God’s Science 4.3 Science of Jesus; Logic Problems in “Faith”

 

 

Vol. 4  The Science, the Second Coming, of Jesus

  

Chapter 4

 

More, Rational Sins in “Faith”:

Logical Sins, Inadequacies, in

Faith,

In Itself

 

God’s Science Points #’s 173 – # 202 END

[Editorial Notes:  Last edited by author to

p. 364 Oct. 17, 2011;

See other writings on Paul, faith]

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

 

1)             Need more faith?  

2)             Can lose faith

3)             Too much faith = gullible

4)             God wants little faith; mustard seed

5)             Faith can fail

6)             Other things needed than faith; virtue

7)             Love

8)             Work and Works

9)             Must see works to know true holy men

10)         “Test everything”

11)         “Law does not rest on faith”

12)         “Do no believe”

13)         Believe “illusions,” Napoleon?

14)         False Spirits: Vanity

15)         “Our Faith”  = Faith in Resurrection Only?

16)         Weak in Faith

17)         Invisible?

18)         Reason

19)         “Snares” in faith

20)         The End Time; Second Coming

21)         Deeds

22)         Flesh

23)         Resurrection

24)         Body

25)         Our Own Work

26)         Science Makes New Earth

27)         Body, Church

28)         Immortality

29)         Faith temporary

30)         Weak Faith Welcome

31)         Children

 

 

 

 

More Sins, in Faith

 

  

Can it be true?  Can there really something seriously wrong in “Faith” itself?  Earlier, we cited about 170 types of quotes in the Bible, 170 or so arguments in the Bible itself, against faith.

 

Here we will have followed the Bible itself, very closely.  But in addition to Biblical quotes, the Bible told us to follow “logic” and “reason.”  So supposed we do that for this present chapter.  And ask:  what might  there something even … logically evil, about a religion based on very strong faith?  At first, this seems impossible.  But finally, we will show, that is what logic tells us.  And indeed, this logic is probably supported by the Bible itself as well, finally.

 

To find limitations, even evils, in “faith,” seems utterly impossible or heretical at first; this seems to utterly contradict our highest ideas of what is good and true.  And indeed, it contradicts what we heard in a thousand churches.  And yet however … the Bible often told us that there were problems, sins, failings, in our holiest men and churches, after all.  And in Paul, the Bible itself even began to suggest there were problems, sins, shortcomings, even in Faith itself.  And that shortcoming was not that we just needed still more faith, as our preachers thought; instead, the problem was that … actually even the Bible itself began to note, that there is something basically, fundamentally wrong, with “faith” itself.  To the point that real Christianity, should cease to be referred to as a “faith,” but should instead become an empirical science.  As God commanded, beyond Paul, in the Bible overall.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#173    

 

 

(Continuing earlier list, from previous works v. 3, 4, etc.)

 

 

(#173)  There only one alleged problem with, one insufficiency in “Faith,” that most preachers’ sermons will refer to.  The only problem with faith, as far as most preachers believe, is that –  we allegedly don’t have enough of it.  If we pray and don’t get miracles, our preachers tell us that is because we just don’t have enough faith; we just need to have still more faith.  Just have still more faith … and then the promised miracles will arrive.  (Though to be sure, people like Job are righteous and presumably have faith … and yet still for a while, they do not get all the miracles our preachers promised).

 

Still, this means that there is one kind of “lack” in faith, that preachers acknowledge:  we can have too little of it.  And we typically do.  Indeed, even the apostles asked Jesus to “increase our faith.”

 

To be sure though, against this massively popular sermon – the many sermons that constantly exhort us to have more and more faith – we will find that after all, in the same way that it is possible to be too materialistic, is also it is possible to have too much faith.  One might have so much faith in preachers and their idea of God, that one follows any preacher; even, a false one.  For example (as noted in our sections on the faith of Paul, then Jesus).  But this common idea about faith, was countered over and over again, by the Bible:  which noted problems with, sins in, strong faith in effect.  Those who are trained to faithfully believe, without exercising some caution and so forth, will be gullible; and will follow “false” prophets; “fools believe anything,” the Bible said.  While finally even Jesus therefore told us, “do not believe” even Jesus himself, unless we see real physical evidence that he was a powerful being.

 

But in any case?  The Bible at times called for a very, very small amount of faith; as much as a “mustard seed” at least; and it may be that at times, people do not even have as much faith as that very, very, very tiny amount.  Not enough faith to even believe, as Jesus said, science, and what our eyes see; not enough to believe material evidence.  Which is ultimately we will see, what Jesus really called for:  faith in Science.  And not following false priests, all-too-faithfully.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#174    

 

174)  Priests, like the apostles, like Paul, are all too flawed; and they always ask for far more faith than is prudent.  The only weakness in faith that preachers notice much, is that we don’t have enough of it.  Or related to that:  that faith is not invulnerable or permanent; we can lose it, or “depart” from it.  A shortcoming in faith which might be – some say – found in some parts of the Bible.  Like these:

 

 

“Certain persons … made shipwreck of … faith” (1 Tim. 1.19).

 

“Will he find faith on earth” (Luke 18.8).

 

“Some will depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4.1).

 

 

The main problem with faith, as far as most churches are concerned, is that people “lapse” in their faith, or “lose their faith.”  People often stop believing.  So that the only problem with faith, as far as most preachers are concerned, is just that a) people don’t have enough of it; or b) whatever faith they do have, they lose. 

 

But to be sure, in any case, here preachers note at least one kind of lack in faith; it is not invulnerable; we can lose it.

 

Though to be sure, we will have been noting here that … this is not necessarily always a bad thing; at times, we should lose our faith; as when we had faith in the wrong preacher, or the wrong idea of God.

 

Faith can often be a very, very, very bad thing.  And losing your faith can be a good thing.  What if you have faith and believe that you are Napoleon, for instance?  In this case, having weak faith, and losing your faith, would be a good thing.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#175    

 

 

(# 175)  Lack of faith might be a problem with a few – but lack of faith is not the major problem with most preachers, believers, churchgoers.  Believers by definition in fact have the opposite problem:  they have all too much faith.  The problem with most believers, is not that they don’t have enough faith; the problem is the opposite of that:  they have too much faith.  Too much of a good thing.  They have faith to the point that they become credulous, gullible, and believe any kind of false, bad preacher. 

 

Too much faith makes people gullible suckers; they all-too-faithfully follow false prophets.

 

Related to this, remember James telling us about people trying to live just on faith, spirit … and dying for lack of physical food.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#176    

 

 

 

(# 176)  Many passages are read to us in church, as tell us that God is warning us not to lose our faith; God telling us to have still more faith.  But note that the language of the Bible is very tricky; and often one phrase or passage, has more than one possible meaning.  With this in mind, consider for example, the famous passage where Jesus tells us we should have as much faith as a “grain of mustard seed.”  (See our section on Jesus and Faith).  This passage has always been presented to us by sermons, as insisting that a) we need at least a tiny amount of faith; we need more faith.  That if we had as much as a grain of mustard seed, we would get miracles, wonders.  But note that in light of the science of God, another possible reading or two appears, even of this single line.  First, it might be that b) Jesus is asking us to have after all, only a tiny amount of faith.

 

Indeed, perhaps some tiny amount of faith is necessary.  But we will have been finding here, that it was not very, very much faith at all.  While indeed, it is easily possible – and by far, the most common situation among priests – to have far too much faith; to have too much of a good thing; to have faith to the point of … gullibility.  The truth is, what faith we have … amounts only to the temporary, momentary suspension of disbelief, required to generate a hypothesis.  We might suspend criticism for a year or two … to see if the method works; if we see real material results from it.  So that not very much faith in fact, is required.  And it should be allowed to grow, only as it shows some very significant verifiable, material results.  Which is what priests forget and deny.  And where they make their mistake.

 

Indeed remember, the Bible warned constantly about false things in our holiest men, angels, preachers.  Therefore, implicitly, it did not want us to have too much faith in them; but wanted us instead to “test everything,” as even Paul finally said.  In order to find out to whom we should give our faith.

 

So just not having enough of faith, is not the only problem with Faith noted in the Bible.  It also in effect told us that we can have too much of it; too much of a good thing.

 

But then in any case, problems with just the amount of it; not enough or too much.  There are any number of far, far more serious problems than not having this tiny amount of faith; as it turns out, there are problems deep in Faith in itself.  As we are seeing here and now.

 

 

Subargument on Faith#177    

 

 

(# 177)  Just having lots of faith is not good enough.  Because there are evils, inadequacies, even in all the faith one can have.  First because you can become gullible; and have faith in the wrong people, “deceivers,” “false priests.”  While now we add more on this problem in faith:  that even if you have all the faith one can have … still, faith can go wrong.   Can fail somehow.  Many have faith in the wrong things; the wrong angels and prophets, or the wrong ideas about them.  In which case, as Paul noted, our faith can be “In vain” or “futile.”  In this case, Paul notes that if Christ was not “raised” (Physically resurrected?  Esteemed?  Raised on a cross to be executed?), then our faith in him is in vain, futile:

 

 

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain” (1 Corin. 15.14; or “futile”).

 

 

Even the admittedly faithful and spiritual Paul is open to a reading here, that would favor the science of God:  if the thing we believe or believe in, is not backed by material facts, if the thing does not seem true in real life, does “not come to pass” in visible material life – if in this case, Jesus was not actualy resurrected physically from the dead, say –  then this indeed, would be the great problem with faith; we have come to believe in, be all-too-faithful to, things that are not true.  You believe in things that don’t come true in real life; that are not backed by physical evidence. 

 

Paul therefore, began to allow into his writings, at least hints of problems with faith; and a need for a critical science of God.  Even Paul began to tentatively explore one limitation in faith, as he looked at the story of the (at first, physical?)  resurrection of Christ:  that faith in things that had no physical foundation or proof, was “futile” faith; or faith in “vain.” Faith in false things.

 

Overall to be sure, Paul was eventually to head toward the idea that a physical resurrection could be deferred, in favor of a metaphorical, spiritual one; since in any case, the ideas of Christ are reborn in us, when we begin to believe.  And yet however, Paul to the end was troubled by a physical “thorn” in his side.  Perhaps a) he had a physical disease; or b) related to that perhaps he found physical life odious, and hard to manage.  Or c) related to all that, perhaps he began to worry that after all, we need to take care of physical bodies.  Or more generally, that real religion, as God promised, is supposed to get not just mental or spiritual results only, but also real material results.  Any credo that pretends to guide us through all of life, that pretends to be “full” enough, completely enough, holy enough to be “all” that we need to follow in life … must also take care of our physical needs, the physical, side of life, as well as the spiritual.  Or else, giving us only spiritual things, and not physical food, as James notes, it leaves our physical bodies to starve to death.  Or as Jesus noted, we should get food, drink, shelter, clothes too.  A credo, a Religion that does not do that, guides us to physical poverty, disease, and death.

 

Then too, any Religion that promises “miracles” should actually furnish them regularly and reliably; if it does not, it teaches us to rely on things that do “not come to pass”; and relying absolutely on things that are not true, is often disastrous for many. 

 

(By the way, regarding this specific quote from Paul:  if Christ was not physically in Jerusalem in Paul’s adulthood, after Jesus’ brief, 40-day resurrection, then this might have posed a problem of credibility for Jesus’ Christianity, even for Paul.)

 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#178    

 

 

(# 178)  Here therefore, we are beginning to get a picture of the Bible itself, beginning to note problems, inadequacies, if all we have in life is faith.  Here the Bible is beginning to note that a) faith is not invulnerable; it can be lost.  Worse b) we can have faith in the wrong things; things not well founded, proven, by real physical events.

 

And we might add, c) even if we have all the faith in the world, still, that is not enough to live a good, full life.

 

Faith” is inadequate, first in that even if faith is enough to be “saved” spiritually as some say, still it is not always enough to save us (say from physical accidents ) in the physical world.  Other things, beyond faith, are needed to be good, the Bible often said.  And not just empirical proofs, as we note here.  But also even other spiritual things.  Like “virtue” (and good deeds?  Good works): 

 

 

 “Supplement your faith with virtue” (2 Peter 1.5).

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#179    

 

 

(# 179)  Not only are more things than faith needed, like “virtue,” but also, among those many things, faith is not even the most important, or really in the first place, parts of  even Paul suggest.  Paul suggests that “love” is more important than faith:

 

 

“So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corin. 13.13).

 

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing …. Love never fails” (1 Corin. 13.1-3-8 NIV; cf. the “heart” can often be deceived).

 

 

Love, many parts of the Bible and Paul say, is more important than faith.  

 

Thus again, “faith” is inadequate, in this sense:  there are more important things.  Perhaps faith is a necessary ingredient in the cake of life; but only one of many.  And not even the most important, the “greatest” as even Paul says.  More important is “love.”

 

(As for faith “alone,” see our notes on this in the end; faith alone briefly which is mentioned only once in the Bible, to condemn it.  While “alone” can mean  … alone, in addition to what you already have; like an automobile without gas needs gas “alone”; alone, in addition to the car itself of course).

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#180    

 

 

(# 180)  Especially God says, faith fails us … in that there are many other, greater, necessary virtues, etc., that we also need.  Like love.  And it has also seemed to many, those who have mostly faith, but who neglect physical works, are especially lacking. 

 

Though many have said that Paul valued faith over certain works (like physical circumcision) – as indeed, parts of the his texts suggest strongly – other parts of the Bible we will note here and now, seem to suggest that some kind things are necessary:  like “love.”  While indeed, some parts of the Bible suggest that even “works” are necessary:

 

 

“Faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead” (James 2.17).

 

 

In addition to faith, we specifically need “works” to prove our faith is good:

 

 

“Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2.17; 2.24).

 

“Faith apart from works is barren?” (James 2.20).

 

“This man’s religion is vain” (James 1.26).

 

 

Here and now though, is not the place to get bogged down in the endless “faith vs. works” idea.  See our notes on this later. 

 

But in any case, we will have been making an extensive case here, for the importance of basing faith, only on proven “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.”

 

Preachers fix on the parts of Paul that seemed to suggest that we are “saved” by faith, not by works.  But eventually, even Paul will begin to call attention to his own works, and works.  Paul even nothing that in the end, we are judged by our “works”:

 

 

God will render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2.6).

 

“I have reason to be proud of my work for God” (Rom. 15.17).

 

“Test what sort of work each one has done” (1 Cor. 3.13).

 

“We labor, working with our own hands” (1 Corin. 4.12).

 

“I worked harder than any of them” (1 Corin. 15.10).

 

“Faith working through love” (Gal. 5.6; 1 Thess. 1.3).

 

“Let each one test his own work” (Gal. 6.4).

 

“Bearing fruit in every good work” (Col. .10).

 

“Whatever your task, work heartily” (Col. 3.23).

 

“With toil and labor we worked night and day” (2 Thess. 3.10).

 

“If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3.10).

 

“Be ready for any honest work” (Tit. 3.1).

 

“God is not so unjust as to overlook our work (Heb. 6.10).

 

“Stir up one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10.24).

 

 

We will not take sides in the infamous and infinitely divisive issue of “faith vs. works” here; we will just note in passing, for now, that even Paul often stressed “works”; and even acknowledged that in the end, God is to judge us not so much by our faith, as by our “works.”

 

(For more discussion on this, see our addendum).

 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#181    

 

 

 

(# 181)  Here we will just skip the whole ancient “faith vs. works” debate.  By saying here that our important point here, will be that even if we are saved by just “faith” alone in God, still, we cannot know whether the entity we have faith in, really is God.  Unless or until … it produces “works” in the sense of “fruits” and so forth.

 

It is in that sense that “works” are important here.  Not that our works get us into heaven; perhaps indeed, only faith in God does that.  But our point here would be that even if “faith alone” as some call it, could get us into heaven, still, how do we know that we are really following the right Christ, the right idea of God?  As the people asked in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, if there are many false prophets that speak falsely when they say the “Lord said” this or that, then how do we know which prophet is true?  Which words are really from God?  But in those texts, God began showing us how to find out which holy men and sayings are good, and which are not:  we are to look to see if the prophet predicts or even produces, real material events.  If so, then we might begin to suspect from physical, empirical evidence, that the prophet or his sayings, might really be from the Lord.  But without that evidence, without “fruits,” “works”?  Then we should soon eliminate that particular saying of the prophet or holy man or apostle, from our list of good prophesies.

 

Paul began to belatedly acknowledge that side of God, when, after appearing to violently attack specific “works” like (perhaps only?) circumcision, he then went on however to constantly cite the practical “work” of himself as others, often, as important.  And if at times he seemed to defer to “faith”?  Then however, he ultimately noted more important things, that negated even faith; like lack of “love.”

 

In any case?  “Fools believe anything.”  Therefore?  Determine that your idea of God is right, before having confidence or faith in it.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#182    

 

 

 

(# 182)  So even the very, very, very “faith”ful and spiritual, priestly Paul, began alluding now and then, to the science of God.  Indeed, remember, the main point in this book; that God warned we should not have too much faith in holy men, because there are many false things even in religion.  And therefore we should not believe unless or until we examine or verify things with science.  Until then, we “will” (and even should) not believe.  And at times, even Paul introduced phrases that can be taken (among other readings) to allude to that:

 

 

Test everything” (1 Thess. 5.21).

 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#183    

 

 

(# 183)  There are warnings of other shortcomings in faith too, regarding the “law”s of God.  Though Paul does not like “law” in some readings, there are people who still feel that “law” is still important.  If so, then the following is a limitation.  Since law does not require faith:

 

 

The law does not rest on faith” (Gal. 3.12; and “Gentiles do by Nature what the law requires”).

 

 

Some might still say that Christianity removes us from all “law.”  Though Paul’s long discourses do not make that entirely clear.  While indeed, if faith and law are in conflict, that would seem to be a problem, theologically.

 

 

 

 

Early Summary

 

 

Amazingly, given these and other sins in faith, ultimately parts of the Bible now and then urge us, not to “believe” or have faith, in many situations:

 

 

Do not believe” (Mat. 24.23, 6).

 

 

Do not believe, do not have faith, Jesus himself will, incredibly, be found to tell us at times.

 

Prior to today, a million preachers worldwide, have insisted on “faith,” for two thousand years, in a billion sermons.  But here we find that they were in part, wrong.  Not only does a) the Bible, taken overall, actually stress science and proof instead of faith; but b) even if we look at the sections on “faith” in itself .… we found that the Bible began to note that there is something actually something wrong, deep in faith, belief, itself.  And it was c) not usually what preachers constantly told us; it was not primarily that we just didn’t have enough faith, as so many preachers have insisted.  Rather d) there were problems, sins, inadequacies, deep in faith itself.  In part because aa) the Bible told us we need other things; like “love.”  While the rest of our books show that faith can often go wrong bb) because there are false prophets and so forth.  So that we should not just “faith”fully follow prophets and holy men.  But instead, we should carefully examine them with science.  While eventually, we will show that cc) there is something self contradictory about the very concept, of a “strong” faith.  (See below).

 

Amazingly therefore, and contrary to what we heard in a million churches, in many, many ways, there is … practically always, something wrong or inadequate with faith.  According to the Bible itself; God himself.  And it is not what our preachers said; it is not that we don’t have enough of it.  Rather instead, it is that many have too much of it; and also that faith in itself, is hopelessly inadequate to get through life.  Or even to find God.

 

To be sure, what we are saying here, goes against a million sermons.  Preachers have over and over claimed – in a billion sermons no doubt, over the last two millennia – that if faith seems to fail us, the reason is we just don’t have enough of it.  The problem with faith, the reason “our faith fails” us, is not what our preachers told us constantly:   that if faith fails us, we just need still more faith, or better faith.   Perhaps to be sure, now and then one or two passages might lend themselves to that interpretation.  But by far, today, the more serious problem is not enough faith; it is far too much of it.

 

And actually, now we find faith can fail us … because a) we can become gullible; and follow the wrong idea of God.  And then too, b) even all the faith one can have, is not enough in itself.  Because we need other virtues, other things, as well.  Like “virtue,” “love,” as even Paul notes.  And for that matter, as we have shown elsewhere, we need “science.”  Which even the very spiritual and faithful Paul could be read as alluding to, when he tells us to “test everything” for example. 

 

(See other quotes in Paul on the importance of material things; also quotes from Paul in other sections on the science of the Old Testament, and then of Jesus).

 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#184    

 

Having Faith Leads You to Believe

“Illusions,” “Delusions”;

Problems With Spiritual Things?

[See Also “Gullible” Above?]

Believing, Having Faith that You Are Napoleon

 

 

 

(# 184)  Specifically, among other things that are lacking in Faith:  material sense.  Giving up on the materials side of life, seeking only mental or “spiritual” sensations, and ignoring the material world, is not good.  In part, because spirits, thoughts of the “heart,” can “deceive” us; can be mere “delusions,” “false dreams,” “false hopes,” “empty consolation,” “empty promises,” “enchantments,” “illusions.”  As science knows too, our ideas, thoughts, spirits, can often err; but if our mind is going wrong, then how do we check it?  Fix it?  We must have something outside the mind or spirit to compare our thoughts to (insofar as that is possible).  We must try to see if our ideas work in the real material world.  If they do not, then empirical science suggests our ideas might after all, just be ideas; delusions, illusions.

 

What science knows, must now be brought into religion.  And applied to priests’ spirituality.  In particular, priests might feel in their “hearts,” that they are following God or the Holy Spirit … and yet they can be deceived by a “false spirit” posing as the Good.  Indeed, the Bible warned constantly that spirits can be “false.”  So how do we find out which spirits are true?  Just listen to other thoughts, spirits?  Which might also be false?

 

Finally, we must find something somewhat outside our thoughts or spirits, to confirm or dis-confirm them.  And that would be … consulting the material world.  Though priests often put down the material world, actually, when the Bible attacked the “world,” we showed that could not mean the material world at all; since God made that world, and said it was “good” in Genesis.  While if that world was corrupted, then God cleanses it once in the “flood”; and “redeem”s it again, with Jesus.  (Who was himself after all, God made “flesh,” in the material earth, or world).  As we noted here earlier on the Science of God, we are to know even “invisible” spirits, in large part, by “observ”ing (from the NT here), their visible effects, on the visible things that God made (as Paul noted).  Just as the invisible wind is known by its sentient, visible effects on the material leaves it blows, so a spirit is known by the visible material effects it has. 

 

But we now add to this idea, remarked on earlier:  that if a given idea or spirit does not work in the visible world, then after all, we find that it was just a false idea, an idea that corresponded to no real reality; a mere “illusion,” “delusion,” etc..  Things the Bible constantly warned about.

 

The fact that ideas, spirits, cannot be solidly confirmed, justified, just by still more ideas,  (as empirical science says, and as God said), means that finally, indeed, the only way to really find God, to find out which ideas are good, is not just to follow “spirituality” and the “heart,” or still more mental sensations and ideas.  But by going to look at physical reality; to look at it to verify that what we are following, really is powerful … by checking to see if it gets real material, physical, empirical results, here, on this physical earth.  “Fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.”  Said God.  

 

As noted partially, above.

 

Without empirical verification, real “justification,” our thoughts will inevitably in fact, drift into a solipsistic, self-contained, opium-dreams, Lotus-land bottle.  We will be lost in our own delusory “world” or “spirit,” which is only “delusion,” “illusion.”  As God warned, constantly.  Though priests have ignored, denied, and constantly disobeyed, this part of God, it is time for them to “see” and “face” this at last.  The dangers of spirituality, and faith.  Fixing this, by at last seeing … the fuller science of God.  Constantly checking all our ideas, theologies, spirits, against a (relatively), independent, material reality. To make sure our ideas are not just mental sensations, ideas, drifting illusions and “false dreams.”  But actually work.  In the real world.

 

Without the verification, there is always an extreme likelihood, that your allegedly holy “spirit” is merely, one of the foretold “false spirits”; “illusions,” ‘delusions,” “enchantments,” “false dreams.”

 

The Bible obviously thought this was important; it warned constantly about valuing mere spirit, mental or spiritual things; warning about this in many different terms, constantly, throughout the entire Bible.  Though preachers ignored this.  To fall into the “pit” of circularity; a spirituality that allegedly validates itself.  That uses merely one thought, to correct another thought; one spirit against another.  Without ever getting (relatively) outside of thoughts, spirits. To check the empirical reality, to make sure it is not just a mental illusion or delusion.

