Jacques,

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. You pose all the fundamental questions we as unawakened souls have pondered and struggled with from the beginning...and why we created religions in an attempt to first, appease or satisfy the "gods" and then to develop some kind of "workable" relationship with a single Creator. It has always been about our ignorance and powerlessness in the face of overwhelming fear and doubt about our fate and our destiny...what is expected of us from HE/IT that has all this power over our lives. What must we do to insure His favor and not to incur His wrath or displeasure? As we began to see that maybe we could "control" It by appointing intermediaries who's "job" was to intervene and communicate with Him on our behalf...yeah,give THEM the responsibility for keeping Him off our backs, we would regain some semblance of order and control over the forces that shaped our lives. THEN, GOD came down and spoke with Moses...and you know the rest of the story.
The 14 core findings Newton has put together from his research with subjects who recall their life between lives answer some of these questions. The reasons as to WHY it is this way or what was God thinking when he decided to give us amnesia and put us through this veil of tears,and all these trials and tribulations...may never be answered to everyone's satisfaction.(Let me know if you do not have those 14 core finding in the "Way of Souls" by Dr. Newton for they answer many of your questions...I'll be happy to re-post it).

To answer some of your personal questions...here are some of my thoughts, feelings and understanding as a recovering addict:
There is a favorite anonymous saying that is often quoted by recovering alcoholic/addicts and those who have come out of the depths of depression or even mental illness: "Religion is for those who wish to avoid going to Hell, and spirituality is for those who have already been there." Many today, and I count myself among them, having turned away from organized religion, particularly the authoritarian fundamentalist/evangelical variety, seek a gentler more tolerant connection to a God of our own understanding. We have adopted an all-loving and forgiving concept of God simply because it corresponds to our own most fervent yearnings for a world in which love, compassion and forgiveness are its hallmarks. Although, even in the spirit world of our birth where we are presumably the closest to our Source i.e. God, we do not have any first-hand contact or real knowledge, of our Creator. All who have been interviewed in an LBL session as well as those who have had other fleeting contacts such as near-death experiencers state that they are literally enveloped by an all encompassing love that is near ecstatic. Others report that this love�s euphoric, unconditional and all embracing nature makes it extremely difficult to return home (to Earth, our physical home), as in the case of the NDE, or to leave our spiritual home for a new incarnation as in our LBL visitors. The all embracing love from our spirit guides and teachers and other soul specialists of the hierarchy of souls, and especially the radiant emanation of love each soul feels encompassing their meeting with their Council of Elders, is the closest we get to experiencing �first-hand� the all-loving �Presence� of our Creator, or as most refer to what they all presume is the manifestation of God, the �Source�. This may be a profound disappointment for some who believe we return to the �literal� embrace of some anthropomorphic representation of God when we die and go to Heaven. This, of course, is the failing or limitation of our physical brain/consciousness and our language that requires some �material� manifestation which can be �seen� by our primary senses in order to make it �real�. The euphoric love that all our closest experiencers so far report may be all that can be �seen� of Him or all that God reveals to us of Himself, at least in this earth�s spirit world, but which may be only an initial revelation of His complete �nature� which will be at some future developmental stage in our eternal journey of the spiritual being we are, eventually revealed to us. As I have stated, there is still much mystery to be discovered and revealed, not to mention to be understood by our finite physical mind. Our advanced non-reincarnating Elders who sit on our councils are not seen anywhere else in the spirit world. It is entirely possible that they �know� more about the nature of God and have gone on to other higher planes of existence and manifestation and return only for their meetings with those of us in their charge, which is either never discussed with those of us still incarnating or is simply not to be known by us until we have advanced ourselves to their level of being. We know there are many dimensions (�many mansions�) of existence and we are undoubtedly seeing, even in our life between lives, only the lower rungs of a vast eternal order and hierarchy far beyond our current soul�s imagination and development. Most Eastern metaphysical traditions have for millennia conceived of God as that which is un-manifested or form-less or as being-ness itself. These are not very easy concepts for the vast majority of believers to �visualize�, again a limitation of our finite mind attempting to conceptualize that which is infinite.
