The beginning of the Fourth Gospel tells us that it was Jesus, The Word, who made this world; and it is this work of creation which enabled Jesus (and only Jesus) to be our saviour.
*
Having made this world; Jesus was then incarnated-into the world he had created; that is, he was incarnated from his creation, using the stuff of his own creation. This world has that primal and fundamental unity - of being created by Jesus - everything is inter-related and mutually-affecting, by kinship of shared origin.
So we too are all incarnated from this world, from the creation of Jesus.
When Jesus died and was resurrected; this was the death and resurrection of the creator of this world, Jesus's mortal body and his resurrected body were both of this world (which Jesus himself had made).
We are incarnate from this world, Jesus became incarnate from this world (which he had made); we and Jesus are both Men; and therefore Jesus's death and resurrection had universal significance for Men.
This it was, that made it possible for other Men to follow Jesus into resurrected life everlasting; and why only Jesus is our saviour.
*
Why then do we need to have faith in Jesus? Why doesn't salvation just-happen?
Because there are two things Jesus gave us; the first is 'physical' resurrection to eternal life, the second is 'dwelling' in Heaven (life 'everlasting', and life qualitatively greater - not merely unending existence...).
Resurrection just-happens, and it happens to all men. Instead of remaining as a severed soul - as was the case for all Men before Jesus; since the resurrection of Jesus, all Men (including those from before the time of Jesus) are resurrected.
Resurrection is not a choice - it 'just happens' - it is something like a change in physical reality; a change in what happens to the soul after death.
*
But Heaven is a choice, a decision, an act, an opt-in - and salvation therefore happens only through faith - that is love, trust of Jesus.
To understand this requires recalling the fate of the soul after the death of the body, and before the resurrection of Jesus - the soul was a witless, demented thing of little intelligence, little memory, little judgement, no free will... incapable of helping itself...
(This, at least, is how both the ancient Hebrews (with Sheol) and ancient Greeks (with Hades) regarded life after death - and other variants may be understood similarly. The soul after death was a damaged, incomplete, incapable thing - eternal life was merely eternal existence.)
I regard the Good Shepherd parable as providing the key to understanding salvation - which is that while the soul is always resurrected, resurrected Man cannot find his own way to Heaven.
The resurrected soul must be led to Heaven; that is, Man must choose to follow the guidance of the Good Shepherd. This following is not imposed, it is chosen.
This was made newly possible by Jesus because the resurrected soul has greater capability than the discarnate souls destined for Sheol/ Hades; the resurrected soul has sufficient capability to recognise Jesus, to know him; it has the capacity and necessity to choose whether to follow the Good Shepherd, or not.
Why would the resurrected soul follow the Good Shepherd to Heaven, except that the soul loved and trusted the Good Shepherd?
That is the need for faith.
*
Thus Jesus was necessary to our salvation, only Jesus could give us salvation, only faith in Jesus can lead us to salvation.
Tuesday 12 June 2018
What is Christian conversion like?
Conversion is like a teenager's decision to stay-within the family from-which he has just psychologically detached-himself.
Monday 11 June 2018
The contradictions of modern life
By William Wildblood at Albion Awakening:
Edited excerpt:
Today we live a very contradictory existence.
On the one hand, our beliefs are formed by materialism and our lives are largely lived as though that were true. This effectively requires that our sense of self be an illusion and any morals we might have arbitrary since one set cannot be better than another in any ultimate sense according to this doctrine.
All morals are merely functional, for utilitarian purposes only, which means they rest on nothing substantial and the only requirement is to appear to obey them not to actually do so.
But, on the other hand, we still live as if our self were real as well as those of others. The very idea of love, which we can't quite bring ourselves to renounce, insists that this be so.
Surely we can't have it both ways? Either materialism is true in which case we, as real individual selves with some actual substance, aren't true, or our individuality is real in which case there must be a non-material basis to life. And, if that is so, there has to be a God since something cannot come from nothing nor can things give rise to themselves or the lesser to the greater.
Moreover, we live as though free will were real but the philosophical basis of our culture, materialism, if true, would mean it was not. We would just be passive objects formed and impelled to action by mechanical or chemical but certainly external forces. Even the erudite philosophers who deny free will don't actually live as though they had none. Contradictions all over the place. No wonder we live in confused and chaotic times...
Read the whole thing...
Edited excerpt:
Today we live a very contradictory existence.
On the one hand, our beliefs are formed by materialism and our lives are largely lived as though that were true. This effectively requires that our sense of self be an illusion and any morals we might have arbitrary since one set cannot be better than another in any ultimate sense according to this doctrine.
All morals are merely functional, for utilitarian purposes only, which means they rest on nothing substantial and the only requirement is to appear to obey them not to actually do so.
But, on the other hand, we still live as if our self were real as well as those of others. The very idea of love, which we can't quite bring ourselves to renounce, insists that this be so.
Surely we can't have it both ways? Either materialism is true in which case we, as real individual selves with some actual substance, aren't true, or our individuality is real in which case there must be a non-material basis to life. And, if that is so, there has to be a God since something cannot come from nothing nor can things give rise to themselves or the lesser to the greater.
Moreover, we live as though free will were real but the philosophical basis of our culture, materialism, if true, would mean it was not. We would just be passive objects formed and impelled to action by mechanical or chemical but certainly external forces. Even the erudite philosophers who deny free will don't actually live as though they had none. Contradictions all over the place. No wonder we live in confused and chaotic times...
Read the whole thing...
Spiritual individualism
At present the two main lines are mainstream, modern materialist individualism; or a traditionalist communal-ism.