 

But to be sure, if preachers have failed to do this, and all have thus been lost in delusion?   Then after all, this is confirmed by the Bible itself:  where God warned that essentially the whole world, and even our holiest men and angels, “all,” would be found lost in a “delusion” one day, after all.  As we find it, in fact, now.  Lost in the notion that we can know which spirits are good and which are not, merely by comparing them to other ideas, spirits. While ignoring – and even despising; “hate”ing – the idea of checking them against the material “world.” 

 

A fatal methodological error – that has left essentially all our preachers lost in a merely mental/ “spiritual” space.  Unchecked.  Lost in the foretold delusions, illusions, “magic”al enchantments, false dreams.

 

Is faith, belief, really all that good?  Suppose you believe that you are Napoleon?

 

 

 

The real point of the bulk of quotes here, is to note the real problem with, a lack in, “faith”:  it is not that we need ever more and more of it, as our preachers constantly claimed.  But rather the problem with our faith, is that in itself, it is not enough; we need something more than that.  We need something other than, faith, to be whole and good.  Many other things in fact.  Particularly, we need science.  To tell us whether the things we believe in, are really true or not; illusions, or not.

 

Unfortunately, when most preachers are confronted with the idea that there is something wrong in faith, they usually respond with a sermon that concludes that what God wanted from us, was just … still more, and yet more, faith.  But that isn’t what the Bible is really saying here.  Actually, the Bible is telling us that … “faith” is actually not all we need to get through life; that there is a) something lacking deep inside of it; something that needs to be completed by … something.  First for example:  the Bible above told us that “love” is greater than faith.

 

Then too remember, b) the Bible again warned there were false things in religion – so that in effect, we were warned not to have so much faith, that we are credulous or gullible; that we are suckers, and just blindly follow all kinds of bad and false religious leaders.  And false ideas about God and Jesus.

 

Indeed, to avoid that, c) God finally commanded us not to have too much faith; and d) God urged “test”ing everything in religion, in alleged “Christ”ianity.  To make sure it was really good, or not.  So that God said that what is needed, even over and above faith, is a trained “intelligent” “wisdom,” true “knowledge,” and “science.”  And that wisdom and knowledge moreover, we are showing here, was not primarily the preachers’ spiritual wisdom; it was instead, the Science of God.  Which observes and values not primarily spiritual, but especially material, physical “works” (see above) and “fruits” and so forth.  (Or which values spiritual things, only as science values thoughts, Reason; but then also demands empirical observation and verification of things thought.  Without which, our ideas may be just the foretold “illusions,” “delusions,” and so forth).

 

The Bible said that there were greater virtues than faith; like Love.  And we are also to supplement our faith with “virtue.”  As above.  And we now add, what is one of the greatest virtues?  “Mature” “knowledge,” “wisdom” … and specifically, the Bible says, “science” (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

 

Then soon enough, e) there is the famous argument between Paul and Jews and James; on “faith vs. Works.”  The Jews and James arguing in some way that “Works” were important.  To be sure though, we are not interested in reviving the ancient and perennial argument between Paul and the apostle James, or Martin Luther’s argument against the Church.  But we might just say this. As it turns out, even if we might even agree that we could be “saved” by faith in God “alone” in some sense; still, the problem is, how do you know that what you have faith in, is God … and not the devil himself?  A false idea of God?  Remembering especially, how much the devil liked faith, in Job 1.

 

The great sin of spirituality, is really, solipsism; a form of extreme selfishness.  Disbelief  in a “world” outside the self, our consciousness or “spirit.” Though one might try to connect with other spirits, a greater spirit, still, a spiritual man never gets beyond spirits; to the thing itself; to material reality.  Never sees God in “flesh” or “world”; thus the modern spiritual preacher commits same sin as his religious conservative predecessors, the Pharisees. 

 

If almost our thoughts and spirits can be illusions, how do you know that what you have faith in, really is God?  Just by comparing one subjective, flawed thought to another?  No doubt, as many  philosophies have claimed (Idealism; Phenomenology, etc.?), we can never really know, in our minds, things … outside our minds.  Yet finally, there are thoughts which seem to come more from a world external to us.  And those thoughts, sensations, are particularly valuable, says science.

 

How do we know that our thoughts, spirits are good … when the Bible correctly warned, that there would be many false ideas of God, Christ, out there?  That many who thought they were following “Christ,” would be following a “false Christ”; that many who thought they were following Jesus, crying “Lord, Lord,” would be found to have been deceived, in their best idea of what Jesus was really asking for.  Therefore, because of many sins even in holy men, we are to limit our faith; because we need to maintain a somewhat critical attitude toward even holy men.  And especially, their “Faith.”  And in effect, though our own “works” don’t get us into heaven exactly – as Luther claimed – still, we don’t know that we are following men really from God … unless or until they produce material works as (partial) proof they are from God.  So here we can agree with Luther and the Protestant Reformation; and yet show that indirectly finally, God did value a different kind of works; works in a different sense, in a different way.

 

There are therefore many, many flaws in faith; many lacks or insufficiencies.  But what is the great lack, the great fatal flaw in faith?  Probably the great flaw in faith, is that … there are many false religious leaders, deceived Christians out there; and if you are not critical, and just pick one and follow one “faith”fully, you will usually be following a false prophet.  Into disaster.  You will be gullible; credulous; a “sucker.”  People will take advantage of you.  And you will often be mislead.  And often, exploited.

 

“Faith” some have rightly noted, is therefore much loved by the devil himself.  In the Bible, perhaps no one loves “faith” in the Bible more than Satan.  In the book of Job remember?  It is the character of Satan, that introduced the concept of a Test of Faith.  And why?  It is because the more people are trained to blindly, faithfully follow preachers and others, the more blindly they will follow … bad, false leaders.  Bad  priests.  False Christs.

 

We should have known, not to follow even prophets and saints, too faithfully.  The Bible constantly warned about that.  Even Paul warned, that one of Satan’s favorite disguises is to come to us as the “angel of light.”  Or in “ministers” (q.v., 2 Corin. 11.13-15; see the “angels of the church” in Rev. 2-3).

 

We therefore need a series of tests, to find out who to follow.  Tests from the science of God.

 

And so indeed, “faith” is just a mental sensation, and/or a spirit.  But the Bible itself warned about false things in spirits, specifically and continuously.  Any spirit that you think is holy, is the Holy Spirit itself, can be a mere “illusion” or “delusion” (see above).  Or we now add, a “false spirit.”  And in particular for that matter, “Vanity” and “Pride” are spirits, sensations in our spirit or consciousness; and they often mislead us.  We think, deep in our spirit, we are better than we are.  So here again is an obviously bad kind of spirituality.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#185    

 

 

(# 185)  To be sure, Paul so closely identified Christianity with “faith” that he at times seems to use faith as a synonym for belief in the resurrection, or even as a synonym for Christianity; as many do today.  As we refer to Christianity, as our “faith.”  And indeed, most people worldwide today, refer to religion as “faith”s.  But that usage, we will have shown here, is bad and incorrect; God himself stressed science, co-equally and often even over, faith.  So that Paul must be understood here, to have been simply wrong.  Or perhaps he referred primarily or only, to faith in a resurrection specifically? 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#186    

 

(# 186)  Finally, many, many preachers have tried to use Paul’s Faith, to allege that God commanded us to have a religion, a Christianity, based on blind obedience to preachers and their vision of God.  To try to accomplish this devious task, many preachers make much of the following short fragment of the Bible, on “faith”:

 

 

Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14.23).

 

 

But there are many readings of this passage.  That show it is not really saying what most preachers claim. 

 

a)      First of all, note the first line of this chapter:

 

 

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.  One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not.…  Who are you do judge someone else’s servant…?  One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers very day alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  For we will all stand before God’s judgement seat….  Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another….  So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.  Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves, but the man who has doubts is concerned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin“ (Rom. 14.1-5, 13, 20-23).

 

 

The fuller quote, here, pretty much says the opposite to what we were often told in church.

 

a)      In church, we were told to have faith in God as described to us in church; and if we didn’t do that, we would be “condemned.”  But the fuller quote says the opposite of that.

 

b)        First, it tells us to “accept” those who are “weak in faith”; not condemn them.

 

c)      Then note next, that in the larger context, Paul was discussing whether we should have faith in part, in (Jewish or other) food restrictions.

 

 

“One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables”

 

 

Here note, Paul finally tells us that it doesn’t matter whether we follow – or have faith in – this or that specific religious tradition about food; in this case, the Jewish religious restrictions on certain kinds of food.  Rather, all that matters, this means to say, is only that we follow whatever it is, that we have faith – or confidence – in.  Keeping our faith “between yourself and God” only.  (See Peter allowing us to eat anything).

 

d)     Amazingly, the real message here is often better said to be not to follow or have faith in, this or that particular religious tradition, or sense of God (as for example, Jewish, with their food restrictions, vs. Gentile Christians, without).  Different tradition this passage notes, believe different things about what food is good, what days are holy.  So that if we are supposed to have faith, then Paul amazingly says here, that does not mean faith in any particular church or doctrine; just that whatever we believe, we should follow that; and only follow that.  Whatever that belief is, seemingly almost irrelevant here; just follow things you find convincing.  Follow whatever we have confidence in; whatever we feel is reasonably certain.  Which seems to suggest that our “faith” is our own concern; don’t let others judge us, or tell us what we must have faith in.  (See however people doing whatever seems right in their own eyes).  While indeed, we might well have faith in science.

 

 

e)      Believers, the faithful too, are specifically told not judging others too severely:

 

 

“Let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of a brother.  I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean….  The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves.  But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14.13-14, 22-23).

 

Many conservative preachers, therefore, have tried to say that Rom. 14.23, means aa) we should try to have strong faith in what preachers say.  But other liberal preachers claim bb) it says the opposite of that:  to follow whatever we ourselves believe or have faith in.  The details of that, being between us, and God; not any church, they say.  Many telling us here that we should have great confidence, faith, in ourselves.  (The word “faith” is sometimes better translated “confidence”).

 

But cc) finally we add, this passage, like many on faith, probably not mean giving in to having total faith or confidence in whatever you casually feel; to rampant subjectivism.  Since doing “whatever seems right in your own eyes” seems condemned in the Bible; and in real life, people who have too much confidence in their own opinions, are called “headstrong”; and headstrong people often do bad things.  Nor dd) does having faith mean following any churches and holy men at all, too “faith”fully, too religiously; since God warned that churches and holy men too, often “make many mistakes,” and are not “perfect,” and are often “under a strong delusion.”  

 

Therefore, ee) this passage probably is best said to say, not that whatever “faith” or casual idea we have should be followed with great conviction; or that ff) whatever seems good to us is good enough.  This gg) seems all too “lawless”; all too much, people following whatever seems right in their own eyes.

 

Perhaps this passage indeed has not been well translated; or perhaps Paul is simply wrong; being too “lawless” and subjective here.  But hh) we should rather, suggest here that this freedom extends mainly to just food, and what day the Sabbath is on say.  (For Jews, Friday sunset to Saturday nite; for Christians, Sunday).  Or ii) suggest that most people will – or should – not judge others on religious belief too much; but should jj) also reserve their best idea of what is right and true, reserve their confidence, in only things reasonably well proven by the Science of God. 

 

f)       Indeed, by the way, the specific discussion of “faith” above, is in the context of Paul speculating on religious instructions regarding food; what food does God want us to eat.  This of course, was a major cause of controversy between Jews – who did not eat pork and shellfish and so forth – and Gentile Christians – who did eat these things.  This conflict between what foods were thought allowable, was a major problem in early Christianity.  Early Christianity was often attempting to mostly follow the Old Testament God, of Judaism; but the Old Testament told us not to eat pork and shellfish, etc..  Which Gentiles liked.  Therefore, Christianity could not spread easily to Gentiles; they did not want to follow all the Old Testament “law”s, like the kosher laws that forbade eating pork and so forth.  (Or the law requiring literal circumcision; a major subject in Paul).  So how was this handled?  Eventually, Christianity gave up a few Jewish Old Testament laws; like  forbidding the eating of pork and shellfish; even though these food laws had been written down as eternal commands from God in the Old Testament.  And the reasoning that was advanced by Christian apostles, to change, circumvent, update the laws of God, included the above discussion on “faith” by Paul; which seemed to allow us, Christians, to follow whatever food laws that seemed convincing to us.  Thus this discussion, this urging of “faith,” was not designed to demand total loyalty to any particular religion; it was the opposite of that.

 

 

g)      Then too, it was a discussion on especially, what “food” we are allowed to eat.  Thus, we might refer back from it, to the original and definitive discussion on food – which was probably the long discussion of what food we can eat, in Daniel 1.4-15, in the King James Edition of the Bible.  There, we should remember, was a major part of the foundation of God’s Science.  There, Daniel showed that whenever possible, with regard to religious laws on food – and ultimately whatever we call religion – we should use real “science” (Dan. 1.4 -15), to determine which laws are materially good, and which are not.  

 

Therefore, the very Bible quotation that is often used by preachers, to try to bluff and bully us into follow them with total “faith” –  “everything that does not come from faith is sin” – actually, in original context, said the exact opposite of that; was used to make exactly the opposite point.  If anything, it seems to allow us rather too much “freedom.”    So that perhaps this needs to be restrained, by reference to the need to follow objective knowledge, and science; not whatever “seems right” to us.  Our faith is to be in science, as much as personal opinions and established religion.  Whichever seems to match the facts; whatever seems to give us real results. 

 

h)      Or in any case, whatever others may choose to believe, whatever they might choose as their religion … in our case here, we choose to follow the commands of God – in Daniel for example, but also throughout the entire Bible – that tell us to believe, have faith in, especially things reasonable proven or suggested by empirical experience.

 

In the past, many people had strong faith they said, in preachers of ordinary churches; that promised us that if we just trust and believe in them, we would get huge, amazing, miraculous powers and wonders:  the power to move real actual “mountains”; the power to make bread appear out of thin air; the power to walk on water.  To get “whatever” we “ask”; all the works that Jesus did, “and greater things than these.”  And yet however, many of us have never gotten these powers, no matter how good we were, not matter how much faith we had in our preachers and their many huge promises.  Indeed, though now and then we see a few sick people heal somewhat unexpectedly, this is not necessarily a miracles;  many people get well unexpectedly; and many were on medication that might have done it.  While some of us, in any case, have ever seen any of the larger, more spectacular miracles promises.  Many of us have never seen anyone at all today – not even the very best preacher – repeating the same miracles that we were often promised:  walking on water especially, and so forth.  Even though our preachers told us that the Bible was true, and that it promised such things.

 

Many millions of us were trained from infancy, to have all-but- total faith in such promises by preachers.  And yet however, many of us did not really get such things.  While today, more and more of us rightly have the most faith and confidence, in things reasonably well proven by experience and science, to bring real material results.  But here, rather than completely abandon religion, we might after all, simply go back to the Bible itself … and find that amazingly, after all, a far more scientific, empirical Christianity, is really, what the Bible itself really wanted us to have.   If we are to have “faith,” we are somewhat free to choose which faith; and among the many options and churches, finally the most compelling and convincing, to more and more of us today – given the tremendous “fruit”fulness of science, technology, practical knowledge – would be a church that combined religion, with real science and sense.

 

And amazingly, it is the point of our present book to prove that actually, this is what the Bible itself, God himself, really, actually, called for.  A critical science of God is really, finally, the kind of religion, faith, and confidence, that God really wanted us to have.  Not total, “blind” “faith” in ancient authority, or in priests and churches and holy men and angels.  But instead, the Bible itself told us over and over again – even finally, the very faithful Paul – that we should have much faith or confidence, only in things reasonably well proven by empirical experience and science.  By what we see “come to pass” (Deut. 18.21 ff).  By what bears real “fruits.”

 

No doubt, to be sure, in the past, science was not very advanced; and it denied many things that it could not prove at the time … but that were perhaps, nevertheless true.  So that there was a time when too much confidence in science, was not warrented; science would often deny, or could not confirm, all too many things that seemed real enough, or possible.  And indeed, a life limited only to things that can be very, very firmly, absolutely proven, would be impossible; since there is a measure of doubt, uncertainty, in all our “knowledge” of God and everything else.  Neither we nor our knowledge are every perfect it seems.  As Paul knew of himself, at least.

 

Still, today science, we will show, is more livable; the new Social and Behavioral sciences begin to see truths, realities, in things once thought to be just “superstitions”; and/or begin to actually confirm many old beliefs … though finding them to be true in a way somewhat different than priests once saw them. 

 

To be sure, real science itself though, is always open to admitting its own inadequacies; and is always ready to be corrected by new data, new theories.  So that science is systematically “humble”; even more humble than priests, who thought they were already absolutely holy, and therefore could never be corrected. 

 

In any case, if our preachers tell us to have faith, and tell us we will be “condemned” (/judged?) if we do not have it?  Then note that here, in this quote, what is the nature of that faith?  It is not judgmental, or fixed, suggests Paul, here.  At the very least, it allows some freedom of individual discretion, in choosing which church to go to; the “many branches” and so forth as Paul said.  There are many theories, ideas, theologies, doctrines, branches of the church, and of religion, and of God and Truth.  No doubt, we should listen to them all somewhat; but then after all, we are to have “freedom of religion” as they call it in America.  The right to choose.  And for more and more of us, the best religion or “faith” would seem to be … a flexible combination of the best in all forms of thought, including traditional religion … but also, increasingly, science and practical knowledge.  Which, amazingly we have found here, is finally … what the Bible itself wanted.

 

This Science of God though, does not require much; not even a new church, necessarily.  Because after all, a) the average working person, who has some religion but also commonsense knowledge, is often, already most of the way there.  And b) there are already many rational people in every church; even rational theologians, in every denomination.  Already.  What we are doing here, is only consolidating and systematizing, with only slight corrections, a major trend long found in lay persons, and increasingly rational theologians and religious scholars.  In Biblical scholarship, and Religious Studies, and so forth.  And in the de facto religion that most working people already have, though they do not know it, and have not yet worked out the contradictions in their semiconscious understanding of this.

 

 

 

 

“Invisible” Things?

Then Use Invisible, Logic, Reason:

Strong Faith –

As Logically Self-Contradictory;

Beyond Paul

Aside from Paul:

The Idea of a Strong Faith – As a Trap

 Or “Snare”; an Entangling Oxymoron

 

 

Subargument on Faith#187    

 

 

(# 187)  One of the great problems for anyone who wants to say that the Bible advocates Science, and Jesus’ “observ”ation, with his literal eyes, of material things, might seem to be various statement in the Bible, seemingly against “eyes” observing visible things. Including say, this statements of Paul’s.  That …

 

 

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11.1). 

 

 

But a) after all –  perhaps even against Paul? – God and Jesus told us over and over to “observe” physical nature. 

 

And indeed, if faith was good for a while, b) still we are one day supposed to open our eyes, and “see.” 

 

And c) to be sure, Paul himself later told us that the wonder of God, even his “invisible” nature, is manifest in the things he had made. 

 

While d) we will later show that the idea that faith is conviction in things never seen at all, or never foreshadowed at all in real events, is not true.  Is hopefully, not what Paul meant to say here.

 

Related to this, we showed that e) those who “walk by faith and not by sight,” are “far from God.”  They walk by things invisible, because … they are not close enough to God to see him properly; in and among the things of this material universe.

 

Which again, if you do not see it now, you are supposed to see some “day.”

 

Or f) if we are to honor “invisible” things … then science has those too.  Honoring invisible ideas … in reason, logic, math.  Indeed we will show next, Paul himself often honors reason.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#188    

 

 

(# 188)  Many say we should follow religion with total, blind faith.  But a) Paul himself and many others, often used “reason” and looked at and b) mentioned “reasons” for things.  And he and others told us too, to use science; which includes logic, reason.   Indeed, consider the following mentions of the word “reason,” in just Paul alone:

 

“For this reason” (Rom. 1.26).

 

“Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself” (Rom. 14.22).

 

“For this reason therefore I have asked” (Acts. 28.20).

 

“I received mercy for this reason” (1 Tim. 1.16).

 

Paul often cited “reason”s for his religious writings.  And by the way, c) Paul was particularly concerned, with “mature” thought; in effect that our “reason”ing would not be “child”like forever.  No doubt, as Bible said, we enter the kingdom of Heaven only as children (note the double meaning here though).  But in any case, Paul’s statements hint, once we are there, we are supposed to grow up.  In our ability to reason.  Indeed, though Paul’s command to “mature,” and grow up, is inevitably said by preachers, to apply to maturing in our “faith,” in fact, Paul spoke more exactly, of maturing in our “reason”ing ability:

 

 

“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known”  (1 Cor. 13.11-12; cf. reasons to boast, which are not good).

 

Preachers d) like to emphasize faith and not reason; and if Paul told us to “mature” in our thought, preachers have constantly told us that this means Paul wanted us only to “mature in our faith” and spirituality.  But note that in our quote above, Paul tells us to mature in our ability to “reason.”  And in fact finally, we will suggest here, Paul and God really want us to mature beyond faith.  To learn mature reason; and to use science.  Because of inherent flaws, immaturities, in faith itself.

 

Paul often of course, encouraged faith.  But other times, as in our quotes above, he clearly mentions and employs, “reason”s and reasoning.  And if Paul suggests that some of “our” “knowledge” was always imperfect, only “part” of the truth, in his “our” he includes essentially all the knowledge of his own religious community, it seems.  While in any case, Paul above is acknowledging that many in the Christianity community are often needing better knowledge, or are even “child”ish; and in our quote here specifically, Paul is encouraging to be more adult, mature, not so much in our faith, as in our “reasoning.”  The exact word he uses, above.

 

Our e) Priests to be sure, often do not like reason, science.  Because they know that reason and science often challenge traditional religion; and even suggest it is false; particularly, its promises of reliable miracles.  Therefore, to try to stall the criticisms of their religion, by science and reason, our preachers like to quote those parts of the Bible that tell us that God attracks certain forms of  “knowledge,” and so forth; preachers typically implying that God meant here, to attack specifically, scientific knowledge, or reason.  Yet to be sure, that very common sermon seems very, very wrong, from what we are seeing here, in this quote at least.  Whatever false knowledge it is that the Bible attacks, it is almost certainly not reason and science; which are constantly advocated, firmly and often even by name, throughout the whole Bible.  Even in the writings attributed to Paul.  

 

No doubt at times, to be sure, as it says elsewhere in the Bible,  f) much human “wisdom” is mere foolishness to God. And from the other perspective, God’s wisdom appears foolish to the world.  So that we might tolerate a little of religion that seems foolish, says Paul:

 

 

“Bear with me in a little foolishness” 2 Corin. 11.1;

“Let him become a fool that he may become wise” 1 C. 3.18;

“God chose what is foolish in the world.” (1 Co. 1.27).

 

 

Still, Paul goes on to criticize many religious persons, like the Galatians, as somehow truly “foolish” (Gal. 3.1).  And James’ attack on a “foolish man” advocating “faith,” seems directed at Paul (q.v.).  So that some times, Paul’s “fool”ishness is not truly wise; but really is foolishness, many would suggest.

 

So, g) if parts of various kinds of “wisdom” and “knowledge” are attacked in the Bible, it is not entirely clear what kinds they are.  Certainly they would not be science and reason, given the frequent advocacy of these forms, throughout the entire Bible.  Indeed implicitly, much of what even humans would call reason and wisdom, we find, God seems to have allowed, and to approve.  Even the faithful Paul employing “reasons” above.

 

So that h) it is only some obscure forms of knowledge, wisdom, that are attacked in the Bible, not all forms; at times it is said that only “some” of those who are wise will fall (Dan. 11.35).  While many forms, kinds of “wisdom” are supported in the Bible, over and over (as we note in our section on the Old Testament).  So that indeed, i)Fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1.7).  And j) whatever wisdom it is that is supported by God, when we examine it, is not just Godlike mysteries; but obviously in many examples, the kind of reasoning that not only God, but also men, use.  Paul uses reason in the Bible; and the Bible is of course, respected.  While again of course, the Bible explicitly supported “reason”:  “Come let us reason together” as it says in Isaiah; “always be prepared to give reasons for your faith” Peter said.