So, what does it mean to be spiritual rather than religious here on earth? Or, should I add what has it meant up until now? What really are the differences? Prior to the �knowledge� we now have of our true soul nature and its transcendent and transmigrating character and purpose there probably is little to differentiate someone who considers themselves to be only spiritual and not religious as regards the actual practice of spiritual principles in their life. A so-called religious person, one who proclaims his faith as a Catholic or some variety of Protestant or other religious Faith, no matter what religious creed, dogma or theological belief system he professes to follow, is not necessarily in tune with his true spiritual nature (whatever he perceives that to be, but NOT ego). It is an individual�s inner �spiritual�connection (actually connecting with one�s eternal soul nature or true Self- this is now a literally �separate� self or being pre-existent to the current physical being) to a divine source of �his understanding� through transcendent moments of prayer, meditation or contemplation which gives him his genuine/authentic �religious� character not his mental/intellectual understanding of his particular religion�s doctrines. A religious person can be spiritual, of course, but simply �practicing� one�s faith by following its dictates/laws/commandments does not necessarily make him so. Without this connection and subsequent demonstration or manifestation, i.e. actualizing it in one�s life through deeds, a solely self-proclaimed person of religion or someone professing to be only spiritual cannot truly claim to be operating on any spiritual level of being. I am reminded of a quote from R.W. Emerson from well over 100 years ago. He stated, and I may have a word or two incorrect: �In religion the sentiment is all, the ritual or ceremony indifferent, but the inertia of men inclines them, when the sentiment sleeps, to imitate that thing it did, mistaking the hat for the head, the clothes for the man.� I have found that many who claim to be religious are not very spiritual at all by the above definition, nor do they follow very closely even the teachings of their professed Lord and Savior. Likewise, many who claim a spiritual orientation rather than a religious one are simply expressing a distaste or rejection of religious dogma or what they perceive as moral hypocrisy on the part of many who claim to be �religious� people and who would fail most �Christian� tests in which love, compassion and forgiveness are its hallmarks.
Remember, even as discarnate souls we are still learning and progressing, we are not perfect or we would not need to be here. None of us can be expected to manifest at all times a true spiritual way of being in this human form we have taken, nor could we all agree upon a definition of what that way of being should be or look like. It will always be open to a variety of interpretations. There have only been a handful of near perfect souls or those universally considered as mankind�s most noble examples of individuals who have lived a near �divine life� here on earth. There are others who by virtue of the magnitude of their accomplishments and influence will be universally revered in the annals of human history. But, they too had their weaknesses and imperfections. What we have learned and are continuing to uncover about our journey as primary spiritual beings or souls and then as hybrid beings on this planet is that each of us has specific weaknesses and shortcomings as eternal souls as well, and these can only be �corrected� or overcome, and we then can progress towards a greater perfection, by coming to an environment in which the choices we make for ourselves and others by experiencing �real� physical consequences when the wrong choices are made. We are told by our guides and elders that although we are not required to incarnate on Earth, the process of perfecting or progressing our soul�s development toward higher levels of spiritual attainment i.e. greater love, knowledge and wisdom, will be much slower in the spirit world alone than if we are willing to undergo many incarnations on a very physical and demanding planet such as Earth. So, we are greatly encouraged to come here as a means by which our progression can be manifoldly furthered. We are also told that the risks coming here are also enhanced, for we can also regress in any one particular life. He cites the case of one of his clients who had been in regression for some 500 years after showing early promise and then allowing his pride to corrupt him. This was demonstrated by the fact that he had not seen one of his council elders for that 500 year period as a result of his backsliding and after completing a very successful life his last time out in which he had finally conquered his pride, this elder had returned to his council to congratulate him upon regaining the status (soul development level) he had enjoyed that 500 years ago. He was now ready to work with him again. Dr. Newton�s client was overwhelmed with emotion and joy upon being greeted by this particular elder after so many lifetimes of hard work in trying to overcome just this one spiritual flaw.