The first regards man as merely biological, a member of a species created by natural selection - but atomised into hedonic individuals, pursuing gratification.
Traditional religion has been almost wholly about fitting each individual into a pre-determined and simple scheme; subordinating the individual to the group. (Identity is considered as a type, not an individual.)
I think the truth is probably neither of these - the reality of the situation is probably spiritual, nor materialist, individualism.
Much of the success of modernity is because it seems to chime with the innate individualism of modern Man - but this promised destination is then twisted and perverted, and turned against itself - by the incoherent nonsense that is materialism as a metaphysical assumption.
However, it is possible to regard Man as intrinsically individual, in the sense of each being different from the beginning, from his or her origin; and each having an unique spiritual and eternal destiny. Then, this situation of primal individualism is made cohesive and creative by love; by the fact of sexual difference, in the pre-mortal spiritual state; of complementary men and women eternally real) and by families.
So there are primordial individuals, and then there is the opt-in system of love, from God. (Those who don't opt-in are not a part of cohesion - they have chosen existential isolation.)
New Testament Christianity is saturated with the language of family, and this is not an accidental nor optional thing; but a fundamental and literal reality. But it has been the early and progressive abandonment of relational family-language and its replacement by abstract physics-language (under the influence of pagan Greek and Roman philosophy and scholarship) that has been responsible for so much confusion, so much error.
The destined future for the followers of Jesus is one of individual men and women within families, eternally - but current ways of thinking, current metaphysical assumptions, make it almost impossible even to think this.
Instead we lapse towards the destructiveness of materialism, or the anti-individualism of traditional Christianity; neither of which is the path God wants for us, neither of which is a path which (if totally honest) anybody wants for himself, or herself - because both entail destruction of the self, the distinctive soul.
The future is to embrace individualism - but spiritual individualism, within a set of Christian metaphysical assumptions.
The first regards man as merely biological, a member of a species created by natural selection - but atomised into hedonic individuals, pursuing gratification.
Traditional religion has been almost wholly about fitting each individual into a pre-determined and simple scheme; subordinating the individual to the group. (Identity is considered as a type, not an individual.)
I think the truth is probably neither of these - the reality of the situation is probably spiritual, nor materialist, individualism.
Much of the success of modernity is because it seems to chime with the innate individualism of modern Man - but this promised destination is then twisted and perverted, and turned against itself - by the incoherent nonsense that is materialism as a metaphysical assumption.
However, it is possible to regard Man as intrinsically individual, in the sense of each being different from the beginning, from his or her origin; and each having an unique spiritual and eternal destiny. Then, this situation of primal individualism is made cohesive and creative by love; by the fact of sexual difference, in the pre-mortal spiritual state; of complementary men and women eternally real) and by families.
So there are primordial individuals, and then there is the opt-in system of love, from God. (Those who don't opt-in are not a part of cohesion - they have chosen existential isolation.)
New Testament Christianity is saturated with the language of family, and this is not an accidental nor optional thing; but a fundamental and literal reality. But it has been the early and progressive abandonment of relational family-language and its replacement by abstract physics-language (under the influence of pagan Greek and Roman philosophy and scholarship) that has been responsible for so much confusion, so much error.
The destined future for the followers of Jesus is one of individual men and women within families, eternally - but current ways of thinking, current metaphysical assumptions, make it almost impossible even to think this.
Instead we lapse towards the destructiveness of materialism, or the anti-individualism of traditional Christianity; neither of which is the path God wants for us, neither of which is a path which (if totally honest) anybody wants for himself, or herself - because both entail destruction of the self, the distinctive soul.
The future is to embrace individualism - but spiritual individualism, within a set of Christian metaphysical assumptions.
Sunday 10 June 2018
Metaphors of Heaven: nation or family?
In yesterday's post, I argued that the Fourth Gospel tells us that our salvation is straightforward (quick, simple - believe, love, follow Jesus); and the difficult thing for us to do in mortal life, is to struggle for higher consciousness; more specifically to struggle for a divine consciousness - that is, a consciousness aligned with God's motivations.
It may be asked why? It may be asked - what is the effect our our struggling for higher consciousness - how does it cash-out in an eternal timescale? What difference does it make whether I attain a higher consciousness or not?
Crudely: what's in it for me?
It is a fair question that needs answering. We need some idea of how this struggle in mortal life relates to what happens in life everlasting. On Earth and in Heaven.
What, then, is Heaven like - how can we begin to understand it?
Heaven is more like a family than a nation.
There is a tendency to regard post-mortal life as being structured on the lines of a traditional society; as a hierarchy, as a formal-structure with appointed duties... Something like the societies of Medieval Western Europe - with a King, Princes, Earls, and Nobles; gentry such as merchants and professionals, craftsmen and peasants... Or, the idea may be more like the medieval Roman church, with Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests and monks...
The idea implicit is that in Heaven there are certain, relatively few, jobs - roles; and we are each appointed to serve in one or another of them; and these jobs are linked hierarchically and as specialised functions.
But if Heaven is more like a family, an ideal-imagined extended family that occupies its own world - a family that coheres by love and is motivated by participation in God's work of creation - then each child born into the family has an unique, unpredictable destiny. Nobody knows how the child will 'turn-out', and the grown-up child will 'contribute' to the family in some unique way.
The child is not shaped-into a predetermined job; in a family ideally the child and the family interact to take account and benefit from what the child is and what he becomes. Each niche is unique (or, can be).
