The Newness of Christianity

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Introduction
Having been associated and dedicated to the running of a Christian parish that with time lost its attractiveness through quibbling and quarrelling, I went searching for answers as to why we have learnt so little from the source of our faith, which is the Bible. Especially the Protestants, to which I associate myself, have professed the sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) doctrine by which the Bible is seen as the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Why then is it ignored?

If sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture, why do so few Christians have a working knowledge of the Bible? It seems to me that the doctrine fails simply because it is an academic standard that hasn’t had more impact amongst churchgoers other than cause animosity and distain between people of differing opinions of what is meant in scripture. The use of an orthodoxy that defines what is to be believed creates automatically its opposite, namely that which is not to be believed, and shuts the door to further enquiry.

Could it be this restriction that causes the pressure under which varying Protestant denominations broke loose, freeing themselves from an oppressive spirit and thereby experiencing so-called “awakenings” by which a new theology was supposedly given divine authority? The result is a certain animosity between “mainstream” and “free” churches, which opposes the spirit of Christ and occasionally breaks loose within a parish.

The five “Solas”, Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), Sola fide (“by faith alone”), Sola gratia (“by grace alone”), Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”), Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”), are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. But what we have here is one structure battling against another, promising freedom but still keeping people in chains. I propose that the radical reformation that Christ proclaimed was far superior to any reformation since and that the power of his reformation was due to its spiritual nature rather than a reformation fuelled by academic propositions.

The New Testament
The New Testament is spoken of today without a particular emphasis on the “newness”, which, after two thousand years is probably understandable. Today, the New Testament (Greek: Kainē Diathēkē) is the name given to the second major division of the Christian Bible, the first such division being called the Old Testament (OT). The OT is referred to by the Jews as the Book of the “Covenant”, which refers to the Covenant of Abraham. Covenant can be translated as “Testament”, which is why the New Testament is sometimes called the New Covenant, or the New Law, although the phrase “Law” is misguiding, as we will see.

This indicates something which is spoken of in the Letter to the Hebrews in a very legalistic manner, namely that a New Covenant has superseded the old. The point being made that the New Covenant of Christ is superior to the old, because the promises made are superior. The letter is probably said to be one to the Hebrews because the legalistic approach was especially of interest to the Jews, who had been led down the legal path by the Pharisees and the Scribes, sometimes called “Lawyers” in the old translations. Compared to the proclamations of Jesus, the explanations given in Hebrews are gritty and wearisome. Sometimes they remind us of Paul’s attempts to win over his fellow Jews, but there too, the deliverance perspective has to be strained out of the text.

Jesus reacted to this legalistic approach by saying, “If your righteousness shall not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of God, never!” Far more important than the legalistic assurance of salvation is compassion, “First, be reconciled to your brother …” It is written that “he taught them as having authority and not as the scribes” which, far from projecting a “consciousness of divine authority, as Lawgiver, Expounder and Judge”, as one commentator writes, he was transcending the Law by showing that love defined the relationship between God and Man before morality caused the separation of sin, and love must again be central to this relationship.

Therefore the New Testament is a New Covenant of love, “not according to the covenant that I cut with the[…] fathers [of Israel and Judah] 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 Jehovah. “But this is the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days,” declares Jehovah, “I will put my Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbour, and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah’. For they shall all know me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Jer. 31:32-34)

This would have been a major religious breakthrough for Israel, especially with the disintegration of Judah already threatened after numerous uprisings and a far stronger presence of Roman troops than elsewhere in the Empire, waiting to quash further disturbances of the “Pax Romana”. The New Covenant of Love could make Jews inwardly free and independent, and externally reform the much needed care of the poor, sick and lame, taking the emphasis away from securing ones own salvation by pedantically observing laws, back to spontaneous care for ones neighbour. It was in this that Jesus saw the salvation of his people both in his time and at the end of time, not in a military Messiah, which was completely out of the question and was proved to be so finally at the destruction of the Temple and the Dispersion – only approximately 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

The New Testament as an internal affair
The spread of Christianity has to be something that is ascribed to Paul, perhaps formally named “Saul” or it was just his “unofficial” Jewish name, and his Roman name was Paul. It is at least known that he was extremely instrumental in spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The curious thing about this is the speed at which Paul “planted” his churches and moved on. This speaks for a very simple strategy, and perhaps even simpler message. He preferred to set Jews up as initial leaders of his churches, if he could find some, probably because they could first of all grasp the message quickly and secondly, they would have a theological background to support the message with OT scripture.

