Tommi Leino
2007-11-05 00:35:30 UTC
It is hard for a modern rational man to adopt a religion that
demands such extreme faith amidst the strong indications that we
do not have proof of the historical basis even of the seemingly
one of the most important facts, the non-metaphoric resurrection
of Jesus, not to even speak of the lesser miracles that were
performed as a proof of Him being the only true Son of God.
It is hard to believe these facts even if we limit our search
only to the Bible and its Four Gospels, knowing the historical
context, of illiterate and superstition-driven people of the
ancient world. How they could have captured all of the details
from the beginning to the end with unfailing accuracy? Was there
a scribe with Jesus all the time? Maybe there was, but for
instance, was there also a scribe with Mary, before the ministry
of Jesus, to record The Magnificat, her song of praise?
Surely it must become apparent to reader of the Gospels,
especially when comparisons are made with the Four Gospels,
that the details of events, or even the number of events, do not
totally correlate. The Evangelists must have used their artistic
freedom when converting the far-branching spoken account,
that must have been in wide circulation during the time period,
to a concise written text. And the job only becomes harder when
the task is to filter through a rich of metaphysical metaphors
mingled with spirited exaggerations of genuine or make-believe
events.
As a topping for the cake of disbelief comes the modern
assumption that the original Gospels were left anonymous[1],
and that the texts have been "corrected" later on in the
history, and that the apocryphal texts give ever wider scope of
who Jesus really was, not to speak of that the apocryphal texts
in some cases may seem to be even more authentic than the
anonymous, possibly heavily controlled canonical texts are.
Whether or not the significance or validity of the concerns
presented herein is enough to discredit the absolute
authenticity of the written Word in the Gospels for the average
rational mind, the question is still presented. What if
historical Jesus never existed? What if there is no life after
death? What then, is the value of Jesus?
Some say that it is a core part of being Christian to have an
absolute faith on the Gospels and that such a question is not to
be even contemplated on. But isn't this kind of reasoning in
odds with the figure of Jesus in the Gospels, who in many
occasions reproached scholars of mere written word and called us
to exceed them in righteousness[2]?
On the contrary, would it be acceptable if we would prepare the
way for letting the mass of unbelieving atheists understand the
core message of Jesus if we take the message out of its much
boasted and unverifiable supernatural context and save the
supernatural aspect and related issues for contemplation only
within the circles of so called "born-again Christians," so that
the newcomers, now with proper feasibility of assimilating the
core message could also have a possibility for being changed
from within and hence have the ability to join the inner circles
of Christians as true followers of Jesus?
If Christianity wishes to stand the test of time, now upon the
advent of literate, enlightened people, a change of approach in
our missionary work is in hot demand. During the history each of
the generations and each of the movements within the realm of
Christianity have had their own individual approaches that fit
the surrounding context of history. Why couldn't we also change
the emphasis of our preaching, for being more rationally
acceptable for the people of our time? It would be a radical
change, obviously, but so was the advent of technological
advances to past generations and yet it seems that the
Christianity is still essentially trusting on Middle Ageish
reasoning when presented with questions about the validity of
our message.
What is the core message, or teaching of Jesus, when taken out
of the supernatural context? The Sermon on the Mount, for
instance, in Matthew's Gospel, describes in very down-to-earth
terms what kind of state of mind is expected of his followers
and none of the expectations explicitly demand fidelity to or
outright worship of a supernatural being and all the
supernatural references therein can be well taken in a
metaphorical sense. Even with such drastic ripping of the
supernatural layer, the outcome well can lead to a more direct
relationship with God through this rational approach in
comparison to a Church-led submission to time-tested forms that
could well turn to simple idol-worship of Jesus[3], instead of
actually hearing and acting upon the wisdom inherent in the
written teachings of Jesus.
For example, Jesus in several occasions threathen us with the
hell. Now, is the right question today to discuss about whether
there is hell or whether one should simply believe to it even
though there wouldn't be a way to get a proof of it? These are
valid questions, but not necessarily important ones. People can
spend hours on the discussion of the metaphysical reality but
there is no other value of these topics except in the case of
the supposed after-life, which yet again, is a theoretical one
to the rational mind.
