to be a hand in it. Mother nature herself couldn’t have done it alone.

Any and all religious text was written by a man. Fuck the dates, they don’t make a bit of difference. Unless you people believe that a few men among the rest of men possess some kind of prophetic power, your acceptence of such text is ridiculous. Alternatively, if you believe that some men are prophetic, you must experience this power of prophecy, that is, you must have an experience that is “super-natural,” in order to determine, beyond belief, that what you experienced was truly real and not just a figment of belief. Furthermore, even if you did, you could not prove that this experience could verify the supernatural, since it could be ordinary phenomena which you had yet to understand.

And still you go on and on and on, like a retraded kid rocking back and forth in his seat while riding the short bus to school. The fucking irony is that you are not “helping” anything…but making things worse on this planet.

Those of you past the age of thirty are wasted. Its too late for you. You cannot unlearn anything. You will live, take up space, confuse the fuck out of everything you touch, and finally die.

This is how I consider the possibility that God exists. Nothing so utterly absurd could be produced without a divine sense of humor. That’s right. You are the grand irony.

[Uccisore]

detrop

Any and all religious text was written by a man. Fuck the dates, they don’t make a bit of difference. Unless you people believe that a few men among the rest of men possess some kind of prophetic power, your acceptence of such text is ridiculous. Alternatively, if you believe that some men are prophetic, you must experience this power of prophecy, that is, you must have an experience that is “super-natural,” in order to determine, beyond belief, that what you experienced was truly real and not just a figment of belief. Furthermore, even if you did, you could not prove that this experience could verify the supernatural, since it could be ordinary phenomena which you had yet to understand.

Yes, if people believe that a religious text is devine, then they certainly do believe that some people have/had prophetic power. No matter which of the three great monotheisms you are talking about, they all refer to prophets, so that’s a foregone conclusion. The next thing, about having a supernatural experience and proving that that’s what it is, is where you run into trouble, because you’re treating all religious people as materialists gone wrong, which we are not. That is to say, I do not have to have had a super-natural experience to believe that they are possible, one is not required by the other. All I need is not ot have a predisposition against the possibility of super-natural events. Now, a person who has had such an event in their lives would certainly be in that position, but that’s not the only way. The related problem, of ‘proving’ that an experience justifies the supernatural, is only a real problem if I have some obligation to prefer materialist/naturalist explanations in the face of a mystery. There is no
prima facie reason why a person must assume a strange event is ‘natural’, whatever that is, especially when one is brought up in or otherwise friendly towards a tradition that provides a plausible, non-natural explanation for the situation. In other words, if something funny happens when I pray, and the people who taught me to pray have an explanation for it, I’m under no obligation to prove that their explanation is the only possible one. First, that’s impossible, and second, prove it to whom?
In summary, your objections here are not objections to religious belief in itself, but objections to the religious person’s ability to convince detrop, which may or may not be a worthwhile pursuit.

[felix_dakat]

@détrop

I got some irony for you. For me, the proof, or should I say the possibility that God exists, results from my conclusion that because you people are so stupid, such stupidity couldn’t have evolved by itself. God proves himself to the atheist through the fact that someone could be so stupid. Its too perfect. There has to be a hand in it. Mother nature herself couldn’t have done it alone.

Any and all religious text was written by a man. Fuck the dates, they don’t make a bit of difference. Unless you people believe that a few men among the rest of men possess some kind of prophetic power, your acceptence of such text is ridiculous. Alternatively, if you believe that some men are prophetic, you must experience this power of prophecy, that is, you must have an experience that is “super-natural,” in order to determine, beyond belief, that what you experienced was truly real and not just a figment of belief. Furthermore, even if you did, you could not prove that this experience could verify the supernatural, since it could be ordinary phenomena which you had yet to understand.

And still you go on and on and on, like a retraded kid rocking back and forth in his seat while riding the short bus to school. The fucking irony is that you are not “helping” anything…but making things worse on this planet.

Those of you past the age of thirty are wasted. Its too late for you. You cannot unlearn anything. You will live, take up space, confuse the fuck out of everything you touch, and finally die.

This is how I consider the possibility that God exists. Nothing so utterly absurd could be produced without a divine sense of humor. That’s right. You are the grand irony.

Your diatribe not only misrepresents religion and Christianity but also poorly represents Marxism and atheism. This kind of religion bashing is a mirror image of what the extremists on the other side do. Name calling isn’t going to persuade anyone of anything. Are you trying to drum up hatred for what you stand for?