However, it must have been the spirit of the community, which they called “Grace”, that was undeniable. The Grace of God, which Paul later wished all of his readers at the beginning of his letters, was an experiential sign that things were going right. It wasn’t just “the Way” of Christ, which could be seen as the yoke or precept of Christ, but the way it transformed people that made the church attractive to people. The external form had been overcome, even the obligatory “ten men” who constituted a formal religious meeting, could be ignored and women found a new religious freedom within the church. Despite all of the pitfalls and dangers that a new movement had to overcome within the Roman Empire, this was spiritual progression – perhaps not on a universal level, but definitely within the area of Greek influence.

Paul knew that this new formation of people would be seen critically by the Roman officials, who saw all new movements as potentially subversive an and he tried to sell his movement as Jewish, but the Jews objected. They objected on the grounds that show that the movement had effectively transcended the Jewish Form, which was holy to them, and consequently set Christians apart and in line for Roman oppression. Paul himself was occasionally able to escape, but in the end, it was the Jews of Jerusalem who brought his downfall. To them, he was a heretic and blasphemer, which just shows how much the Christian message of Paul had gone beyond Jewish teaching.
And yet, Paul was still retaining the Jewish influence in his teaching. In fact, if it were not for him, theologians would have had much less to do. It was probably his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic that helped him translate the Good News into a Greek environment. The liberation it brought was probably just as dangerous as it was revolutionary, and yes, of course it was subversive. The whole terminology of Christianity is borrowed from the Roman court, although it is flipped over and contradicted. However, these subversive elements were not militant at first, but in the third century we witness Bishops speaking about the influence of the church within society and suggesting that oppression of the church would be contra productive for the state.

The church is, however, a movement of people following the precepts of Christ, seeking spiritual experience in their “chamber”, bringing “prophetic” insights into the congregation and serving their co-Christians in a familiar community. It is a movement of inward reflexion and outward compassion, humility and outreach, self-discipline and constructive assistance. Of course it didn’t remain that way. Even Paul had problems to contend with, whether it was Jewish influence, Greek influence or all kinds of eccentricity that seems to go with movements discovering their freedom. Much of this is what Paul writes about, particularly to the Corinthians. He is continually challenged to protect Christians from themselves and at one point he blurts out, “The realm of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in Holy Spirit”, indicating that their debates about what they are allowed to do or not allowed to do are missing the point.

This hasn’t changed through the millennia, in fact we have probably either returned to or stayed at that point in time and haven’t understood just what freedom Christ brought us. The theology of the Cross was intended to show that Christ had brought freedom, and that his sacrifice sufficed to end all sacrifices. It is also a liturgical model that symbolises the renewal of life as a resurrection, and the sprucing of new life as a sign of life after death. There are many such images to found in the Bible, like the dawn after the dark of night, spring after winter, the harvest after sowing the seed. This is the way that we must all go to gain new life and the Baptism is its observable ritual.

…. To be continued

2

Hello Bob:

I regret no answering some of your responses in other treads I was involved in, but I feel that her you are touching on some of the subjects that inspired me to write in those other treads, so, let me take this opportunity.

The experience you speak off, is unfortunate, but expected, wouldn’t you say? After all, how many of Paul’s letters are addressed or generated out of conflict, quibbling and quarrelling? But here is the reason why I had to answer you. You believe, or appear to believe in my opinion, that such outcomes come from ignorance, willful or not, of scripture. I believe instead that a case can be made that such divisions have, and always will be, part of religious life. They are found in the nature of revelation itself.
Religious life is a balancing act between two demanding human needs.
1- The need to belong to a social group.
2- The need to realize our individuality.

This dual and often opposite pursuits are found of course in all human pursuits. Reason may have evolved specifically due to this pressure. The natural condition is one of competition, of transitory middle grounds, of conditional ends. Sometimes, for unnatural reasons, the passage of Law, or other coercions into an artificial orthodoxy, the natural process is momentarily slowed down, but it never stops, and sooner or later, that pressure finds a voice.

The Protestant principle of scripture alone only aggravate the situation, for it ignores the combative beginnings of the Testament they adhere to. They misuse it, if they expect to gain through it a conscilience, or harmony which frankly is not there to be found. In fact what we find is apostolic exhortations to ignore scriptural arguments that treathen the peace.

