In previous post, I argued how well-known historical Jesus scholars (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan) misrepresent the evidence for the traditional Christian meaning of Jesus' death, in order to create confusion about its actual importance in early Christianity and undermine the historical reliaibility of such traditional meaning (which is what anti-Christians readers of such scholars want to hear).
My interest in this post is not about "scholarly" misrepresentations of the Historical Jesus, but about misrepresentations coming from non-scholarly sources, namely, the so-called New Age sources, books and literature. I'll provide evidence for the contention that such New Age revisionism is primarily (but non-exclusively) an American phenomenon, that is, a phenomenon distinctive of United States of America.
In a series of previous posts, I've discussed and stressed the point that, as a rule, the most influential kinds of New Age revisionisms of the historical Jesus come from United States of America. I've suggested, as a working hypothesis, that it is not mere coincidence or accident, but the consequence of the particular cultural and social circunstances of USA, which provide breeding grounds for such phenomenon.
Specially:
1)The dominance of Evangelical Christianity there, which is often taught in its worst, most anti-intellectual, dogmatic way which is at variance with the rationalism inherent to the philosophical theology of classical Christianity (e.g. as seen in Thomas Aquinas) and with the rational, philosophically rigurous way in which contemporary Christian scholars like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, David Oderberg, Edward Feser and many others defend the Christian worldview. (Some of these scholars, as I've shown in my blog, constantly debate "scientific" atheists and other supposed champions of rationality, and kick their butt often using rational arguments alone. This tells us a lot on which side is rationality being dominant and is a clear contrast with the Christian anti-intellectualism that most Americans are familiar with).
2)The emotional wounds (mainly, but not exclusively, suffered during childhood) caused by the teaching of Christianity, specially strong feelings of guilt and fear connected with the doctrines of hell, divine punishment, divine justice, sins and so forth. In my opinion, this is the MOST important factor.
3)The main consequence of point 2 is emotional need for having a spirituality which is disconnected from negative feelings related to Christianity. This creates a predisposition to be sympathetic to spiritual journeys which promise (what I call) the "Feels Good" spirituality, namely, a set of spiritual doctrines and practiques which produce EMOTIONALpositive effects in the individual, mainly telling him what he wants (and needs, due to his previous emotional wounds) to hear.
As the main Christian doctrines which are associated with such negative feelings are the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of hell, the doctrine of divine punishment and (sometimes) the doctrine of salvation, the individuals mentioned in point 3 tend to accept spiritual journeys which tell them, precicely, that such things don't exist, or that if they exist, they have a wholly different meaning which produces positive feelings, not negative ones like fear or guilty. In fact, such spiritual journeys tend to STRESS precisely such positive feelings.
This is what I (Jime Sayaka) have observed closely so far in a careful analysis of many cases, and I haven't found any exceptions to the above schema (it is possible that some exceptions could exist, however. But I haven't found it yet).
I've suggested in previous posts that such emotionalism and wishful thinking, as a criterion of worldview choosing, is extremely dangerous from a spiritual point of view. Not only because what is true is not settled by emotions, but because the "truth", often, is unpalatable. "Truth hurts" as sometimes it is said. Therefore, the fact that certain doctrines (like religious exclusivism or the hell) be unpalatable or disgusting or extremely disturbing, does nothing to prove that they're false or unlikely. We have to examine the evidence for and against them very carefully and adapt our worldview to such evidence (avoiding to stretch the evidence to support our prejudices, like using selectively some cases of NDEs to settle complex theological and spiritual questions, e.g. about the hell, reincarnation or the nature or attributes of God).
The schema that I described above becomes painfully evident in the New Age revisionism of Jesus (i.e. New Age information about the historical Jesus). Just search, for yourself, who are the people behind the following influential New Age sources about Jesus (specially, the nationality of the people who founded these movements or were "inspired" to produce these works or claimed to have "received" such information from superior beings):
-Conversations with God
-A Course in Miracles
-The Urantia Book
-The Seth Material
-The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
-Elizabeth Claire Prophet (Church Universal and Triumphant)
-Mormonism
-Christian Science
There are many other New Age sources about Jesus, but I've mentioned just the most influential ones.
What do they have in common?:
1)They were originated in the United States and were founded by American people. And their main influence seems to be still in USA (although certainly other countries have received such influence too).
Neal Donald Walsh, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Elizabeth Claire, Helen Schucman, the discoverer of the Urantia material, etc. are all AMERICANS, that is, they were born in the United States and "received" the information in the United States. Check for yourself carefully their biographies.