What, however, has a direct affect to our life here on earth is
the concept of "the hell on earth" that is, an interpretation of
hell as a metaphorical state of mind of individual persons or of
the inner state of communities or places. The descriptions of
hell are descriptions of extreme unhappiness. Understood that
way, the question of whether to sin or not becomes a question of
happiness. Everyone can test this claim in practice by
contemplating the nature of happiness by comparing an act of
adultery to an act of genuine, unselfish love. What is real
happiness, is then the question, and so the whole message of
Jesus is turned to being a very desirable one indeed. The
promise would be "a heaven on earth" if people would act
according to His teaching and the "kingdom" would not come only
in the distant future, but it would be upon[4] the participants
with each of the loving acts in accord with Jesus.
There, of course, is a catch. Heavenly love here on earth is not
that easy. First of all, we are all bombarded with temptations
that try to drift us from the path of love. Secondly, the acts
of love are not always easy and Jesus was a good example of
this, with his death on the Cross. Thirdly, in order to get a
share of the "ultimate happiness," we have to have a bit of
faith but this faith doesn't have to be blind, because the
results can be subjectively verified.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to give to the
needy[5] but without letting "our left hand know what our right
hand is doing" so that we wouldn't take the credit to ourself.
This surely is in order to stay as an empty vessel eligible to
be filled by the reward that is promised by Jesus. Given by
Jesus, God, or by whatever entity or no entity, the reward
surely would happen, right there in the moment of our act, as
long as we don't make adultery towards ourselves by snatching
the credit to ourselves and therefore filling our vessel with
our own stuff in which case we would be feeding on our own
finite flesh instead of feeding on the divine flesh where there
would not be end.
Starting with such a positive reason-friendly attitude, the way
forward on the path would naturally lead the initiated towards
deeper faith and deeper relationship with this "unnameable
entity" and they would avoid sin and learn to know personally
what is this much advertised "love of Jesus." They would become
more like a true image of God[6] as they become to understand
how God works with us in these subtle ways even up to realizing
their sonship[7] with Our Father as they gradually go through
the conversion from earthly subsistence to heavenly subsistence,
as Prodigal Sons on the way to home.
Is there, therefore, any reasons why shouldn't we support
evangelists who in this way tries to build a bridge towards
today's mass of rationalists?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Evangelists
[2] Matthew 5:20
[3] Isaiah 29:13
[4] Matthew 12:28
[5] Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 25:40
[6] Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:10
[7] Matthew 5:9
--
http://namhas.colony.ee
demands such extreme faith amidst the strong indications that we
do not have proof of the historical basis even of the seemingly
one of the most important facts, the non-metaphoric resurrection
of Jesus, not to even speak of the lesser miracles that were
performed as a proof of Him being the only true Son of God.
It is hard to believe these facts even if we limit our search
only to the Bible and its Four Gospels, knowing the historical
context, of illiterate and superstition-driven people of the
ancient world. How they could have captured all of the details
from the beginning to the end with unfailing accuracy? Was there
a scribe with Jesus all the time? Maybe there was, but for
instance, was there also a scribe with Mary, before the ministry
of Jesus, to record The Magnificat, her song of praise?
Surely it must become apparent to reader of the Gospels,
especially when comparisons are made with the Four Gospels,
that the details of events, or even the number of events, do not
totally correlate. The Evangelists must have used their artistic
freedom when converting the far-branching spoken account,
that must have been in wide circulation during the time period,
to a concise written text. And the job only becomes harder when
the task is to filter through a rich of metaphysical metaphors
mingled with spirited exaggerations of genuine or make-believe
events.
As a topping for the cake of disbelief comes the modern
assumption that the original Gospels were left anonymous[1],
and that the texts have been "corrected" later on in the
history, and that the apocryphal texts give ever wider scope of
who Jesus really was, not to speak of that the apocryphal texts
in some cases may seem to be even more authentic than the
anonymous, possibly heavily controlled canonical texts are.
Whether or not the significance or validity of the concerns
presented herein is enough to discredit the absolute
authenticity of the written Word in the Gospels for the average
rational mind, the question is still presented. What if
historical Jesus never existed? What if there is no life after
death? What then, is the value of Jesus?
Some say that it is a core part of being Christian to have an
absolute faith on the Gospels and that such a question is not to
be even contemplated on. But isn't this kind of reasoning in
odds with the figure of Jesus in the Gospels, who in many
occasions reproached scholars of mere written word and called us
to exceed them in righteousness[2]?