All of the players in scripture, be it pharisees, or saducees, or Paul or James, or Athanasius and Arius, or Erasmus and Luther, all believed to have founded their opinions solely on Divine revelation, whether that meant only the OT or the OT and NT together. The result is that, if we only regarded scripture alone, then all we can do is defer any conclusions to a time when we shall be face to face with God. All other conclusions are forced reductions of a natural instinct in the face of an interpretative challenge. Scripture cannot serve to resolve a religious issue as much as aggravate it. Were it otherwise then we would not have seen men burning books and burning other men.

I agree with you that the Bible is the most influential book that is most often never read in it’s entirety. I applaud the knowledge of many who can bring forth a passage in scripture at will, but it often seems rehearsed, ad hoc, saved for such an occasion. The Bible is often used as a weapon, either to attack or defend the believer from what goes against his beliefs. And the Bible’s fractured origins therefore stands on either side of the discussion (I am thinking Erasmus and Luther). What I believe IS LOST in all of this is the principle of solo caritas, or that only COMPASSION should dominate our interactions with our fellow men.
When Jesus is faced with the lawful stoning of an adulterous woman, he does not quote scripture, for scripture is on the side of those about to throw stones and certainly not on her side, but appeals to compassion, to the practice of putting one-self’s on the position of the Other, and saying, “That could very well have been me”.
No logic, no deduction, no question about validity

Your position, or the point you wish to prove seems to be that “the radical reformation that Christ proclaimed was far superior to any reformation since and that the power of his reformation was due to its spiritual nature rather than a reformation fuelled by academic propositions.” So here we sorta agree. For example you say:
" Far more important than the legalistic assurance of salvation is compassion,…, he was transcending the Law by showing that love defined the relationship between God and Man before morality caused the separation of sin, and love must again be central to this relationship." Here we agree. But you say:
“It was in this that Jesus saw the salvation of his people both in his time and at the end of time, not in a military Messiah, which was completely out of the question and was proved to be so finally at the destruction of the Temple and the Dispersion – only approximately 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ.”
Before this you made the case for the benefits of such an attitude to place inportance to the care of the sick and poor. here my question is about means and ends. For example was Jesus goal or “end”, of Jesus “reform” to take care of the sick, hungry and poor? Or was doing such things only means to an end, which was apocalyptic, which was if not militaristic, still expectant of a return to glory by God’s action of God’s Chosen People? To me, based on Jesus comments presented by the Gospels, Jesus was advocating for social justice but in order to bring forth God’s justice. He was offering not a ram, not a sin offering but a sinless life. But just as those who presented a perfect ram expected something in return- their end was not just to feed God’s Spirit with the ram’s spirit, but to gain something some benefit in return. So, we can argue, Jesus too was proposing, like Jeremiah before him, a new offering, something which would actually please God and MOVE God towards an action of benefit to us- THE ACTUAL END.

As to the spread of Christian Churches by Paul.
Paul’s ability to spread the gospel has in no small measure to do with his audience, and what he had to offer those men and women…well, specially men. Paul offered a right-relation with God through a path that is easier than it had previously been, for before you had to offer forth your foreskin. The Jerusalem council had made an exception for gentiles but not for jews, still adhering to the requirements of the Law that were treated as pre-requisites. This is what the Churches innagurated by Paul overcame. Paul’s manipulation of the Christ myth made it attractive to other gentiles in other religious pursuits. Thus parts of Stoicism were grafted onto Paul’s message, as for the purpose of being popular among listeners that had been exposed to stoicism. The simplicity of his message existed only among those that depended on him, Paul, for the entire story. For a jewish audience the messaage was always a paradox or a mystery never quite resolved and side-stepped, whenever possible, by Paul. Here, before the jewish audience, Paul found less room to transform the Christ myth, and the end result was not always in demand because the needs of the jews differed from the needs of the gentiles. For the gentiles sought that “spontaneous care for ones neighbour”, but the jews were instead looking at a very much military intervention, not from men but by angels themselves. The kingdom of God would be created by the army of God. Jeremiah, who preceded Jesus and Paul makes this case, even though he looks for justice. The Christ is a political entity, not just a moral one; that is why the Romans send a military message through Jesus “King of the Jews” cruxificion.

3

Hello Omar,

I appreciate what you are saying, but an inclusive theology would overcome such differences and the modern emphasis of individuality is overstressed. We do not live alone by ourselves, nor can we live that way without losing something, instead we are a part of our environment and our social group, as you said. The tendency to identify ones group by identifying an enemy isn’t necessary, instead it would be an advance of the Gospel message to do the opposite.