Some thoughts on a new psychology which fully integrates this nascent knowledge of our soul nature and being. We are a hybrid soul/human, a product of the soul�s merging with a physically dense and still animalistic creature we call man. It is the soul�s challenge to shine through this human animal we have entered into and try to manifest the divine qualities we bring to this merger. We are here to learn how to overcome the many instinctual and survival mechanisms of life on a sometimes very dangerous and demanding physical planet which requires us to satisfy certain basic needs inherent to this bipedal omnivore that we as eternal spiritual beings have temporarily come to animate (to form a unique composite personality). Those demands which must be met as a prerequisite to the exercise of our most noble attributes were best enumerated by the great psychologist, Abraham Maslow. His Hierarchy of Needs model first put forward in his 1960�s groundbreaking book, �Towards a Psychology of Being�, set out to provide a basis for a positive psychology of man, not just a detailing of our many neurotic and psychotic dysfunctions which virtually all previous psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and behaviorists before him had been preoccupied with for more than half a century since the birth of modern psychology founded by Sigmund Freud. He wanted to determine what constituted a �healthy, growing and highly functioning� psychology of being in the world, or at least within one�s limited milieu and environment. He theorized that our higher powers for good and altruism, our �peak experiences�, which I now believe must be exclusively attributable to our soul�s influence, were only able to be manifested once these baser needs were met.(need to review again his complete theory/conclusions and those who have put forth a differing view based on further research. Take Maslow�s work and trace it through the most recent attempts to put forth a psychology which tries to account for the influence of a separate soul or spiritual component of man�s psyche, such as Integral Psychology. No psychology currently incorporates Newton�s pioneering revelations however. I will attempt to suggest a more accurate and inclusive psychology which fully incorporates our true spiritual nature as our primary being and motive force, not simply an undefined component or adjunct of the human mind belatedly addressed by most all of psychology even today; cover how psychology has marginalized or ignored completely the soul�s influence in favor of a purely mechanistic/biological approach to understanding human behavior. Carl Jung will undoubtedly be even more vindicated by our new understanding. The literature regarding the widespread phenomenon of alienation and feelings of not belonging here will definitely need to be reopened, redefined and recognized as the result of our soul having difficulty in adjusting to its host and to this physical world as a literal consequence of us being �an alien in a foreign land�. This will definitely shake up a few entrenched psychologists, biologists and reductionists. Freudian approaches will slip even further in their adherents. I project that psychology in general will now require a fundamental shake up but will also be given a unique opportunity to grow and gain greater relevance once it accepts the new evidence and truth.)
Let me play the Devil�s Advocate as regards the objections of those who will not believe or accept this new knowledge of the soul. By the way, the word, Devil, comes from the Greek translation which was their word for Satan. In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament �ha-satan� was the Hebrew term of God�s �adversaries� and per the texts were members of His heavenly council. They were supposedly sent by Him to challenge or test our righteousness in following his Word or commandments. These were angels/messengers whose �job� or assigned duty was to �assist� God in testing his children and making certain they were faithful to Him (the story of Job is the most famous of these). There was never one �Satan� or so-called �Fallen Angel� who challenged God�s authority/dominion/sovereignty over His creation. They were truly what the term, Devil�s advocate, implies; they were simply advocates for an opposing argument who were used by God to demonstrate the correctness of His Will for us. Later works of some early Christian writers created the whole fictional character of a single �Satan� who supposedly broke away from God and became the almighty figure of evil that so many Christians today continue to believe (actually only 25% of Americans now believe in this myth per the latest Gallop poll, but that represents over 75 million people). What is truly sad about the mythology of such an unholy �angel� is that for some two millennia it has allowed good Christians to abrogate responsibility for their own shortcomings, weaknesses and most importantly their own actions and behavior. We now know from every LBL report that no such being exists, nor has it ever existed to anyone�s knowledge in the spirit world (I can cite the case study in �Destiny of Souls� which relates the fundamentalist preacher who returns from his life to seeing the Devil at the gate, if you like).

