Evangelicals and the ' Fight for Jesus' squad

These statements by Christian theologian and Prof. David Ray Griffith confirm my declarations that he is an ally in the movement for 9-11 truth. In fact, he calls on all Christians to (educate themselves) do the research, or read his books, or listen to him or other researchers speak, and begin taking action to expose the truth. From the article "Interview with David Ray Griffin" found here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061128_AllYouKnowIsWrong.php#9445612aefeef1d5a25378c407f

David Ray Griffin said:
If you were to speak to the Christian community, what is a person's responsibility as a Christian or as a conscious spiritual being?

I really need to address the Christian community in particular because America is primarily a Christian nation and I'm a Christian theologian. I would say two things here. Christians should have motivation more than anyone else to look into 9/11, and if they agree it was an inside job, expose the truth. First of all because 9/11 from the beginning and still remains the pretext for all the things that we are doing and not doing in the world. It's the pretext for focusing on the so-called War on Terror rather than dealing with global warming, or the war on poverty or the health crisis, and all these other things, education... And it's the pretext for the attacks on Lebanon, anybody you can label a terrorist the United States gives you a free pass to attack them because they're kind of like the terrorists who attacked us and we've got to get rid of all the terrorists in the world. So it's the pretext for everything that has happened that has made the world a far more dangerous place than it was before 9/11. So just on a purely moral basis recognizing that 9/11 is the pretext for this, all Christians should say, well if there's one chance in a thousand that 9/11 was an inside job we need to know it, so I will read the evidence.

Secondly Christianity began as an anti-imperial religion. Jesus was crucified on a cross. The cross at that time was the Roman means of execution of people who were considered politically dangerous to the empire. So it was only the Romans that had the power to execute. We've had recently a movie that says it was the Jews who did it. No, the Jews did not, the Jewish authorities did not have the authority to crucify anybody, only the Romans could do it. So Jesus was crucified as a political threat to the empire. I have a whole chapter in the new book, which builds primarily on Richard Horsley's book called Jesus and Empire, so if nothing else I hope you will publicize this fact.

Christianity was anti-imperialistic during its first three centuries. Only in the fourth century did it start supporting empire, with Constantine.

Where do you pull an example from the Bible? What about, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"?

Right, a most misinterpreted passage. It was a trick question. The most volatile issue at the time and the reason people were crucified and groups were killed or slaughtered, is they refused to pay the tribute to Rome, that was the political issue. And so if Jesus had said, don't pay the tribute, that would have been grounds right there for execution, for rabble rousing. But on the other hand if he said, do pay it, then he's a collaborator. And so what does he say? He says, "Render unto God the things that are God's, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Well for a Jew in the first century, everything belongs to God, nothing belongs to Caesar. So it was a way of saying to his fellow Jews, of course don't pay it. It's got Caesar's picture on it, but that doesn't mean it belongs to Caesar. So that's been used and constantly quoted. If you read the chapter you'll see there are many illustrations and passages that once you understand the Roman occupation you see that Jesus was preaching what Horsley called an anti-imperial gospel.

And then the Book of Revelations, is a full-out anti-imperial book. The beast-that's Rome, all the imagery is Rome. And that's one of the earliest books of the New Testament, written before most of the gospels, so it shows you that early, before they had started to make their peace with empire as you get in the book of Luke. Luke acts much more friendly towards empire.

This is revolutionary stuff.

It is, and what we call the Peace Churches-the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Amish-they've always made this point that the fall of the church happened with Constantine, when he adopted Christianity and created the Holy Roman Empire, that was the ruin of the church. So they've always been anti-empire, and the mainstream churches, unfortunately, have not really taken a stand on this even after we've known better.

One good thing that may come out of all this is that churches may recover the original gospel and start to take it seriously.

Are there parts of the gospel that aren't in the Bible that support this position?

Sure. Elaine Pagels wrote a book several years ago in which she talked about the Gnostic Gospels, and she was focusing on the feminist issue and the rise of patriarchy and showed that some of the ones that didn't make it made women too equal. Now whether those gospels also had more of an anti-imperialist ring, to my knowledge she didn't focus on it because that wasn't the issue at the time, and I don't know anybody who's gone back and looked at that.

But in your mind you believe that Christ was preaching against the empire, because a lot of the evils of the world had sprung out of the expansion of empire.