 

To be sure, k) we should not become “wise in our own eyes.”  But this has been largely taken care of, in contemporary reason and wisdom and academic thought today, are always, self-critical.  Every academic today knows that his ideas can be – and will be – questioned.  And will evolve, no doubt.  So that today’s average reasoning person or academic is humble, and not too proud.  And not too wise in his own eyes at all.

 

So, in spite of occasional attacks on various – notoriously unspecified – forms of false “knowledge so called,” ultimately we are allowed and even commanded, to use logic, reason.  Even according to Paul.  (As well as the rest of the Bible; see our comments on Reason, Knowledge, in our first section, on elements of science in the OT).

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#189    

 

 

(# 189)  Let us therefore begin to use reason and logic, for a moment, as commanded by God.  And let us use it to look specifically at faith for a moment, logically, rationally.  If we do that, as it turns out, we will find some huge logical problems, traps, “snares,” in faith; especially in any “strong” or total faith.

 

Preachers for centuries (and especially from about 1950, when it seemed that logic and science were disproving religion) have insisted that a) God did not like reason or wisdom or logic; and/or they sermonized to us constantly, that what God demanded from us, was just very, very, very strong, total, all- but-blind faith.  We were constantly told in church, just to follow whatever the preacher said about God; without asking the rhyme and reason of God.  Without “question”ing or “doubting.”  But did God really demand such total faith?  Above, he did not.  God allows us to use reason.  While Job questioned God … and God himself said that Job was “blameless” and “right.”  So in fact, we should begin to apply reason; and let us apply it especially today, to the subject of “faith” for a moment.  Especially to the idea, that we should have a “strong” faith. 

 

Paul at least once seems to have b) argued or implied, some say, that  “faith” means strong faith.  That faith by definition, means following our preachers, or their vision of God, even without any good reasons or evidence, material evidence “seen.”  But here surely Paul has been misinterpreted, or Paul was simply wrong.  As we will see here. 

 

Here is the famous quote from Paul that defines faith.  Which at first seems to indeed suggest – as countless sermons have said – that we should have total, “blind” faith; we should follow faith only, with no material evidence at all; never paying attention to things  seen visually or whatever. Since the true things are “invisible” and so forth.  But while parts of the Bible seemed to hint at that position, that is not quite what the quote we will examine here, really say.  Consider in particular, the quote that is often taken by countless sermons, to assert that God wants us to follow him just on the basis of “faith”; and that faith means, following something or someone, without demanding any visual evidence, “signs,” at all. Or involves believing things that are strictly invisible, or not seen yet in our own time:   

 

 

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.  This is what the ancients were commended for” (Heb. 11.1 NIV).

 

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.  For by it the men of old received divine approval.  By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.  By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain.…  And without faith it is impossible to please him.  For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11.1-4, 6 RSV; note that faith is based on rewards though).

 

 

But there are many objections to taking this quote, seemingly calling for faith without seeing evidence, as definitive by itself.  First and most important, aa) we earlier noted that the Bible, Jesus, more typically asked for “faith” from his disciples it appears … after showing them many material “signs” and so forth.  So that in actual practice we will find, the Bible, Jesus, normally did not ask for faith … without people having  “seen” something, evidence, first.  

 

Indeed bb) we will find, amazingly, if faith means following things without any evidence at all, without “see”ing anything, then … logically, none of the apostles had or could ever have such faith; since they themselves … had personally seen Jesus work many material miracles.  Thus, obviously, when Jesus called for “faith” from his disciples and most others, we will see, normally he meant … perhaps having confidence in some things not specifically seen yet, but a confidence based on similar things done, “seen,” in the past.  (Those who object to examples from Doubting Thomas, “blessed are those who have not seen,” read our discussion on that in our section on Jesus.  In any case, it is the exception by far)

.

b)      So it would seem that normally, in asking for “faith,” God was not normally asking for really, total faith, without us seeing any visible evidence.  An hypothesis confirmed by examination of all the Bible said on this subject.  In part, among countless other quotes, by Jesus telling us not to be “blind”; to use our “eyes.”  Which in context often meant, we will show in our section on Jesus, using real eyes. Jesus indeed constantly healed people of simple, real, literal, physical blindness; for all the world as if he thought it was good to physically see, and bad to be literally, physically blind; to not be able to use our actual, literal eyes.

 

In spite of Paul’s speculation above, on the nature of faith, the usual pattern or implicit definition regarding “faith” in the Bible, is not really a pure or very strong faith:  not say,  believing in things with no visual evidence at all.  Rather, normally we are asked to believe, only after having seen some visible evidence, signs, for what we are asked to have faith in. 

 

c) While furthermore of course, we noted above that there were many statements in the Bible suggesting that there were often flaws, shortcomings, in faith.  So that it was incomplete in itself.  And even that there could be an admixture of “unbelief” in it:

 

I believe; help my unbelief!”  (Mark 9.24). 

 

 

d) To be sure, our apostles like to over-stress faith constantly.  And, after Paul, the Apostle James on first sight, seems once to even ask for a pure, strong faith; one with no “doubt” in it

 

“If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.  But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, flown and tossed by the wind.  That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does” (James 1.6 NIV).

 

Remember however, James later cautioning us about extremely severe problems, with faith and no works or evidence.  So that James wanted us to base ourselves only on things well proven.  And if our faith is strong … it is strong only because, only after, having seen much material evidence, and having proven itself, by producing much fruit.

 

Or finally, even if Paul or others at times seemed to ask for a very pure or total faith, that would not be typical of the message of the Bible as a whole.  The Bible often spoke in ways that implied that many often had faith … in a way that was not total.  That faith belief, could be mixed with unbelief, and yet still be called faith:

 

e) Remember too that the Bible itself often noted a “lack” in faith; Paul was to “supply in his flesh” something missing in it.

 

So indeed note here and now specifically, that in in the above-quotation from Mark, people are saying that they have “belief” or faith – and yet, the Bible and they acknowledge that there is some element of  “unbelief” in them, at the same time:

 

 

“I believe; help my unbelief!”  (Mark 9.24). 

 

 

f) Further confirming this, remember that Jesus asked for not more faith than a “grain of mustard seed.”  While we will add especially in the section on Jesus, that the normal pattern in the Bible is to ask for that faith, only after many visual proofs, wonders seen.

 

Surprisingly then, the Bible almost never asked for total faith; but just a small amount.  Or it accepted as faith, some belief mixed with unbelief. 

 

e)      See its embrace of the man of “weak faith,” in fact, above and below.

 

f)       And surprisingly, we can expand on this, by a logical examination of a standard dictionary definition of “faith” itself.  Which will reveal that in point of fact, there is normally, an element of disbelief locked up in all faith.  According to a standard dictionary definition, and the normal sense of it.

 

Consider the dictionary definition of the word faith:

 

 

“Belief in something for which there is no proof” (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate).

 

 

Here note, faith is a belief for something for which there is no “proof.”  But this means, we are typically asked to believe something … for which there is no convincing evidence.  But if we feel that there is no convincing evidence or “proof” … then after all, we are not really convinced.  Deep down, we doubt.  Or know there is no “proof.”

 

This leads to a shocking revelation.  Consider for a second, not just the dictionary definition, but also the normal usage of the term; the way we normally use the word “faith”:  normally, we only use the word “faith” when we are trying to believe something that we really doubt.  We do not use the word “faith” in cases where we are totally certain, and something is very, very well-established.  We do not use it when we are really, really certain about something. 

 

To get at what we mean here, consider how we act, when we are really, really certain about something.  For example, when you are sitting in front of your breakfast plate, you are typically, really, firmly convinced, that the plate is there.  In such a situation, you might not even notice the plate much; and if you want it, you would just say “hand me the plate.”  Note that here, you firmly believe the plate is there; so firmly, that a) you don’t comment on it; you just assume that it is there.  And especially, note b) you don’t suddenly say, “I have faith this plate is here.”  You just say, “here is the plate.”  So the lesson here is that, when we are really firm about something, when we really, really know something, it never really occurs to us, to say we have “faith” in it.  Indeed in fact, we assert here, most people only use the word “faith,” only claim to have faith in something … when they actually, deep down, doubt.  When they feel there is no firm proof of something.

 

Therefore, we conclude here, there is something odd and ironic about “faith”; it is only used in cases of doubt. 

 

i) Or indeed, when people say they have very strong faith in something, they are always … hypocritical.  Dishonest.  Since deep down, we insist we have faith, only in cases where we actually, doubt. 

 

i)        Typically, we only use the word “faith,” to describe our rather provisional assent, to the things in religion that are after all, deep down and on the surface too, questionable; and doubted by many.  Your ability to walk on water for example; an ability that all our senses and experience doubt; and which, in order to say you  believe, you must squelch, push back … all the signs and thoughts that lead you to doubt.  So that ironically, we typically use the word “faith,” when there are many, many “signs” that something is false.  Times we do, deep down, have doubts in us.

 

(Assurances that we will get miracles therefore, only when we have faith, and do not doubt, are trickier than many thought:  they  are in effect, telling us that we will get miracles … if and when a logical impossibility occurs.  It is logically impossible to have faith without doubt in it.  Therefore we are being told in effect, that miracles will arrive never; when pigs fly).

 

 

Recap

 

 

This seems strange.  So let’s review it.  Consider the contrast again, when you actually, really believe something.  Ordinarily, it never occurs to us to say we have “faith” in something that we really, firmly believe; or to verbally tell everyone we have faith that it is there.  If something really seems certain to us, typically we never indicate that anyone would question it; there is no need for affirmations that the things exists, or that we “believe” it … because its existence is so certain, that it requires no comment.   Ordinarily, if your cat walked into the living room, just like he does every day, you would not jump up and say, “I believe the cat is here!”  Or “I have faith the cat is here!”  Rather instead, his existence is so certain, that you make no comment on it at all.  Ironically therefore, we conclude here that most people typically only claim to have faith … when they  actually, doubt.

 

Therefore, there is a great incriminating irony for, an hypocrisy in, all those many millions of people who claim to have strong faith, and “really” believe in God.  Because the fact is, it would never occur to anyone who really believed in God, to ever say they had “faith” in him.  Those who really believed in him, would never (if they were intelligent) use the word “faith” to describe their belief at all.  Because – as we now note here – people typically, only use the word “faith,” or “belief,” in cases … where actually, there is some doubt. 

 

And finally of course, this discovery leads to some very, very high ironies.  And in fact, it contributes to the reversal of many things thought firmly true, in any Christianity based too strongly on faith.  First, when preachers call for a really strong faith, in that is not really what is usually called for in much of the Bible; the Bible itself normally sees a bit of unbelief in belief.  As implied indeed in the Bible quote that opened this section:  “I believe; help me in my unbelief.”  And Paul supplying in his “flesh,” whatever was lacking in the faith of Jesus. 

 

But even more devastating to the idea that we must have strong faith based on no visible material evidence:   by the very definition of “faith,” it is impossible, oxymoronic, to have a “strong” belief or faith; that is a self-contradiction.  In normal usage, we only use the word “faith,” when we want to try to believe something that we know deep down however, is not proven; a thing for which there is no evidence.  A thing that therefore deep down, we ourselves doubt.  Therefore, is logically impossible to have a very, very strong faith; belief with no doubt in it.  So James’ call for a faith, one with no doubt, is at best, perhaps intentionally, moot or hypothetical or self-canceling.  In effect, James is telling us we will get wisdom, miracles, only if we can … do the logically impossible.  Which was to say probably, never.  (Though to be sure, James here was promising specifically the miracle of wisdom; and we do indeed begin to get wiser, if we try to have faith without doubt).

 

People only use the word faith, when they deep down, feel that something is not proven, or certain; which is to say, we only claim to have faith … when deep down, we doubt.  In which case, those who claim to have a “strong” faith, are either  aa) fools; if they didn’t know what they were doing.   Or, bb) if they did more or less know, then they are hypocrites.  Or … they mean cc) a faith that after all, is backed by something as certain as science.  Though few until today have thought that.

 

All this of course, is revolutionary, apocalyptic.  All k) this leads to a heaven-shattering conclusion.  Because, if there is really no such thing as a strong faith, in the sense of  believing firmly without evidence, then …  the whole world, religion, Christianity, which have often claimed to have such a faith … is proven hypocritical and deceived.

 

For centuries, has been largely based on countless calls from preachers for us to have a strong faith.  But a look at the popular definition and common usage of “faith,” shows that that the word in actual usage, is most commonly used … only when, actually, there are strong reasons for doubting the thing we claim to believe.  When in fact, knowing these reasons are important, we decide to ignore them though; which means though that deep down under all strong faith, is really … Doubt. 

 

And l) what then, comes next from this?  If the whole earth believes in a strong faith … then the whole world, even our religion, has been involved in, taken by, a duplicity, a deception.  But if so, that is exactly as foretold. 

 

The Bible itself foretold that one “day,” we would find that our holiest men and angels have sinned; that people who appear to be “noble,” are often “fools” or “scoundrels.”  That most religious persons are “hypocrites,” following a “false Christ,” or a false idea of Christ.  And in effect, when we examine the historical Christianity – which has been based on “faith” in large part – we will have been find out here, over and over again, in seventy or a hundred different ways, by way of examination of hundreds of Biblical quotes from the entire Bible … that in fact, traditional, strong faith-based Christianity … is not really what the Bible, God, really called for.  In fact, if we use reason and logic to examine the very concept of a “strong” faith, we find it to be logically self-contradictory; oxymoronic; a contradiction.  The very idea of “Faith” implies that we have some doubt.  So that, it seems, “all” those who believe in strong faith … were “deceived,” “fools,” or “hypocrites.” 

 

And so, an ancient series of apocalyptic prophesies is hereby fulfilled; as foretold, God exposes huge sins and errors in our holiest men and angels; and our faith-based Heaven itself begins to dissolve in front of our eyes.  But if so, then after all, this is to confirm, “fulfill,” the Bible itself, which predicted this “day” all along.  And furthermore, just as the Bible itself also said, all this is to the good.  As we come to see the “second” and better vision of Christ advocating logic, science, (logic the meaning of the Word “Logos”), and as we thus acquire “mature” thought, “reason,” and “judgement,” then … as foretold to be sure, many of those we thought were noble, faithful, are found to be “fools” or scoundrels, “hypocrites,” “deceivers,” or people under a “strong delusion.”  As foretold.  The very saints, angels, that seemed to be the heart of all that is good … were actually – just as the Bible foretold – found to have been “deceived.”  “Hypocrites.”  But to be sure, aa) if here our childhood heaven beings to collapse, we should note that after all, this does not destroy or oppose the Bible.  Indeed, in fact, it radically affirms it.  All this after all, was exactly as foretold, in the Bible itself.  God himself, the Bible itself, constantly warned that there were false things, “false Christs” and so forth, in essentially every aspect of religion; and that they would persist from the time of the apostles, who say them in their own time, to the end of time.  Or until one apocalyptic “day,” when God is supposed to expose sins in the holiest men and angels; and then our traditional heaven is supposed to dissolve.  And bb) to be sure as well, if our old heaven is destroyed, the Bible is affirmed in a strange new way.  Giving us in fact too, a “new heaven”; one that comes down to earth (Rev. 21).  As indeed, our vision of a Christianity based on the Science of God in effect, redefines, “refines,” gives us a “new” heaven.  A better one; one that, as a science, can link easily to this material earth.  That indeed, “comes down to earth” as foretold in especially, Revelation 21.

 

Difficult and even heaven-shattering as our critiques of “faith” may be therefore, in the end, it is all to the good.  Amazingly, if we seemed to question the Bible for a moment, as Job questioned God, our thoughts and acts that seemed for a moment to go radically against God, were all along following the Bible itself, quote by quote; and return to him like the Prodigal son.  To be more welcome than the loyal son that never left his father it seemed, at all. 

 

In spite of its apparently heretical moments, actually, our analysis of the Bible here, remained deeply true to the Bible itself.  Here indeed we followed the Bible, one quotation after another.  And even our heaven-shattering conclusion, follows, confirms – and is confirmed by – the Bible itself.  What we find here matches the Bible even more closely, that our spiritual preachers’ sermons; especially, its end time predictions and prophesies.  So that now, in the end, we find the Bible to be totally true.  But true in a way deeply different, from what our priests and ministers told us.  Indeed, in our vision of the end, many things thought “first” by holy men, are found last.  But that too of course, is exactly as God wanted, and foretold.

 

Preachers often like to quote the parts of Paul that, taken by themselves, seem to stress faith; especially the following part, that seems to tell us that our faith gives us certain knowledge, “assurance”:

 

 

“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.  Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10.22-23 NIV).

 

 

However, though this phrase by Paul, is often invoked in sermons that try to assert that our faith is firm “assurance” of things, this phrase actually, does not say that our faith gives us very firm assurances at all. 

 

First, note that this a) refers ultimately not to our faith in God … but God’s faith to us (which as noted, as one of the few usages of the term in the Old Testament; in our section on the OT).  And next note some further unexpected aspects of this phrase.

 

Preachers sometimes admit the Bible is rather “literary” in character.  Allegedly explaining this, many preachers try to say that the Bible used beautiful language and so forth.  But more exactly, it is “literary” in that it is like poetry:  most lines have two or more meanings in them.  Meanings that attempt to deal with some powerful conflicts.  The fact is, the Old Testament promised us that good people will get proven material results, wonders; but when Jesus was physically killed, and then after a brief resurrection went to heaven, and many Christians were also physically tortured, this posed a problem for those who wanted to say that Jesus was the promised God come to earth, to reward us materially.  To try to deal with this, the New Testament especially began to try to hint that God might not give us real material rewards; or might temporarily withhold them to test our faith.  And yet however, we will ultimately note here, this new theology turned its back on the real theology of the Bible; the science of God.  Which demands material, timely results.  And sensing this, sensing the conflict between the science of God, and the theology of continuing faith without evidence, those who inserted a theology of “faith” in the New Testament, did so, only tentatively.  Only in language that was ambivalent, ambiguous; that could be taken not as advocating faith at all, but continuing to hold to the science of God.

 

This phrase by Paul for example, never really tells us that faith gives us very firm assurances at all; it is quite ambiguous.  First we noted that first of all, it is found to refer not to our faith in God, but God’s faith in us.  Then too, note another series of ambiguities in this part of the Bible.  Which suggest particularly that faith cannot give us full assurance of anything; because faith always implies doubt.  For example b) we might have a full assurance of faith … meaning we are sure that faith is there; but this does not mean that we must believe or be fully assured by whatever specific thing it is that our faith tells us.  That is, we merely have assurance that some kind of faith is there.  Not that what we are to have faith in, is assuredly good.

 

Or then too, c) we might have all the faith one could have; yet to be sure, faith itself is always incomplete, unsure.  So that we have the full measure, of an however, essentially incomplete part.  It’s like having “all” of an engine for your car; that doesn’t mean though that you have enough to have a vehicle; you also need a car body, tires, and so forth.  Having all, a “full” engine, does not mean you have a car.  Likewise, having all the faith in the world, does not mean you have an adequate religion, or all you need to be saved. Indeed note, d) we merely “hope” for things; which is not the same as being “sure” or “assured” we will have them.  Hope normally implies a lesser level of expectation.

 

Looking this closely into the semantics of the Bible, might seem illegitimate to many.  But God told us to read the scriptures closely; and to learn about the nuances of language, “figures” of speech and so forth.  And we must look this closely into the language of the Bible, to lift the “confusion of tongues” imposed at Babel, Babylon.

 

The fact is, e) the Bible is very literary as some have said; it is systematically poetic, equivocal, throughout; it is written in such a way that one can draw two rather different messages out of it.  The New Testament especially, is poetic, equivocal; in that over and over, it becomes poetic, ambiguous, on the matter of science versus faith.  And it becomes poetic, obscure, because of a great problem, in the heart of Christianity; one that could not until today be resolved by straight logic and unequivocal statements.

 

And what is the great problem in Judeo-Christianity, that the New Testament cannot solve directly?  That it can only resort to poetic equivocality to approach?  It is this:  early religion, God, asserted a kind a science; we are to believe things rather well proven by physical results, wonders produced.  But then when Jesus was physically killed, and many followers killed, martyred, that would seem to say that Jesus must have been a false Christ.  Rather than come to this shattering conclusion, many early Christians attempted to come up with a series of explanations, excuses; as to why Jesus might still be from God, and yet not get full material, physical wonders.  And among them, was the idea of a “test of faith”; God – as parts of the Bible were to suggest, from Job to Revelation – was temporarily withholding his promised material benefits, in order to test our faith; to see if we were loyal to him, and would follow him even when he did not give us what was promised.

 

Many parts of the Bible were written in such a way, as to give generations of preachers many, many texts to use, to base their “faith” on.  Yet to be sure, there was a problem with the whole new theology of “faith”; it rather contradicted the science that God laid out rather firmly, in the Old Testament; or in other words, it seemed to go against God. 

 

So what to do?  There was an apparent problem or contradiction in the heart of our religion: between God’s demand for material proofs, versus the idea that we should follow priests even without proofs.  It seems in fact that the whole stress on “faith” by Paul and others, simply contradicts God.  So how did the people who wrote our Bibles deal with that problem?  Evidently, they wrote the New Testament in very equivocal, poetic language.  That did not actually firmly advocate “faith” at all.  That on the one hand, gives us a surface that can be taken, read, as backing faith.  But that does not demand that.  That continually, systematically offers another reading; one that tells us that after all, strong “faith” is not so good, and does not really offer very firm “assurances” of things at all; that we should instead apply the science of God, and believe in things reasonably well proven by physical science and experiments.

 

Or finally, if we are to have faith … have only a very small amount of it; as much as “a grain of mustard seed.”  And even then, only faith in … things for which material, physical evidence has been produced.

 

And as for basing ourselves on faith?  In the belief that it gives us firm “assurance” of things?  In fact, we have shown that logically, it the idea of a very, very firm, certain faith is logically self-contradictory.  While furthermore, the Bible itself did not normally, at every level of analysis, use the term in such a way as to firmly, unequivocally state that faith was very firm “assurance” of anything.  Evidently aware of the problems with reconciling God and Faith, whenever the Bible talked about faith, its remarks were systematically written in such a way, as to give preachers who demanded “faith” some texts from which to work and quote … while however, deeper down, indicating that there were fatal problems with, sins in, inadequacies in, faith itself.  Indeed, to have faith for example, means deep down, that one doubts.  While the Bible itself at times hints that faith give us “full assurance” of things; but then deeper down, backs away from that message.

 

It is part of the great, massive sin of preachers, that they have typically radically over-stressed “faith,” and missed or denied this massively consistent voice in the text.  They were not smart enough, sophisticated enough; they did not read or discover or admit, the radical ambiguity or equivocality of the Bible, regarding especially, the central question of “faith” vs. science.  And so they did not adequately uncover the literally fatal limitations of most faiths:  they remained all too loyal, all too faithful, to false theologies, false ideas about Christ.

 

 

 

Another Recap?  And More Hopeless Logical Problems

In Strong Faith

 

 

All this might be hard for many.  So let’s run through the main points here again, in the logical analysis of strong faith.  And then add another point or two.

 

The whole idea of a strong faith, seems clearly wrong.  First remember, the Bible itself most often suggested that there were things “lack”ing in faith; that there was even a measure of “unbelief” in believers. 

 

And now we confirm this with logic:  if you really believed something, you would state it as fact; it would never occur to you to say you have “faith” in it; you would just say, there it is.  Or you would speak casually about it, in a way that assumes its existence.   For example, you might really, really believe that the front door of your house is real; but indeed it is so real, that you never even comment on it, as if its existence was problematic.  Or took any real unusual effort to believe; you simply … walk up to it, turn the knob, and walk through it.  All without even thinking much about it, much less commenting on it; because you really, really do believe in it.

 

Nor would you start shouting your faith to everyone; if you really believed.  Consider again our example:  if you sit down to your morning breakfast, and see your plate in front of you, it never occurs to you to say you have “faith” that it is there, normally.  Rather, you just look at it and know that it is there.  Indeed, you are so sure it is there …  it would be very, very silly for you to look firmly at the plate, and tell your wife repeatedly with great fervor – or even shouting –   “I have faith that the plate is there!  I have faith!”  

 

The fact is, that as defined by normal usage – an important part of every good definition –  people typically, only use the word “faith,” if and only if … they really have some doubt about something.  When there is good reason to doubt, what we want to claim is real.  Thus – with supreme irony for all those who claim to have great faith – all those who millions who claim to have great “faith” in God, are hypocrites:  they do not really, actually, believe in him.    

