Most religions will all agree that there's something wrong with the world and that their way is the one trying to fix it. That what Christianity is on about - God bringing justice and mercy. Tolle goes through Hindu, Buddhism and Christianity and looks at maya, dukkha and sin respectively. Honestly, I don't have much problem with that except this: Tolle doesn't get the Biblical understanding of sin at all!
to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence.
NOOOO! Do not want!! That remark is so far off the mark! I don't know what Tolle's point of human existence is, but whether we reach it or not is not sin. I think the best verse to use here would be Romans 2:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Sin is falling short of God's glory. God has a standard that everyone should be adhering to, but all of us fail at it, and that is what sin is. It is falling short of God's glory.
But really, what is the point of our existence here in earth? When God created the world, he put Adam and Eve in the garden and told them to take care of it, and God ruled over them. I think that the Bible teaches that it's to live under him, taking care of creation. God has been reconciling creation to himself ever since sin entered the world. For Christians, we are to "make it [our] ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind [our] own business, and to work with your hands, just as you were told" and to "be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thessalonians 4:11 and 5:16-18).
The book progresses with examples of the human dysfunction by using examples of war and insanity and our own observations; "we only need to watch the daily news..." and then we come to my final point in this section,
You do not become good by trying to be good, but by finding the goodness that is already within you, and allowing that goodness to emerge. But it can only emerge if something fundamental changes in your state of consciousness.
I actually agree with the first and last parts of that statement, but disagree with the middle and here's why; the Bible teaches original sin and the depravity of humanity. We cannot find goodness by looking within ourselves. We can only find it by looking outwards, to Jesus. Even though some/many things people do are good, they are still not good enough to reach the heights of God's glory. In fact, in comparison
The LORD looks down from heavenAlthough I agree that "it can only emerge if something fundamental changes..." again, it's not a fundamental change that we can bring about ourselves, in our "state of consciousness." The change that brings about true goodness is the Holy Spirit that works within the heart of the Christian when they accept Christ into their hearts and love God.
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. Psalm 14:2-3For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:21
You know, I don't think I was quite as dismissive of this chapter as the 2 before it. Maybe it's just because total depravity is finally some semblance of common ground. :P
9 comments:
Very good post. However, I have difficulty with "looking outwards" to the person Jesus. In my opinion, it should be truly understanding the teachings of Jesus Christ, and as a result, making a fundamental inner change.
Comment:
We can only find it by looking outwards, to Jesus.
Response:
Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good—except God alone [Mark 10:18]
Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments. [Matt 19:17]
The kingdom of God is within you. [Luke 17:21]
What I mean by "looking outwards" is looking outside of ourselves. Jesus is with the Christian and united with Him, but He is still outside of us. As I commented and quoted on before, we are basically sinful, so to look inside ourselves would be to find sin, not goodness. So it is necessary to look at the person of Jesus and His Holiness and committing our lives to Him before change can occur.
Jesus is God:
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form - Colossians 8:9
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1
In response to your Luke 17:21 quote, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean, but here is what I believe this verse means. I looked up the NASB translation (and the TNIV) of the verse, which I think is more appropriate to the context of the passage,
Nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.
Nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst."
I think the point Jesus is drawing out, is that the kingdom of God has come and is revealed in Jesus himself. This also fits with Philippians 2:6-11,
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus is in Heaven reigning now. When he was among the Pharisees in Luke 17, he was telling them that the Kingdom is God is here among them, within their midst (it's Jesus), not that it's literally within themselves.
Also, obeying commandments alone will not get you into Heaven. Jesus still requires more. The rich man in Matt 19 was required not only to follow the law but to follow Jesus in verse 21. Jesus then says, "it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (24) but then just afterwards, "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."(26)
We need to look outside of ourselves and follow Jesus. We need to trust that God is the provider of our salvation when he provided Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins. The fundamental inner change is the Holy Spirit at work within us when we accept Jesus. But until then - and even after, judging by my own personal experience, as I am not holy yet - we cannot look inside ourselves. We look to Jesus, as revealed in the Bible.
I apologise if I have misinterpreted what you meant by your use of those verses. But there's nothing lost in fleshing it out a bit, :)
It is true that we must follow Jesus and that he is the Christ (annointed one, master). It is also true that Christ is outside of us at all times as an atmospheric vibration, but that same "divine spark" is also within. When it is awakened from its sleep and we die to our old self and reconnect with the Holy Spirit we are reborn and resurrected.