Hopefully I have narrowed your questions...if you have a few unanswered I have not addressed, please let me know. I will give you my understanding from what is now being reveal us in great detail. Although the deeper questions as to why things are the way they are here AND THERE may never have satisfactory answers; many subjects have given us "their understanding" from a discarnate perspective...many are still, however, speculative and lack actual knowledge...knowledge we are still not privy to even in the spirit world of our birth.

Your Spiritual Brother Always,

Wayne

Wayne, thanks for candidly sharing your own story!
Lots of interesting references there.

quote:

Originally posted by bdb:
[qb] I feel the same way reading Wayne's blogs as I do when confronted by fundamentalists . . .[/qb]

Just wanting to acknowledge your post, bdb. One can find "fundamentalistic" thinking with almost any religion or ideology.

Re. New Age what we find is a somewhat coherent paradigm emphasizing a spirituality whose metaphysical foundations are usually pantheistic and whose mysticism is gnostic. There are other problems as well (from the perspective of Christian theology). Check out the following terms at http://www.carm.org/dictionary.htm
Arianism - how the New Age views Jesus.
Gnosticism - their mystical approach
Pantheism - the predominant New Age metaphysics
Pelagianism - salvation through self-effort.

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for sharing, though I must admit I don't feel that you actually tackled my questions directly, more like used them as a springboard to launch into more revelation (though there is some experience mixed up in there).

You see Wayne, the reason I asked these things as specifically as I did (and no I don't have access to Newton's 14 Core findings) is that they go to the heart of why I adopt a Christian worldview over any other. Philosophically, theologically and experientially Christianity honestly FEELS closer to the TRUTH than anything else I have ever read/experienced.

By sharing with you for instance that I was familiar with the topics of your revelations, I was not trying to "smuggly dismiss" your accounts, but rather to explain that I have experienced these teachings, both in theory and practice, and that I came to an actual experience of the TRUTH that supplanted and overrode my previous beliefs.

That is why I was wondering such things as
1) how you now experience God,
2) how your experience of God assists you in overcoming "sin" (however you understand sin)
3) How you account for the "malfunction" in creation that has led to evil and pain (as you felt justified in your slandering of the Old Testament depictions of God because they did not fit the image of your ALL Loving God - and yet are unable to explain how your ALL Loving image of God reconciles with our current situation of suffering and pain - which both the Bible and Christian Theology are able to do).
4) Tied to the idea of a "malfunction" or fall is the understanding of the possibility for evil to enter into a good creation - What is your reasoning behind the fact that higher spiritual beings are no longer suceptible to a "fall from grace"
5) and why were we not all simply created perfect - as the JudeoChristian tradition tells us we were?
6) and finally...If Jesus understood as much of the reality as you seem to believe (and the Buddha), why didn't they speak more directly to the problem as you do. Why did they continue along their own traditions and extend the teachings of established religions (Judaism->Christianity; Hinduism->Buddhism), and in the case of the Buddha reject all concepts of God. Who else does Newton hold up as an example of someone who God sent to fix the problem, Muhammad? Paul? Nostradamus? Why don't these people direct us to jump ship and follow a radically different approach?

Please try to answer these questions with specific reference to the questions themselves, as this will allow our exchanges to actualy feel like a conversation.

I think we have both explained our worldviews and positions adequetely, now it would help to answer specific questions that each of us might have as this will be were belief is challenged and ideas discussed. Feel free to ask me any questions about anything I have shared so that I might be able to provide answers to your questions or clear up misunderstandings. I certainly will not lie to you about anything and so you can trust that what I say is true as far as my experience of it goes and when discussing your experience I hope and assume that I can trust what you share of your own experience.

Dear Phil,

Thank you for the cool new vocabulary words. I'm glad theology has created words which by their mere application to another's belief and understanding allows those who disagree to neatly rubricize or pigeon-hole them so they can be easily dismissed without any counter argument. Well, you've had 2000 years to develop your apologetic.
This is my favorite:
"Arianism
An ancient theological error that appeared around the year 320. It taught that God could not appear on the earth, that Jesus was not eternal and could not be God. Additionally, it taught that there was only one person in the Godhead: the Father. Jesus, then, was a creation. It was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325."

So, Arianism is the word/term for non-Christian monotheism (including Judaism by the way) and the empirical evidence that the One True Creator is "invisible" here on earth (Well, He is unseen and unheard, and has been so on earth for at least 3000 years or so since Moses' encounter, of course...oh, and now by even those reporting from the spirit world of our birth as discarnate souls...and, they only "feel" his presence and only "assume" this is the "Source" or God ),and because in 320 it was declared (and condemned) by the Nicean Council to be a "theological error",THEN IT MUST NOT BE TRUE. Well, that wraps it up for me!