By this account of the nature of Heaven, mortal life is meant to make us each become more our-selves - not to fit-into pre-determined niches.
Salvation corresponds to the basic orientation, the desire to be in the family, to live for the family, to pursue the goals of the family... and beyond that, the striving for higher consciousness is like growing-up, becoming more adult; which is more aware, more conscious, more purposive more free - because one who is unconscious and passive is not free.
Note: Back beyond the above account is a further layer, or depth - which is that we each begin as an unique being. There is an assumption that all people begin as spiritually-identical; but I am suggesting that the opposite is true. In the beginning there were no two the same. This universe is one in which every person (probably, every entity) is unique, ultimately - and the Christian principle of cohesion, is love between non-identical, un-like things; which develop to become more themselves... Since we are to be gods (Sons and Daughters of God) the entire dynamic process being 'powered' by the fundamental and structuring complementarity of man and woman. We should set-aside ideas of sameness of origin, or sameness as a goal; we never were nor can be nor are meant-to-be the same as anybody or anything else - and glory entails the development of individuality within that power of love and directed by the eternal delight of participation in creation .
It may be asked why? It may be asked - what is the effect our our struggling for higher consciousness - how does it cash-out in an eternal timescale? What difference does it make whether I attain a higher consciousness or not?
Crudely: what's in it for me?
It is a fair question that needs answering. We need some idea of how this struggle in mortal life relates to what happens in life everlasting. On Earth and in Heaven.
What, then, is Heaven like - how can we begin to understand it?
Heaven is more like a family than a nation.
There is a tendency to regard post-mortal life as being structured on the lines of a traditional society; as a hierarchy, as a formal-structure with appointed duties... Something like the societies of Medieval Western Europe - with a King, Princes, Earls, and Nobles; gentry such as merchants and professionals, craftsmen and peasants... Or, the idea may be more like the medieval Roman church, with Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests and monks...
The idea implicit is that in Heaven there are certain, relatively few, jobs - roles; and we are each appointed to serve in one or another of them; and these jobs are linked hierarchically and as specialised functions.
But if Heaven is more like a family, an ideal-imagined extended family that occupies its own world - a family that coheres by love and is motivated by participation in God's work of creation - then each child born into the family has an unique, unpredictable destiny. Nobody knows how the child will 'turn-out', and the grown-up child will 'contribute' to the family in some unique way.
The child is not shaped-into a predetermined job; in a family ideally the child and the family interact to take account and benefit from what the child is and what he becomes. Each niche is unique (or, can be).
By this account of the nature of Heaven, mortal life is meant to make us each become more our-selves - not to fit-into pre-determined niches.
Salvation corresponds to the basic orientation, the desire to be in the family, to live for the family, to pursue the goals of the family... and beyond that, the striving for higher consciousness is like growing-up, becoming more adult; which is more aware, more conscious, more purposive more free - because one who is unconscious and passive is not free.
Note: Back beyond the above account is a further layer, or depth - which is that we each begin as an unique being. There is an assumption that all people begin as spiritually-identical; but I am suggesting that the opposite is true. In the beginning there were no two the same. This universe is one in which every person (probably, every entity) is unique, ultimately - and the Christian principle of cohesion, is love between non-identical, un-like things; which develop to become more themselves... Since we are to be gods (Sons and Daughters of God) the entire dynamic process being 'powered' by the fundamental and structuring complementarity of man and woman. We should set-aside ideas of sameness of origin, or sameness as a goal; we never were nor can be nor are meant-to-be the same as anybody or anything else - and glory entails the development of individuality within that power of love and directed by the eternal delight of participation in creation .
Saturday 9 June 2018
Striving for 'higher consciousness' (theosis) is a teaching of the Fourth Gospel
Why is it so difficult for us to attain a higher form of consciousness? Why is success so rare and brief?
The reason is that the higher consciousness is a divine form of consciousness, and to participate in it we must be in-accord-with divine creation... and not many people are.
Especially given that we must consciously be in accord with divine creation - and also aware of it, and actively choosing it from our true selves (our souls). (This cannot be something unconscious or passive - because the divine is always conscious, always active and purposive.)
Many traditionalists find this line of thinking to be un-Christian, if not anti-Christian; so it is necessary to link it with Jesus. The best source on Jesus is the Fourth Gospel.
In the Fourth Gospel, aside from Jesus himself, the best example of a God-aligned Man is the author of the Gospel, the beloved disciple himself - if we agree that the author is the resurrected Lazarus. The Gospel itself is the product of exactly the kind of divine consciousness that we seek.
A serious question - though - is to do with mortal versus post-mortal life. Clearly we can look-forward to a divine consciousness if we are believers in Jesus as the Son of God and the Good Shepherd who (if we will follow) will lead us to life eternal, with divine qualities that are 'symbolically' depicted throughout the Fourth Gospel.
But why suppose that we ought to aim at divine consciousness in mortal life? And why suppose that our failure to do would be responsible for the most extreme sins of modern life, as Rudolf Steiner recognised in a great prophetic statement of a century ago.
Well, perhaps because that is a theme throughout the Fourth Gospel, a Second Message; if that is what is implied by (for example) the conversation with Nicodemus about being born-again, or the conversation with the Samaritan woman about living water, or the discussion after feeding the five thousand about labouring for that meat which endureth into everlasting life.
It seems that there is a core/ minimal requirement for salvation: believing that Jesus is the Son of God and loving, therefore having faith, in him; so we may follow him through death to Heavenly life everlasting.