Right, and he was preaching against the collaboration with the empire and the corruption of the temples. He was against, if one wants to say the Jews, the chief priests and rabbis of the temple. But these were not, they were outsiders who were brought in, they were Hellenistic Jews, so they were not people of the people, they lived in grand houses and were really stooges of the empire, and so he was preaching against them and against the money changers and that whole system of collaboration.

You have really synthesized a lot of information.

I've been working on this full time for three years. So sure, I've got an enormous amount of information. And I would issue a challenge to anybody who just wants to dismiss it a priori : Read my three books, write enough back to me to show me that you've read them and understood them, and then tell me you don't have any doubts about the official theory." I've thus far not run into anybody who's done that. I've run into people who've dismissed it without reading the books. I've run into a lot of people who've said, "I began your book convinced I was going to reject it." But if anybody will listen to an hour-long lecture, that's all it takes.
 
I hope ya'll have read Secret History. As I have said a number of times, I believe that "Christianity" existed long before the man around whom the Jesus legend was wrapped to conceal the truth was born; there is much more to this matter than meets the eye.

My own perspective is permeated with Christian teachings because that was my background. I can quote the Bible with the best of them, and more, I can quote it with references as to when, by whom, and why the different parts were written.

The C's are also rather "Christ" oriented, though they suggest that he was not the only "Christed" one in human history. That is certainly logical and in keeping with the idea of the Loving Face of God.

Additionally, I do not find that a scholarly study of religion, including Christianity, tends to destroy one's spirituality; for me, it has been the exact opposite. I am more certain than ever of a Consciousness basis to Creation than ever, and that our true link to this incomprehensible consciousness is our Conscience.

The life and work of the man we call Jesus was indeed, revolutionary, but not in the sense that Christianity now teaches. And all of his revolutionary thoughts and acts CAN be discerned in the text even with many interpolations and glosses over the centuries. It is quite inspiring. Hope you have read my review of Burton Mack's book on "Q: the Lost Gospel." It gives me hope.
 
Laura said:
The life and work of the man we call Jesus was indeed, revolutionary, but not in the sense that Christianity now teaches. And all of his revolutionary thoughts and acts CAN be discerned in the text even with many interpolations and glosses over the centuries. It is quite inspiring. Hope you have read my review of Burton Mack's book on "Q: the Lost Gospel." It gives me hope.
As an exercise after I read "Gnosis" be Boris Mouravieff I went through the "Gospel of Thomas" and made notes of my new perceptions of what Jesus said.

It was an extraordinary experience because a great deal of the symbolism took on an entirely new meaning and I actually "got" what Jesus REALLY meant (or so I think right now) by many of the passages.

If you look at those passages literally (or even with the wrong interpretation of the symbols) you lose a LOT of the meaning.

Don
 
I have read Laura's review on Burton Mack's book and the book itself is on my planned reading list--after all, the actual content of Q, the first layer anyhow, may be the closest thing we will ever have to the actual words spoken by the person now known as Jesus. I accept Laura's and Mack's conclusions. My understanding is that most scholar's of David Ray Griffith's caliber not only fully understand Mack's assertions, but that they accept them, i.e., that it's 'common' knowledge in scholarly circles. The televangelists and evangelicals for the most part are anything but real scholars.

I'm working on Secret History. Right now, my understanding of all the research and insight can be boiled down into this one commentary by SOtT, found here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061130_ZionismRacism.php#d6877408d56b1b893834a825a69
SOtT said:
Comment: What can one respond to an article such as this? To the blatant pro-Israeli positions of Human Rights Watch?

To suggest that it is the Palestinians who are committing the war crimes while defending their homes is outrageous!

But there is no Israeli Lobby. Heavens, no!

Palestine is the future. If normal people do not take a stand, then we share all suffer the fate of the Palestinians. That is no joke. The pathocrats have plans to get rid of people of conscience. War and disease, starvation and natural disaster, these will be the means used. And there will always be a veil of ambiguity to lead you astray, to convince you that is was an accident, like the repeated "errors" on the part of the IDF when they kill sleeping families in Gaza.

But these are not accidents. And just as the unstated policy of Israel is genocide, so is the unstated policy of all pathocrats to eliminate people of conscience.
Evidently, the Middle East is the springboard for pulling off the planned destruction of 94% of world and the Palestinian people seem to be one of the keys.