Ex Deo nascimur (Born from God)
In Jesu mortimur (Died in Jesus)
Per spiritum sanctum reviviscimusesu (Resurrected by the Holy Spirit)
The belief that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins as an atonement is a Pagan ritual that was introduced into Christian doctrine to ease the conversion of pagans into early Christianity. Jesus never says himself that he died for our sins. The truth is we have to sacrifice our old self, our animal nature.
"You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4:22-24)
Jesus is also the "Son of God" which is not the same as God himself. There is only one God the Father. Jesus made this very clear.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. [Acts 3:13]
I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [John 14:28]
Jesus as God was very controversial in early Christianity and only gained momentum and support as the institution of Christianity grew. It helped "remove" Jesus as a master and teacher, redefined him as a God, and conveniently placed the Church as an intermediary between its laity and God. Jesus came to break down that barrier and teach us "the way", but the fortifications were quickly re-built by the orthodox Church.
The belief that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins as an atonement is a Pagan ritual that was introduced into Christian doctrine to ease the conversion of pagans into early Christianity.
No. The death of Jesus on the Cross as paying the penalty for sins is crucial to the Christian message. It is God doing the work of our salvation. We need to obey, but obedience on it's own will not save us. Only trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus will, because it's that faith that counts Jesus death as sufficient penalty for our sins.
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:25
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! - Romans 5:9
Jesus is God, re: John 1:1. Jesus is the "Son" part of the Trinity.
Jesus as God was very controversial in early Christianity and only gained momentum and support as the institution of Christianity grew. It helped "remove" Jesus as a master and teacher, redefined him as a God, and conveniently placed the Church as an intermediary between its laity and God. Jesus came to break down that barrier and teach us "the way", but the fortifications were quickly re-built by the orthodox Church.
What is "the way" according to you? According to me, it is that salvation is through Jesus' blood shed on the cross, that God provided for you; not through works, but by grace.
I believe that Jesus is both God and human. He was with God and was God in the beginning, but when he came to earth, took human form. Because,
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form - Colossians 8:9
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1
For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human - 1 Timothy 2:5
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage - Philippians 2:6
First, I do agree that the Bible is a sacred text, but to rely on it entirely for justification or guidance is stepping onto a slippery slope because it is riddled with hundreds if not thousands of errors, conflicts and contradictions. It has been revised, modified and altered by the early Church fathers to best fit an orthodox doctrine that would support the "institution" of Christianity. That said ... one can still see and understand the true meaning of the Bible when one digs past these errors to its deeper essence.
The death of Jesus on the Cross as paying the penalty for sins is crucial to the Christian message. It is God doing the work of our salvation. We need to obey, but obedience on it's own will not save us. Only trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus will, because it's that faith that counts Jesus death as sufficient penalty for our sins.
Again ... this is a doctrine that was created by the Church to increase its power and influence over people. How? By removing responsibility from a person, placing it in a "God" and then putting itself between you and God. It's purpose was to create reliance on an outer hierarchy of salvation with Bishops and Deacons as God's representatives on earth, as well as the need for rituals by the Church (e.g. baptisms, sacraments, confessions, etc.). Again ... Jesus never says himself that he died for our sins. There are a few scriptural references, but they are few, not quotes of Jesus, and contradicted by other passages.
"Jesus is God, re: John 1:1. Jesus is the "Son" part of the Trinity."
John 1:1 does not say that "Jesus is God." It says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
First, it says "with God" and "was God." This is not the same as saying "the God." Yes, he did embody the "essence" of God and was a "divine" being, but was not "the God."
Secondly, the Christ force is the creative force of our world.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. [Col 1:15]
... there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. [1 Col 8:6]
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form [Col 2:9]
True ... but this does not make him "the God." It means that the fullness (i.e. essence) of God lived in him and he was "divine." Not the same as being "the God."
There are countless scriptural passages indicating Jesus as master (Lord), servant, etc. and not being God himself.
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [John 17:3]
God has made this Jesus...[Acts 2:36]
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. [Acts 3:13]
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. [Luke 2:52] God "is" wisdom and would not "grow" in wisdom. This is very indicative of a Master /Lord/Servant who is developing the Christ consciousness.
I could go on and on with scriptural quotes indicating that Jesus was not "the" God.
As for the trinity ... here again you have a Pagan concept incorporated into Church doctrine. The scriptures marginalize any mention of a trinity. This was essentially created and supported by the Apostles Creed as a way to emphasize this concept to both ease Pagans into the fold and - again - increase the power of the Church as an institution with this baptismal oath which conveniently includes "the catholic church." The trinity is an essential part of Hinduism (Shiva, Rama, Krishna) and Egyptian Mysteries (Osiris, Isis, Horus), so you can see how this was incorporated into Christian doctrine to help spread its appeal.