This core message is about salvation, and refers to our state after death and resurrection - but it is not about what we should do in this mortal life. Salvation is attainable by anyone who has these core convictions (believes-in and believes-on Jesus), and only by them. However, this gives no guidance for our worldly-motivations during this earthly existence.
However, there is also this Second Message - focused not on salvation but on theosis, on divinisation or sanctification - and this second message is about what we should work-for and strive-for during mortal life. What should motivate us. The answer is that we should strive to attain a new way of thinking and being that is aligned with the divine.
In other words, we ought-to strive for a higher consciousness, by aligning our thinking with the divine and by participating in the work of creation, even before death and during earthly mortality.
And if or when we do not strive for higher consciousness - there will be bad consequences (as we see all around us).
The reason is that the higher consciousness is a divine form of consciousness, and to participate in it we must be in-accord-with divine creation... and not many people are.
Especially given that we must consciously be in accord with divine creation - and also aware of it, and actively choosing it from our true selves (our souls). (This cannot be something unconscious or passive - because the divine is always conscious, always active and purposive.)
Many traditionalists find this line of thinking to be un-Christian, if not anti-Christian; so it is necessary to link it with Jesus. The best source on Jesus is the Fourth Gospel.
In the Fourth Gospel, aside from Jesus himself, the best example of a God-aligned Man is the author of the Gospel, the beloved disciple himself - if we agree that the author is the resurrected Lazarus. The Gospel itself is the product of exactly the kind of divine consciousness that we seek.
A serious question - though - is to do with mortal versus post-mortal life. Clearly we can look-forward to a divine consciousness if we are believers in Jesus as the Son of God and the Good Shepherd who (if we will follow) will lead us to life eternal, with divine qualities that are 'symbolically' depicted throughout the Fourth Gospel.
But why suppose that we ought to aim at divine consciousness in mortal life? And why suppose that our failure to do would be responsible for the most extreme sins of modern life, as Rudolf Steiner recognised in a great prophetic statement of a century ago.
Well, perhaps because that is a theme throughout the Fourth Gospel, a Second Message; if that is what is implied by (for example) the conversation with Nicodemus about being born-again, or the conversation with the Samaritan woman about living water, or the discussion after feeding the five thousand about labouring for that meat which endureth into everlasting life.
It seems that there is a core/ minimal requirement for salvation: believing that Jesus is the Son of God and loving, therefore having faith, in him; so we may follow him through death to Heavenly life everlasting.
This core message is about salvation, and refers to our state after death and resurrection - but it is not about what we should do in this mortal life. Salvation is attainable by anyone who has these core convictions (believes-in and believes-on Jesus), and only by them. However, this gives no guidance for our worldly-motivations during this earthly existence.
However, there is also this Second Message - focused not on salvation but on theosis, on divinisation or sanctification - and this second message is about what we should work-for and strive-for during mortal life. What should motivate us. The answer is that we should strive to attain a new way of thinking and being that is aligned with the divine.
In other words, we ought-to strive for a higher consciousness, by aligning our thinking with the divine and by participating in the work of creation, even before death and during earthly mortality.
And if or when we do not strive for higher consciousness - there will be bad consequences (as we see all around us).
Thursday 7 June 2018
What Tolkien meant by The Machine...
Some of Melko/ Morgoth's machines invading Gondolin, as imagined by TheGreatMC at DeviantArt
Explained over at The Notion Club Papers...
Why has the Fourth Gospel been historically downgraded?
It seems that almost everything rests on assumptions... When reading, and indeed when originally making, the New Testament, our assumptions concerning relative authority, make a really Big difference to what we get from it.
Given that the Fourth Gospel is, by its own account, written by the disciple whom Jesus loved; it ought to have priority over all other parts of the New Testament. At the very least, and given it begins with the beginning of creation, it surely ought to be the First Gospel: first in position, first in composition, and first in authority due to its authorship.
However, if the Fourth Gospel had been placed first in position and authority, it would have framed the rest of the New Testament in ways that are very different from how Christianity evolved over the next many hundreds of years. As it is, the Gospels open with the three 'Synoptics' - Matthew, Mark and Luke - which are similar in structure and doctrine; that is, the accounts of Jesus open with the genealogy of Jesus leading back to the ancient prophets of the Old testament, and a version of the Nativity story.
Why are the Synoptics put first in sequence and in authority, when they do not even claim to be eye-witness accounts; and indeed have internal evidence of being compilations? - When by comparison the Fourth Gospel is a wonder of integration, harmony and unity!
(Except for Chapter 21, which seems to have been added some time after the death of Simon Peter; said to be in the early 60s AD.)
Unless we really disbelieve the claims of the Fourth Gospel - in which case it should not be in the Bible at all, since it is clearly dishonest - then it should be First.
Instead, the Synoptics are de facto given priority, by the simple means of claiming to regard all the Gospels as equal - or, indeed, especially among Confessional Protestants, inferior in authority to the Pauline Epistles.
Since the Fourth Gospel is qualitatively different from the Synoptics (and Paul's Epistles) in content, emphasis and several significant features; when it is regarded as 'equal' in authority, it is simply out-voted!
This means that, in actual practice (and for many hundreds of years), the Fourth Gospel (which ought-to-be First in priority) has-been and is merely fitted-into the other Gospels and/ or the Pauline Epistles; and any differences are explained-away.
This is simply a fact; the question is whether it is justified.
And that hinges on our understanding of what happened in the early 'post-apostolic' era of the Christian church - and to what extent it was divinely inspired, and to what extent it was human, flawed and corrupt.
Do we trust that the early and dominant theologians and church leaders were fundamentally correct? - I don't.