The Book of Revelation, by the way, has ALWAYS been regarded with suspicion and controversy by Christian leaders and scholars--to my understanding. It's either a miracle or manipulation that got that book added into the Biblical canon, in my opinion. I think it 's purpose is to program us into accepting the books assertion's that war and violence are the 'normal' state of existence, and that it is inevitable that there will be mass death and destruction, starting in the Middle East, i.e., to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and to manipulate the thinking and consciousness of those that accept the Bible into accepting that which should be unacceptable to those with conscience. I'm surprised that Griffith quotes from it. Though he views it as an "anti-imperial" document, I think by quoting it, he gives it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve--The Future is an Open Book--not a closed book--that's the book of revelation.

I'm looking forward, someday! to reading Origen's commentaries that are published by Red Pill Press. I understand that Origen was one of the most original(@*!), brilliant and insightful commentator's on the Bible, ever. Consequently, most of his work has been destroyed and we only have access to a small fragment of his work. I'd love to know what he had to say that simply had to be destroyed--as so much of ancient wisdom was. It seems to boil down to that which would give humanity a far clearer understanding of reality and the events that are going on right now in the Middle East.
 
jaicon said:
I guess I consider faith to allow me the right to believe in God, believe in Jesus and have HOPE that somehow my sins will be forgiven.
I do not understand this sentence. Is it that you believe that the phenomenon called "faith" is the "thing" that allows you some right for something? I don't understand.
And you hope that your sins will be forgiven? Forgiven by whom? Somebody/something that is judging you? Would that be some form of god - a judgmental god? And way do you have to hope for it? Are you judging yourself and deep down don't think you do not deserve that forgiveness.
Maybe I am just slow or I haven't followed the post properly, but I am totally lost.
Laura said:
I hope ya'll have read Secret History. As I have said a number of times, I believe that "Christianity" existed long before the man around whom the Jesus legend was wrapped to conceal the truth was born; there is much more to this matter than meets the eye [...] The C's are also rather "Christ" oriented, though they suggest that he was not the only "Christed" one in human history. That is certainly logical and in keeping with the idea of the Loving Face of God.
Additionally, I do not find that a scholarly study of religion, including Christianity, tends to destroy one's spirituality; for me, it has been the exact opposite. I am more certain than ever of a Consciousness basis to Creation than ever, and that our true link to this incomprehensible consciousness is our Conscience.
The life and work of the man we call Jesus was indeed, revolutionary, but not in the sense that Christianity now teaches. And all of his revolutionary thoughts and acts CAN be discerned in the text even with many interpolations and glosses over the centuries. It is quite inspiring. Hope you have read my review of Burton Mack's book on "Q: the Lost Gospel." It gives me hope.
Thank you Laura, you once again nailed my own thoughts in a short and dense stamens.
 
I believe worldwide corrupt Zionism is the worst tragedy we as a population face now, as a whole.

http://www(dot)ziopedia.org/content/view/2552/1/

http://cloakanddagger(dot)de/CLOAKANDDAGGER.DE_TOM%20HENEGHAN/cloak_IEAR_dec6.htm

As you can see we are facing a literal monarchy of decadence.

http://www(dot)thestraights.com

http://nomorefraud(dot)blogspot.com

There is no question about it, this must stop.

http://thejefffisherfiles(dot)blogspot.com

http://www(dot)wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/207

But we ourselves don't need any longer stay asleep.....

"The religious pandering of the Bush White House also influenced their treatment of Israel. Recently, political comedian Bill Maher observed that the political climate in the US has shifted to the extent that no one in Congress will admit to being an atheist: America has become such a religious nation that if you are a politician, it's political suicide to come out as a non-believer. This is one of the consequences of the Administration's calculated play to the religious right. For the record, I'm a Quaker and, therefore, a liberal Christian. Nonetheless, I find America's newfound political religiosity deeply disturbing. Conservative Christian theology that preaches women are subservient to men shows up in the far right's attempt to have government exercise control over women's bodies. And, it affects our treatment of Israel: The Administration tacitly supports the radical Christian position that the "end times" won't happen until the Jews control the Promised Land. This extreme attitude has been at the core of the Bush Israeli policy. It was demonstrated by our support for Israel's invasion of Lebanon. And our willingness to let Israel subject Palestinians to apartheid-a term that former President Jimmy Carter used in the title of his most recent book."

http://www(dot)commondreams.org/views06/1205-23.htm

Nope, we can not afford to.

http://www(dot)thetruth247.com
http://nomorefraud(dot)blogspot.com

That my fellow comrades, is just a sign of the times.