My subject, however was the Newness of the New Testament and many of the things you have picked up on were only moving towards showing that newness.

Whilst it may be that a man with a fearful focus only on his own needs could ignore the fact that the sum of a combined effort is bigger than the number of people involved, it is more advantageous to join forces rather than to remain at odds, so I think that reason must push us together rather than apart. The competition you are talking about is not only destructive for one or more of the competitors, but usually causes a huge collateral damage as well.

The problem I have with this is that such phrases are often spoken in opposition to something specific and are then become generalised and unclear. The Roman Church was regarding non-biblical legends and superstitions, as well as contradictory statements of Church authorities as being at least equal to the Bible, which Luther spoke out against because opinions spoken over 1500 years after the event can hardly be used to contradict the source of faith, however contradictory the source may be in itself. This is of course something quite different from an interpretation of the source.

Luther actually stated that he could do nothing other than obey the source of faith as he had understood it and invited his oppressors to show him that he was wrong. In fact, we all decide in the same way. The source of faith cannot aggravate faith other than driving people to a paradox, which I think you will find the Gospels do. The epistles, on the other hand, canonised or not, must first of all be seen as letters which contain valuable insights and which contribute to the Gospel, rather than as pure revelation. The Gospels were inspired compositions which captured the spirit of Christ, whereas the valuable insights of, say, Paul are inspired but have various intentions. Some of the quotations in the Epistles may have a similar intention to the Gospels, whereas other statements are the frustrated comments of the Apostle.

I agree with you, and the Church has left “sola gratia” in favour of that which their intellect can wrap itself around and play their academic games for their ego. The experience of “gratia” or divine grace is however the one sign of inspired living. You can read and write about it for centuries and just grow old, but a moment of divine grace can sustain human lives and give them a glow that never dies. This is what is so lacking in the Church and the reason for so much of what has gone wrong.

I believe that Jesus’ intention was to reveal the “Son of Man”, the offspring of Adam and Eve who was destined to return to Paradise, albeit under completely different circumstances. The Son of Man knows by experience that the “Knowledge of Good and Evil” leads to death and chooses instead the Garden. He returns to the “Father” blurting out his apologies which the Father doesn’t hear, and receives the ring of sonship and the robe of inheritance. That is the story of the prodigal son. He has changed, and his approach will change everything.

The care of the sick, hungry and the poor, as important it may seem to us today, is a poor substitute for the love of ones neighbour or the spontaneous compassion of the Good Samaritan. The law is no longer external, but written on his heart. No one needs to be preached to about God, the pure in heart shall see him. This servant is a suffering servant, but “the whole of creation yearns to see his day!” But the Son of Man isn’t one person, just as the suffering servant isn’t one person, but it is anyone who recognises that “If the grain of wheat that falls into the earth does not die, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit.”

Sorry, but it was the other way around, “seek first the realm of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” The supposed sacrifice that his followers were making was in fact said by Jesus to be a sown seed that would bring fruit of a hundredfold. The thing today is that we have the seed and hold on to it – and remain alone. The proposition of Jesus was that, if you let go and let it grow, which in itself is an act of faith, the returns come automatically. We hold on and hoard, which is the exact opposite behaviour.

This issue about circumcision was symbolic. It was a sign of the Old Abrahamic Covenant which was “cut” between God and Abraham in a dream. The New Covenant is a covenant of faith, symbolised in the faith of Abraham his being prepared to let go of the one thing he had longed for – his son. The point made is the same as the point made a P’niel where Jacob wrestled with the Angel after sending away all he had gained, that as long as you hold on you loose. “For what will a man be benefited if he should gain the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?”

This is the message that makes us understand why many poor people came to Christ, “Blessed the poor in spirit! For theirs is the realm of the Heavens” but on the other hand, “It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter the realm of God!” Those who have little to give are often those who give the most, but given in the spirit of Christ, it multiplies. This is what the early Christians experienced and held them in awe.

Shalom

4

No man will be able to rescue Christianity from itself, I’m afraid.
It has settled into itself a resigned reservation to establish a wrote order of prospect for the safety of one’s soul and, as noted, missed the point entirely on the way; focused on the value of the seatbelt when the point was the view of the flight.

I feel any man that attempts to rescue Christianity will either suffer great scorn inwardly frustrated and even possibly saddened, or further cause the sink hole to fall deeper like every schism in Christianity does.
Yes, Christianity is spreading; it is spreading like a sink hole, praising the growth as a sign of holiness without realizing it is burrowing itself down instead of helping to lift itself up.