2)They claim a PARANORMAL origin (channeling, automatic writing, dreams, alien contacts,communications from superior spiritual beings or "elder brothers", "ascended masters", etc.) in order to give credibility to its source and authority to its teachings. Note that I said "claim", because in many cases there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true. But for the argument's sake, let's assume that that they were sincere in such claim.
-Neal Donald Walsch (automatic writing)
-Mary Baker Eddy (hearing voices and channeling)
-Helen Schucman (channeling and hearing voices)
-Elizabeth Claire (received information from "Ascended Masters")
-Joseph Smith (received the visit of an angel, and even of God and Jesus themselves).
-Urantia Book (information provided by celestial and spiritually advanced alien beings)
Just check for yourself the biography of them to confirm this.
3)They're radical or moderate revisionisms of Christianity, specially of the historical Jesus. In particular, they say what anti-Christians in their respective times want to hear regarding concepts like "sin", "the hell", "salvation", "God" and so forth, even though such teachings often contradict or are at variance with each other. (In the case of Mormonism, which is from the 19th century, it seems to be much more "Christian" like the others, but it defends a polytheism which is incompatible with Christianity and postulate that God, or the gods, are physical beings of flesh and bones, which is philosophically and theologically untenable).
4)They were founded by atheists, agnostics or people dissapointed with traditional Christianity in the moment in which they received the supposed "revelation".
So far, my argument is purely diagnostic and descriptive, and it says nothing about if such sources are credible or not.
But my opinion is that they are not credible, for several reasons:
1-There is not objective, solid evidence for the paranormal origin of such sources
2-There is not evidence that, even if such sources come from paranormal origin, they are TRUE regarding the historical Jesus.
3-There are evidence that they're likely to be false, since they often contradict the first century information about Jesus which comes from people like Paul who met the disciples (i.e. the people directly connected with Jesus, before and after his death and hence are first-hand witnesses), or the Gospels which are also from the first century.
Obviously, it would be an irrational, stupid and pseudoscientific historical methodology to give more credibility to an extremely later 20th century putative source about Jesus than to first century sources about him. These earlier sources are, historically, extremely more reliable than sources coming 19 centuries later from a bunch of atheists and anti-Christians. This "dating" question is the main reason why no major historical Jesus scholar accepts these sources as historically reliable sources about Jesus.
4-They contradict each other in crucial and basic aspect of spirituality (so, their mistakes and inconsistencies cannot be considered mere secondary discrepancies about irrelevant details). They contradict each other regarding doctrinal aspects which are essential for a sound spirituality and understanding of the spiritual world.
As I mentioned here, Conversations with God contradicts the Urantia Book regarding reincarnation.
A Course in Miracles tells us this about reincarnation:
In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense. Our only question should be, "Is the concept helpful?" And that depends, of course, on what it is used for. If it is used to strengthen the recognition of the eternal nature of life, it is helpful indeed... For our purposes, it would not be helpful to take any definite stand on reincarnation. A teacher of God should be as helpful to those who believe in it as to those who do not. (A Course in Miracles, Manuel For Teachers, Section 24)
I let to the readers to make sense of the above statements (which seem to give more importance to what is helpful in a belief than to what is true). But it seems clear that reincarnation is, when considered literally, impossible (and hence, not true "in any real sense", whatever it means) because it is meaningless.
On the contrary, The Seth Material and the Aquarian Gospel affirm reincarnation.
On this ground alone, it is clear that not all of these sources (regardless of whether they're of paranormal origin or not) can be true, because they are inconsistent with each other.
TELLING WHAT ANTI-CHRISTIANS WITH EMOTIONAL WOUNDS WANT TO HEAR
In a Course of Miracles, you can read:
Judgment is not an attribute of God... The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God. Actually it will be undertaken by my brothers with my help. It is a final healing rather than a meting out of punishment, however much you may think that punishment is deserved. Punishment is a concept totally opposed to right-mindedness, and the aim of the Last Judgment is to restore right-mindedness to you. (A Course in Miracles, chapter 2, The Separation and the Atonement)
In Conversations with God, book 2, you can read this information coming from God himself:
In that realm there is naught but peace and joy and love... An outer world of judgment and condemnation. Others have judged you, and from their judgments you have judged yourself. Now you want God to judge you, and I will not do it. (p. 53)
According to Christian Science:
No final judgment awaits mortals, for the judgment-day of wisdom comes hourly and continually, even the judgment by which mortal man is divested of all material error. (Science and Health, 291:28-31)
Note carefully that Christian Science seems to contradict A Course in Miracles, which accept a kind of final judgment, but reinterprets it in a way which produces positive, nice emotions which compensate the emotional wounds of anti-Christians (e.g. "It is a final healing rather than... a punishment"). The Chirstian Science (and Conversations with God), more radically, simply denies the concept of final judgment altogether. (The Christian Science makes the final judgment unnecesary, because a day-to-day judgment is already in process hourly and continously, so not "final healing" is needed at all).