 

All those who claim to have “faith” in God, are really still hypocrites.  And since the whole world is covered with religions that call themselves “faith”s, thus one more prophesy is fulfilled:  just as Jesus warned, religious conservatives (who today typically assert their “faith”) are (just like the Pharisees, the religious conservatives of Jesus; day) mostly “hypocrites.”

 

That’s what we’ve found so far; now let’s try to take the logical analysis of “faith” just a few steps further. Before returning to a simpler analysis.

 

Finally, not only James but also Jesus did this.  Consider his statement or promise:  we might have been promised many things, like miracles … if only we had strong faith; if we “have faith and never doubt” (Mat. 21.21; note chapter and verse number correspond, which in the Bible typically is a warning of something bad in our holy men there). 

 

Note the language of this apparent promise of miracles, very, very closely:

 

 

“Early I the morning, as he was on this way back to the city, he was hungry.  Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves.  Then he said to it, ‘May you never bear fruit again!’  Immediately the tree withered.  When the disciples saw this, they were amazed.  ‘How did the fig tree wither so quickly?’ they asked.  “Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.  If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer’” (Mat. 18-22 NIV).

 

 

This passage has always been interpreted by simple readers, as being a firm promise, that if only we have enough “faith” – and many note, have a total, strong faith; faith without any “doubt” in it – we will get huge, amazing miracles; the power to make fig trees wither, and “mountains” move and so forth.  But now note some problems, tricks, inside this language.

 

First of all, we already noted above that in light of the definition of faith, these qualifications twist the old promises of miracles, with a logical trick; the Bible here sets a condition that cannot, logically, ever be met.  It says miracles will arrive … when the impossible happens.  We cannot ever get miracles … because that requires us to “have faith, and never doubt.”  Yet we have found that, by definition, “having faith” means having some doubt.  

 

So that we are told we can get miracles … but the fine print then stipulates, only upon a condition; a condition that turns out to be a logical impossibility.  Therefore, the above sentence is rather like, related to, the old Greek promises of the oracles and modern jokes about asking for wishes from a genie or a devil:  the promises are always taken away, by tricks of language. (Examples?).  In this case, we wish for a miracle, and we are promised one … but only if we fulfill a condition.  One which we might agree too … only to find it is a trick; the condition that is set is logically impossible.

 

No doubt, priests, the scribes that controlled our Bibles, had trouble delivering on the many huge promises of miracles they promised – the power to make mountains move for example.  And to try to fix this, they began … playing language games with the old promises; “twist”ing them around.  Clearly, there is a lot of magical, semantic illusionism going on here:  Jesus appears to promises us miracles; but only if we have faith and do not doubt.  Yet we now find, this promises is a little like all the old jokes about promises or three wishes, from a genie; there always a logical trick of semantics there, that allows the genie to re-interpret our words, or find another meaning in them than we intended; and that therefore prevents us from getting exactly what we wished for, after all.  

 

After they have worked on the wording here, finally, they have in effect taken the promise out of it.  As it stands now, the promise is a masterpiece of semantic word games:   just like the genie jokes, the quote above appears to promise everything – but actually promises nothing at all.  Since it says God will furnish miracles – but only when we meet a certain condition … that, as it turns out, logically, cannot be met.   That is logically impossible.  (For more on this bit of semantic sleight-of-hand, see Sermons as Excuses; “fine print”).

 

 

 

The Fatal Evil in Faith, Belief:

Believing You Are Napoleon

 

 

m) This is bad enough.  But as if that was not enough, note there is one more, really major trick at work here.  In effect, all this means that the passage above – as we asserted most lines in the Bible did – had two meanings; a “first” simple one, that seems to emphasize faithfully following the rules; in this case, to get miracles.  In this reading, the above passage – “if you have faith and never doubt … it will be done”  – seems to be a simple promise of miracles, if only you have faith.  That is, it seems to be saying aa) this:

 

If you are not getting miracles, then just have more faith; if you have just a little more faith, you will get miracles.  It will be “done.”

 

But now note, carefully, that there is bb) a second way of reading this passage.  Read more carefully, it is also compatible with the statement that … if you think you have something, you have it, at least in your mind or spirit.  If you believe that you are rich in some way, then you feel rich, even when you are poor.  Thus, the poor are given consolation, by feeling rich in Christ and so forth.  A kind of thinking you hear tried out in sermons now and then.

 

But finally, let’s look at cc) another, final way of seeing, reading this promise.  some problems and tricks here though.  One which has to do with some of the dangers and pitfalls, in “belief” and “faith.”  When the Bible warned that many fall into “illusions,” “delusions,” “false dreams,” and so forth.  Which are things you think you have or are, but which are not true.

 

 Note that “believing” or having faith in something, means just ignoring anything doubtful about something; and simply believing in it anyway.  But when you do that, when you ignore the many “signs” and indications that something is false, and believe anyway … then you could be falling into the many “illusions” and “delusions” noted in the Bible.

 

Suppose for example, you are told that you are Napoleon; and encouraged to have faith in that notion. To be sure, you look around you, and see many indications that this belief is false:  i.e., you seem to be living in the 21st century, not the 18th; you don’t speak French; other people are not reacting to you as if you were Napoleon; your childhood memories are of attending public school as “Bill Smith,” not “Napoleon,” etc..  Normally in fact, the way we keep from falling into an illusion or delusion, insanity, is … looking around and observing the signs, that a given idea or notion we have, is true … or not true.  In this way, when we have false ideas, we check them against other impressions around us in the world… and, if they contradict the idea we have … we take the signs seriously, and stop believing.  However, here, with “faith,” we are told to in effect, entirely remove this normal check against illusions and delusions.  We are told to ignore what we see around us in the “world”; that indeed, the world is probably a delusion or illusion itself, whereas our belief only is real.  Which is nice if true.  But … which removes effectively, the normal checks and balances we have, against falling into severe illusions and delusions.  We are told in effect, to entirely abandon our critical thinking, for a strong gullibility.  But in this position of course, the devil slips in easily; your defenses against illusion, delusion, deception, have just been incapacitated.

 

And so, being told to have “faith,” easily sends you into gross illusions.  You start firmly believing in something … but you many believe something that is not true.  And indeed, you often believe it to the point that you could be say to be in an illusion or delusion.  If you firmly believe that you have a beautiful face for example, when all the evidence is that you do not?  Then you walk about town proudly, vainly … lost in a delusion or illusion.  Because of strong faith.

 

To all this now, moreover, now note, specifically the nature of the illusion here – thinking that you are Napoleon, the greatest general in the world – is that you … think you have something you do not have.  Or that you are something you are not; have magnificent qualities you don’t have.

 

So in effect, what has happened?  To you, now, you are Napoleon; you have his status, his qualifies.  So in effect  – to you at least – you have say, one of your dreams, come true.  To you, you “have” the thing in your mind; because you believe it.  Believing, having faith, gives it to you.  At least, in your mind or spirit.

 

So indeed, the prophesy is fulfilled again; but again, in an extremely ironic way:  all things are possible, to those who believe.  You have a miracle, because you believe it.  Though to be sure, it is only true … to you.  It is true … in your mind only.

 

So the countless promises that all things will be ours, if only we believe and have faith?  They might have been written, with this philosophy in mind:  the things we think we think or believe we have, are at least partially ours; whether they are real or not.  So that believing something in our mind, is as good as it being real (the temptation of phenomenology?  Solipsism?  The brain in the jar).  But of course, this ends up saying that illusions, delusions, are as good as truths.

 

.  . .

 

 

What should we say here about this kind of owning things?  Apologists and priests though, might defend this.  They might say that perhaps you should be trapped in this illusion again too, some will have thought … to protect others.  Because after all, why are you in this illusion after all?  It is in part (some might claim) because you didn’t listen to all those around you, the world, that tells you that your ideas are false, are delusory; you didn’t have enough respect for your “neighbors,” to listen to their cautionary testimony.  And so, since you don’t really have enough respect for – or love for – your neighbors, perhaps, many (but this present author) will have said throughout history, you would exploit them, and hurt them, and steal from them to get what you want.  Better therefore, to give you a mental illusion or delusion of grandeur, of special status.  Which will be in effect, a “white lie.”  One that keeps you happy in your mind or spirit – if not in physical reality.  And which keeps you from bothering other people too much.

 

Then too, many might argue that the Bible even here, is still true:  aa) if you believe you will get something, you will have it  … in your mind or spirit.  Then too, related to this,  bb) “all things are possible to those who believe.” 

 

.  .  .

 

 

But now let’s look at a key, related phrase “all things are possible, to those who believe”:

 

 

All things are possible, to him who believes” (Mark 9.23). 

 

 

This phrase, to simple readers who are totally guided by preachers, this will have seemed to say something like this:

 

 

aa) “If you have faith, you can do anything.”  (The reading of gross magical materialists).

 

 

As most people have read it, it is taken to mean, if we have faith, then we will be able to say a few ritual words or prayers, believe, and … real amazing miraculous powers will be ours.  We can make bread appear out of thin air, and walk on water.

 

However, now it is time to notice a second reading here.  Just as in most of the Bible, just like the promises above, there is another reading here; one that corresponds to what many priests might think of it.  It might also be read to say: 

 

 

bb) Those who think or believe or are told they have something, will have it in their mind, or spirit. (The reading of spiritual priests).

 

This might appear to be the acceptable, second and final reading of the old promises of miracles.  However, we have noted some problems with this kind of situation.  And so we might in fact, more carefully, note another, alternative second reading, of “all things are possible to those who believe.”  Note it carefully, here:

 

 

“To credulous people, anything can seem, will be real … to them.”  If they try hard enough, they can believe that their empty hand really has money in it.  But such persons of course, are lost in the foretold illusions and delusions.

 

 

“All things are possible to those who believe.”  This statement might indeed mean nothing much more or less, than that gullible people, will believe anything.  To gullible people, anything is possible. 

 

The Bible in fact, warned elsewhere about this very thing; about simple people believing too much:

 

 

 

The simple believes everything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps” (Proverbs 14.15).

 

 

This promise that all things are possible to those who believe then fits the pattern that we saw in the above promises; and indeed note, that beyond that, it begins to explicitly note the elements of subjectivity here; things are true at least, to you; or in your own mind.  Or here, “to those who believe.”

 

 

.  .  .

 

It rather looks as if parts of our Bibles, were phrased in ways to have two or more meanings (and triple meanings?). 

 

To be sure, such a double meanings, could be – and have been – actually, defended. Perhaps, just imagining, thinking we have something, is good enough, many would say.  For several reasons.

 

aa) Some might say for example, that after all, according to idealistic or phenomenological philosophy, all we ever really have in life, are our mental ideas or perceptions of things; things as our minds perceive them.  Therefore, some might (wrongly) conclude, thinking that you have something in your mind, is the same as having it.  Though note the case where we thought in our minds that we had a car … but then when it was time to go to the hospital, found a new sensation in our mind; that we did not have one.

 

bb) Or there is even a philosophical/theological justification for this, that perhaps was in the minds of the translators of our Bibles.  No doubt, our minds or many instincts “crave” for more than any reality can give us; the more we have, the more we want.  Therefore there is a certain wisdom, in – like Buddha, like Christ – just learning to quiet, tone down – or by giving ourselves things in our imagination – quieting our “desires” for “possessions.”  And then too, no doubt, the infinity of the universe, is perhaps partially unattainable by force; though can be grasped at least partially, by intuition, spirit.  So that if we are greedy, this however is another, perhaps better way, to try to get everything. To get in fact, the infinite Truth and Reality.  (Cf. pornography; imaginary companions).

 

cc) On the other hand though, we have shown that just thinking we have something in our mind, can be dangerous illusion.  And we will be showing in our books here later, that even becoming lost in the sensation of owning – or being at “one” with – the universe, ultimate reality, or God … can be as dangerous and silly and even evil, as imagining we are “Napoleon.” If it is an illusion, it can even make our lives much worse, rather than better.  If we think we are Napoleon, we may become utterly dysfunctional in the world; with no job; producing no useful work; depending on others and charity, being a burden on them, just to say alive.  While we might even too, cut off a life that might have been more useful, if we had been humble enough to just become a scientist, inventing new medicines saving millions.  Instead of living lost in illusions, delusions.  Or indeed, being lost in this kind of dysfunctionality, opium dream, lotus land, drug fantasy, can cause people to stop bother taking care of their own physical body (a reality they increasingly do not see); to the point that opium addicts spend their lives buying the fantasy, the drug, neglecting physical realities like food … to the point that they starve themselves to death.  As religious ascetics and drug addicts do, both.  Suggesting indeed, a rather exact parallel; and the evil in extreme asceticism.

 

The lives of religious addicts and drug addicts, are in some ways, amazingly similar.  So that again, rather than having – or trying to have – strong “faith” in our religion, instead, we should make every effort to see whether it is just an opium dream, a drug … or has some truth in it.  Whether we are becoming stronger because of it … or are becoming more and more physically dysfunctional.  Are we being lead to enlightenment, nirvana, Heaven … or just, through belief in false things, “things that are not,” increasingly delusions, illusions, ignorance, false dreams, and premature physical death.

 

So what should we say finally, about these promises, and their very tricky wording?  Here we note that technically, the Bible itself here is true; what it promises is correct.  Technically, the Bible (in these one or two phrases at least) seems to rather, take away all promises of miracles; to say that “whatever” things we believe in, are true, at least, for us; in our minds or spirits.  Technically, here, the Bible begins to suggest that having things in our mind or spirit, is as good as in reality.  Indeed, Preachers will often say that religion reforms, changes, not physical reality, but our “spirit.”  Which they say, is far more important than “mere” physical reality, as they say.

 

But is the spiritual “interpretation” of God’s promises, of these phrases, really good enough, here?  Are priests that deliver only wonderful promises, mental sensations, spirits, really good enough?  What do many ordinary people feel, who have had faith, and prayed for miracles that did not arrive?  And how does a person feel, what are his “fruits,” when, after being told God has cured him of a disease, he does not go to a conventional medical doctor … and then lapses into a painful disease that the doctor might have cured, but the priest and faith did not?  No doubt, in such a situation, the priest will tell us to be faithful and happy.  Even as however, the priest lead us to physical death.

 

Technically, the Bible is true here.  Though in fact, finally, the “spiritual,” “faith”ful reading of the Bible, is not a good one.  Indeed, it is evil.  As we will see.  In part, aaa) faith requires us to never question things; so we are commanded not to notice any lack of miracles in effect.  But this violates the many parts of the Bible that told us that many elements of religion are false; the parts of the Bible that told us that we should not have too much faith, but should look at our priests and their promises carefully.  And demand real material results.

 

Without real material results, in fact, with only mental or spiritual results, we are lead by bad priests, merely into precisely, just as foretold, literally fatal, “illusions,” “delusions,” “enchantments,” “false dreams.”  As we will be seeing later more fully (in our books on Over-Spirituality).

 

And if nearly all our priests, and the whole world, at present believe in “faith-based” and “spiritual” religion?  Then after all, the whole world as foretold, was taken by a false image of Christ; a false Christ. As foretold.  But if so, then now at last, we can begin to expose this.  And move on; to the second and better, “full”er, truer, vision, coming, of Christ.  A Christ that after all, comes to earth.  A Christ advocating not spiritual illusions, delusions; but real material things. 

 

[Those who hold to the “white lie” theory of Religion, to be sure, might try to continue to defend a spiritual religion.  By saying this, too:  is this deception wholly evil?  Note that the only people who would attempt to have great “faith,” who would buy the concept or “precept”s,  are silly people.  People who perhaps in fact, are so silly, that they are not only the foretold “fools.”  And since they are foolish, they should indeed be told to follow others, slavishly, faithfully; and should not be allowed their own personal digression and judgement, some would say.  Because their own judgement is so obviously bad.  Thus they need to be trapped and domesticated, by shepherds; given a few simple, fairly reliable rules – or leaders – to follow.  And told to follow rules faithfully.  So they won’t hurt themselves or others, and others.  Since obviously they have not get attained good “judgement.”  On the other hand though we will show later, that this does not merely protect children; but patronizes people; to the point that it actively prevents them from growing up and becoming the responsible, mature adults they might have been otherwise.  Ironically, the “description” of people as fools, becomes prescription.  If you feed people lies all their lives, many millions of people who would otherwise have found the truth, from becoming responsible adults with well-formed consciences, are actively prevented from discovering it.]

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#190    

 

The Solution, at the End: The Second Coming

 

 

(# 190)  There are many snakelike, “twisting” turns in language, in the pronouncements of prophets and priests.  Who in that way, are related to their Ancient Middle East relatives, the wizards, magicians, the oracles and genies.  In particular, they are semantic magicians; like the genies of genie jokes.  And illusionists; even ones who believe illusions are good enough, or are real, themselves.

 

But here, we see things that are only “spiritual,” as being only mental or in our mind or spirit; while such things, that are only in our spirit and not in the world, we note, are often just the foretold evil illusions, false spirits, delusions, enchantments, false dreams.

 

If any of our old ideas, spirits, at all, are good … then it is time to separate them out from the bad ones; to separate the “wheat from the chaff,” the productive “branch” from the “unfruitful” dead “wood.”  Separate them out by “test”ing them.  And then, throwing the false spirits, into the “fire.”  While sitting down with our priests, to even put parts of their most sacred ideas to the fire; to “refine” them, after all.

 

But how then, can we find the truth?  God?  In the past, we were told we could find the truth, thru simple “faith.”  Or total “faith.”  In “spirit” and so forth.  Or faith in “God,” as described to us by priests and ministers and other holy men.  And churches, and their “doctrines” and “dogmas” and so forth.  But actually we will have been showing here, that is not even really, what the Bible itself really said.  Actually, the Bible itself warned constantly, that those who say and teach – and even genuinely think – that they themselves are absolutely sacred and holy, that they themselves have found absolute holy truth and God, can be “false.”  That indeed, one “day” we are to discover that they have essentially, “all” be false.  (Even the “elect” might be deceived, if possible; while in any case, those who think they are in the elect, may be deceived about that).

 

So in this universe – in which there can be endless illusions, delusions, false dreams, even in and from those we think are most holy and good – how can we best find truth?  Those of us who retain respect for our Bibles, might stop to at last, read them far more carefully, “fully,” at last.  Because those who have followed us as we have done that here, will be gradually introduced, to another, “second,” different, but “full”er vision, understanding, of God.  A second understanding, vision, “appearance” of Jesus.  A Jesus who finds the true and the false in “spirit” and “faith”; by way of  … the Science of God.  A science which to be sure, exposes sins and errors in our holiest men – but after all, thereby, does exactly what was foretold, by the Bible itself.

 

Many millions, billions of priests and people, followed a first simple idea of Christ, of Jesus:  Jesus promising miracles, and advocating faith.  But in our books here, we are finding that God himself, stressed not faith, as much as a science of God.  And we are about to find too, a Jesus who examines things more closely, with “Logos” or logic.  Behind the “first” Christ, our childhood idea of Jesus that we got in church; a Jesus promising “miracles” and “spirit,” is a “second,” better vision, coming, of Christ.  One that exposes, unveils, the illusions and delusions, of the first childhood idea of Christ, that we got in church. 

 

And as foretold:  even here and now, you might be beginning to see a “second” “appearance” of Christ.  One that reveals that the whole earth was deceived, by a False Christ.  One that tricked, “entranced” the whole world.  But that is now after all being exposed.  In the name of the foretold, second coming, the second appearance, of Christ.  

 

 

 

 

Looking Ahead to Jesus

And The “Second Coming”

 

 

In any case, the Bible itself authorizes a “second” and different vision of God.  And there is every indication that, given all the problems with “faith,” and the many indications of suppressed – and currently therefore, semi-hidden – codes in the Bible, pointing to a “science,” that the foretold “second” and better, “full”er, more “mature” vision of coming of Jesus … is partially previewed – and perhaps in part substantially delivered – when we begin to see the sins in “faith,” and begin to see the Jesus that actually, proposed … that there are dangers in “faith.”  That we should have no more “faith” than a grain of mustard seed”:

 

 

“Have faith as a grain of mustard seed” (Mat. 17.20, Mark 4.21; Luke 13.19, 17.8).

 

 

We are to have very little faith; no more than a grain of mustard seed.  Indeed, to assert we have more, would be to embrace a lie; to embrace something that is logically impossible.  While in any case, to the extent that we do succeed in getting great faith, we fall into more and more delusions.

 

Or it faith is to grow into something else, faith, the seed, must find the good soil of the earth – and die, before it grows:

 

 

“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone.  But if it dies, it bears much fruit (John 12.24; cf. 12.15 which however can be read to tell the priest to hate “his life,” not the “world”).

 

“I did not come to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12.47).

 

 

The seed of faith grows … but only if it gets into the material earth.

 

And this is possible; in part because finally, the “world” was “saved”; and the “earth” is (in principle) good again.  And now we need to follow the advice of the second and better vision, second “read”ing, of Christ:  which said that Christianity be based not on blind faith, but on science.  Which allows confidence to grow, only in thoughts, dreams, finally well rooted and proven, in the soil of material experience.

 

Without such material verification?  (Like, in the following case, a verifiably, materially resurrected Christ?).  Then:

 

 

“Your faith is in vain” (1 Corin. 15.14).

 

“Your faith is futile” (1 Cor. 15.17).

 

“Men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith” (2 Ti. 3.8).

 

 

In fact we will find, what the Bible really asks for, when it asks for “faith,” is faith … in the science of God; in things proven by real empirical fruits.  a) To be sure of course, even science requires some faith; we take science classes in the hope and faith that they will lead us to a productive work life; we flick the switch that has worked one hundred times before, but it takes some faith to believe it will work the next time too. 

 

 

Wile b) in fact, indeed, Moses only asked for faith, only after he was said to have already worked lots of huge physical wonders.  So that he only asked for faith … only after lots of material evidence of his powers was produced.

 

c) Likewise, Jesus only asked for “faith” … after he was said to have had already performed lots of material wonders.  He asked for faith, only when he worked physical proofs … and yet people still did not believe. 

 

So that in effect, amazingly, the real pattern for faith in the Bible … is to ask for it, and ask for only enough … as is required to believe … things well proven by empirical evidence.

 

Which is to say, we are not asked to have total blind faith; but only faith in things proven by … science and experience.  Faith in science and things well-proven by experience.

 

That in fact, is all the faith we are required to have.  Anything more than that, tends to veer inevitably into mere gullibility and credulity.

 

 

 

Overcoming the Vanity of Priestly Spirituality:

With A Physical Christianity

 

 

Indeed, almost our entire minds, and spirits, can be deceived, the Bible warns; by “illusions” and “delusions” and “false spirits” and so forth.  So again, how do we get out of this?  Strictly speaking, many philosophies suggest that we cannot get out of this pit, this circle.  But science believes that we do have access even in our minds or spirits, to some “external” sensations; sensations which to be sure are thoughts or spirits … but thoughts or spirits conforming to, in part, an external reality.  And this sense of science has been immensely fruitful.  And is endorsed by God himself; who suggests that we have not only thoughts, but also at least the impression of “deeds,” “work”s, that can be consulted as a check on our ideas.  While indeed the Bible says, in the End, we are judged not so much just by our thoughts, or what is in our spirit – like faith; but also by our “deeds”; by what “we have done.”

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#191    

 

 

(# 191)  So when you, the preachers, proudly tell yourself and everyone else, that you are the holy spokesman of, priest of, God?  That your ideas of God are true and good?  How can you be sure that your spirit is good and true?  And not just your own vanity?

 

Is faith so good?  You might trust and believe and have faith that you are Napoleon.  Is that Good?  You might be following a false idea of Christ, and be absolutely trusting and believing and following it, too.  And in fact, most of you preachers have been doing, precisely that. 

 

So that now it is time to “refine” even the preachers; the household of God.  For them to check the secret vanity they have.  As the Bible warned  (NIV?), there is a superficial, “false humility” out there, particularly in priests.  Priests are superficially, very humble. And they believe they themselves have conquered Vanity.  But deep down, they have a massive, overwhelming Pride and Vanity:  they believe they are (or they allow themselves to be perceived as) the sacred spokesmen for absolute truth:  the reliable voicepieces of God.  Beyond which, there is scarcely any other, greater vanity.