Do we trust that God inspired at least some translations of scripture to be sufficiently true? - I do: wrt the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther's and the 'King James'; which I regard as all equivalently valid (although not identical).
By these assumptions, we can trust and use scripture (in these four versions), overall; and we can (as I do here) use scripture as evidence against the compilers and interpreters of The Bible.
You may not believe my assumptions are correct - and I cannot argue for them with 'evidence', since they are assumptions - but this procedure is coherent and reasonable.
Given that the Fourth Gospel is, by its own account, written by the disciple whom Jesus loved; it ought to have priority over all other parts of the New Testament. At the very least, and given it begins with the beginning of creation, it surely ought to be the First Gospel: first in position, first in composition, and first in authority due to its authorship.
However, if the Fourth Gospel had been placed first in position and authority, it would have framed the rest of the New Testament in ways that are very different from how Christianity evolved over the next many hundreds of years. As it is, the Gospels open with the three 'Synoptics' - Matthew, Mark and Luke - which are similar in structure and doctrine; that is, the accounts of Jesus open with the genealogy of Jesus leading back to the ancient prophets of the Old testament, and a version of the Nativity story.
Why are the Synoptics put first in sequence and in authority, when they do not even claim to be eye-witness accounts; and indeed have internal evidence of being compilations? - When by comparison the Fourth Gospel is a wonder of integration, harmony and unity!
(Except for Chapter 21, which seems to have been added some time after the death of Simon Peter; said to be in the early 60s AD.)
Unless we really disbelieve the claims of the Fourth Gospel - in which case it should not be in the Bible at all, since it is clearly dishonest - then it should be First.
Instead, the Synoptics are de facto given priority, by the simple means of claiming to regard all the Gospels as equal - or, indeed, especially among Confessional Protestants, inferior in authority to the Pauline Epistles.
Since the Fourth Gospel is qualitatively different from the Synoptics (and Paul's Epistles) in content, emphasis and several significant features; when it is regarded as 'equal' in authority, it is simply out-voted!
This means that, in actual practice (and for many hundreds of years), the Fourth Gospel (which ought-to-be First in priority) has-been and is merely fitted-into the other Gospels and/ or the Pauline Epistles; and any differences are explained-away.
This is simply a fact; the question is whether it is justified.
And that hinges on our understanding of what happened in the early 'post-apostolic' era of the Christian church - and to what extent it was divinely inspired, and to what extent it was human, flawed and corrupt.
Do we trust that the early and dominant theologians and church leaders were fundamentally correct? - I don't.
Do we trust that God inspired at least some translations of scripture to be sufficiently true? - I do: wrt the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther's and the 'King James'; which I regard as all equivalently valid (although not identical).
By these assumptions, we can trust and use scripture (in these four versions), overall; and we can (as I do here) use scripture as evidence against the compilers and interpreters of The Bible.
You may not believe my assumptions are correct - and I cannot argue for them with 'evidence', since they are assumptions - but this procedure is coherent and reasonable.
What set John the Baptist above all the other Hebrew prophets?
The prominence which Jesus gives to John the Baptist requires specific explanation. After all, he is put on a level with, or perhaps even above, Moses, Abraham, Jacob and all the other greats; yet by the usual understanding, that status seems hard to justify.
What exactly, did John the Baptist do that was so important and can stand comparison, indeed excel, the remarkable achievements of the ancient Hebrew prophets?
It would be expected that we would be told exactly what that achievement was, and indeed we are. We are told what John did, and its effect - he was The Baptist, and he baptised Jesus, and this was the act that put him above all other prophets.
As we are told John was supremely important, the baptism of Jesus by John must itself have been supremely important. Well, we are told in the Fourth Gospel that the (divine) Spirit came and rested and stayed upon Jesus. Since we were not told anything about Jesus's earlier life in the Fourth Gospel; implicitly, this marks the exact moment when Jesus became what he finally was, and without this he would not have been who he was.
In the Fourth Gospel, there is no 'origins' Nativity story, no genealogy of Jesus, no information concerning Jesus's childhood (nothing about Jesus being related to John the Baptist). John's Baptism is apparently the sole and sufficient explanation of Jesus becoming fully the Son of God.
Of course Jesus was already the Lamb of God, even before he was baptised, and was recognised as such... by John the Baptist.
Therefore, the Fourth Gospel is telling us that it was John the Baptist who first recognised that Jesus was the Messiah, and on baptising him was aware of the Spirit descending upon him and staying upon him.
We tend to assume that none of this was essential to the work of Jesus; but we are probably wrong to do this. At least in the Bible, God does things by Men. Perhaps if one man fails, then God may find another - but decisions and events have permanent significance.
It seems that the weight of the divine plan of salvation rested upon the shoulders of John the Baptist; and that he was needed as the specific person who was worthy and able, to recognise and baptise Jesus, in the decisive event which began the ministry of Jesus.
Since the author of the Fourth Gospel gives no other 'reason' for Jesus's status; the recognition and Baptism by John may count as the single most important event in the mortal life of Jesus.
If that is so; the prominence of John the Baptist in the Fourth and Synoptic Gospels is easily understandable.
What exactly, did John the Baptist do that was so important and can stand comparison, indeed excel, the remarkable achievements of the ancient Hebrew prophets?
It would be expected that we would be told exactly what that achievement was, and indeed we are. We are told what John did, and its effect - he was The Baptist, and he baptised Jesus, and this was the act that put him above all other prophets.