Do you guys in your practice of Christianity really give any credence to those self-proclaimed
keepers of the faith? Have you forgotten they were Roman Catholic Bishops who made these determinations for you 1700 years ago? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Reformation and Luther make a clean break from Catholicism back in the 1500's. So, why do you still adhere to their 1700 year old declarations and condemnations of widely held and empirically evident truths? It has been my experience that most fundamentalist/evangelicals don't even believe Catholics to be Christians...please explain this to me while you still adhere to "Arianism" as a theological "error(s)"?
Per Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
Pro-Israeli Evangelical leader Hagee has said
"... for the past few decades,... has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it �The Great Whore,� an �apostate church,� the �anti-Christ,� and a �false cult system." Are they worse now than they were in 320 AD when they were determining forever the way you MUST think about God and Jesus?

Would love your response on this one.

Your Brother in Spirit,

Wayne

P.S. I'll comment on each new vocabulary word in separate posts...if you're interested, of course.

Hi Wayne,

Hope to still here from you regarding my questions.

As to your previous post, I believe most of the Christians at Shalomplace (or atleast quite a few - Phil included) are Roman Catholic Christians (oops!!).

The spirit of Shalomplace is however extremely ecumenical (I myself am Protestant, but love both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox forms of Christianity) and even encourages interfaith dialogue. But we are still none the less Christian.

Again, you misunderstand the whole process by which the Church has come to adopt the doctrines and dogmas that it does. A few bishops didn't get together in 325 over coffee and decide Arianism was heresy

The church has continued in an uninterupted lineage from the time of Jesus and the Apostles all the way down to its' many expressions found today. While Luther may have broken with the Roman Catholic church of his day, today Roman Catholics and Lutherans get along quite well read more here

quote:

quote:

Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today's partner.

The reformation had nothing to do with Arianism, all Orthodox Christians hold to this view against the heresy of Arianism. The teachings which make Arianism a heresy, like the Incarnation of God on Earth, the Divinity of Christ, The Triune nature of the Godhead were all clearly understood by the direct disciples of Jesus (as recorded in the letters they wrote, which were collected and eventually came to form the Bible) and taught to the churches for 300 years before being discussed at the council and forever condemned. Why was it condemned?...because it was not true, the experience of Christians from the time of Peter and Paul declared that it was not true.

Jesus was a real person (something no real scholar would argue against) and his disciples were real and they carried on the teachings that they received from Him, which by the way did not earn them popularity, fame, power or fortune, but rather resulted in them being hated by many, tortured, condemned, stoned, beaten, imprisoned, murdered etc etc.

I know very few people who lie because they want to be hurt, rather, and i'm sure you will not disagree, most people lie to receive some kind of undeserved reward or escape pain of some sort. There were a great many ways to live during the early times of the church that were far more beneficial than being a Christian. These people taught and lived the truth because it was the truth that Jesus had shared with them and they had experienced the miracles and teachings of Jesus and witnessed that he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (which itself is a miracle if you care to explore the possibilites of one man fulfilling hundreds of prophecies written over a time span of hundreds of years by various different people) and therefore was the Messiah, God incarnate and the saviour of Mankind.

Wayne, you continue to demonstrate an irrational and uninformed animosity toward orthodox Christian teachings. I'll give you a few more posts to demonstrate a real willingness to dialogue and even learn something from participants here. If you can't do that, then there'll be no point in allowing you to continue to participate in the discussions.

- - -

Jacques et al, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that people who hold to a firm belief in reincarnation generally end up denouncing one or more essential orthodox Christian beliefs. I'm not sure why that is, but I have my suspicions . . .