First, I do agree that the Bible is a sacred text, but to rely on it entirely for justification or guidance is stepping onto a slippery slope because it is riddled with hundreds if not thousands of errors, conflicts and contradictions. It has been revised, modified and altered by the early Church fathers to best fit an orthodox doctrine that would support the "institution" of Christianity.
I have a Biblical worldview and truly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, that it is "God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training" 2 Timothy 3:16.
I have stated my case and I don't see the point in stating it over again. You know what I believe through what I've written in my entries and comments. I know your attitude to the Bible - that it is incorrect due to the changes that the early church made to it.
I perceive the issue here to be one of trust. Do you trust that God is powerful enough to preserve Scripture so that that it remains unchanged ever since pen what put to paper?
As for the incorporation of pagan elements into the Bible, I must disagree. While Christmas and Easter were introduced at the times of Pagan holidays, I do not believe the Bible itself has been tampered by this. My doctrinal points of faith are taken from the Bible, not Christian dogma or history. I trust God has kept the Bible free from such large errors. If you disagree with me, then I hope that you will see there's really no further we can go with this discussion, as much as I've enjoyed it.
We disagree on many things and I do not think there is anything I can say to persuade you otherwise, so I will bow out now before we get too heated as such conversations have done in the past.
Thank you for bring your opinions to my blog. I'm glad that we had such discussions without getting narky/angry/irritated/all the other things that seem to accompany such topical debates. Please do continue to read my blog as it pleases you, but I hope you will understand if I do not reply to your comments for fear of the conversation going sour.
For such doctrinal points and Scriptural inerrancy, I suggest you check out CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. They have pages on such topics and are far more wise and researched than I am.
God bless you, csp. :)
I have no intention of the conversation getting angry and sour ... or of convincing you to change your beliefs or faith. Both would be terrible things to try and do. Everybody, in all respects, is exactly where they need to be. I'm only trying to bring to the conversation a different perspective. I was raised in the German Reformed Church, read the Bible front to back when I was 12, and came to the conclusion that what I was personally understanding was different from what was being preached in the orthodox Church. That began my search for what I considered to be the authentic teachings of Christ.
As for Bible inerrancy of the Bible ...
There have been a number of books outlining the errors, conflicts and contradictions of the Bible. You can find some of the information here ...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
and here ...
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
What is not possible is to use passages of the Bible to prove the inerrancy of the Bible. That's "closed-loop" logic that doesn't work because there has to be verification outside itself. Otherwise any text or person could claim to be the word or representative of God.
Is God powerful enough to maintain the truth of the scriptures? Sure, but would he not also be powerful enough to maintain the truth of the Church? The orthodox Church, as the institutional representative of Christianity on earth, has tortured and killed millions during the Crusades and Inquisition, collaborated with Nazis during WWII against the Jews and abused thousands of children. These actions of the Church are no different than their actions with the Bible. Its human behavior and Jesus warned us very explicitly about these false representatives and representations of God. Man is always given a choice between God and himself ... and the manipulation of the Bible by human beings is no different.
I'm giving this information not in anger or to convince, but only to make it available for anyone to investigate themselves. If it does not resonate with the truth within ... discard it.
Take care.
:) Thank you for your understanding. I checked out those pages you linked to and am not convinced that they constitute errors sufficient to undermine Biblical authority. Although some carry weight enough to bear thinking over.
I did some reading myself and have found a good resource here if you are interested. It does however, mean that I should apologise for earlier claims I made on inerrancy. As I said before, they are more wise and researched than I am.
Thanks Kathryn. I have read that explanation before about minor text errors in copying, etc. but they avoid the major textual conflicts and contradictions as the links that I provided outline. One of the links, for instance, provides an excellent summary of the contradictions of the resurrection story that have never been able to be explained. We do not have any original copies of the Bible books, so have to entirely rely on either trusting the scribes (copiers) or our intuition. I'll stick with the latter because I believe that God gives us an inner compass (soul) that helps guide us to him if we trust it, and not man, or the institutions they build. Again, for me, the Bible is a most sacred text and the truth shines through if we open our soul to it. My wife and I keep a copy of it opened, and on our bedside table, as a reminder of our path and purpose.
I want to thank you very much for this discussion and the very best to you in your search for truth and life with God.
Post a Comment