As we are told John was supremely important, the baptism of Jesus by John must itself have been supremely important. Well, we are told in the Fourth Gospel that the (divine) Spirit came and rested and stayed upon Jesus. Since we were not told anything about Jesus's earlier life in the Fourth Gospel; implicitly, this marks the exact moment when Jesus became what he finally was, and without this he would not have been who he was.
In the Fourth Gospel, there is no 'origins' Nativity story, no genealogy of Jesus, no information concerning Jesus's childhood (nothing about Jesus being related to John the Baptist). John's Baptism is apparently the sole and sufficient explanation of Jesus becoming fully the Son of God.
Of course Jesus was already the Lamb of God, even before he was baptised, and was recognised as such... by John the Baptist.
Therefore, the Fourth Gospel is telling us that it was John the Baptist who first recognised that Jesus was the Messiah, and on baptising him was aware of the Spirit descending upon him and staying upon him.
We tend to assume that none of this was essential to the work of Jesus; but we are probably wrong to do this. At least in the Bible, God does things by Men. Perhaps if one man fails, then God may find another - but decisions and events have permanent significance.
It seems that the weight of the divine plan of salvation rested upon the shoulders of John the Baptist; and that he was needed as the specific person who was worthy and able, to recognise and baptise Jesus, in the decisive event which began the ministry of Jesus.
Since the author of the Fourth Gospel gives no other 'reason' for Jesus's status; the recognition and Baptism by John may count as the single most important event in the mortal life of Jesus.
If that is so; the prominence of John the Baptist in the Fourth and Synoptic Gospels is easily understandable.
Wednesday 6 June 2018
The Temperance Seven in It's Trad Dad
This is exactly the kind of humour I like best. Plus, I love the style of music.
I am absolutely amazed that I had not previously come across this band, but clearly they were a force to be reckoned with at the turn of the sixties - an ephemeral perfection of sorts.
I am absolutely amazed that I had not previously come across this band, but clearly they were a force to be reckoned with at the turn of the sixties - an ephemeral perfection of sorts.
Jesus is the Only real Pastor/ Good Shepherd
Yesterday's post argues that (in the Fourth Gospel) Jesus did not ask Simon Peter, or anyone else, to be a Shepherd (aka Pastor) of his people: Jesus is himself our only Shepherd.
The Shepherd's role was to lead and protect his flock, and the flock is all Christians who believe in Jesus.
(Only the Good Shepherd can protect our souls in this mortal life, and lead us through death and into eternal life.)
Simon Peter was asked to 'feed' the disciples and Christians; but Shepherds don't feed their sheep; their sheep feed themselves, and (because ewes feed lambs) sheep feed each other. This Gospel cannot have meant that Simon Peter was to be any kind of stand-in or substitute or analogous 'Good Shepherd'.
And 'to feed' is a word-concept with what seems to us moderns to be an exceedingly deep, complex and multiple meaning in the Bible... yet was, to people contemporary with the writings, just the way that language and consciousness were in that time and place.
The Shepherd's role was to lead and protect his flock, and the flock is all Christians who believe in Jesus.
(Only the Good Shepherd can protect our souls in this mortal life, and lead us through death and into eternal life.)
Simon Peter was asked to 'feed' the disciples and Christians; but Shepherds don't feed their sheep; their sheep feed themselves, and (because ewes feed lambs) sheep feed each other. This Gospel cannot have meant that Simon Peter was to be any kind of stand-in or substitute or analogous 'Good Shepherd'.
And 'to feed' is a word-concept with what seems to us moderns to be an exceedingly deep, complex and multiple meaning in the Bible... yet was, to people contemporary with the writings, just the way that language and consciousness were in that time and place.
Tuesday 5 June 2018
The mystery of 'Feed my lambs/ sheep/ sheep' in the Fourth Gospel
The twenty-first and last (and I believe, later added) Chapter of the Fourth Gospel is intensely mysterious and difficult (relevant passages are reproduced below). It focuses on the disciple Simon Peter, and also the author of the Fourth Gospel himself (the disciple 'whom Jesus loved' - and who I believe to be the raised Lazarus).
It begins with the episode of the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples when they are fishing. This is clearly freighted with what we regard as symbolism, but what was then a kind of depth and multiple-applicability of language, that was due to a different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking and being in the world - and which is sometimes possible for us to intuit or express poetically, but which cannot be explained in prose. But the episode seems to be about the disciples gathering of what we would term 'converts', as well as about 'feeding'.
The matter of feeding is very difficult to grasp in the Fourth Gospel - there are many passages about eating, feeding, bread, meat, flesh... and at present I find it hard to grasp and impossible to express what they mean altogether; but the feeding of the five thousand is probably the main key to it - with the idea of food being God-given, and the Food of Jesus potentially giving of eternal life (in contrast to the manna of Moses).
After the disciples had gathered fish and dined; Jesus asks Simon Peter three times whether he loves him (three times in an echo of Simon Peter's earlier three denials of Jesus).
But the first time Jesus asks 'Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?'- these presumably being the other disciples. After Simon Peter says yes, then Jesus tells him to feed his lambs.
Lambs imply sacrifice, and I think this refers to Simon Peter's role in leading the other disciples. Simon Peter is told, prophetically, the manner of his own sacrificial death. So, Simon Peter, and most of theother disciples, are sacrificial lambs.
The next twice, Jesus repeats the same phrase: 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? This time Jesus leaves-out 'Peter', which is his disciple name, given him by Jesus. So, presumably what follows relates to Simon Peter not as leader of the disciples, but in a different, more general role - perhaps as future 'bishop'?