Robert Holbroke
 
I found this gem on the "old" Signs list type forum, it's a posting from Laura that fits this topic perfectly. I'm still trying to absorb it, but G's critique is powerful. This is the heart of the critique which can be found in its entirety in the below longer quote: "In actual fact Christianity number one, number two, and number three is simply external imitation. Only man number four strives to be a Christian and only man number five can actually be a Christian. For to be a Christian means to have the being of a Christian, that is, to live in accordance with Christ's precepts.

"Man number one, number two, and number three cannot live in accordance with Christ's precepts because with them everything 'happens.' Today it is one thing and tomorrow it is quite another thing. Today they are ready to give away their last shirt and tomorrow to tear a man to pieces because he refuses to give up his shirt to them. They are swayed by every chance event. They are not masters of themselves and therefore they cannot decide to be Christians and really be Christians. [...]

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals.

"In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

Laura said:
Signs Reply=>

Laura responds to D.J.

Hello and thank your for your comments.

You write:

I would submit that the following Christological hymns in Paul's writings bespeak ALREADY, as esoteric and subtle a series of events/transcental perceptions as the world has ever seen, even since. Far exceeding, by simultaneously fleshing out and *transcending, anything preceeding in Hellenistic agricultural myths (which are seen even by participants as more generalist, anhistorical, nonIncarnational, and nonMessianic...ie, nonprophetic) Hellenistic myths.

None of the following are taken by vast majority of sholars to be add-ons, [yah, so then they're in on it, all of them can only be robots and slaves to their convictions, that's the ticket...:-)...] not even in 1st c, let alone 300 years later.

In words of Cambridge University NT researcher Craig Blomberg: "...Paul incorporated some creeds, confessions of faith, or HYMNS, from the earliest* Christian church...The most famous creeds include Phillipians 2:6-11, which talks about Jesus being, "in very nature, God," and Collosians 1:15-20, which describe him as being 'the image of the invisible God,' who created all things and through whom all things are reconciled with God...by making peace, through his blood shed on the cross.'

Actually, what you are claiming is not entirely correct either in terms of your "witnesses," nor in terms of the "testimony" of those witnesses. Indeed, there are many "New Testament Scholars" in the US who make such claims - of such is the Kingdom of George Bush. But these scholars do not constitute the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

But, allow me to address the view of this group whose views you advocate. You are speaking of a group of individuals who seek to convince others of a set of basic presumptions. Their claim is that the earliest record demonstrates the elevation of Jesus to a "state of divinity," and since such an elevation is unlikely to have happened so soon after death without some dramatic "proof" of said divinity, that this must, ipso facto, prove the case for the miraculous resurrection. Such scholars make the claim that, since the belief in resurrection arose so immediately, it must overlay an historic truth.

These same scholars, to prove their case, tell us that the Gospel stories of Jesus go directly back to not merely traditions, but to written material formulated within a few years of the alleged death, burial and resurrection. These arguments, when examined carefully and without bias, taking ALL the available evidence into consideration, as well as the possible agendas of those giving the evidence, indicate that the scholars in question, the alleged "majority" you quote, are plagued by shallow and deficient reasoning, and selective adoption and interpretation of evidence. More to the point, their particular conclusion has been adopted a priori, and the evidence and arguments are selectively applied to this desired conclusion.

My own view is that certainly, there seems to be sufficient evidence to make it highly probable that there was an individual (or more than one) around whom the "Jesus Myth" accreted, but taking all other evidence into consideration, including the agendas of the many "witnesses," it seems even more probable that the standard interpretation of who or what this individual was, what he actually did, and what the "gospel stories" may actually have really meant, esoterically speaking, is erroneous. The application of a "historicity" to the gospel stories, which are more likely to be initiatory dramas, is a later development, a "fictionalization", if you will, by those who did not understand. In short, careful examination of all the evidence suggests that the life and work of the man/men around whom the Jesus myths accreted was a true Fourth Way Work.

As Georges Gurdjieff writes about this very matter as follows:

"Everything in the world, from solar systems to man, and from man to atom, either rises or descends, either evolves or degenerates, either develops or decays. Bur nothing evolves mechanically. Only degeneration and destruction proceed mechanically. That which cannot evolve consciously-degenerates. Help from outside is possible only in so far as it is valued and accepted, even if it is only by feeling in the beginning.

"The language in which understanding is possible is constructed upon the indication of the relation of the object under examination to the evolution possible for it; upon the indication of its place in the evolutionary ladder.