On the contrary, would it be acceptable if we would prepare the
way for letting the mass of unbelieving atheists understand the
core message of Jesus if we take the message out of its much
boasted and unverifiable supernatural context and save the
supernatural aspect and related issues for contemplation only
within the circles of so called "born-again Christians," so that
the newcomers, now with proper feasibility of assimilating the
core message could also have a possibility for being changed
from within and hence have the ability to join the inner circles
of Christians as true followers of Jesus?
If Christianity wishes to stand the test of time, now upon the
advent of literate, enlightened people, a change of approach in
our missionary work is in hot demand. During the history each of
the generations and each of the movements within the realm of
Christianity have had their own individual approaches that fit
the surrounding context of history. Why couldn't we also change
the emphasis of our preaching, for being more rationally
acceptable for the people of our time? It would be a radical
change, obviously, but so was the advent of technological
advances to past generations and yet it seems that the
Christianity is still essentially trusting on Middle Ageish
reasoning when presented with questions about the validity of
our message.
What is the core message, or teaching of Jesus, when taken out
of the supernatural context? The Sermon on the Mount, for
instance, in Matthew's Gospel, describes in very down-to-earth
terms what kind of state of mind is expected of his followers
and none of the expectations explicitly demand fidelity to or
outright worship of a supernatural being and all the
supernatural references therein can be well taken in a
metaphorical sense. Even with such drastic ripping of the
supernatural layer, the outcome well can lead to a more direct
relationship with God through this rational approach in
comparison to a Church-led submission to time-tested forms that
could well turn to simple idol-worship of Jesus[3], instead of
actually hearing and acting upon the wisdom inherent in the
written teachings of Jesus.
For example, Jesus in several occasions threathen us with the
hell. Now, is the right question today to discuss about whether
there is hell or whether one should simply believe to it even
though there wouldn't be a way to get a proof of it? These are
valid questions, but not necessarily important ones. People can
spend hours on the discussion of the metaphysical reality but
there is no other value of these topics except in the case of
the supposed after-life, which yet again, is a theoretical one
to the rational mind.
What, however, has a direct affect to our life here on earth is
the concept of "the hell on earth" that is, an interpretation of
hell as a metaphorical state of mind of individual persons or of
the inner state of communities or places. The descriptions of
hell are descriptions of extreme unhappiness. Understood that
way, the question of whether to sin or not becomes a question of
happiness. Everyone can test this claim in practice by
contemplating the nature of happiness by comparing an act of
adultery to an act of genuine, unselfish love. What is real
happiness, is then the question, and so the whole message of
Jesus is turned to being a very desirable one indeed. The
promise would be "a heaven on earth" if people would act
according to His teaching and the "kingdom" would not come only
in the distant future, but it would be upon[4] the participants
with each of the loving acts in accord with Jesus.
There, of course, is a catch. Heavenly love here on earth is not
that easy. First of all, we are all bombarded with temptations
that try to drift us from the path of love. Secondly, the acts
of love are not always easy and Jesus was a good example of
this, with his death on the Cross. Thirdly, in order to get a
share of the "ultimate happiness," we have to have a bit of
faith but this faith doesn't have to be blind, because the
results can be subjectively verified.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to give to the
needy[5] but without letting "our left hand know what our right
hand is doing" so that we wouldn't take the credit to ourself.
This surely is in order to stay as an empty vessel eligible to
be filled by the reward that is promised by Jesus. Given by
Jesus, God, or by whatever entity or no entity, the reward
surely would happen, right there in the moment of our act, as
long as we don't make adultery towards ourselves by snatching
the credit to ourselves and therefore filling our vessel with
our own stuff in which case we would be feeding on our own
finite flesh instead of feeding on the divine flesh where there
would not be end.
Starting with such a positive reason-friendly attitude, the way
forward on the path would naturally lead the initiated towards
deeper faith and deeper relationship with this "unnameable
entity" and they would avoid sin and learn to know personally
what is this much advertised "love of Jesus." They would become
more like a true image of God[6] as they become to understand
how God works with us in these subtle ways even up to realizing
their sonship[7] with Our Father as they gradually go through
the conversion from earthly subsistence to heavenly subsistence,
as Prodigal Sons on the way to home.
Is there, therefore, any reasons why shouldn't we support
evangelists who in this way tries to build a bridge towards
today's mass of rationalists?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Evangelists
[2] Matthew 5:20
[3] Isaiah 29:13
[4] Matthew 12:28
[5] Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 25:40
[6] Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:10
[7] Matthew 5:9
--
http://namhas.colony.ee