 

A truly humble priest, would be humble … even in his characterizations of God and truth.  All his characterizations would be … preceded by … humble disclaimers.  If a priest was to us the name of “God” at all; God being so complex, that all our characterizations of him will inevitably be oversimplifications.  So that indeed, perhaps the name of God should be holy again; and even preachers in particular, should not mention that name in public.  Just as they were once forbidden, traditionally, after all.  All usages of that word being inevitably, partial misuses.  (As when modern preachers insist that God tells us to vote Republican, etc.).

 

Especially, all preachers, by definition, always give in to the vanity of being spiritual, “righteous.”  Though the Bible warned, be not righteous overmuch.  Thought he bible warned that even “spirits,” and therefore spirituality, is to be trusted.  Since indeed, there are many false spirits; and even under a superficial religious “humility,” can be – and is – a very deep spirit of Pride and Vanity. 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#192    

 

 

(# 192)  How can we fix it?  How can we repair the massive, bloated, vain over-spirituality of preachers?

 

Given the many problems with especially, “pure” spirit, God himself told us that one “day” or another, spirit, even our spiritual heaven, should re-join this material earth.  Finally, the kingdom of God is supposed to come down, to be a place here on this material earth  (Rev. 21; even in Paul?  See Paul on our spiritual body becoming material?  Or not?  Flying up into the “clouds.”  But see then God judging on the “day,” according to “deeds” and so forth).  Paul himself was perhaps ambiguous about the nature of the “kingdom” and the “end.”  Though Paul apparently believed in the physicality of the first, physical coming of Jesus; which is to this day regarded, as God coming to material things; “flesh.” 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#193    

 

 

(# 193)  Then too, much of the Bible also seems to hold to the physicality of the first resurrection of Jesus, right after his crucifixion.  Indeed we note elsewhere, Paul hinged his entire faith … on the truth of a physical resurrection; John added, in the “flesh.”  So that material evidence is everywhere asserted, in the Bible.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#194    

 

 

(# 194)  And there is perhaps even for Paul, some physicality, even the “day” of the end, and the second coming of God to this material earth; some “redemption” even of our perhaps physical “bodies.”   

 

Paul is sometimes vague about the materiality of the “day” (q.v. Paul); he refers to us going up to the “clouds,” (1 Thess. 4.16-17 etc.)  and acquiring a “spiritual body.”  But at times Paul seems to know that tradition requires a very physical material event, within the physical “creation”; and involves physical “bodies”:

 

“We know that the whole of creation has been groaning in travail, together until now; and not only the creation but we ourselves who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we await for adoption as sons the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8.22-23).

 

So there is something about our perhaps physical bodies being “redeemed” in the End Time especially.  As perhaps, we are intellectually redeeming them even here and now; by arguments noting the importance of physical things to God himself, after all.

 

This argument for the redemption of perhaps material bodies, thus joins many other parts of even Paul, that suggested that material things, even our material bodies, might be important; the “temple” of the spirit for example.  Analogous to a church on earth.  While Paul remember, said that to remain in our physical “flesh” might not be his personal preference; but even for him was good and “necessary.”  (Though to be sure, Paul was supposed to have been physically executed or died in prison in Rome; and thus he left us, physically).  This redemption of the body, happens in particularly, or once again, in the end it seems. 

 

Paul to be sure, at times seems to toy with the possibility that the final “day” just refers to the day of rest, Sabbath (Heb. 4).  Other times though, Paul seems to know that more is required, and that the “day” had not yet come in his lifetime (2 Thess. 2.1-4).  So that the “day” is open … for today.

 

Then too we might recall, when even the very spiritual Paul thinks of that day, he takes the time to … cite his works; that …

 

 

“We worked night and day, laboring and toiling” (21 Thess. 3.8 NIV).

 

“If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3.10 NIV).

 

“Earn the bread they eat” (2 Thess. 3.12).

 

 

Again too remember:  though many parts of the Bible try to hint that the “kingdom” might be a metaphor; that we are in the kingdom when we join with Christ just in our mind or spirit.  But in much of the rest of the Bible, the kingdom of God was supposed to be a physical, material kingdom.  And to try to put these two contrasting theologies together, finally the Book of Revelation pictured the heavenly kingdom, as actively one day, coming down, to be a place here on this material earth (Rev. 21; from Isaiah, etc.).

 

There are many, many motifs in the Bible therefore, that suggest that if (say, our) spirit and body were for a time at odds, in separate spheres, one “day” this dualism is supposed to end.  When God comes to earth, spirit returns to material earth again, after all.  Paul himself, is perhaps ambiguous about the nature of the “kingdom” and the “end,” and the nature of our new “bodies.”  At times though, Paul apparently believed in the physicality of the first, physical resurrection of Jesus, right after his crucifixion.  And his account of our new “spiritual bodies” might begin to fit all this.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#195    

 

 

 

(# 195)  While our own work here – intellectually/spiritually attempted to re-link the concepts of religion and science, word and material world, spirit and material things … could be, after all, part of this foretold … return of God to the earth.

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#196    

 

 

(# 196)  Our spiritual priests have often longed for the return of the spirit, to this material earth.  But they thought (with Plato, if not God), that this material earth or “world” was always so “corrupt,” that nothing ideal or good could really live here long, or fully.  Indeed, following Plato, they often thought that the physical existence was intrinsically evil; and that therefore, the whole of material existence had to be destroyed, and remade; by the apocalyptic destruction of the “world.”  Before life on earth could be good.  But we will suggest that after all, the “world” or “earth” was long ago already apocalyptically destroyed and cleansed; a) once by God in the Flood; and b) again “redeemed” by Jesus.  While c) it is all “redeemed” again when we acquire the spirit of temperance.  Indeed we will show elsewhere, the material “world” has been destroyed and remade, many times; though d) geological and e) cultural “ages,” centuries (cf. Fr. “seicle”; “secular” SP?).  Indeed, science and technology properly used, have already remade the earth into a much better place, in particular.  While f) our own efforts here, to reasonably justify material things in spiritual, biblical terms, attempt this redemption of the world once again too.

 

So that the old corrupt “world” has been apocalyptically destroyed, and rebuild, many times; that part of the “Apocalypse” might be said to be over, so far as its necessity.  And today, already we have a substantially, remade, re-justified, material world. 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#197    

 

197)  To be sure, many churches have prematurely announced themselves, as the foretold heaven on earth.  But no church was ever quite “fully” as good as the ideal kingdom was supposed to be (in Rev. 21 ff for example). 

 

To be sure, though, bits of physical reality are better than others.  And while remember that Paul thought of our own bodies, as perhaps important in themselves, they are important as the temple of God.  And they are important when our many bodies meeting together, to form the corporate body of the Church.  So that here is yet another good body, here on this material earth (according at least to Paul; Col. 1.18-24).  We give up our bodies and flesh to Christ to be sure (Rom. 12.1).  But after all, our bodies are important, in that they may be inhabited by a good spirit that is ultimately of Christ; as his “temple” (1 Corin. 6.19), 12.12-27). 

 

Perhaps Paul thought we were dominated by “lust”s at first due to our “body”; but perhaps after all, when we learn to be Christian and moderate our feelings, lusts, we still have a body; but it is “reborn” as some say; “spiritualized.”  And perhaps that is our spiritual body (1 Corin. 1535-58).  (And resurrection some would say; or at least a preview of it?  In which case … these is a kind of immortality as Paul suggests, even in the perishable physical body; when the “perishable” body is “clothed in the imperishable” 1 Corin. 15.54). 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#198    

 

 

(# 198)  These ideas, about immortality somehow joining, redeeming, our mortal bodies, or vice versa – we ourselves, in spite of our physical bodies, becoming immortal somehow – we ourselves in fact confirm and clarify, in our later writings about immortality (q.v.  By joining long-living/”immortal” traditions, cultures, DNA survival, etc.).

 

 

 

 

There are therefore, many ways that we might say that a) physical reality is already much better than our preachers have said; and that b) physical reality can be further improved.  Likely in fact, you could say that all these efforts – but especially, the efforts of good science and technology, even over and above the churches – have been to realize, fulfill prophesy; the prophesy which gives us a good life (and eventually heaven) on this material earth, after all. 

 

 

Faith as Fidelity

To Religion, Preachers?

 

 

 

Faith therefore, was always vague; and nowhere near as good as our preachers told us; actually we found here, faith merely delivered you right away, to false prophets; to a vision of God that is so simple, that it was substantially false.  To the False Christ, of liars and children; to one who seems to say just this:  follow the rules with total obedience, pray, and get miracles. 

 

But now we have begun to expose many false prophets and false believers; showing how those who said they had great faith, were necessarily deluded, shortsheeted; were those indeed who, it was foretold, would be “deceived.”  But now that they and their readings, their beliefs, have been weeded out, suppose the rest of us now go on.  To see if we can find out where God and good, really are.  Let us “supplement your faith” with real “virtue.”  Let us add to “blind” faith, a critical “mind.”  When we were children, we “reason”ed as children.  But now that some of us are adults, let us grow up; not “growing up in our faith,” as they mistakenly say; but growing up beyond faith.  To the science of God.

 

In order to have a central text that would guide both children and adults, many centuries ago, our rulers, our “lord”s, gave us a complex text – a Bible – that pictured an idealized “Lord” as a “God” and savior; a LORD whose words would say “all things” to all kinds of different people.  Especially, they gave us a Bible that seemed to 1) superficial readers, children in need of guidance and loyalty to authority – to encourage simple blind loyalty to, faith in, adults, to “father”s, and the LORD our God.  But 2) then, when you are capable of reading a little more closely – and when therefore, are presumed to usually have a more “fully formed conscience” as they say; to be basically morally responsible – then, the text reveals … an exit sign.  As way out of endless clerical vassalage, fealty, and conformism, blind obedience, to not only Old Testament “law,” but indeed to all authority.  A way that lead, actually, to freedom, liberty; the “Freedom we have in Christ.”  To a life where we assume personal responsibility, and begin to push past the limits of a few simple rules; exploring reality – and God – in original ways; advancing knowledge.  Advancing beyond ancient formulas, “laws,” rules, said by “rote.”

 

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#199                

 

 

(# 199)  To be sure, “faith” had a limited utility, even over science, for a time.  Because there was a time, when our thinkers were dimly intuiting things that seemed real to them, but that early crude science could not prove:  like the human “mind” or “spirit” for example; which (until various brain scans) really was “invisible.”  And therefore in some ways, doubtful.  Likewise, there were other strange things – like resurrection and immortality – that seemed real to many … but that science was not yet able to prove.  For this reason, a) no doubt, some sense of following intuition, “revelation,” without very, very strong evidence, might have been temporarily useful. 

 

On b) the other hand, though, clearly there were many dangers, illusions, and abuses, in Faith.  The main sin in faith is this:  when we have too much faith, we easily believe things that are lies.  When we have too much faith in religious leaders particularly, we follow them even when they lie, or are mistaken.

 

Indeed, c) should Religion ask people to absolutely follow … things that it itself poorly understands? 

 

Then too, d) by now, science is well enough advanced, that we can begin now, to see the truth or lie in many things we were asked to just blindly, totally believe in the past.  For example, we will even, later, show a physical reality to the human spirit; our mind.  Which is real.  And in fact, we will even be able to show next, that there is a real kind of immortality to it.  Using however not vague spiritual longings and intuitions; but showing at last a rather concrete reality to it.  (As we will see in our writings on Immortality).

 

So that whatever virtue “faith” may have had in children, and backward cultures, in an ear when science could not see many real things, today, we have better science.  And are in a position to begin to demand more proofs for things.  And this does not mean that we disprove everything faith believed in.  In fact, will prove that many of the things once only vaguely intuited, are far more materially real, or are becoming materially real, at last.  As we will show later on, in our writings on a scientifically-verifiable immortality, and resurrection.

 

In fact, the science of God as we apply it here, amazingly, does not refute the Bible itself here.  We quote the Bible here constantly.  And in the end, we find that the Bible is absolutely true.  Though true in a way that our preachers have not until now, fully understood.  A way that only the science of God can now clarify and “see.”

 

Even the “second” “appearance” or Second Coming of Jesus is true too.  And even, we will see, resurrection and immortality.  Though true in a way that the many people deceived by a false idea of Christ, a false Christ, will find it hard to accept.  Or have faith in?

 

No doubt, it is sometimes hard to have faith, even in science.  Though surely, once we have seen that the Bible itself, God himself, advocated science?  Surely that should at last, make it possible, for some.  To move past faithful obedience to often false leaders; to move up to the … second and better vision of God and Christ; to the Science of God.  The second and better appearance of Christ.

 

Really, it is not faith lost … when it is verified.  When we see God, truth, in physical reality … we no longer need faith; because we see it all around us (as the “temple” in Rev.; no need).

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#200    

 

 

(# 200) And as for faith?  We will not completely repudiate it here; since we believe and follow the Bible.  But really see and follow, at last, your Bible.  Every part.  Including especially, surprisingly, this one:

 

 

“As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him” (Rom. 14.1).

 

 

Preachers for centuries tried to tell us that this last quote meant that a) we should let persons who are only beginning Christians enter church, so we can teach them more; so their faith would grow in church.  But here we found that there are many huge problems, evils, in a faith that is “strong” to the point of making us gullible, credulous; suckers; people who will believe anything, and fall easily into the snares of false precepts, then the foretold illusions lies, delusions.  To fix this finally, we need a redefinition of “faith,” based on a much closer look at its meaning in the Bible. 

 

Which finally tells us this in effect:  faith is to grow like a seed, only in the soil of the “earth.”  In material things.  We are to have faith only in things that are reasonably well backed by some material evidence.  By our Fuller Science of God.

 

As commanded by the Bible itself; by God, himself.

 

So that we come to a surprising new understanding of the above; rather than telling us to admit persons of weak faith, to teach them stronger faith, really it means b) welcome those of weak faith … because they are often better than you.  Their weak faith, is far closer to the smaller faith that Jesus wanted for you:  only as much as a “mustard seed.”

 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#201    

 

 

(# 201)  For those who do not yet understand?  Perhaps some people will still insist that some (if not all) “child”ren, at least, should simply obey their parents, on faith, without “full”y understanding the reasons yet for their parents’, authorities, rules and “laws” (see Paul, on “law”). 

 

Indeed, some will say, often we need to trust to some things that we do not presently see evidence for – but whose sense, proof, must soon be manifest.  In part for eample, it was often suggested that God himself would be appearing “soon” in a second coming, to at last deliver on old promises.  While the “righteous” live on by faith, to that day:

 

 

“Do the will of God and receive what is promised.  ‘For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry’ but my righteous one shall live by faith'” (Heb. 10.38).

 

 

Yet this has at least two meanings:  a) a literal child, that does not understand the reasons for things, at times should follow his parents, authorities, just on their say-so; just trust and follow their parents rules, to some extent. 

 

But to be sure, there are problems with this first stance.  First, even a very young child should also be learning to think for himself; to try to understand the reason for the rules.  And find out if after all, now and then even his mother (the “infallible mother,” as Psychologists called her; in the New York Times review section?), sometimes makes mistakes.  So that even a child needs to learn to exercise some independent judgement.  If your mother says that crossing the street is safe, but she cannot see what you see – a truck speeding up from another lane – then after all, at times, even a child needs to exercise independent judgement; should not be held to slavish obedience.  While then too, those children who never try to discover the “reasons” behind the rules (“always be prepared to give a reason for your faith”; Peter), will follow them without fully understanding them; and often, get the rules wrong; not having the sense of logic of them.  (See our more extended writings on the fatal effects of too much faith; in Over-Spirituality, etc.).

 

So – as the language of Paul suggests – while for a child, “blind”ly, “faith”fully following orders, following your parents, might have a certain utility, while it might partially, im “perfect”ly serve a few for a while, keep in mind, one day or another – hopefully “soon” – you are supposed to begin to see material proofs and disproofs; and “mature”; you are to one day open your eyes and see what is really there, and what is really not there.  See God in and among the things of this material earth; God even in “flesh.”  And so …now it is time for the all-too-faithful, to see among other things, some of the other parts of the Bible.  The many parts that we have quoted here.  The parts that our preachers did not want to tell us about in church. 

 

b) The text might seem at first to suggest that the “righteous” person lives by faith.  If you want to be “righteous”?  Then look say at this other part of the Bible at last:

 

 

“There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evil-doing.  Be not righteous over much, and do not make yourself otherwise; why should you destroy yourself?  Be not wicked overmuch, neither be a fool; why should you die before your time?”  (Ecc. 7.16).

 

“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 9.7).

 

“God does not live in shrines made by men” (Acts 17.24).

 

“Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2.17).

 

 

Even Paul – who stressed faith far, far more than anyone else in the Bible; who mentioned it hundreds of times, and discussed it at length for whole pages at a time, dozens of pages in the Bible (a Bible where a single “word” has great weight) – even Paul, who in effect was really, the chief spokesman for faith, finally … began to qualify this enthusiasm.  As James and others referred to excessive spirituality and faith, as “fool”ish,  Paul began defending “foolish”ness at times; but also to at other times, admit it.  To admit he was not yet “perfect.”  Even Paul eventually begin to … moderate his statements in favor of faith; noting problems in faith.  While suggesting even, finally, that we are to have faith … only for a short while; until evidence is produced, before our own eyes, in our own lifetime.

 

Or, if we are to see the truth, only when we see the Second Coming of Christ?  Then after all, a second appearance of Christ can be seen in our books here.  In which we verify the entire Bible … but must simply disprove after all, much of what preachers have mistakenly taught.  So that?  The Second Appearance is far from the full vindication of preachers, that preachers and churches thought.  Indeed, we find here that the major ideas of preachers, are in the End … not confirmed at all.  Their emphasis on “spirituality” and specifically “faith” in particular, was always exaggerated and substantially false.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

As we have re-read our Bibles here, we begin to see a second, different appearance to the Bible … and to Christ.  But Christ and God as we now see them, are very different from what we were always told in church.

 

Still?  There are many positive things about this.  Indeed, as we go beyond spirituality and “faith,” and come to see the physical, material side of God?  We are seeing prophesy fulfilled: we are seeing God, Good, leaving “Heaven” in a sense, and coming down to earth.  Or indeed, merging heavenly ideas with earthly ones at last.  So that the foretold good result will come:

 

 

“To be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment – to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph. 1.10 NIV.  Note equivocal language).

 

 

But when does the second coming happen?  Many of us might suggest it happens in part, when we become “mature.”  But then too, we add here, being “mature” in Christianity means not becoming more spiritual, but finally learning to see the Jesus who advocates Science. 

 

To be sure though, while we have here sustained the Bible, and have quoted the Bible over and over as authority – we should not trust churches too much.  Many, many churches and others, have claimed to be God, the Kingdom on earth, and failed.  So in the meantime, pending any final definitive proofs, what is the best and final instruction?  On say, faith?  On any Pauline or other exhortations to a “strong” faith?  It would be to remind everyone, that we should have strong faith, if such a thing is even possible, only in things well proven.  Or perhaps better than that, given the logical problems with strong faith, we should simply close with again, finding, with this quote.  From the Bible itself.  From God, himself:

 

 

“As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him” (Rom. 14.1).

 

  

 

With that, let’s move on to see Christ himself.  As many are seeing him even now, “resurrected” at last, in their mind’s eye.

 

Indeed, let us look soon say, at how Science reveals Jesus being resurrected, in our own time.  In our writings on a scientifically-verifiable, Resurrection and Immortality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF SECTION

On Problems With Faith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPILOGUE 

 

 

Subargument on Faith#202    

 

 

 

 “Faith Vs. Works?”;

A Major Issue Between Protestants, Martin Luther,

And Catholics: 

Our  Approach Neutral in That Divisive Debate

 

 

(# 202)  Our books have not been the place to repeat the famous contentious and everlastingly divisive argument, between Protestants and Catholics, on Faith versus Works.  We have no wish to embroiled in this endless and fruitless controversy; the controversy which more than any other, was a) so problematic, that Christianity divided into half over it. 

 

We b) don’t need to get involved in this argument moreover; as noted earlier, our arguments here do not depend on them.  Indeed, what we support here – the science of God – can be supported totally aside from the famous Luther and Protestantism, vs. the Roman Catholic Church debate; on “faith alone,”  vs. “Works.”  Here, our position is that “faith” “alone” in God, might or might not be enough to save you; but our position – and the position of the Science that God outlines in the Bible – is that however, though our personal “work”s – like especially the work of literal circumcision – may or may not be important, or enough, for our salvation.  But in either case; it must be faith in God.  While the science of God warns over and over, that there are many false sayings about God out there.  So that, even if faith in God is all we need to be saved … still, we cannot know whether what we believe in, really is God; unless or until we see it proven, by material results

 

So in this way, we simply avoid the highly incendiary, infinitely divisive “faith alone” vs. “works” debate; that in fact, split Christianity in half; when Luther and Protestants rebelled against the Church giving indulgences to bad persons, if they contributed money or works to the Church.  Here, Luther’s objection to the selling of indulgences in effect, borrowed from Paul’s language; specifically his emphasis on “faith” as saving us.  Possibly even without our having any works.  However, Paul’s position was unclear and confusing; and so a) James and others in the Bible itself, had to make it clear that however, though faith in God might save us, still, those who have faith will after all, follow God … and his command to do “good works.”  While  b) Paul himself finally acknowledged that he himself worked; and that those who do not work should not “eat.”   While c) of course, the science of God insists that the “sign” one is from God, is empirical; physical.  Therefore, we deduce here, even if one might be saved just by faith in God, finally, the only way we can tell if what we have faith in is really God … is by looking for “works” in the sense of material results; either from ourselves, or others.

 

So that therefore, to be sure, perhaps Faith in God even “alone” might save us.  Without any “works” like literal circumcision.  Yet to be sure, we cannot be sure that what we have faith in, is really God.  And not a false Christ, a false idea of God.  Unless or until, we see real, material results.

 

So faith in God alone might (or might not, according to James) save us; but still finally, we will need to see works, in the sense of real material results, before we know that the impression we have of God in our heads, is accurate.  And not a delusion or illusion, or a false idea of Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Faith Vs. Works

Debate

 

 

Where the specific subject was especially, the Church’s selling “indulgences”; or in other words, granting forgiveness for some sins, to those sinners who paid the Church enough money.  Luther attempted to frame a biblical argument against this, not so much by directly recalling that it was what was in our “heart” that made us good, not money paid to churches; but rather, by arguing that our material money and wealth and accomplishments – or “works” – had no value to God; that only our mental, spiritiual faithfulness to God; our “faith alone,” as Luther apparently said.  Luther here focusing especially, on a tradition in Judaism, and the Old Testament, where it had been said that male children should be physically circumcised; but Luther focusing on part of the Bible, in Paul, that attempted to argue that those old laws from God could be dropped, in Christianity.  Where Paul argued that Abraham for example, had many works; and yet Abraham had not undertaken the specific “work” of circumcision, when nevertheless, God had commended him for his faith in God; and God had pronounced Abraham good, righteous, for his faith; even before Abraham was circumcised.  Thus, Paul and other Gentile Christians argued – and then, around 1517 AD, Luther argued – God did not care so much about our “work” – or better said, specific “works” like circumcision; rather, what God valued, and what caused him to call us good, was our inner “faith”fulness to God.  So that, Luther concluded they say, it was not “works,” but “faith alone,” that saved us.  Not obedience to the church, or giving it money.

 

Indeed, we might for purposes of argument agree with Luther, that a) some small faith might be necessary for our salvation.  Or b) agree that we cannot buy our way into heaven, with works alone.  But we could not agree that “work” and “works” are totally irrelevant to our salvation; since God ordered us to “work” 6/7 of the week; and God said that it was not just by our “thoughts” in our heart, our faith say, but also by our “fruits,” “works,” “deeds,” in part, that we would be “judged” by God, as good or bad, in the end.  No doubt, Jesus had often stressed “faith” in our “hearts”; and had said that the poor woman who gave only a penny to the church, but who thereby gave all she could, was giving enough.  Yet to be sure, even the poor woman, had to produce as many works as she could.  Before she could be considered good.

 

So c) if the Bible ever said a “work” was not important, probably that referred specifically and almost solely, to the specific religious act, the work of … circumcision. 