"For this purpose many of our usual ideas are divided according to the steps of this evolution. "Once again let us take the idea man. In the language of which I speak, instead of the word 'man,' seven words are used, namely: man number one, man number two, man number three, man number four, man number five, man number six, and man number seven. With these seven ideas people are already able to understand one another when speaking of man.

"Man number seven means a man who has reached the full development possible to man and who possesses everything a man can possess, that is, will, consciousness, permanent and unchangeable I, individuality, immortality, and many other properties which, in our blindness and ignorance, we ascribe to ourselves. It is only when to a certain extent we understand man number seven and his properties that we can understand the gradual stages through which we can approach him, that is, understand the process of development possible for us.

"Man number six stands very close to man number seven. He differs from man number seven only by the fact that some of his properties have not as yet become permanent.

"Man number five is also for us an unattainable standard of man, for it is a man who has reached unity.

"Man number four is an intermediate stage. I shall speak of him later.

"Man number one, number two, and number three, these are people who constitute mechanical humanity on the same level on which they are born.

"Man number one means man in whom the center of gravity of his psychic life lies in the moving center. This is the man of the physical body, the man with whom the moving and the instinctive functions constantly outweigh the emotional and the thinking functions.

"Man number two means man on the same level of development, but man in whom the center of gravity of his psychic life lies in the emotional center, that is, man with whom the emotional functions outweigh all others; the man of feeling, the emotional man.

"Man number three means man on the same level of development but man in whom the center of gravity of his psychic life lies in the intellectual center, that is, man with whom the thinking functions gain the upper hand over the moving, instinctive, and emotional functions; the man of reason, who goes into everything from theories, from mental considerations.

"Every man is born number one, number two, or number three.

"Man number four is not born ready-made. He is born one, two, or three, and becomes four only as a result of efforts of a definite character. Man number four is always the product of school work. He can neither be born, nor develop accidentally or as the result of ordinary influences of bringing up, education, and so on. Man number four already stands on a different level to man number one, two, and three; he has a permanent center of gravity which consists in his ideas, in his valuation of the work, and in his relation to the school. In addition his psychic centers have already begun to be balanced; one center in him cannot have such a preponderance over others as is the case with people of the first three categories. He already begins to know himself and begins to know whither he is going.

"Man number five has already been crystallized; he cannot change as man number one, two, and three change. But it must be noted that man number five can be the result of right work and he can be the result of wrong work. He can become number five from number four and he can become number five without having been four. And in this case he cannot develop further, cannot become number six and seven. In order to become number six he must again melt his crystallized essence, must intentionally lose his being of man number five. And this can be achieved only through terrible sufferings. Fortunately these cases of wrong development occur very rarely.

"The division of man into seven categories, or seven numbers, explains thousands of things which otherwise cannot be understood. This division gives the first conception of relativity as applied to man. Things may be one thing or another thing according to the kind of man from whose point of view, or in relation to whom, they are taken.

"In accordance with this, all the inner and all the outer manifestations of man, all that belongs to man, and all that is created by him, is also divided into seven categories.

"It can now be said that there exists a knowledge number one, based upon imitation or upon instincts, or learned by heart, crammed or drilled into a man. Number one, if he is man number one in the full sense of the term, learns everything like a parrot or a monkey.

"The knowledge of man number two is merely the knowledge of what he likes; what he does not like he does not know. Always and in everything he wants something pleasant. Or, if he is a sick man, he will, on the contrary, know only what he dislikes, what repels him and what evokes in him fear, horror, and loathing.

"The knowledge of man number three is knowledge based upon subjectively logical thinking, upon words, upon literal understanding. It is the knowledge of bookworms, of scholastics. Men number three, for example, have counted how many times each letter of the Arabic alphabet is repeated in the Koran of Mohammed, and upon this have based a whole system of interpretation of the. Koran.

"The knowledge of man number four is a very different kind of knowledge. It is knowledge which comes from man number five, who in turn receives it from man number six, who has received it from man number seven. But, of course, man number four assimilates of this knowledge only what is possible according to his powers. But, in comparison with man number one, man number two, and man number three, man number four has begun to get free from the subjective elements in his knowledge and to move along the path towards objective knowledge.