Note that a key aspect of the emotional wounds suffered by anti-Christians (namely, the feeling of guilt and fear of punishment) is here reinterpreted or suppressed. The three sources mentioned agree that God is not the author of the judgment. And since there is not punishment, there is not reason to having fear. This is exactly what the anti-Christian fearful of divine punishment want to hear, specially if such information comes (supposedly) from Jesus or any other "higher" source.
These New Age views contradicts the Old Testament's view about divine justice, sin and judgment (an Old Testament that Jesus, as a Jew, largely and strongly accepted, respected, often quoted authoritatively and not refuted, except when he changed or qualified a some few laws of it, a fact which in passing shows that Jesus put himself on the level of God's authority), and Jesus' own view about judgments of bad or wicked people who disobey God's will.
For example, in a Q saying in Matt 7:21-23/ Luke 13:24-27 (which being in Q is early, and hence likely to be historical), Jesus said:
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!
(Compare with Luke 13:24-27: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’)
(Compare with Luke 13:24-27: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’)
Does such strong, rigurous, morally severe, religious exclusivistic and judgmental Jesus in "Q" fit well with the "cool guy", "don't worry, be happy", "just keep positive thinkings, buddy", "forgivness is everything" view of Jesus of a Course of Miracles, Conversations with God, Christian Science and other New Age revisionistic views about Jesus? Any unbiased person would clearly see the obvious difference between the Jesus in "Q" and the New Age Jesus regarding the topic of judgment. (Note that not entering God's Kingdom, as Jesus warns, can be considered a punishment... in fact, this is the worst of the all conceivable spiritual punishments, namely, permanent separation from God, which is what Christian theology understands properly as the "hell", a spiritual state of being separated from God, and not the caricature created by atheists, anti-Christians and Christian anti-intellectuals as a "place" in which God sends people to be suffering while "burning on fire", which makes no sense regarding spiritual beings which are not physical and hence cannot be burned. The Jewish imagery of "fire" and "burning" is used metaphorically in several senses in the Old and New Testament, a point of biblical exegesis to be discussed in future posts).
But the anti-Christian, for emotional reasons, cannot countenance that. He NEEDS to believe in a Jesus which is not like this. Reading about such a Jesus produces in the anti-Christian individual a strong cognitive dissonance plus negative feelings and childish memories of fear and guilt. Therefore (so conclude the anti-Christian) it cannot be true, and other, more palatable and "nice" versions of Jesus are, a priori, more acceptable and credible.
Sheer delusion!. You don't discover what the real Jesus was and said appealing to your emotions, or how Jesus' teachings "make you feel". It is pure wishful thinking, ignorance, intellectual stupidity and dangerous spirirutal charlatanism.
You have to examine the evidence and accept wherever it can lead you, even if it leads you a unpalatable, disturbing, extremely disgusting spiritual conclusions.
I could continue endlessly with further examples from New Age sources (and their contradictions with each other), but I let my readers the task to research themselves these sources carefully.
In conclusion:
-New Age revisionistic sources of Jesus are unreliable, because no objective evidence supports them (except that they make to "feel good" some of their practitioners).
-Often, they contradict each other regarding crucial aspects on spiritual matters.
-They contradict crucial aspects of the historical Jesus which support the traditional Christian view and are known through the correct application of the criteria of authenticity (a fact which forces some liberal scholars to misapply the criteria, as I've shown here and here), and hence such sources are, on that account alone, likely to be false.
-They are extremely later sources (coming from the 20th century, most of them), and hence, applying the criterion of date, the first-century sources of information (Paul and the Gospels) are more reliable historical sources of information.
Finally, I must say that they are extremely DANGEROUS, from a spiritual point of view, because they astutely present themselves as authoritative sources, coming from God or even Jesus (or other "higher" sources), and hence have the potential to mislead a bunch of people of good will who, unfortunately, have had bad emotional wounds and experiences connected with dogmatic or irrational Christian pastors, ministers, relatives, etc.
After all, Jesus himself has been reported to say (again, in a semi-judgmental way):
"Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand." (Matthew 24: 23-25)
If the judgmental Jesus portrayed in the early source "Q" turns out to be right, then the people who are strong believers in New Age sources of Jesus, despite their good will, won't have any excuse...
You are now aware of the trascendental importance which this topic has for our spiritual fate and the extreme risks which entails to try to settle it on basis on your emotions or ideological sensibilities or sympatheties for paranormal sources of dubious credibility.
It is up to you to research this.
0 comments:
Post a Comment