 

But d) really, it seems best to sidestep this endless and confusing controversy.  And stipulate that our argument here, is really totally aside from this famous – and seemingly never-ending – argument, between Catholicism and Protestantism.  It may or may not be that we might be saved, just by believing in God in our minds; without paying God anything, any “works,” or money.  (Cf. however, tithing, etc); in any case, our main point is rather different from all that.  Among our many points here would be that aa) even if inner confidence in God might save us, still, we cannot be sure our inner confidence or faith, is really faith in the one true God; and not a false idea of God … unless we get material evidence of it; “works,” in that sense.

 

Furthermore, to be sure, bb) these are not wholly our own work; but work done though the Grace of God.  God rewards righteousness, by giving us works, fruits.  In a way then, we don’t have any works of our “own” at all; all is given to us to be sure, in part due to our own labor.  But also to the grace of god, the nature of a universe, a Being, that made us.  And gave us the gift of life in the first place.

 

So again:  our own “works” do not get us into heaven by themselves; and specifically, our “faith” in God, in our hearts, is also important.  But we cannot be sure our faith is in the right thing, is really in God and not in a false idea of God or Christ. Unless or until our faith shows material results, fruits.  Therefore, we might agree here, tentatively, that “faith” in God might be enough to save us; and that our own money or “works” should not, alone, be able to buy our way into heaven.  But to be sure, works have an important role, in proving our faith was in the right idea of God; if our faith does not bear fruits, works, it was a false faith; faith in a false idea of God. 

 

Then too, we would say, cc) probably for these or related reasons, finally the Apostle James noted in the Bible itself, that “faith without works is dead.”  This might means that aaa) even if faith in God could “save” us in some way, we cannot be sure what we believe in really is God, unless or until …  we get real material results – fruits, “works” in that sense – from it.  Then too it might mean that after all bbb) God often told us to “work”; thus is we have faith in God, we will work, and produce useful works. 

 

While then too ccc) James especially noted that the preachers who give physically starving people, only spirit, kind words, “faith,” but who leave us physically starving to death for example … obviously, are not entirely good (James 2.14 ff).  So that mere faith is not enough.  While ddd) following this, even many Protestant preachers agree that those who have faith, will produce “good works,” “charity,” and so forth.

 

That roughly, might be an outline, our tentative position, on this complex, perplexing, and incendiary debate on “works.” 

 

But in any case, for those who demand such things, let’s take a longer look at this famous debate, in passing.

 

Briefly, Luther, the nominal founder of Protestantism, c. 1517 AD, founded Protestantism, by breaking with the Catholic Church, on a number of different issues (or “theses”).   But among many issues Luther and others had with the Church, was specifically, the habit of Catholic priests, to in effect, sell what were called “indulgences.”  That is, certain people who gave enough money to the church, got an “indulgence”; or roughly, some kind of guarantee from the Church, that they themselves or their specified dead friends, would have some of their sins forgiven, or “indulged” you might say.  And would therefore, spend less time in Purgatory after death.  Thus, it became possible for someone seemingly, to even buy someone’s way into heaven; into the Grace of God.  By way of their “works,” or good works.  Or here, cold cash, given to the Church.  

 

b) This of course offended Luther and many others; who were already at odds with the Church of Rome, for many other reasons.  In particular, the whole idea that simple money could get you or someone else a higher status with God, seemed offensive to many. 

 

c) And to try to prove this Biblically, Protestants could point to say, the parts of the Bible that seemed to tell us that “riches” are bad or useless; or that seemed to say the really important thing was not money, or even our mighty “works” – or some might say, our material works.  But instead, it was the “faith” or “love” other sentiment for God, that we had in our “heart,” that made one good.  And indeed, at times Jesus and Paul etc., seemed to criticise rich people and money; and to suggest that it was not external “works” that made one good, but sincere inner belief in God.  While Paul had indeed often championed “faith”; and had pointed beyond Jesus, to the sacrifice of Abraham, as an example of how mere “faith” was accounted as righteousnes to us, by God.  So that, out of all this, Luther or other Protestants were to say, that the Bible itself told us that we are to value, we are saved by, “faith alone,” and not “works.” 

 

In order to attack specifically only “indulgences,” the notion that one might buy someone’s way into heaven, the disgruntled Catholics that were soon to be known as “Protestants,” however, launched a soon-to-be-famous rather general theological argument against the Church:   the faith-vs.-works argument.  That all but suggested to many, that not only money, but even none of our material “works” were all that important to God; that we were saved by “faith alone.” 

 

To be sure, we have shown earlier that the Bible overall, did not stress faith, and attack “works,” all that strongly; that indeed the Bible often favored science, and valuing material signs.  Here, Protestants developed Paul’s complaint about “works” a step further.  Suggesting at least, that perhaps giving money to a church, was not such an important “work” as all that. 

 

 

d) Eventually this argument became a rallying cry … as many Catholics left the Church, and became their own separate Christian churches; mainly known over all, as “Protestants,” since they were “protesting” against the Roman Catholic Church, and the Pope … and specifically, against the selling of indulgences; and again, the implied doctrine that our material “works” – in the form of money to the church – might almost buy salvation.  Whereas of course, the Protestants protested, that the Bible actually had told us, that it was only an inner conversion of the “heart” to believe in God – or, as Paul had argued, “faith” – that “alone,” could make us good. 

 

 

e)  Protestant preachers here, usually focused on Paul’s remarks on Abraham; a story which seems to suggest to Paul at least, that we can be saved by “faith,” and not works.  Though here we will note, Paul primarily wanted to say that you, Gentiles, could be good, could join to God, without the traditional Jewish ritual – or “work” – of circumcision.  Paul noting that God said Abraham was “righteous,” even before Abraham was circumcised (Rom 4.9).  Even before he had performed the “work” of circumcision (which was done only later in Abe’s life):

 

 

Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.  How then was it reckoned to him?  Was it before or after he had been circumcised?  It was not after, but before he was circumcised….  The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4. 9-10. 13; from Gen. 17.10-27).

 

“And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15.6).

 

“Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country… And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee….  And Abraham was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran” (Gen. 12.1, 4 KJV).

 

“And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin” (Gen. 17.24 KJV).

 

 

f)  But how much of “work” did this attack?  We suggest the attack on works, is best limited to merely, attacking the necessity of the specific work of circumcision.  That indeed, was the original use by Paul. 

 

Consider the story of Abraham more closely.  More specifically by the way – significantly – Jewish, Old Testament law required that Jewish males had to undergo a minor physical operation, eight days after birth (a “Briss”?); an operation that involves cutting off the – many feel, unnecessary – foreskin of the male penis.  (Which some feel is unnecessary; others feel is necessary to prevent infections under the skin; and to be “clean”).  And here then is how Paul might have appeared to have found at least one “work” unnecessary:  at the time that God declared Abraham good, Abraham himself, coincidentally, had not been circumcised (at the time). 

 

Here Paul believed he had found and argument therefore, that would allow Gentiles and non-circumcised people, to enter into covenant with God:  since God had declared Abram “good,” even a) without having undertaken the “work” of being circumcised himself, at the time; (or without the work of sacrificing his son either); b) and just because of Abraham’s demonstrated “faith” in and obedience to the Lord.  Faith, without a “work.”  

 

In attacking “works” and “mutilation” of the “flesh” then, Paul was specifically, attacking really, (exclusively?) the specific work of … circumcision.  

 

And why was he doing this in turn?  The reason was that Paul hoping to convert many Gentiles to Judeo-Christianity; but Jewish law, the Old Testament, firmly commanded that all converts be physically circumcised.  And most Gentiles did not have that operation … or want to get it either.  So that this prevented many Gentiles, from becoming Christians.

 

Paul therefore wanted some arguments that would allow that Gentiles – most of whom were without this traditional Jewish operation – could be clean and good, and could be acceptable to God, without this specific “work.”  And among other arguments, were Paul’s arguments against “law”; his attempt to convert various material things to metaphors for spiritual things (converting the command for real circumcision, to a metaphor for the spiritual circumcision of the “heart” for example).

 

Paul made this argument; and it was successful in some ways; it was accepted by some, who became Christians; but it was not accepted by Jews.  Thus this argument had a divisive effect: Christianity and Judaism were split apart.

 

And later, framed as an argument between “faith” and “works,” it eventually was also used in splitting Protestantism from Catholicism,

 

And so finally it was argument that was centered around the male penis, that had split Christianity; that split it away first aa) from Judaism; and that bb) eventually became the basis of another huge split in the Church; as millions of “Protestants” split away from Catholicism.  So that today, Christendom is split away from Judaism; and Christianity itself is in turn split into one billion (at least nominal) Catholics, and one half billion Protestants (with some Orthodox Christians thrown in somewhere in between). 

 

All out of an argument over, specifically, the male penis.  (cf. Jonathan Swift’s argument among the Lilliputians).  One used as an excuse for breaking laws, by the way.  Though to be sure, if this is what law is based on, then perhaps after all, we should not worry about breaking it so much.  As perhaps Martin Luther secretly knew.  

 

cc) But after having worked so many divisions, maybe we can now repair the damage; and unite all nations again.

 

 

Review

 

 

dd) Let’s review first, Paul’s original purpose.

 

The basic historical background, was that Paul wanted to teach, bring Jewish/Christian culture and their “God,” to the Gentiles; to non-Jews.  But there were practical and logical and legal problems with that.  Laws that were apparently set by God, that would have seemed to prohibit that.

 

There were many laws in the Bible, that were designed to protect Jewish culture, religion; and keep it separate from other cultures. 

 

a) First, the old Jewish laws, had often  – if not always – suggested that no one but a born Jew, could ever join the Old Testament, Jewish tradition; you pretty much have to be born Jewish to be saved (with minor exceptions?); no one could be “converted” to Judaism, you had to be Jewish by birth.  Though some exceptions were found (or inserted into?) the texts. 

 

b) Or, at the very least, if you were to become Jewish, then the males had to undergo a small operation on the penis; a real, literal circumcision.  An operation on male babies, usually, to remove the foreskin of their penis:

 

 

“Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17.10).

 

“You shall be circumcised in the flesh” (Gen. 17.11).

 

“Abraham … was circumcised in the flesh” (Gen. 17.24). 

 

 

The Old Testament therefore, firmly stated that to be considered to be a real follower of God, a male had to be circumcised.  Yet this was a major barrier to the growth of Christianity, to admitting non-Jews into Judaism, or Christianity.  Because many of non-Jews, who might have thought about entering Christianity, were not circumcised.  Nor did they want to be.

 

c) Then too, the old Jewish tradition, had food restrictions that non-Jews did not want to follow; you had to obey Jewish food restrictions; aa) forbidding the eating of pork and bb) shellfish, or cc) eating meat without the blood drained from it. 

 

Thus there were many traditional rules for being considered righteous before God.  But the problem was that, back in the days when Paul was trying to convert Gentiles to Christian Judaism, there were many non-Jews, Gentiles, did not (or even could not), or did not even want to … meet all these traditional requirements.  Requirements though which it seemed to conservatism, had to be met, before you were considered to be a Jew, or were considered to be actually following God; and therefore to be under his protection, safety, covenant.

 

d) There were many legal, religious barriers then, to allowing non-Jews into Christianity, into covenant with God.  Among others, as yet another barrier to non-Jews joining Christianity, were simple native feelings of revulsion among Jews, for “unclean” Gentiles. 

 

e) Even Jesus himself at times almost seemed to feel he was simply, perfectly following the old Jewish God, the Old Testament; and for that matter, that he had therefore aa) been “sent” not to protect or help Gentiles, only to the Jews, the “lost sheep of Israel.” 

 

And at times, bb) Jesus told his Apostles not to enter towns of half-Jewish, half-religious “Samaritans.”  And though cc) eventually it was said that Jesus himself, helped and advocated “Samaritans” or half-Jews – advocating the “Good Samaritan” as we call him – and helped Romans too – still, it no doubt, seemed hard to justify this, in terms of the Old Testament; or even the gospels of Jesus. 

 

To recap:  Paul wanted to bring the wisdom of Judaism, and Greco-Roman civilization, etc., together; or to allow Gentiles, non-Jews, to be considered followers of Jesus. But there were many traditional legal barriers, in the Bible, to admitting non-Jews into the covenants with God.  Most obviously, there were three obvious barriers to Gentiles, non-Jews, being able to get under the protection of God.  To wit:  a) Most non-Jews, Greeks and Romans and other “Gentiles,” were not Jewish by birth.  While then too in any case, b) Most would-be converts to Christianity, had not been circumcised as babies – and probably did not want to get circumcised, as adults, either.  While c) Many Gentiles liked pork and shellfish, and meat with “blood” in it, and to “eat” other “food” that was forbidden to Jews by God.  So that it seemed that these requirements, these “laws” of God, would prevent many Gentiles from being considered real followers of the Jewish “God.”

 

Therefore, there were many, apparently insuperable, barriers between the Old Testament God, and getting non-Jews, Gentiles, Greeks and Romans and others, approved by God.  And yet however, our early Christian thinkers like Paul, tried to fix this:  people like Paul, responded to this challenge, with dozens of ideas, hints at how to argue their way around all these problems.

 

a) Ultimately, there were dozens of hints as to how these apparently irreconcilable differences – between Jews and Gentiles, Old Testament Judaism and Christianity – might be resolved, by various arguments, apologetics.  Among them, Paul argued against Jewish “Law” for one. 

 

Finally, to admit Gentiles, Paul there needed to argue against Jewish or Old Testament laws, but in an non-obvious way; and that he did.  By arguing against unnamed “laws”; or the “laws of Moses.”  Yet without prominently calling anyone’s attention to the fact that the laws were not just the laws of Moses; they were the laws of the Old Testament; delivered by God himself.

 

More subtly, Paul simply argued that the old laws could be changed; that in effect, Gentiles had a “new covenant” or new contract with God; one that would allow them to … change some of the laws.  Thanks to “grace” or flexibility and forgiveness by the Lord, and so forth.

 

b) And related to that, Paul was to argue that …Gentiles didn’t need in fact to obey all the old old Jewish “laws”; but would be admitted into covenant with God… simply by mentally believing and trusting in God; by simply, having faith in him.

 

This therefore, was one major reason that “faith” began to be emphasized in Christianity; it was needed as a way of arguing that non-Jews could be admitted into the covenants with the Jewish God.  The stress on faith was in fact, prominent indeed, among many dozens of attempts to explain, excuse, many apparent conflicts, contradictions between traditional, Old Testament, Jewish thought, and Gentiles (and Christianity).  Here, Paul in part, began to come up with a formula, a few words from Jesus, that seemed, when interpreted one way, to allow Gentiles to join Jews, or the covenant with their “God,” and form Christianity. 

 

To be sure, just having faith in God might seem like enough.  But to be sure though, what about all those Jewish laws that most Gentiles did not want to follow?  What about the rule that male children had to be physically circumcised?  And the law that you couldn’t eat pork or shellfish?  And so forth?  How much faith do you really have in God … if you are deciding not to follow lots of his laws?

 

 

c) In any case, related to the faith argument, Paul argued among other things, argued some of these laws – specifically ritual “works” – by which he meant primarily, the ritual deed or act – or “work” – of circumcision – were unimportant.  Paul arguing that all that was necessary to be considered right with God, was not by undergoing any particular ritual act – or “work” – like the work of literal circumcision.  Indeed, many Jews he said were circumcised but were still bad.  So rather, what made you good, was not some simple external ritual “work” like circumcision; but deciding to follow God, and believing and having faith in him, in your “heart.”   

 

 

And for historical support, Paul argued that God had considered Abraham righteous, and saved, and good … even before Abraham was circumcised.

 

Abraham was the Biblical figure, that was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, by God, to God.   And because Abraham was willing to do that, God said Abraham was good.   But at that time, Paul knew – when he was about to sacrifice his son Isaac to God – Abraham had not been circumcised; Abraham was circumcised only much later in life.  So that in effect, Paul argued, Abraham himself had been pronounced good by God, even before circumcision.  Thus the implication was, that Gentiles likewise, could be good, without that operation.

 

Abraham, said Paul, had been proclaimed good by God himself, even without circumcision; just because Abraham believed God and followed his commands – on “faith” Paul said:

 

 

“God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith, and the uncircumcised because of their faith.  Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?  By no means…!  What then shall we say about Abraham?” (Rom. 3.30-4.2).

 

“Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised?  We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” (Rom. 4.9).

 

“It was not after, but before he was circumcised” (Rom. 4.10).

 

“Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” (Rom. 4.9).

 

“Man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom. 3.28).

 

“Faith comes from what is heard’ (Rom. 10.17).

 

“God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal. 3.8).

 

“Blessed with Abraham who had faith” (Gal. 3.9).

 

“If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.  For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.  For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham” (Rom. 4.14-15; ref. to Abraham, it was said, having faith in God and making ready to sacrifice his son Isaac, and thus being declared good by God, even before being circumcised, much later in life).

 

“It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham”….  Blessed with Abraham who had faith” (Gal. 3.7, 9).

 

“Then what advantage has the Jew?  Or what is the value of circumcision?”  (Rom. 2.1).

 

“For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law” (Rom. 3.20).

 

 

The whole immediate aim of Paul’s stress on “Faith” then, the immediate target of Paul’s attack on “works” then was rather limited; Paul was attacking primarily the “work” of circumcision.  In order to allow Gentiles to enter into covenant with the Jewish “God,” in spite of not being circumcised literally. 

 

And with that, he made many statements like the following:

 

 

“God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal. 3.8).

 

 

Paul’s attack on “works” then, might even almost be understood, to be just an attack just on circumcision.  Indeed, probably 4/5 of his references to the subject or “works” and “faith,” might be limited to just that minor subject.

 

 

18) Yet there were many who wanted to expand on Paul’s attack on works, and use it for several other things.

 

No doubt, for example, many people, Gentiles, wanted to break- or change – many of the “old” “laws” of God and still be considered Good.  And so eventually, Paul’s limited attack on circumcision and “works” and “law” … was illegitimately extended.  In part by libertines, noted by Paul.  Who took advantage of an attack on law, to say that they didn’t have to obey any rules at all; and could be “lawless.”  Engaging in sexual immortalities, perhaps, and so forth (?).

 

But now we note there was another illegitimate extension though, that priests do not note:  by the over-spiritualistic priests. 

 

 Paul to be sure – no doubt because of his own attack on the “law” – was apparently often accused of being “lawless.”  But he claimed that the mystery of who was lawless would one day be revealed.  So that perhaps it was not so much Paul himself, but others.  And not just the libertines.  But in fact, the spiritual brothers.  The ascetic priests.  Who at times enlarged on the attack on “works,” to claim that no material accomplishments on earth – “works” – were necessary, to be good.  That no “signs” or material proofs were necessary.  Etc..

 

 

g) Let’s review Paul’s original purpose.  The real, specific subject and context of Paul’s attack on “works” then was really just an attack on the ritual “work” of circumcision.  Yet to be sure, eventually Paul expanded on this slightly; having attacked the necessity of one of God’s Jewish “law”s, seemed to be an argument against perhaps, many other traditional laws that Gentiles might not want to follow.  And so the attack on the specific “work” of circumcision, joined a host of other arguments by Paul designed to argue that Gentiles did not have to follow all the “laws” of “Moses,” or the Jews, or actually, the God of the Old Testament.  Paul not only arguing against a) “works,” but also b) “law”; Paul arguing that Gentiles were not fully under the old “law” of Moses and the Old Testament, but had c) a “new covenant” with God.  A new kind of law; d) of faith; and e) “grace.”  In which old laws of God – like the law requiring circumcision – were relaxed, or “fulfilled” and replaced.  While by the say, among other things, f) the law that required real, literal circumcision, was turned into a spiritual metaphor by Paul; the operation on the penis was not necessary, but rather instead, all we needed to do to be acceptable to God, was to cleanse, “circumcise,” our heart. 

 

 

 

The Error

 

 

In any case however, if Paul’s attack on “works” had primarily just attacked the necessity of the specific “work” of circumcision, Paul had enlarged it somewhat to a more general attack on the “law” of Moses … or the Torah.  Thus, all kinds of traditional Jewish or Old Testament laws – and perhaps, some would say, all kinds of “works” – might now appear unimportant. 

 

And so an argument centered around the male penis, became potentially, huge.  And perhaps because of embarrassment about the specific subject, people did not look too closely at the argument, to see if it was really true or not.  And to see if its larger implications were good.

 

In any case, this rather disgusting argument, about Abraham and Paul’s penises, or Paul’s discussion of circumcision, and the attack on “works,” was sometimes made to have larger implications.  Some of which were a) legitimate, and b) others not.

 

 

h) Paul had spoken in a roundabout way against circumcision, by attacking “works” of “law” and of the “flesh”; and thus finally an argument that was originally, specifically about the law relating to Abraham’s penis, or the penises of all Jews and Christians,  eventually enlarged; to became part of a possible broader attack on all Jewish “law”; its example encouraging, seeming to authorize Christianity, Gentiles, to ignore not just one, many Jewish laws, and yet still consider themselves good to God. 

 

i) And indeed, finally, since it had been phrased as an attack on “works,” finally, Paul’s language could be used, expanded – illegitimately – to attack, some have thought, all kinds of “work.”  Even kinds of work actually, commanded by God.

 

aa) Including, say, the necessity to “work” for a living;

 

bb) Or the necessity of doing “good works.”  Especially, giving the impression that one might do nothing at all with one’s life, do no “work” at all, but just be faithful in one’s heart … and still be considered good.  Without giving much to the poor.  (Cf. Jesus and the Widow’s penny; vs. those who cheat widows).

 

The attack on good works was bad enough; but in any case, our major concern here is that many women especially, took this to be an attack on all practical “work” or jobs.  So that the attack on “work” could be – and actually was – carried a little too far. 

 

i) Very strictly speaking to be sure, the Pauline attack on “works” was literally, in its smallest scope, aa) just an argument by males, about the relative worth of their penises.  But bb) to be sure, Paul had used it as an argument against the Jewish laws of God; and then cc) Luther used it as an argument against the Church.    And dd) as it grew, finally, all kinds of “works” were attacked. 

 

Finally, like Paul’s attacks, the Protestant attack on “works” also at times, in the hands of some, begins indeed, to conflict with some other, key commands in the Bible.  Like the command by God, to “work” six days a week, at a practical job in effect.  And the command to have “Good works.”

 

The basic problem with over-exaggerating “faith,” and denigrating “work” too much, is that anyone who tries to build on the attack on “work”s, can soon get into trouble, even with God.  Particularly say, anyone who wants to argue that the Bible now allows us to live a life of leisure, without doing any practical “work,” or without having any material fruits.  Since among other things, this implication of the attack on works, runs straight up against, for example, the command, we find here, to “work” six days of the week; one of the Ten Commandments.  And with the notion from God – and science – that after all, ideas, notions, beliefs, that do not get real material results, may be just pleasant delusions, illusions, false dreams.  And ultimately, those are bad things; because we lose our ability to deal with the real, material universe.  Which indeed, the Bible warned about.

 

So in fact, at “first,” the attack on “work,” the championing of “faith,” can mislead billions of people.  It might give the impression that you never need to do get a job – or do practical work – for example; but only need to have “faith” in your “heart” to be good.  That you could be a stay-at-home housewife or lady for example, doing essentially nothing at all (with servants doing the work), and still be good.  (Or you could be a priest, in secure private rooms, doing nothing much at all … and be considered good.)  Or that you can be a priest, making up things that make people feel good in their hearts … even if they are not true; even if they are at best “white” lies; though finally we find here that most white lies are very black (see harm done).

 

ee) For this reason perhaps, Paul and Martin Luther, they say, both had troubled consciences, (relating to uro-genial-anal bodily malfunctions by the way; Paul had an unspecified “thorn” in his “side”; Martin was constipation etc.?).  Perhaps these were psychosomatic symptoms of their guilty consciences for what they had done to reason, to the Bible, in attempting to escape earlier laws of God. 

 

j) In any case, a general attack on “works” can easily, quickly, get into trouble.  Since as James noted, we depend on our material work to feed us.  And those who case to “work” in that sense, can starve to death for lack of food, etc..

 

 

k) So, given all the very severe problems with a general attack on “works” – or related to that, any advocacy of strong “faith” – we suggest here therefore that Paul and Protestantism’s attacks on “works,” are probably best, very, very carefully limited.   To, most narrowly, an attack on the a) specific work of circumcision (which itself to be sure, went against a serious law given by God).  Or, at most, to b) attack a few of the obsolescent “works” commanded by God in the Bible.  Or say, on the idea that we can use money to buy our way into heaven. 