"The knowledge of man number five is whole, indivisible knowledge. He has now one indivisible I and all his knowledge belongs to this I. He cannot have one I that knows something which another does not know. What he knows, the whole of him knows. His knowledge is nearer to objective knowledge than the knowledge of man number four. "The knowledge of man number six is the complete knowledge possible to man; but it can still be lost.

"The knowledge of man number seven is his own knowledge, which cannot be taken away from him; it is the objective and completely practiced knowledge of All.

"It is exactly the same with being. There is the being of man number one, that is, the being of a man living by his instincts and his sensations; the being of man number two, that is to say, the being of the sentimental, the emotional man; the being of man number three, that is, the being of the rational, the theoretical man, and so on. It is quite clear why knowledge cannot be far away from being. Man number one, two, or three cannot, by reason of his being, possess the knowledge of man number four, man number five, and higher. Whatever you may give him, he may interpret it in his own way, he will reduce every idea to the level on which he is himself.

"The same order of division into seven categories must be applied to everything relating to man. There is art number one, that is the art of man number one, imitative, copying art, or crudely primitive and sensuous art such as the dances and music of savage peoples. There is art number two, sentimental art; art number three, intellectual, invented art; and there must be art number four, number five, and so on.

"In exactly the same way there exists the religion of man number one, that is to say, a religion consisting of rites, of external forms, of sacrifices and ceremonies of imposing splendor and brilliance, or, on the contrary, of a gloomy, cruel, and savage character, and so on.

"There is the religion of man number two; the religion of faith, love, adoration, impulse, enthusiasm, which soon becomes transformed into the religion of persecution, oppression, and extermination of 'heretics' and 'heathens.'

"There is the religion of man number three; the intellectual, theoretical religion of proofs and arguments, based upon logical deductions, considerations, and interpretations.

"Religions number one, number two, and number three are really the only ones we know; all known and existing religions and denominations in the world belong to one of these three categories. What the religion of man number four or the religion of man number five and so on is, we do not know, and we cannot know so long as we remain what we are.

"If instead of religion in general we take Christianity, then again there exists a Christianity number one, that is to say, paganism in the guise of Christianity.

"Christianity number two is an emotional religion, sometimes very pure but without force, sometimes full of bloodshed and horror leading to the Inquisition, to religious wars.

"Christianity number three, instances of which are afforded by various forms of Protestantism, is based upon dialectic, argument, theories, and so forth.

"Then there is Christianity number four, of which men number one, number two, and number three have no conception whatever.

"In actual fact Christianity number one, number two, and number three is simply external imitation. Only man number four strives to be a Christian and only man number five can actually be a Christian. For to be a Christian means to have the being of a Christian, that is, to live in accordance with Christ's precepts.

"Man number one, number two, and number three cannot live in accordance with Christ's precepts because with them everything 'happens.' Today it is one thing and tomorrow it is quite another thing. Today they are ready to give away their last shirt and tomorrow to tear a man to pieces because he refuses to give up his shirt to them. They are swayed by every chance event. They are not masters of themselves and therefore they cannot decide to be Christians and really be Christians. [...]

"Besides these three ways yet a fourth way exists by which can go those who cannot go by any of the first three ways.

"The fundamental difference between the first three ways, that is, the way of the fakir, the way of the monk, and the way of the yogi, and the fourth way consists in the fact that they are tied to permanent forms which have existed throughout long periods of history almost without change. At the basis of these institutions is religion. Where schools of yogis exist they differ little outwardly from religious schools. And in different periods of history various societies or orders of fakirs have existed in different countries and they still exist. These three traditional ways are permanent ways within the limits of our historical period.

"Two or three thousand years ago there were yet other ways which no longer exist and the ways now in existence were not so divided, they stood much closer to one another.

"The fourth way differs from the old and the new ways by the fact that it is never a permanent way. It has no definite forms and there are no institutions connected with it. It appears and disappears governed by some particular laws of its own.

"The fourth way is never without some work of a definite significance, is never without some undertaking around which and in connection with which it can alone exist. When this work is finished, that is to say, when the aim set before it has been accomplished, the fourth way disappears, that is, it disappears from the given place, disappears in its given form, continuing perhaps in another place in another form.

"Schools of the fourth way exist for the needs of the work which is being carried out in connection with the proposed undertaking. They never exist by themselves as schools for the purpose of education and instruction.

"Mechanical help cannot be required in any work of the fourth way. Only conscious work can be useful in all the undertakings of the fourth way. Mechanical man cannot give conscious work so that the first task of the people who begin such a work is to create conscious assistants.