I myself, have given up completely on it.
If I lived long enough, I would see it’s sad death.

Dawn after the dark of night, spring after winter, the harvest after sowing the seed. This is the way that we must all go to gain new life and the Baptism is its observable ritual indeed…it feels like dark, winter, and nearing sowing time; baptism of a new spirit in community must surely be only a hundred or so years away.

5

…Contd …

But the observable ritual has less importance than inward reflexion and prayer. Jesus wants us to be something rather than initially do something. John the Baptist told people who were proud of their lineage to Abraham that God could make stones into offspring of Abraham. It was time separate the seed from the chaff and therefore the new call was to believe the good news that the realm of God at hand, indeed it is in our midst. The Way he showed people was one of inner development and outward expression, rather than “looking to the hills” or hoping for “the One” to come, or that God should rend open the heavens and step down. For Jesus, God is “the One who will be there”, he is the divine “I am”, and his realm already in our midst – not just through the presence of his only Son.

Our modern day Christianity does well to here the words of Mat 7:24-27:
(24) Then everyone who hears these Words from Me, and does them, I will compare him to a wise man who built his house on the rock;
(25) and the rain came down, and the floods came up, and the winds blew, and fell against that house; but it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
(26) And everyone who hears these Words of Mine, and who does not do them, he shall be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand;
(27) and the rain came down, and the floods came up, and the winds blew and beat against that house; and it fell, and great was the collapse of it.

“Hear the words and do them!” This is a very blunt message with a clear message for those who do not. Jesus compared many things, including the people of his day to children who goad each other in a way we call “childish”. But he spoke a number of parables about the realm of God, comparing it to a grain of mustard that is small but grows into a very large bush – almost a tree – under the branches of which birds rest in their shade, indicating the inconspicuousness of its beginnings, despite its large effect. He compared it to leaven, which grows inwardly and penetrates the dough thoroughly when it is worked. It is the inconspicuousness and inner working that is obvious when Jesus speaks of prayer, which he wants people to do within their “chamber” or inner room, generally regarded to be a parlour or, as a metaphor, the heart. It is this core of Christ’s spirituality which explains his aversion towards an external show of piety, criticising those who stand praying on street corners, take the seats of honour, and pray thankfully that they are not like the sinners.

It is these and other forms of self-commendation, misguidedly understood as proselytising, evangelisation or “spreading the word” that Paul also criticises, and which has a lot to say about the modern practise of televangelists. His Disciples are told to go from town to town and tell people the good news about the realm of God being at hand, encouraging them to act on this and change their ways and turn in love towards their neighbours. This is a question of trust rather than believing some doctrine in hope of reward and it is accompanied by signs of authority which encourage those who believe the message all the more. Most of all, the movement is called to grow inwardly, not outwardly, because the external signs of growth will be apparent automatically. It is a call to quality rather than quantity and this Gospel helps people find “rest for their souls” before any burdens are placed on them. They are called to count the cost, to consider their heart and be aware of the consequences of their change.

When we look at these directives, it becomes clear that anything else is “built on sand” and must collapse. The Christian Church is so riddled with scandals and rumours that there have been numerous best-sellers that speculate upon dramatic internal conflicts and political conspiracies which find a wide audience. In the early days of the Church Christians had to cope with venomous rumours and accusations which Paul told them to ensure that there were absolutely no grounds for. He was sure that if Christians remained true to Christ’s precepts, they would be found faultless. Today we could perhaps say the same.

The hidden potential of the Church
Jesus is straightforward in his teaching, but his words have often been misunderstood. He says that those doing the will of God are the light of the world and salt of the earth. Indeed, he says that there is no cause to hide the light; in fact he asks who would do such a thing. Does this contradict what I have said above? No, because the light is simply light and it cannot be overseen.

Light also has the effect on people that it attracts – unless one is hiding – and it also reveals. This means that the person who prays in secret is “repaid in the open”. Inward, reflective spirituality generates a change that becomes apparent, just as light is always apparent but shouldn’t be blinding. It is also like salt, which as required for its saltiness, but needs to be spread about so that it is bearable, or like leaven, which has to be worked into the dough, or the seed has to be buried in fertile land. This shows that rather than being a spot light, Christians together should work as a floodlight and enable people to see clearly. This is the potential of the New Covenant, which makes no sense if we all have to die to experience it. Christ’s message is good news for this life and the next.