 

But c) if the attack on “works” goes much broader than that – even to deny all of the works commanded by God; including especially the importance of material fruits – then of course, will have carried the attack on works, carried Paul and Luther, much too far. 

 

(Or you might say, this increasingly monkish, private and unfruitful phallic exercise, has obviously become unfruitful, heretical, and dysfunctional.  Neglecting to produce real material children; the real fruit of our loins.  And having neglected to produce real material “bread”; leaving the people starving to death.  In exchange for monks’ masturbatory semi-intellectual exercises.) 

 

Indeed, if anyone carries the war against “works” any further than this – especially, if they assert that no one needs to produce real material works, to prove they are from God – then anyone who has done this, has gone against God.  And his science.

 

 

l) Fortunately, we might say, neither Paul’s original formulation, nor even the Protestant reformation, in its original arguments, went beyond the permissible extension of the attack on “works,” and the advocacy of “faith.  Yet to be sure, in the years since, all of Christianity eventually, carried all this too far; our preachers indeed, have radically – and culpably, heretically – over-stressed “faith.”  While ignoring, denigrating, the science of God; which constantly demands real “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs”; before we are required to believe that something is from God.

 

Therefore, it is in large part to correct this longstanding apostasy or heresy against God – over-faithfulness to ideas without proofs – we have written, our present book(s).  Attempting to recover at last the lost sense of it all; and to recover the absolutely necessary corrective to so many problems; by rediscovering at last, the science of God.  And the central importance to God, of practical work.

 

 

m) No doubt, some sense of some loyalty to, faith in, some authority, is useful; even in lean times, when authority is not, for a moment, materially productive. (See also “martyrdom” etc.).  If authority has proven itself productive in the past.  (As in the case of Moses they say).

 

But finally, too much faith is too much.  In fact, the great shortcoming of faith, in religion, is that, having all but totally been deprives of your critical faculties, having given up all to “faith,” often you will attach yourself to, faithfully follow, bad, false authority.   And follow it all too well; even to your own death.  Often in fact, it is clear, you will end up following the … Devil himself; who often disguises himself as a minister, or an angel. And who is in fact, one of the great spokesmen for “faith.” 

 

No doubt to be sure, there is some need for a little faith.  No doubt, there are people in the world who are too cynical; and who need more faith.  But on the other hand, there are also many, who have all too much faith.  And what they need to develop, is actually, not still more faith; but a more critical attitude.

 

And to do that fortunately, God now gives  us … the science of God.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

The  fact is therefore, we do need to very, very carefully make sure that every Christian knows, that when God attacked “works,” he only meant a) circumcision, or b) at the utmost, perhaps , the idea that you can buy your way into heaven.  While c) as for a practical job, “work,” real material productivity?  That is extremely important. 

 

Indeed, it is doubly important.  Because, remember, in the End of Time, Judgement Day, we are judged in fact, not by our faith as much as by our works, deeds, fruits; what we have “done.”

 

In the end, on Judgement Day, God judges us not even so much by our faith or other “thoughts” and spirit … but by our “fruits,” “works,” “deeds.”

 

 

“For I know their works and their thoughts…” (Isa. 66.18; etc.).

 

“Test what sort of work each one has done” (1 Corin. 3.13).

 

“Ways and your doings have brought this upon you” (Jer. 4.18).

 

“And all were judged by what they had done” (Rev. 20.13).

 

“He will render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2.6).

 

 

In the end, the only real way of knowing whether our thoughts and spirits are truly good, or from God – said the science of God; said the Bible itself – is by looking to see if our thoughts and behavior, get real, material, physical, empirical results.  As science says.   Or, as Jesus said – the real Jesus – fruits, works, signs, deeds, prosperity, proofs. 

 

No doubt, when a full generation had passed even after the death of Jesus, and yet Jerusalem was still in slavery, bondage, to foreign nations, Rome, Paul himself despaired of the truth of not only Christianity, but also Judaism.  And to try to get through this, Paul for a while, for that culture and for that historical moment, attempted to formulate or hint at, a more fatalistic, stoic, other-worldly theology; one that be able to face material failure and death.  By speaking of faith or loyalty, martyrdom; and a better world in heaven or somewhere.  But while Paul appearing to strongly champion “faith,” and to attack the importance of “works” – seemingly to the point of denying the importance of material fruits – still, even Paul himself, like Jesus, probably did not expand too far into too totally denying that real religion, real Christianity, must still prove itself true, by producing real material, physical results.  Indeed, Paul could not cross that line, too far, without … too obviously betraying God himself.  

 

Knowing that, those scribes or others who (along with God) finally wrote, edited, and compiled our holy books, made sure that even the rabidly faithful and spiritual Paul (cf. “pall”) – or John too; or even Jesus – did not fully complete the priestly ascetic (proto-Gnostic; Platonic idealist dualist) attack, on the material 6/7 of God. That his partial attack on the necessity and desirability of “works,” did not extend to fully attacking God’s command or “law,” that real religion, real Christianity, is required to get real material results.  The (undoubtedly numerous) authors and editors (cf. “redactors”) of our Bibles, did not allow Paul to extend his attack on “works,” very far; but did not really allow a spiritual man much, beyond attacking the a) specific “work” of circumcision; with b) just a mild feint at other minor religious rituals or works.  And c) only the vaguest “hope”s of some kind of afterlife (as the Pharisee in Paul, hoped no doubt.  Linguistically, consider possible link of “Pharisee,” to “Farsi” or Persian, and “Pharoah”s … and phariest/priests). 

 

Anyone who carries the attack on material “works,” much further than that, ultimately conflicts with practicality, science, the material universe.  And with … God.

 

And if we are told that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”?  Then let’s look at the larger quote; which allows that we should have faith in our own convictions:

 

 

Welcome those who are weak in faith….  Why do you pass judgement on your brother or sister?  Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister….  Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another….  The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God.  Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve.  But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith, for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14.1…10 … 13 …14.22-23 NRSV; with regard to which foods are good especially).

 

 

To some extent, we are allowed to form our own “conviction”s.  So that all those who insist that their own specific “faith” in this or that, is better than others, and those who want to impose their faith on others, need to reconsider. 

 

 

And indeed, move on, past the exaggerated faith in religious authority they have had; to move on to more authorities, as Paul suggested (q.v.); including those that advocate science.  Which to be sure, inspires “confidence” and faith .. .but by constant, repeated, material results, and empirical proofs.

 

 

Or indeed, among other authorities, let us move on next, past Paul; to Jesus himself.  To his first appearance.  Then, to his second coming.  Next.

 

 

 

 

 

Epilogue 2

 

Is a Christian Priesthood

Legitimate?

 

 

Today, we are used to religion being dominated by priests and ministers.  By a group of rather ascetic, spiritual priests and ministers; who either promise big material miracles, or, if those miracles do not appear regularly and reliably, they stress mental or “spiritual” things instead.  Yet as natural and inevitable as we might think that our priesthoods and ministers are … in fact, there has often been a debate about the legitimacy of priests, and priesthoods.  In that the Bible itself often warned about false things in priests especially; while Paul for example, at times seemed to have many arguments with strangely unnamed classes of people, who in composite, resemble priests:  who loved to stand in front of others and pray publicly; who did not marry; who forbade us to eat certain things.  And who like Pharisees, loved enforcing the letter of the law.

 

Many have argued in fact, that Jesus himself never explicitly set up a priesthood at all; he had “disciples,” but not priests. Indeed, it was the priests that had Jesus arrested and executed for a religious crime; heresy.  Then too, Paul had problems with various individuals with priestlike qualities.  While Paul warned that “Satan” came to us disguised as the “angel of light,” and his “ministers” were there too; perhaps in our own ministers.

 

And so where and how do we get our Christian priesthoods and ministers?  Parts of even Paul finally, began to try to present phrases, that could be taken – and were taken – as a rationale for a priesthood, and a Church.  Like Paul supporting Jesus as a priest, after the order of Melchizedek.  And then Mat. 16; Jesus appearing to make Peter the head of his church.  Portions of the Bible which were used by (and generated by?) the early Roman Catholic Church it seems.  Yet Protestants objected to many parts like this.  While other parts of the Bible remain that seem to question all churches – and all priests and ministers – altogether.  Aside from noting the dozens, hundreds of time the Bible itself warned about priests, and the prophets and churches they follow, we will also have noted here that the core of priestly religion – of spirituality, faith – was often in effect, mentioned in the Bible; but even more often, spoken against.      

 

In particular, in effect, a spiritual priesthood, obeys parts of the Bible.  But it also has to ignore – and disobey – huge tracts of the Bible.  Those parts that doubt faith; and that call for … real material, physical results, from those who claim to be from God.

 

Over the centuries, we have accepted a spiritual priesthood, on their own say-so; but at the same time, even some priests at times have acknowledged that God allowed that one might be good not only as a priest, but as a working person. While indeed we find here that … a good but practical person, is actually closer to the “full” outline of what the Bible called for, than our priests have been.  While indeed, our priests are supposed to defer often to practical “authorities” and “governors”; and even to expect to see a God that is a practical “king” getting real material results on this material earth again, one day.

 

To be sure, Job among others, asked “why are not times of judgement kept by the Almighty …?” (Job 24.1).  Why is it that even among the good, “God pays no attention to their prayer” (24.12).  Indeed, God himself often called Job “righteous” and so forth; so that such questions are allowed by God, and are to be taken seriously.  Though to be sure, Job asks these things as a question; and does not present them as factual statements.

 

Perhaps indeed, the culture as a while is already far too materialistic normally; and so our priests needed to over-stress spirituality, and/or long-term idealism, to counter that.   But after all, on carefully reviewing the Bible here, we find that our priesthoods ignored and disobeyed far too much of the Bible, and God.  Our priesthoods and ministries and churches, even fatally over-stressed only parts of Good and God; while ignoring and disobeying too many other parts.  To the point that they are typically, inevitably, bad and false, even today. 

 

So that all need to be “refined” indeed, as foretold.  While even priests should finally … defer to the good but also practical leader; who knows both spirituality and practical things; after all, follows the Bible more fully than they have.

 

 

 

 

Epilogue 3

 

[Duplicates Material on OT?  Some New Material?}

 

Priestly Excuses for the Lack of Miracles:

The Book of Job; But

The “Test of Faith” was Proposed by Satan

 

 

Could nearly all our preachers all over the world, have been partially deceived, or false?  Nearly all our preachers, all over the earth, either directly promised us physical miracles … or stood behind a Bible, or a Tradition, that promised them to us.  And yet many of us will have found, just from everyday experience, that those promises now appear false.   But to find that therefore, nearly all our holy men failed us, and were partially false, is to be sure, a heaven-shattering experience.  One that until now, many of us have not had the courage and conviction to “face” or “bear.”

 

In fact, rather than simple face this moment, over the centuries, our preachers have attempted to generate many dozens of sermons, homilies, apologetics:  arguments, speeches, that would try to explain or excuse, particularly, these and other signs of sin or error, in our holiest men and angels, and their promises.  That would try to either assure us, in particular, that a) miracles are arriving all the time; or b) if they are not, that would try to explain why miracles are not arriving as often as they promised.  And/or we c) hear many sermons that try to tell us that if our preachers do not meet or “fulfill” their ancient promises, if they are not furnishing all the miracles they promised, that is OK.  For various reasons. 

 

Why don’t our preachers deliver all the wonderful miracles we were promised, today?  Why aren’t preachers today, walking on water, and making bread appear out of thin air; doing “all” the “works” that Jesus did, and “greater works than these”?  As millions of sermons promised?  As it turns out, a) there are one or two good answers for this apparent shortfall; b) but these will be found to be answers that our preachers to date, have not chosen to face or accept.  Actually, we will find, the reason people pray for miracles today but don’t get them, or that preachers are not getting many big miracles today … is because aa) our preachers are bad, and inadequate.  Especially, bb) our preachers misread their Bibles; the Bible itself never really promised supernatural miracles, but only things which today we more clearly see as natural and technological wonders.  (As we will have been seeing in our writings on Natural Christianity).  But these are very difficult conclusions for preachers to face or bear; because it involves them discovering, facing, sins and errors, in themselves, and in their own tradition.

 

And so, rather than face their own culpability, their own responsibility, for this key, catastrophic failure in the heart of traditional Christianity, rather than face the “beam” in their own eye, over the centuries, our preachers have tried to blame any lack of miracles, on everybody else.  To come up with dozens of arguments, sermons, that would try to say that if we the people did not get all the wonderful miracles that preachers promised, it was not because our preachers or holy men themselves were partially false; it was because we, the people, were not good.  Not good enough yet.  If miracles do not arrive, it was because we did not observe this or that moral scruple.  It was because we did not say, give the preacher enough money, or contributions; or “partner” with him with “seed money.”  Or indeed, there are dozens of common sermons designed to tell us that God will give us miracles, if only we do one more thing for the preacher.  Especially, give him on more dollar … or finally, just have more “faith.”

 

Why then, did religion ever turn to “Faith”?  In part we suggest, the idea of faith (along with “spirituality” too), came about originally, in part, as an excuse or apologetic for the lack of real material results, miracles; an attempt to explain or apologize for, an apparent massive shortfall or sin, deep in Judaism and Christianity, and its holiest promises.   And the great sin was this:  that our holy men had often promised believers many huge material miracles; and we were assured in the Bible such things happened in the past; yet many of us notice that so far as what “came to pass” in real life, today, often those miracles do not arrive as often as promised, prophesied, advertised.   So that it appeared that the old Biblical warnings about a false religion, a false vision of Christ that was to dominate the whole earth, was not about some safely, long-past religion, or some future one … but was in fact, our own, traditional Christianity. 

 

The fact is, there has been a great series of signs of a massive sin or error in religion, in mainstream Christianity.  But the great masses of preachers do not have the courage or honesty to face it.  And specifically the thing that no one wants to talk about out loud – though it is as obvious as an elephant in a living room – has been this:  our holiest men and angels promised us physical prosperity and many wonderful miracles; and yet however, they do not deliver them today, as promised.  So that it appears that major elements of traditional religion are simply, false.   

 

But to be sure, this is extremely hard for many people to face or believe; particularly those priests who have been raised to proudly believe that they and their beliefs, are the very voice of God.  So therefore, partially out of pride, our preachers for years, have not wanted to face the heaven-shattering implications of all this; the Apocalyptic conclusion.  Instead of facing it, in fact, our preachers have tries to borrow many phrases out of the Bible, that might be used to try to explain any occasional lack of big huge miracles, in their own time.  And over the centuries, preachers generated a whole range of other, excuse sermons. 

 

6)      To try to excuse the lack of material results in their Religion.  But we will be examining a few dozen of their most common sermons on this subject … and finding that all of the many sermons that try to explain or excuse the lack of miracles, are actually, simply, false.  (See Sermons as Excuses).  Including finally, the most popular idea of all:  the idea that if we were not getting all the material wonders that God promised, it was because …

 

a) God was – as they say the Book of Job shows – “testing our faith.”  This argument claims that if God did not give good people all the physical wonders, prosperity he promised, it was because God wanted us to just continue to have faith in him and follow him, to be loyal to him, even when he did not give us the physical things he promised; “prosperity,” “wonders.”

 

The fact was, the material promises of God – his promise to materially reward those who followed him – presented a gigantic problem for Jewish and Christian defenders; because there were many cases – like Job – where God himself said that a man was good, and yet, he was not getting the material things that God promised.  Which suggested that either there aa) was no God.  Or that bb) God was not making good on his material promises. So that some of his promises were perhaps “unfulfilled”; or even simply false.  Especially the promise on which the science of God was based – the promise to deliver material prosperity to those who were good – seemed false. 

 

This to be sure, was a very hard thing for believers to face.  And rather than face the possiblity that their God did not exist, or was often false, often did not deliver on his promises, believers, priests instead tried to generate explanations for, apologies for, this apparent failure in their religion.  Foremost among the dozens, millions apologetic sermons that our holy men invented, to try to explain away the occasional lack of material wonders, miracles, was this massively popular idea.  An idea that in fact, came to utterly dominate all of Christianity; and through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, came to dominate the whole world:  the idea that if the material things that God promised don’t arrive in a timely way, then that was because God was “testing our “faith.”  

 

That is:  if God at times did not deliver the material wonders that he had promised to those who followed him, the explanation was this:  God was temporarily holding back his promised rewards, to see if we would love and follow him – to see if we would continue to have “faith” in him – even when he was not giving us many material things.   (While, it was also often implied, if we just had faith in him, God would at last deliver material rewards; as he delivered them for Job for example, at the end of his life.)  But we will note here that though this argument came in part from some hints in the Bible itself, ultimately this is not really what the Bible itself said; there are some problems with all the attempts to derive “faith” from the Old Testament; from the Book of Job for example.

 

There are to be sure, clear indications in the story of Job, that God might indeed at times abandon his promises to give believers material rewards; prosperity. But we will note here that the Book of Job cannot be taken as proof that God abandoned his material promises to man; and told us to simply ignore it when God does not give us things, and have “faith.”

 

Here we will find many reasons to say that God never totally abandoned his material promises; and never told us to ignore lack of material results; to have “faith.”  Since we find here that aa) in fact, the whole idea of a test of faith, was literally, an idea not from God himself, but from Satan; it was Satan who proposed that God test Job’s faith.    While we might add that bb) in the end, in any case, the science of God is confirmed even in Job … because Job, a good man, is at last rewarded materially; with twice as much as he had before.  While we could add now too, that cc) though Job, a good man as God himself said, is troubled by lack of material rewards for a while, finally in any case though he remains loyal to God; but not just out of blind faith, but out of a particular version of the science of God (and the Argument from Design):  though he personally is not materially rewarded for a time, for being good, nevertheless, he is (eventually?) convinced that God exists … by observing the incredible works of Nature, like “Leviathan” (or crocodile?).  In other words, Job is convinced of God, not by simple raw faith; but by looking at material evidence; looking at the wonders of Nature, and being convinced from that, that there was a great being in and/or behind nature.  So that in sum, Job never really abandons the main idea behind the Science of God; the idea that God promised to materially prosper those who followed him.  

 

A quick summary of Job?  This book in fact, gets at the main problem that believers had with the material science of God:  that God promised material goods, “prosperity,” to those that followed him; and they believed themselves to be good, so that they should be getting material rewards; and yet somehow, bad material things, including poverty, were happening to them.

 

First, of course, God constantly promised material things to those who are good, those that follow him, “prosperity” and so forth:

 

 

“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, … but his delight is in the law of the LORD … In all that he does, he prospers” (Ps. 1.1, 3).

 

 

And it is firmly said by God many times, that Job was good:

 

 

“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil’?” (Job 1.8; 2.3).

 

 

But then Satan steps in with an argument:  asserting that Job is only following God because Job is doing well materially; Satan asserting that if God tests Job’s faith as some say, by taking away his material things, Job would curse God.  But God is confident, and tells Satan to go ahead and make Job materially suffer; he says that Job will still follow him:

 

 

“And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life.’  So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD, and afflicted Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head” (Job. 2.6-7).

 

 

As Job suffers, here are many around him who (Midrash style?), begin to offer explanations as to why he suffers.  Most suggest that Job has done something wrong.  Yet God had said that Job was good; and Job rejects all the apologetic arguments of his friends around him; insisting they do not have a good reason for Job’s suffering:

 

 

“No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you.  But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you.  Who does not know such things as these?  I am a laughingstock to my friends; I, who called upon God and he answered me, a just and blameless man, am a laughingstock….  The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand.  But ask the … birds of the air, and the will tell you; or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.  Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this…?  He leads counselors away stripped, and judged he makes fools. He looses the bonds of kings, and binds a waistcloth on the loins.  He leads priests away stripped” (Job. 12.2-9, 17-18 RSV, The Holy Bible).

 

“Job answered … ‘Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?’”  (Job 21.1, 7).

 

“Job answered: …(9.2), ‘I am blameless; I regard not myself; I loathe my life.  It is all one; therefore I say, he destroys both the blameless and the wicked’” (9.22).

 

“My wrath is kindled against you and your … friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42.7).

 

“As for you, you whitewash with lies….  Will you speak falsely for God?”  (Job 13.4, 7).

 

“Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?”  (Job 38.33)

 

“Behold, I have prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated’ (Job 13.18).

 

 

 

Many sermons, homilies, apologetics, have claimed that the moral of the story of Job, is that God backs away from his promises of material things, and tells us to have “faith” instead.  But here we note many objections to that claim.  And among those noted above, we might now add that dd) Job is only mostly faithful; he begins to in fact question God … if not curse him. 

 

b) While we might add this too:  Job finally in fact begins to advocate science.  What is it that at last really, firmly convinces Job that God is real?  It is by seeing the wonders and powers (and terrors; in Leviathan) of material nature (Job 26; 38-41); and supposing that some great force or God is behind them, he therefore declares that in effect, in material nature, he has “seen” God.  And therefore, he believes:

 

 

“Now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42.5).

 

 

So it is simply not really true, that God tells us to abandon the importance of material results from God.  And if God himself ever told us to have any faith at all in Job, then here however we will begin to see the fuller pattern of “faith”:  it is not really total faith without material evidence; but rather, indeed, Job is not totally faithful, until he sees material evidence. 

 

And as it turns out, that is the real, actual pattern in the Bible; whatever “faith” we are required to have, as it turns out finally – as we will see throughout our book here; especially in the section on Jesus – we are to acquire, only after having personally seen, ourselves, many material wonders; much material evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

The story of Job has particularly been used in countless sermons, to illustrate the alleged need for faith; and to try to explain why sometimes good people, do not get the material prosperity that God promised.  Job is said, even by God himself, to be a good man …; but he for a time does not get material wonders, wealth, as his reward from God. 

 

And indeed, this is the reason, we suggest, that eventually, many preachers began to abandon the science of God long ago; since they really, secretly believed that the old material promises of God, were not really coming true.  And so they began to suspect that either the promises of God were false; or somehow, there was some other explanation. And preachers often liked to use the Book of Job to try to explain any apparent lack of real material results in Christianity.  Suggesting many apologetics for the lack of material results, miracles.  (See dozens of different types of explanations for the lack of material results, enumerated – and refuted – in our Sermons as Excuses).  Though there were dozens of basic explanations for the lack of some material results, two or three of the most popular came from hints in the story of Job.  That for example, a) rewards were just being withheld temporarily; since Job for example eventually has his wealth restored to him.  But in any case though another apologetic for the lack of material rewards was far more popular:   b) it was suggested that the reason that God might withhold the material rewards he promised to the good, was that God was “testing our faith,” as they liked to say.  God was just looking to see if we would follow him no matter what; even if he did not deliver material rewards.

 

To be sure, we will have begun to show that this lesson, was in fact, not quite true to the Bible itself; that in fact, the whole idea of God testing our faith, was presented literally, in the Bible itself, as an idea of Satan himself.  And therefore, the idea of “testing our faith” was never given full approval by God.  (See our remarks on such things, in our section on such false “tests” in the OT section).  But preachers missed this subtlety in the text; and for centuries they have advocated the idea that if at times we did not get material wonders, it was because God was testing our faith. Never mind, never notice, that the whole idea of a test of faith, though it came from the Bible, was literally … and idea from Satan himself.

 

Still, preachers – like Job in fact – seem to have felt there was something wrong with the old formula of God’s science:  that God would reward his true followers materially.  Because our holy preachers felt like Job; that they often had been good, true followers … and yet, like Job, they had not gotten the material rewards that God promised.  A feeling that was to be especially strong, after Jesus himself was physically executed; and a promised material “kingdom” did not show up in Jerusalem.  (Especially when Jerusalem was burned to the ground in 70 AD). 

 

In the years after the physical execution of Jesus, his disappearance into Heaven after 40 days, the non-appearance of a physical kingdom after him, the lack of an immediate second coming of God to earth, the burning of Jerusalem, the physical death/martyrdom of many believers, many believers no doubt were troubled by the apparent lack of real material results from their religion.  Which would lead to the awful suggestion that after all, perhaps their religion was simply, false.  But rather than say their religion was simply false – or that they themselves were simply bad – hundreds of Christian apostles and priests eventually instead, attempted to generate explanations, as to why the material promises of God might … somehow not arrive in a timely way.  And though there were – and are – dozens of different types of explanation attempted for this (see Sermons as Excuses), especially in the generations right after Jesus was physically executed, finally, one of the most popular explanations was the idea of “faith”; that God was just temporarily withholding his promised material benefits, in order to test our faith.  And this explanation or apologetic, was massively successful:  to the point that today, faith utterly dominates Christianity and religion; to the point that “faith” is now a popular synonym for religion, for Christianity; to be religious, and to have a “faith,” are regarded as one and the same thing. 