"The work itself of schools of the fourth way can have very many forms and many meanings. In the midst of the ordinary conditions of life the only chance a man has of finding a 'way' is in the possibility of meeting with the beginning of work of this kind. But the chance of meeting with such work as well as the possibility of profiting by this chance depends upon many circumstances and conditions.

"The quicker a man grasps the aim of the work which is being executed, the quicker can he become useful to it and the more will he be able to get from it for himself.

"But no matter what the fundamental aim of the work is, the schools continue to exist only while this work is going on. When the work is done the schools close. The people who began the work leave the stage. Those who have learned from them what was possible to learn and have reached the possibility of continuing on the way independently begin in one form or another their own personal work.

"But it happens sometimes that when the school closes a number of people are left who were round about the work, who saw the outward aspect of it, and saw the whole of the work in this outward aspect.

"Having no doubts whatever of themselves or in the correctness of their conclusions and understanding they decide to continue the work. To continue this work they form new schools, teach people what they have themselves learned, and give them the same promises that they themselves received. All this naturally can only be outward imitation. But when we look back on history it is almost impossible for us to distinguish where the real ends and where the imitation begins. Strictly speaking almost everything we know about various kinds of occult, masonic, and alchemical schools refers to such imitation. We know practically nothing about real schools excepting the results of their work and even that only if we are able to distinguish the results of real work from counterfeits and imitations.

"But such pseudo-esoteric systems also play their part in the work and activities of esoteric circles. Namely, they are the intermediaries between humanity which is entirely immersed in the materialistic life and schools which are interested in the education of a certain number of people, as much for the purposes of their own existences as for the purposes of the work of a cosmic character which they may be carrying out. The very idea of esotericism, the idea of initiation, reaches people in most cases through pseudo-esoteric systems and schools; and if there were not these pseudo-esoteric schools the vast majority of humanity would have no possibility whatever of hearing and learning of the existence of anything greater than life because the truth in its pure form would be inaccessible for them. By reason of the many characteristics of man's being, particu larly of the contemporary being, truth can only come to people in the form of a lie - only in this form are they able to accept it; only in this form are they able to digest and assimilate it. Truth undefiled would be, for them, indigestible food.

"Besides, a grain of truth in an unaltered form is sometimes found in pseudoesoteric movements, in church religions, in occult and theosophical schools. It may be preserved in their writings, their rituals, their traditions, their conceptions of the hierarchy, their dogmas, and their rules. [...]

"The idea of initiation, which reaches us through pseudo-esoteric systems, is also transmitted to us in a completely wrong form. The legends concerning the outward rites of initiation have been created out of the scraps of information we possess in regard to the ancient Mysteries. The Mysteries represented a special kind of way in which, side by side with a difficult and prolonged period of study, theatrical representations of a special kind were given which depicted in allegorical forms the whole path of the evolution of man and the world.

"Transitions from one level of being to another were marked by ceremonies of presentation of a special kind, that is, initiation. But a change of being cannot be brought about by any rites. Rites can only mark an accomplished transition. And it is only in pseudo-esoteric systems in which there is nothing else except these rites, that they begin to attribute to the rites an independent meaning. It is supposed that a rite, in being transformed into a sacrament, transmits or communicates certain forces to the initiate. This again relates to the psychology of an imitation way. There is not, nor can there be, any outward initiation. In reality only self-initiation, selfpresentation exist. Systems and schools can indicate methods and ways, but no system or school whatever can do for a man the work that he must do himself. Inner growth, a change of being, depend entirely upon the work which a man must do on himself." [...]

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals.

"In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

"What is the relation of the teaching you are expounding to Christianity as we know it?" asked somebody present.

"I do not know what you know about Christianity," answered G., emphasizing this word. "It would be necessary to talk a great deal and to talk for a long time in order to make clear what you understand by this term. But for the benefit of those who know already, I will say that, if you like, this is esoteric Christianity. [...]

"In order to understand what the difference between states of consciousness is, let us return to the first state of consciousness which is sleep. This is an entirely subjective state of consciousness. A man is immersed in dreams, whether he remembers them or not does not matter. Even if some real impressions reach him, such as sounds, voices, warmth, cold, the sensation of his own body, they arouse in him only fantastic subjective images. Then a man wakes up. At first glance this is a quite different state of consciousness. He can move, he can talk with other people, he can make calculations ahead, he can see danger and avoid it, and so on. It stands to reason that he is in a better position than when he was asleep.