And then his instruction is to 'feed my sheep' - not lambs. The symbolism of sheep is very different from lambs. Lambs are disciples, but sheep are the followers of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
So, Simon has to feed the lamb/ disciples and the sheep/ people... but wait a minute! People don't feed lambs or sheep. Lambs are fed by their mothers (by female sheep), while grown-up sheep feed themselves.
So this passage is Not about Simon Peter becoming a Shepherd, or Pastor; because the Shepherd's job was to protect and lead the flock - not to feed them...
And anyway, Jesus is The (Good) Shepherd - and this symbol is close to being his essence - Jesus, and only Jesus, will lead us through death to to life everlasting.
So, whatever 'feed' means in the Fourth Gospel, Simon Peter is being asked (for his love of Jesus) to do this both for the disciples, and for the people in General...
But not for the beloved disciple, author of the fourth Gospel, who has a different task and role. Jesus asks Simon Peter to 'follow me' - meaning, through death to eternal life. Simon Peter is himself one of the sheep/ followers, as well as a lamb/ sacrifice.
But a different identity and fate apply to the beloved disciple, who is not one of the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd through death (because, being Lazarus, he has already died); but instead he is to 'tarry' until Jesus 'comes' again...
**
Fourth Gospel ('John') Chapter 21: 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
It begins with the episode of the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples when they are fishing. This is clearly freighted with what we regard as symbolism, but what was then a kind of depth and multiple-applicability of language, that was due to a different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking and being in the world - and which is sometimes possible for us to intuit or express poetically, but which cannot be explained in prose. But the episode seems to be about the disciples gathering of what we would term 'converts', as well as about 'feeding'.
The matter of feeding is very difficult to grasp in the Fourth Gospel - there are many passages about eating, feeding, bread, meat, flesh... and at present I find it hard to grasp and impossible to express what they mean altogether; but the feeding of the five thousand is probably the main key to it - with the idea of food being God-given, and the Food of Jesus potentially giving of eternal life (in contrast to the manna of Moses).
After the disciples had gathered fish and dined; Jesus asks Simon Peter three times whether he loves him (three times in an echo of Simon Peter's earlier three denials of Jesus).
But the first time Jesus asks 'Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?'- these presumably being the other disciples. After Simon Peter says yes, then Jesus tells him to feed his lambs.
Lambs imply sacrifice, and I think this refers to Simon Peter's role in leading the other disciples. Simon Peter is told, prophetically, the manner of his own sacrificial death. So, Simon Peter, and most of theother disciples, are sacrificial lambs.
The next twice, Jesus repeats the same phrase: 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? This time Jesus leaves-out 'Peter', which is his disciple name, given him by Jesus. So, presumably what follows relates to Simon Peter not as leader of the disciples, but in a different, more general role - perhaps as future 'bishop'?
And then his instruction is to 'feed my sheep' - not lambs. The symbolism of sheep is very different from lambs. Lambs are disciples, but sheep are the followers of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
So, Simon has to feed the lamb/ disciples and the sheep/ people... but wait a minute! People don't feed lambs or sheep. Lambs are fed by their mothers (by female sheep), while grown-up sheep feed themselves.
So this passage is Not about Simon Peter becoming a Shepherd, or Pastor; because the Shepherd's job was to protect and lead the flock - not to feed them...
And anyway, Jesus is The (Good) Shepherd - and this symbol is close to being his essence - Jesus, and only Jesus, will lead us through death to to life everlasting.
So, whatever 'feed' means in the Fourth Gospel, Simon Peter is being asked (for his love of Jesus) to do this both for the disciples, and for the people in General...
But not for the beloved disciple, author of the fourth Gospel, who has a different task and role. Jesus asks Simon Peter to 'follow me' - meaning, through death to eternal life. Simon Peter is himself one of the sheep/ followers, as well as a lamb/ sacrifice.
But a different identity and fate apply to the beloved disciple, who is not one of the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd through death (because, being Lazarus, he has already died); but instead he is to 'tarry' until Jesus 'comes' again...
**
Fourth Gospel ('John') Chapter 21: 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Monday 4 June 2018
OK, I'm a Christian - Now what? Lifestyle, politics or consciousness
Christianity has at least two steps - the first is becoming a Christian, which happens in a moment. This is a wonderful experience; but after some time the overwhelming feeling fades - as it is meant to. Then the question arises - what now?
Traditionally, the convert spends the rest of his mortal days learning and practising the Christian 'lifestyle' as it is understood by the denomination of his church in a particular time and place. That is one possibility.
Modern liberal Christians - a many evangelicals - reject a highly detailed prescribed lifestyle as being unscriptural; and there is a tendency for such to put their efforts into 'politics' of one sort or another: into trying to achieve Social Change. This usually ends, sooner or later, by leading out of Christianity; at least it does nowadays, when politics is so corrupting and evil.
If we reject (or cannot live by) a detailed-prescribed lifestyle; and if we also reject the mainstream 'social activism' of the mainstream churches - what then?
Another way forward is the spiritual - to cultivate and strengthen the spiritual side of of Christianity. In other words, to work on the form as well as the content of our faith.
Another way to put this is to try and change our consciousness. That is the very texture of the way we think and feel - and to make it more Christian. Because the spiritual is not restricted to believing in Jesus in the same way we believe in the factual validity of an Encyclopedia; Christian belief is supposed to be a different, deeper, wider, personally-involved way of believing.
Because mainstream modern consciousness, the way that most people including Christians think and feel, is in conflict with Christianity. We are materialists, prone to positivism, scientism - we live in a world of dead (un-alive) 'things'. We experience being cut-off from the world.