- back to the thread topic; Wayne, please see my note above

It's difficult to find on the Internet thoughtful critiques of what's going on in past-life experiences as the popular sites are very much all for it. Here's a good one, however:
- http://www.comparativereligion.../reincarnation1.html

Re. Christianity and reincarnation, see
- http://www.comparativereligion....html#reincarnation3
Also: http://www.catholic.com/library/reincarnation.asp

Dear Jacques,

Oops, indeed! Just to set the record straight, I happen to look more favorably upon Catholics and their actual "practice" of the teachings of Jesus, particularly those in the Liberation Theology movement in bringing justice to the poor and oppressed, than many of the new fundamentalists emerging these days, such as Hagee, Falwell and Robertson to name a few off the top (I'm sure you're not of that ilk). A few years ago I read with great interest a book called "In God's Name", not one Catholics, of course, are very pleased with I'm told. But, believe it or not, I came away with a newfound respect for some in the church, most importantly Albino Luciani, unfortunately, he was assassinated by the Old Guard in the Vatican (like former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a.k.a. "The Inquisition")
for 25 years, the current Pope�no indication he was involved so don�t jump on me about Ratzinger who in other books, read in the 70�s about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the delay in their translation, I became very aware of his heavy hand. By the way, Phil, I have read extensively about Christianity and it�s early formation with particular emphasis on the books of the NT. In fact, I just finished studying Professor Bart D. Ehrman�s �Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication�. It does not give one a sense that we have the true story of Jesus�quite the opposite). By the way, I look upon all of us as spiritual beings doing the best we can as humans (this is my spiritual perspective largely attributable to the new evidence I've incorporated in my worldview); we all do the best we can GIVEN OUR PREVAILING AWARENESS, so, I do NOT hold anyone's belief system against them or condemn anyone for their current awareness, I am merely trying to BRING more awareness and light AS MY AWARENESS grants me the ability to do so (I'm all too aware it may not be YOUR "light").
Now, as regards you�re statement ��the Incarnation of God on Earth, the Divinity of Christ, The Triune nature of the Godhead were all clearly understood by the direct disciples of Jesus (as recorded in the letters they wrote, which were collected and eventually came to form the Bible) �. Although I�ve come to respect you greatly, Jacques, I must �respectfully� disagree with that statement from a number of perspectives.
Paul's letters, written around 55-65 CE, fail to mention any Gospel miracle, act or major event concerning Christ's life, apart from the Eucharist and some vague references to the crucifixion and resurrection. He also fails to accurately quote any of Christ's teachings, as depicted in the Gospels. Clement, writing some 30 years later, does little better than Paul. While quoting extensively from the Old Testament, and offering numerous examples to illustrate his points from the lives of OT prophets and saints, Clement, like Paul, ignores the amazing life of Jesus Christ. Yet some 60 years later, Justin Martyr quotes extensive passages from the Gospels, including many of Christ's miracles, birth details etc (but fails to attribute such passages to any of the named Gospels). It was not until 180 CE that Iraeneus finally put names to all four Gospels, a full 150 years after Christ's death.
This pattern is not what would be expected if in fact the gospel accounts had been written by the named authors, early after Christ's death and based on actual events. I suggest that the progressive and increasingly elaborate revelation of Christ, as witnessed through the letters of the church fathers, is more consistent with an evolving myth than with a story based on an actual, living Christ.
We even have serious problems with authenticating Paul�s epistles (the only �letters� in the canon), for goodness sake:
Here is the latest scholarship (from Wikipedia), independently confirmed by Dr. Erhman mentioned above:
Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to, and explicitly ascribed to, Paul of Tarsus. Some consider the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews a fourteenth Pauline epistle.[1] Except for Hebrews (see Antilegomena), the Pauline authorship of these letters was not academically questioned until the nineteenth century.
Seven letters are generally classified as �undisputed�, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded as pseudographs,[2] though certain scholars do consider them genuine.[3] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul�s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles.[4] Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary liberal scholars reject Pauline authorship.[5]
The silence by Paul and Clement on the life of Christ is difficult to explain, apart from the possibility that they were ignorant of any such life. The letter of Clement serves as a good example of what I am talking about. Clement illustrates his various points with numerous examples involving past saints, where often an example of Christ's life would have been far more appropriate and persuasive (Paul often does this also). The following post (to avoid truncation) reveals examples from Clement which help to illustrate what I mean.
In Ch. 4 Clement speaks of jealousy and envy, resulting in murder, causing the 'godly' to flee. His examples include Cain and Abel, Joseph, David, Moses and Pharaoh. The tale of Herod and the killing of the innocents would have been an excellent example, but is ignored.
In Ch. 5 he talks of persecution, patient suffering and martyrdom and uses Paul and Peter as his examples. Jesus is not mentioned.
In Ch. 7 Clement discusses repentance and the prophets who proclaimed repentance and were precursors to the coming of the Lord. How could he fail to mention John the Baptist?
In Ch. 16 he talks of the humble and lowly nature of Christ, but instead of providing vivid and excellent examples from Christ's humble birth and life, he merely quotes from Isaiah 53.
In Ch. 17 he elaborates further on the prophets who heralded the coming of Christ, such as Elisha, Elijah, Abraham and Moses. Once again, he fails to mention the most important one of all, John the Baptist.
In Chs. 18 & 19 there are more examples of humility, but all from the OT. The meek and humble Christ is not worthy of comment.
In Ch. 23 he uses the metaphor of vine and branches, but attributes none of these ideas to Christ.
Chapter 45 gives many examples from the OT of persecution at the hands of the ungodly. However, not one word on Christ, beaten and crucified at the hands of sinners.
51 discusses sedition and hardened hearts. Clement uses Moses as his example. The Jewish and Roman authority's animosity to Christ would have been excellent here, but is ignored.
53 Speaks of Love and forgiveness. What examples does he offer? Moses, who fasts on the mount for the sake of his people, then pleads with God to spare and forgive them. He cites this as THE example of perfect love. One would think that Christ's episode on the cross and his words, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do' would have been appropriate here. But once again, as always, Christ is ignored.
From Clement, we glean nothing about the historical Christ or any of the events associated with him. We learn only that Christ shed his blood as a sacrifice. There are a few hints at Christ's teachings, but nothing accurately quoted from any named Gospels. Numerous examples are cited from the OT and from the lives of the apostles in order to illustrate principles of faith, love, persecution etc, but not one example from Christ's life whatsoever, apart from aspects concerning his death and resurrection. The only rational explanation is that Clement, like Paul, was ignorant of the life of any historical Christ.