"But if we go a little more deeply into things, if we take a look into his inner world, into his thoughts, into the causes of his actions, we shall see that he is in almost the same state as when he is asleep. And it is even worse, because in sleep he is passive, that is, he cannot do anything. In the waking state, however, he can do something all the time and the results of all his actions will be reflected upon him or upon those around him. And yet he does not remember himself He is a machine, everything with him happens. He cannot stop the flow of his thoughts, he cannot control his imagination, his emotions, his attention. He lives in a subjective world of 'I love,' 'I do not love,' 'I like,' 'I do not like,' 'I want,' 'I do not want,' that is, of what he thinks he likes, of what he thinks he does not like, of what he thinks he wants, of what he thinks he does not want.

"He does not see the real world. The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination. He lives in sleep. He is asleep. What is called 'clear consciousness' is sleep and a far more dangerous sleep than sleep at night in bed.

"Let us take some event in the life of humanity. For instance, war. There is a war going on at the present moment. What does it signify? It signifies that several millions of sleeping people are trying to destroy several millions of other sleeping people. They would not do this, of course, if they were to wake up. Everything that takes place is owing to this sleep.

"Both states of consciousness, sleep and the waking state, are equally subjective. Only by beginning to remember himself does a man really awaken. And then all surrounding life acquires for him a different aspect and a different meaning. He sees that it is the life of sleeping people, a life in sleep. All that men say, all that they do, they say and do in sleep. All this can have no value whatever. Only awakening and what leads to awakening has a value in reality.

"How many times have I been asked here whether wars can be stopped? Certainly they can. For this it is only necessary that people should awaken. It seems a small thing. It is, however, the most difficult thing there can be because this sleep is induced and maintained by the whole of surrounding life, by all surrounding conditions.

"How can one awaken? How can one escape this sleep? These questions are the most important, the most vital that can ever confront a man. But before this it is necessary to be convinced of the very fact of sleep. But it is possible to be convinced of this only by trying to awaken. When a man understands that he does not remember himself and that to remember himself means to awaken to some extent, and when at the same time he sees by experience how difficult it is to remember himself, he will understand that he cannot awaken simply by having the desire to do so. It can be said still more precisely that a man cannot awaken by himself.

"But if, let us say, twenty people make an agreement that whoever of them awakens first shall wake the rest, they already have some chance. Even this, however, is insufficient because all the twenty can go to sleep at the same time and dream that they are waking up. Therefore more still is necessary. They must be looked after by a man who is not asleep or who does not fall asleep as easily as they do, or who goes to sleep consciously when this is possible, when it will do no harm either to himself or to others. They must find such a man and hire him to wake them and not allow them to fall asleep again. Without this it is impossible to awaken. This is what must be understood.

"It is possible to think for a thousand years; it is possible to write whole libraries of books, to create theories by the million, and all this in sleep, without any possibility of awakening. On the contrary, these books and these theories, written and created in sleep, will merely send other people to sleep, and so on.

"There is nothing new in the idea of sleep. People have been told almost since the creation of the world that they are asleep and that they must awaken. How many times is this said in the Gospels, for instance? 'Awake,' 'watch,' 'sleep not.' Christ's disciples even slept when he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane for the last time. It is all there. But do men understand it? Men take it simply as a form of speech, as an expression, as a metaphor. They completely fail to understand that it must be taken literally. And again it is easy to understand why. In order to understand this literally it is necessary to awaken a little, or at least to try to awaken.

"I tell you seriously that I have been asked several times why nothing is said about sleep in the Gospels. Although it is there spoken of almost on every page. This simply shows that people read the Gospels in sleep. So long as a man sleeps profoundly and is wholly immersed in dreams he cannot even think about the fact that he is asleep. If he were to think that he was asleep, he would wake up. So everything goes on. And men have not the slightest idea what they are losing because of this sleep.

I encourage the reader who may be concerned about this issue (probably very few of our readers fall into this category), to have a look at CHALLENGING THE VERDICT A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ where D.J.'s issues are addressed more completely.
 
The other day I was flicking TV channels when on More 4 (UK Channel 4 satellite channel) there was a program called The Armageddon Code. Essentially it was about the book of Revelations, Evangelists, Middle East, the “End Timers�� and their political influence in the USA.

Here’s a link summarising the program itself as it better describes their conclusions than I can…

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/doomsday.html
 
Back
Top Bottom