The New Covenant is the time of the Son of Man, the new creation, but not one that has to be formed after the desolation of the present. The word is sown and the harvest is reaped in this analogy without needing to observe seasons, but each seed needs to grow in people, which shows that each of us needs time. However, the parable of the Talent given to the servants according to their ability shows us that we are foolish if we do not work with what we have. He who “buries his talent” and preserves it in its hideaway fearing that God is a “hard man”, finds himself hiding his nakedness in Eden for fear of God and will be expelled.

The emphasis is here once again to “be” a faithful servant and work with what we have, rather than “do” something with it. We are called to “be” the light of the world or salt of the earth, and not to hide the light or saltiness. Equally we should “be” leaven and spread out throughout society, and what this “does” comes about automatically. It is a hidden potential, which will be someday shouted from the rooftops, but it remains gentle and modest in heart. It is the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, those hungering for righteousness, the merciful, and the pure in heart, the peacemakers and the persecuted who are blessed, not those exercising lordship. Spontaneous love of ones neighbour and the unplanned care of the Good Samaritan is far above all social planning and are born out of faith in the Love of God. By comparison the present discussion about the need for a social service system is ruled by fear and a bad conscience rather than compassion.

Of course love of ones neighbour or, as Jesus said more pointedly, the love of ones enemies requires a world-view that sees us all as part of a whole, not separated by any ties to worldly conventions, but instead simply brothers and sisters of the planet earth and children of God. Of course we live in organised groups which may be called America, China, and Europe etc. and then continually broken down into smaller groups until we reach families, but just because we are so organised does not mean that we must be separated from each other. Even our Scriptures and Religions, legends and myths, religious observances and images need not hinder our being one, if it is born out of inward spirituality, and is gentle and modest. Only fear rules out love and evil is its expression in the world because he who fears, clings to whatever he can and this, as Buddha wisely showed, is where suffering comes from.

His solution, known as The Noble Eightfold Path, which is made up out of Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration, is leading his followers to see and understand things as they really are. This too is the aim of Christ, who saw the opposite to fear in love, and the major component of learning to see things as they really are. They differ in teaching but not in intention – and even their teaching shows that there are similarities. Both will have agreed that since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, a “right view” produces right thoughts and right actions. Both used anecdotes and parables and the daily practise of Buddhist and Christian Monks isn’t so different.

Watching various Presentations from contributors to TED (which stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design), there is cause to believe that we do indeed actively live an illusion, whether it is suggesting that the world actually looks the way it is portrayed in World Maps used in the classroom, ideas about skin-colour, perceptual illusions that we often fall foul of, gaps in our knowledge and what we think we know – but don’t. There are also (in the words of Michael Shermer from Skeptic Magazine) the claims of the paranormal, pseudo-science, and fringe groups and cults and claims of all kinds between – science and pseudo-science and non-science and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, non-science and plain old nonsense.

The great potential of the Church in the New Covenant is therefore lost in the attempt to prove things by discussion rather than by experience and by making propositions that are not what Christ was about. He had no interest in science; therefore it wouldn’t make sense to believe that anything he said was relevant to science. The great problem we have is that our problems as Christians seem to lie much more in our own inability to follow Christ and our assumption that, if we win enough people over, it will be easier. And yet, all the time, written in the Bible are warnings about such behaviour and rather than combating the assumed forces of evil, the precepts to be followed are challenges to our personal life-style and the way we see the world.

Shalom

6

That is the sad truth that I have recently had to accept.

I sought out how to save it and found what I sought. I just never found how I could do anything about it myself.

In regards to the OP; the situation came up merely from insufficient communication. The ONLY real problem that men have had is their inability to completely communicate their true thoughts.

Imagine if the scriptures had come with a complete and detailed dictionary, for example. Think of all of the arguments that would never had taken place. Division is the mark of the Devil and how better to divide than to create confusion about sacred principles.

I saw long ago that the issue in Christianity was born out of what I termed, “the missing resurrection gene”. The resurrection left people with an over involvement in mysticism and an under emphasis for seeking understanding. That eventually led to a break, an apostate, as pressures required that Science be created outside the Church.

The good news is that it will all be eventually fixed. I even know how. But I do not know when other than to worry than no human will still be standing at the time. In all probability, humanity’s end is at hand and by its own hand.

All it would have taken is a few truly “good men” of heart, health, and mind.