So, we don�t really KNOW what the apostles or even his most ardent proselytizer, Paul (the ONLY writing written DIRECTLY AFTER his life with certain attribution (with the caveats above), KNEW about Jesus� life, if anything, for we have virtually nothing from them directly save some extra biblical excluded writings written even later by a 100 years than the Synoptic texts in the canon (and WHY they were excluded). So, contrary to someone�s earlier post, the gospels were written by virtually unknown authors (NOT ANY APOSTLE) or were �presumed� to have been CLOSE to the apostles, therefore are THIRD PARTIES or worse (we just don�t know), and only written down BEGINNING 50 years after Jesus� death.

All of this does not inspire confidence that we have any semblance of who Jesus really was or what he really said, or as clearly stated above regarding even Paul, who appears to have known little or nothing about Jesus� life, even though HE actually was around just after his death and presumable could get details from those who had seen him speak, or perform his miracles and give him at least some sort of confirmation of WHAT WAS WRITTEN 50 YEARS LATER OR MORE�.but, he DOESN�T!!!!!!! You have to ask, why?

This is why I can only have Faith in the TEACHINGS (for their transformative truth today) not in the man. What is important is the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER. We must value and honor the LIGHT not the LAMP!

Your Brother in Spirit,

Wayne

Wayne, it's generally thought that Paul, Clement and other early writers felt no need to go over the life and teachings of Christ because their audience already knew all this. You also overlook the reality of the oral tradition preceded the written word, and out of which the Gospel narratives were written. It was against the understanding of the oral tradition that the four Gospels were compared and validated; it's also why other writings were not accepted or used in the teaching and liturgy. There were plenty of eyewitnesses alive during that first generation, including the Apostles themselves. Maybe wikipedia's not the best place for you to begin learning the basics about all this. Try:
- http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/youth/remember.html
- http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/bible.html

There are more technical links if you're interested.

You're down to one last post, now, and if it turns out to be another uninformed rant to lead people away from their Christian faith, you'll be taking a sabbatical from this board.

Wayne,
may I suggest a shorter and better-structured post?