So long as people experience and think this way, they are falling far short of the way that we ought to be experiencing and thinking.
So, this is something that a newly-minted Christian could do; something to work-on that would enrich and strengthen their faith; a life's work, indeed.
Traditionally, the convert spends the rest of his mortal days learning and practising the Christian 'lifestyle' as it is understood by the denomination of his church in a particular time and place. That is one possibility.
Modern liberal Christians - a many evangelicals - reject a highly detailed prescribed lifestyle as being unscriptural; and there is a tendency for such to put their efforts into 'politics' of one sort or another: into trying to achieve Social Change. This usually ends, sooner or later, by leading out of Christianity; at least it does nowadays, when politics is so corrupting and evil.
If we reject (or cannot live by) a detailed-prescribed lifestyle; and if we also reject the mainstream 'social activism' of the mainstream churches - what then?
Another way forward is the spiritual - to cultivate and strengthen the spiritual side of of Christianity. In other words, to work on the form as well as the content of our faith.
Another way to put this is to try and change our consciousness. That is the very texture of the way we think and feel - and to make it more Christian. Because the spiritual is not restricted to believing in Jesus in the same way we believe in the factual validity of an Encyclopedia; Christian belief is supposed to be a different, deeper, wider, personally-involved way of believing.
Because mainstream modern consciousness, the way that most people including Christians think and feel, is in conflict with Christianity. We are materialists, prone to positivism, scientism - we live in a world of dead (un-alive) 'things'. We experience being cut-off from the world.
So long as people experience and think this way, they are falling far short of the way that we ought to be experiencing and thinking.
So, this is something that a newly-minted Christian could do; something to work-on that would enrich and strengthen their faith; a life's work, indeed.
Sunday 3 June 2018
Men may become fully divine (like Jesus) - from the Fourth Gospel
Although the idea that Men may become fully divine is often regarded as being a distinctive doctrine of Mormon Christianity (and an heretical and obnoxious one!).
Yet, this idea is pretty clearly implied by the Fourth Gospel from three sets of statements: that Jesus is the son of God, that Men may become sons of God, and that Jesus is God.
However, the fact is not usually noticed due to the near-universal practice of reading scripture with a prior (non-scriptural) assumption of strict-monotheism - leading to the mystical-paradox of standard Trinity theology, which itself assumes that God is qualitatively distinct from Men.
Also, the Synoptic Gospels (and/ or Pauline Epistles) are, in practice, regarded as primarily authoritative - whereas I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the most authoritative book of scripture.
Anyway, the passages in the Fourth Gospel which lead to the conclusion that Men can become fully divine include the following (there are others).
John
20: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name.
John 1: 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
20: 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Yet, this idea is pretty clearly implied by the Fourth Gospel from three sets of statements: that Jesus is the son of God, that Men may become sons of God, and that Jesus is God.
However, the fact is not usually noticed due to the near-universal practice of reading scripture with a prior (non-scriptural) assumption of strict-monotheism - leading to the mystical-paradox of standard Trinity theology, which itself assumes that God is qualitatively distinct from Men.
Also, the Synoptic Gospels (and/ or Pauline Epistles) are, in practice, regarded as primarily authoritative - whereas I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the most authoritative book of scripture.
Anyway, the passages in the Fourth Gospel which lead to the conclusion that Men can become fully divine include the following (there are others).
Jesus is the son of God
Men may also become sons of God (like Jesus already is)
John 1: 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus is himself God
John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
20: 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Saturday 2 June 2018
The People want Bad things - so political change can't do any Good
This is something I find it hard to get across - I have been harping on the theme for about nine years, and apparently few other have reached the same conclusion, if the sustained massive interest-in and hopes-from political change is any guide.
My baseline understanding that that, in modern Western countries, hardly-any-people (only a small minority) want Good things.
Quite the contrary, in fact. If their behaviour is anything to go by, then most people want Bad things for most of the time.
And if people want Bad things; then how could politics do any Good? Improving The System will only make the mass majority of Badly-motivated people more successful at accomplishing the Bad things that they wish-for...
A Christian spiritual awakening is therefore not some kind of luxury, not something added-on after the prior and necessary political changes; but the pre-requisite to all Good political change.
When the people are Bad, nothing positive can be accomplished by political action of any kind. It is misplaced activity.
Christian spiritual awakening is therefore the priority. It must happen before there is any possibility of Good politics.
...First your own awakening; then see if you can help others awaken, in some way that you consider potentially to be effective.
My baseline understanding that that, in modern Western countries, hardly-any-people (only a small minority) want Good things.
Quite the contrary, in fact. If their behaviour is anything to go by, then most people want Bad things for most of the time.
And if people want Bad things; then how could politics do any Good? Improving The System will only make the mass majority of Badly-motivated people more successful at accomplishing the Bad things that they wish-for...
A Christian spiritual awakening is therefore not some kind of luxury, not something added-on after the prior and necessary political changes; but the pre-requisite to all Good political change.
When the people are Bad, nothing positive can be accomplished by political action of any kind. It is misplaced activity.
Christian spiritual awakening is therefore the priority. It must happen before there is any possibility of Good politics.
...First your own awakening; then see if you can help others awaken, in some way that you consider potentially to be effective.
Is there a Spirituality Quotient akin to IQ?
William Wildblood, with tongue-in-cheek, plays with this idea as a way of exploring the obvious 'dissociation' (i.e lack of correlation) between intelligence and spirituality; including the idea that it is ideal to be high in both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)