I must confess that I personally have grave difficulty digesting what in large part seems tantamount to lengthy, rambling essays. Mind you, this comment is not primarily meant as criticism, I really would like to hear your thoughts, but find it burdensome to try to access them.

Best regards,
HeartPrayer

Phil:

I said I wouldn't be posting in response to Wayne, and this one is less a personal reply than an academic rejoinder should anyone here at Shalom Place read Bart Ehrman's books. I've read his first, "Misquoting Jesus," and have paged through several others. Anyone reading him fairly for the subject matter he treats should also read someone like John Meier or Raymond Brown. Ehrman's books do not receive high marks from scholars like Meier who tend to view many of Ehrman's conclusions as more rhetorical than rooted in sound textual criticism. Some decent critical reviews that are less lengthy and dense than Meier's scholarly treatises would be Ben Witherington's and Craig Evan's latest responses to the likes of John Dominic Crossan's and Ehrman's works. Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright have also made contributions in this way as well. And so reading one of Ehrman's books along with one of these other authors would be a balanced way to appreciate the current state of scholarship and how some of it is more dependent upon popular sentiment than careful research.

Dear Phil,

So, my references from a predominance and consensus of biblical scholars and Dr. Erhman's careful work(google his credentials if you like) and Wikipedia's many citations are "uninformed rants", but your un-referenced statement about a presumed "speculation" by unknown "scholars" that Paul and Clement and ALL other early writers and apostles, deliberately omitted or failed to make use of accounts from the "plenty of eyewitnesses" alive during the writing of their works and epistles "because their audience already knew all this", constitutes solid evidence of the "truth" of what was then later written in the gospels by third party unknowns after all these "eyewitnesses" had died off. Does this really make sense to you?
Phil, as I have said, I consider myself a follower of and thereby a disciple of Jesus, but not the later Christ creation by the church. I am attempting to seek the truth as to what we can honestly say about the historical Jesus...and what we can call into reasonable question as to the narrative and claims of the gospels.
My question for you is why is there this near obsessive insistence upon Jesus as God and the physical resurrection narrative a "deal breaker" for followers, if untrue, for the acceptance of his profound spiritual truths? Why is not the truth of his message sufficient for your discipleship. Again, why is the messenger more important than the message? This is the crux of MY incredulousness at the libraries full of complex, arcane and clever circumlocutive theological matrices that only scholars could comprehend(I have attempted to read many of them and find my eyes glaze over).
If this is my last post accepted...so be it and AMEN. It will sadden me, however, for I have enjoyed our dialogue.

Your loving and faithful "ha-satan",

Wayne

Gramps, you wrote: Phil, as I have said, I consider myself a follower of and thereby a disciple of Jesus, but not the later Christ creation by the church.

We don't know diddly squat about Jesus apart from the scriptures of the Christian Church. It so happens that those scriptures are expressing a faith in him as the incarnation of the divine Word, or Second Person of the Trinity. They did so because of his death, resurrection and ascension. To ignore all this and try to turn Jesus into some kind of enlightened teacher who didn't rise from the dead and wasn't regarded as divine is patently ridiculous!

Why is not the truth of his message sufficient for your discipleship. Again, why is the messenger more important than the message?

The Messenger IS the Message! The Good News is not Jesus' teaching (which isn't really all that new, really), it's Jesus -- his risen life, present to those who open themselves to him in faith. That's what Christianity is. You don't seem to understand that, do you?

I'm closing this thread as there's pretty much nothing left to say about reincarnation. The links I've shared in my post above ought to satisfy anyone as to the dubious nature of the information obtained from hypnotized people.

w.c. will open a new discussion on the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. Since you say that you're interested in this topic, then he and others can dialogue with you about it.

If this is my last post accepted...so be it and AMEN. It will sadden me, however, for I have enjoyed our dialogue.

I have not, nor would I consider the exchanges "dialogue." I cannot find one single example of you actually taking in feedback and considering what was said. Mostly, you come across like an antagonistic know-it-all here to "tweak" Christians -- an Internet troll, really! I'll not be discussing the Jesus questions you raise with you and didn't intend to have even this exchange with you, but some of what you've written couldn't be allowed to stand.