 

Today in fact, “faith” utterly dominates Christianity.  But this therefore, we suggest, is really the origin of the strong emphasis on “faith” that has dominated Christianity since the time of the Apostle Paul:  the great stress on “faith,” came about when our preachers could not deliver all the material wonders that they had promised.  And then, rather than look at their own sins and shortcomings, preachers chose to blame everyone else; to tell the people that if miracles did not arrive, it was the people’s – not the priests’ – fault.  Especially, it was their fault, because the people did not have enough “faith.”  If only we had enough faith, we would either a) get real material things later in life; or b) after death; or c) in any case, we would at least get faith itself; which makes us, our “spirit,” at least, feel good (giving us “hope” and so forth). 

 

But while “faith” came to utterly dominate most of Religion worldwide, did the Bible itself, really support “faith” this strongly?  We will find here, that generations of preachers, have quoted dozens, hundreds of quotes from the Bible itself, that seemed to firmly shift the word of God, from believing in things well proven by science, to support this new emphasis on “faith.”  On following even religious leaders that did not get material results.  While to be sure, we will find, there were parts of the Bible – especially in Paul’s writings – that hinted that “faith” might be the answer; the reason that somehow, we don’t get so many miracles today.  Yet as we will have found earlier, actually, finally, the Bible did not firmly support “faith”; it remained loyal to science.  Furthermore, more specifically – as we will be noting here and now – whenever the Bible explicitly mentioned the word “faith,” the Bible eventually found many shortcomings, evils, in it.   Evils, in faith itself.

 

 

 

 

The fact is, first of all, we will have found earlier, that God did not stress “faith” as much as preachers do.  God in fact, wanted us to found religion, Christianity, on science.  As a) Job founded even his faith, on having “seen” God with his “eyes,” in Nature.  Then too b) Over and over, God promised us material things if we were good; c) indeed, God’s promise of timely material rewards, was so firm, that it was often presented to us as a very, very firm “covenant,” or contract.  Which firmly said that if we were good, then we would get material rewards; and in a timely way, with no excuses.  And indeed, d) God’s promise of timely, material rewards, was so firm, that the Bible told us you could work it backwards and forwards too, as a sort of “science”:  you could deduce that those persons or cultures, who did not experience timely material rewards, who did not get “fruits,” were not really good; that the words that they followed,  were not really from God.   Today, this theology is thought to be “naive” by many theologians; and yet actually, it is the core theology of the Bible.  And what is more, it is defended – or  resurrected – here, in a new and more viable form.  Because in fact, it is the truer theology of God. 

 

The fact is, we will have been finding here, the real, original core of the Bible, the core promise of God, was really quite firm and simple, and did not involve “faith” at all.  The fact is, God most often (if not always), was presented at firmly promising real material rewards to those who follow him; and normally, in a timely way.  No special faith was necessary to believe God, because God was God; and God did what he said, in a prompt way.  God was not so hard to “believe” – because his works were obvious.  It is indeed, not as hard to believe in a god who a) by some accounts could be visually seen, standing in front of you (as Adam saw his lord); and b) who delivers the things he promised, promptly.  It is not hard, it requires very little “faith,” to believe in a God who is prompt, and regularly delivers the material goods he promised.  It is only hard to believe, it only requires a great deal of “faith,” to believe in a God who is not evident, and does not promptly do what he says.  

 

And what kind of God is that?  And should we follow that?  In fact, most of the Bible – we have found in our writing on the science of God – tells us that if holy men do not deliver real material results, then, we are not supposed to listen to their explanations and excuses; but instead, we are supposed to simply deduce that such holy men after all, are false; deceived or deceitful persons, following a false idea of God, a False Christ.  We are not supposed to continue to follow preachers who do not produce timely material results, “faith”fully.  Instead, we are supposed to simply deduce that they are false preachers.  And we should denounce them as that, and move on.

 

 

 

c) More on Job?  There are many, many parts of the Bible, we have shown, that picture God promising those who really follow him, real physical, material results, fruits.  To the point that the Bible finally outlines a science from this:  we are to observe the prosperity of people, and from that we can even work backwards, and deduce (with reservations) that those who are prosperous, are good.  But of course, there were promises with this simple biblical scenario; the problem was that many said and thought they were being good … and yet like Job, they were not getting the material things God had promised.  Which suggested to some holy men, that God’s promises of material rewards were simply, false.  But rather than face the possibility that their God was substantially false, our holy men began writing, generating possible explanations for a material failure in their religion.  And among their dozens of such apologetics, was the idea that if God for a time did not give good people material rewards, it was because God was “testing our faith” as they say. 

 

So what about all these other parts of the Bible?  The parts that seemed to stress “faith”?  As it turns out, if we look at them carefully … none of them quite says, what we were told they say.  Eventually, the Bible begins to note severe problems in “faith” itself.

 

This will be hard for preachers to believe and face.  And they will no doubt raise one quote after another from the Bible, as objections to our position.  So let’s just deal with a few dozen of the most popular quotes on “faith,” here and now.  Showing that finally, the Bible itself indicated many, many sins in faith.  

 

d) Preachers like to tell us that the story of Job, particularly, told us to have faith.  Until abut 1963-9 or so, we were constantly told that the book of Job, set up the whole idea of a “test of faith” in fact:  that at times, God might not deliver all the material things he promised.  But there was a reason for this:  if God ever did not deliver his solemnly promised material benefits, there was an excuse for this:  he was temporarily withholding them, to make sure we really loved him and had faith in him, even when he was not delivering all the material goods he promised.  

 

Objecting to these sermons here, we should note first that aa) even in the Book of Job, God first of all, did not stress endless, total “faith.”  Or following God forever, endlessly, without ever getting any material results from him.  Because, first of all, even Job himself, was said to have originally been made rich, thanks to his loyalty to God:

 

“There was once a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.  That man was blameless and upright….  He had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants; so that this man was the greatest of all the people in the east” (Job 1.1-3).

 

Then too bb) after some temporary suffering, c) Job was said to have eventually gotten real material rewards again later in life (Job 42.10 – 17):

 

 

“And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before….  And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.  He had also seven sons and three daughters….  And Job died, an old man, and full of days” (Job. 42.10, 12, 17). 

 

 

Even in the story of Job therefore, note, Job himself did not need much “faith” for long; since Job was initially rewarded by God with material goods, right away; while after some suffering, he eventually got lots of material rewards.  Which would have “proven” that he was following God some would say; and all but eliminated the need for much “faith.” 

 

Indeed we will see, the amount of faith we are required to have – if any – is normally very, very small, as confirmed by other parts of the Bible; where for example, Jesus asked for no more faith than a “grain of mustard seed.”  While finally we will find, if our faith is to be allowed to grow, it is to grow … only as we see our belief verified in very real, concrete, material results.  As we will see.

 

Here, indeed, only a certain amount of faith was required, even in Job.  Because after all, Job eventually sees real material results.  Yet over history, the story of Job has been misused by preachers; used to excuse too many problems, too many very, very serious shortfalls, in Religion.  Especially, the story of Job is often used to try to justify the complete lack of material results; to justify the fact that many people followed preachers, for many many years … and yet still did not get the rewards promised.  In fact, many people got worse than the sufferings of Job; many millions who followed their priests and their idea of God, often got suffering, and not the promised prosperity … even to the very end of our lives.  Indeed, many millions of people, we will have seen (in our writing on miracles, the harm done, etc.) followed their priests, suffering in poverty and disease, until they died.  All without getting the wonders that priests promised to us, in the name of God.  So that in effect, the story of Job, is not really about the greatest amounts of faith; faith until death, exactly.  Or about suffering without ever getting a sign of reward.  The fact is, aa) earlier in his life, Job had gotten lots of rewards for following God; God had made him rich.  And bb) though those rewards were removed for a time, cc) in the end, those material rewards were restored.  Giving Job in fact, “twice as much as he had before.” 

 

So the “test of faith” sermon, does not quite explain everything; indeed, the story of Job did not call for as much faith as preachers ask for.

 

 

Indeed, cc) the whole idea that God would withhold promised material rewards for any significant period, goes against the main theology of the Bible; which promised real material rewards, and often “soon.” (While if St. Peter opined that “soon” might mean thousands of years, then remember that after all, Peter was so unreliable, that Jesus himself once called Peter “Satan,” in Matthew 16.23).

 

e) But especially not finally too, that as a matter of fact, finally, there is a really fatal objection to the common sermon, that holds that the book of Job proposed an emphasis on “faith”; against the sermon specifically, that that God proposed the “Test of Faith.”  Which says that God withheld miracles temporarily, to see if we would follow him loyally, with love and faith, even when he did not deliver what he promised.  The fact is, we should all note now, that idea is in the book of Job to be sure.  But there is one nuance in the way that it was presented, that all our “test of faith” preachers missed:  the whole idea for a test of faith, was an idea advanced not by God himself … but literally, by Satan.     

 

The fact is, the whole idea of a “test of faith,” is to be sure, proposed in the Book of Job.  And yet to be sure, the many generations of priests that constantly quoted the test of faith, in sermons, and that eventually made it into the very foundation stone of Christianity itself – the “faith,” the new religion of Christianity – have all failed to note a small but significant aspect of the story of Job and the test of faith:  to be sure, the whole idea of  a “test of faith” is, to be sure, found in the book of Job.   Indeed, the whole idea of stressing “faith,” is in the Book of Job; but there, it is presented not by God himself … but as an idea literally, from Satan.

 

Read the Bible at last, a little more closely.  And take careful note of who exactly, is proposing the test of faith:

 

 

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.  The LORD said to Satan, ‘Whence have your come?’ Satan answered the LORD, ‘From going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down on it.’  And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?’  Then Satan answered the LORD,  ‘Does Job fear God for naught?  Hast thou not put a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side?  Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions [have increased in the land.  But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse thee to thy face.’  And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand.’  So Satan went forth” (Job 1.6-12).

 

 

The millions of priests and ministers who put their stress on “faith,” the millions of priests and churches who constantly delivered to us sermons that assured us over and over that God often “tests our faith,” the millions of preachers that constantly assured us over and over that the core value of Christianity has always been, from the days of the Old Testament itself, “faith” … all of these failed to notice a small but important detail in the text.  The fact is, the current stress on “faith” to be sure, is found in the text of Job; it is in the Old Testament.  But what our preachers failed to notice, was this small but extremely important detail:  that while the idea of a “test of faith” is from the Bible, it is not an idea from God; but is literally, an idea from … the devil himself.  Note above, that it is not God  who proposed the test of faith; it was the devil, himself: 

 

 

“Then Satan answered the LORD, ‘Does Job fear God for nothing…?  You have blessed the work of his hand, and his possessions have increased….  But stretch our hour hand now, and touch all that he had, and he will curse you to your face’” Job 1.9-11 NRSV).

 

 

As it turns out, this was a small but infinitely significant detail:  the fact is that therefore, technically, the whole stress on “faith,” comes, in its Old Testament source, not from God; but quite literally, from the devil himself.  Which of course, does not really recommend the idea of “faith,” or a “test of faith,” right up front. 

 

(Thus by the way, adding the “test of faith” to John’s “Test” as a false or inadequate sort of “test”ing; a mere distraction, a red herring, that throws us off the right track:  real scientific testing).

 

And indeed, what this passage of the Bible attempted to do, was in fact, satanic:  it was an attempt to simply cover up for false religion;  to come up with an excuse for a miracle-promising religion that promised material wonders, miracles, but did not deliver them.  But ultimately, our Bible is reasonably honest; the authors knew that finally, God’s promises of material rewards were so firm, that there really is no good excuse for lack of material performance, if you are really following God.  (Short of saying that the original promises were partially false; or the priestly interpretation of them is).  

 

The problem was that God had so firmly promised material rewards for following him, and so often, that finally, there was no excuse for failure; God was God, and God should always do what he says, in a prompt way.  Would God be less prompt, than a furniture dealer who delivers the couch you bought in a few days?  Would God play word games, to excuse his own lack of performance? 

 

Indeed finally, there has been a problem, a sign of sin, in much of our religion:  that it seems to have promised many wonderful material things, but often did not deliver them regularly, or reliably.  Often, not even through the day we died.  And yet that promise had been made so firmly by God, that there was really no room for excuses or explanations or apologetics.  And that we suggest here, is why any attempt at an excuse, could not be presented as firm authority. Indeed, any excuse was so contrary to the basic idea of the Bible, that it could only be presented in the form of an opposition to God; as presented in the Bible … but not as an idea from God.  But as an idea of Satan.

 

Preachers typically miss many nuances of the language of the Bible; in particular, they miss things like this:  the fact that often it is not God himself speaking, in many lines in the Bible.  There are many sentences that are “in the Bible,” to be sure; but everyone needs to note they are not from God, but often, from his opposition.  Which was one of the Bible’s ways of presenting new and controversial theologies into the Bible; but under a cloud of doubt, to be sure, in the fine print.

 

Indeed, putting the advocacy of faith, in the mouth of Satan and not God, was the Bible’s way of dealing with a powerful difficulty.  The difficulty was, the whole new theology of “faith” –  and especially, the whole idea that God might withhold or not deliver material rewards, even for a moment – was so radically different from the primary, prosperity-promising theology of the Bible … that this idea could hardly be presented simply as the word of God himself.   It was so utterly contrary to the many, many promises of the Lord, of prosperity, that the residual honesty in the holy men that in part wrote our Bibles, could not allow such a contrary idea or theology, to find its way into the holy books, without … at least some clue, some hint, of problems, possible sins, in that theology.

 

And yet our holy men were in a desperate situation:  their theology had originally promised huge, reliable wonders … and yet they were not delivering them.  They had therefore to deduce, learn to “bear” or “face” the likelihood that they themselves and their religion were partially false or inadequate … or they had to come up with some kind of excuses.  Or change religion somehow.  But who has the authority to change words, once said to have come from God?  Finally therefore, the shift in theology, was advanced.  In a form that to superficial eyes, might see just another logical extension of what God always said; but in a form that on closer, “second” look … reveals that the whole idea of “faith” was advanced … with a vast network of subtle hesitations and doubts.  Warnings that this might be after all, an idea not of God; but even in direct opposition to God.  An idea therefore from, say therefore … Satan.

 

 

 

More on Job

 

 

Foremost among the dozens, millions apologetic sermons that our holy men invented, to try to explain away the occasional lack of material wonders, miracles, was this massively popular idea.  An idea that in fact, came to utterly dominate all of Christianity; and through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, came to dominate the whole world:  the idea that if the material things that God promised don’t arrive in a timely way, then that was because God was “testing our “faith.”  That is:  God was temporarily holding back his promised rewards, to see if we would love and follow him – to see if we would continue to have “faith” in him – even when he was not giving us many material things.   While, it was often implied, if we just had faith in him, God would at last deliver material rewards; as he delivered them for Job for example, at the end of his life.  But we will note here some problems with all the attempts to derive “faith” from the Old Testament; from the Book of Job for example.  There we noted that a) in fact, the whole idea of a test of faith, was literally, an idea not from God himself, but from Satan; it was Satan who proposed that God test Job’s faith.  While we might add that b) in the end, in any case, the science of God is confirmed even in Job … because Job, a good man, is at last rewarded materially; with twice as much as he had before.  While we could add now too, that c) though Job, a good man as God himself said, is troubled by lack of material rewards for a while, finally in any case though he remains loyal to God; but not just out of blind faith, but out of a particular version of the science of God (and the Argument from Design):  though he personally is not materially rewarded for a time, for being good, nevertheless, he is (eventually?) convinced that God exists … by observing the incredible works of Nature, like “Leviathan” (or crocodile?).  In other words, Job is convinced of God, not by simple raw faith; but by looking at material evidence; looking at the wonders of Nature, and being convinced from that, that there was a great being in and/or behind nature. 

 

A quick summary of Job?  This book in fact, gets at the main problem that believers had with the material science of God:  that God promised material goods, “prosperity,” to those that followed him; and they believed themselves to be good, so that they should be getting material rewards; and yet somehow, bad material things, including poverty, were happening to them.

 

Remember especially of course, that God constantly promised material things to those who are good, those that follow him, “prosperity” and so forth:

 

 

“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, … but his delight is in the law of the LORD … In all that he does, he prospers” (Ps. 1.1, 3).

 

 

And it is firmly said by God many times, that Job was good:

 

 

“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil’?: (Job 1.8; 2.3).

 

 

But then Satan steps in with an argument:  asserting that Job is only following God because Job is doing well materially; Satan asserting that if God tests Job’s faith as some say, by taking away his material things, Job would curse God:

 

“ ‘Does Job fear God for nothing?’  Satan replied.  ‘Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he had?  You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.  But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face’” (Job 1.9-11 NIV).

 

 

Here note, it is Satan who proposes the test of faith:  Satan suggests, hints that after all, God has promised his followers many material things; so that Job is following God out of greed say, rather than Love; and therefore God should “test” his fidelity, by taking away “everything” Job has; to see if Job is still loyal; or in effect, faithful. 

 

But God himself often says Job is good, “righteous”; and he has delivered material good to Job before.  So God seems confident that Job will stick with him, even in times of adversity.  And so he tells Satan to go ahead and make Job materially suffer; God implying that Job will still follow him:

 

 

“And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life.’  So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD, and afflicted Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head” (Job. 2.6-7).

 

 

As Job suffers, there are many “friends” around him who (Midrash style?), begin to offer many different explanations – in effect, apologetics – as to why a good man suffers, even though God had often promised good things to such people.  Among many other arguments, one suggests that a) God is simply unfair; while b) most arguments suggest that Job was simply not as good as he thought; Job has done something wrong.  Yet c) God himself had two or three times explicitly said that Job was good.  So that d) Job rejects most of the apologetic/blaming arguments of his friends around him; insisting that these early apologists around him, do not have a good reason or excuse, for Job’s suffering.  Though Job does agree that God does seem to allow the good to suffer for a while:

 

 

“No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you.  But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you.  Who does not know such things as these?  I am a laughingstock to my friends; I, who called upon God and he answered me, a just and blameless man, am a laughingstock….  The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand [Bring their idols?  Bring their goods?].  But ask the … birds of the air, and the will tell you; or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.  Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this…?  He leads counselors away stripped, and judged he makes fools.  He looses the bonds of kings, and binds a waistcloth on the loins.  He leads priests away stripped” (Job. 12.2-9, 17-18 RSV, The Holy Bible).

 

“Job answered … ‘Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?’”  (Job 21.1, 7).

 

“Job answered: …(9.2), ‘I am blameless; I regard not myself; I loathe my life.  It is all one; therefore I say, he destroys both the blameless and the wicked’” (9.22).

 

 

Both God and Job seem to reject most apologetics, apologists for the lack of material wonders, here:

 

 

“My wrath is kindled against you [Elihu?] and your … friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42.7).

 

“As for you, you whitewash with lies….  Will you speak falsely for God?” (Job 13.4, 7).

 

“Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?”  (Job 38.33)

 

“Behold, I have prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated’ (Job 13.18).

 

 

Countless bad preachers have tried to turn this into an apologetic for their own lack of material results; by saying that the story urges us to just ignore the lack of material results from God, and have “faith.”  But we will have noted that such preachers follow an idea literally from Satan.  While we note here that actually, God presents lots of material evidence.

 

Remember too that … Job is only mostly faithful; he begins to in fact question God … if not curse him. 

 

While finally too, again, what is it that at last really firmly convinces Job that God is real?  It is by seeing the wonders and powers (and terrors; in Leviathan) of material nature (Job 26; 38-41); and supposing that some great force or God is behind them, he therefore declares that in effect, in material nature, he has “seen” God.  And therefore, he believes:

 

 

“Now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42.5).

 

 

g)? So here we begin to see the fuller story of Job.  Specifically we see that God did not stress “faith” so much even here, in the story of Job; instead, he constantly presents material evidence.  And indeed, the man said to be good by God himself, in his life, originally is materially prosperous; and except for the brief intervention of the Devil, is physically prosperous in the end as well.  So that aa) the notion that real religion delivers real physical prosperity, is upheld.  And indeed, bb) finally therefore, the larger pattern here – and ultimately, in the entire Bible – of whatever small amount of “faith” it is that we are required to have, is this:  we are to have faith … only after seeing real material evidence.  As Job does.  Whatever faith we are required to have, is not really the preachers’ near-total, blind faith; faith without material, scientific evidence.  Significantly, Job is approved of by God overall, Job is called righteous and upright by God himself – even though Job is not blindly faithful.  Job is approved by God, even though he questions God about the lack of material fruitfulness.  God  cc) approves of Job, even though Job will continue to question him until he sees real physical evidence of the power of God.

 

Finally as it turns out, that is the real, actual, ultimate pattern and statement in the Bible regarding our central subject here; whatever “faith” we are required to have, as it turns out finally – as we will see throughout our book here; especially in the section on Jesus – we are to acquire faith, only after having personally seen, ourselves, many material wonders; much material evidence

 

The common priestly idea, is that the Book of Job absolutely, firmly gave up on the material side of God, and/or that it absolutely, firmly embedded “faith” as being more important than material results.  But the opinions of priests cannot be sustained by a closer look at the book.  The fact is, Job cannot accurately be said to have simply gone on believing in total faith, without any material evidence, at all; Job was in fact said to be prosperous, because he followed God; so that here material prosperity was partial proof of his goodness.  Then too, Job does not fully believe, until Job and God review tons of material wonders; they do not believe until they see much physical evidence of a power in nature.

 

h) So those many millions of preachers that have cited the Book of Job as being an Old Testament source for their “faith,” should take another, “second” look at the text.  If they do that in fact, they will discover that the very idea that Job was all about faith, the very idea of a test of faith, is an idea in the Bible itself, to be sure.  But our many faithful preachers have all neglected to note one important, significant nuance to all that:  the idea of a “test of faith” is in the Bible –  but there it is presented not by God himself, but as an idea of Satan.

 

No doubt, many bad preachers, who cannot lead their people to material prosperity, want to try to make those old promises go away; and many tried to insert hints that God was abandoning those promises, into the Bible itself.  But that was hard to do; indeed, the whole idea of faithfully ignoring lack of material rewards, is so totally against the bulk of the Bible, that any such hints could only be inserted into the Bible, the holy books, as after all, an idea that at first seems attractive; but that on closer, second reading, the stress on faith, the “test” of “faith,” is found to have been literally, an idea from, literally, Satan himself.

 

Satan and our preachers, have stressed faith in a billion sermons worldwide, over the centuries; and they both have long since successfully hypnotized, enchanted the whole world with that false message.  But in contrast to our preachers and Satan, with their stress on faith, today we see the Bible, Christ, finally delivering a very different message.  Finally the Bible tells us that we, like Job – the man that God himself said was good – might well wait, before having confidence in God.  Wait until our literal, physical eye physically sees real material evidence, of a power in nature.  We should wait until we see that, before we should believe in a god at least, in physical Nature.  Then the rest of the Bible makes it clear that we should seek to verify and establish his exact outline of that god, and then establish the truth or falsity, one by one, of each of his alleged principles and maxims, not by faith; but by very careful observation of physical things, in nature.  By very careful – and today, scientific – observation, of what seems to bring real material, visible results.

 

Today and for centuries, countless priests followed the God of “faith”; citing countless passages in the Bible that they felt supported them.  But when we read them more carefully here, we found that the language that seemed to stress “faith” was far more complex and equivocal and even negative, than our priests were able to see, or publicly confess.  In fact, we saw elsewhere in the book of Job, that the whole stress on “faith” was originally, literally an idea from Satan himself.  While in contrast, God himself constantly told us that we will not be considered bad, and we will be considered good enough, only if and when we do not entirely trust or believe blindly.  Indeed we are not good, unless we do not believe or have faith … until we see real physical, material evidence.  As verified by real, empirical science.

 

Anyone who believes anything different, has been all too blindly faithful, to a false idea of God; to a False Christ.

 

And if the whole world was following a false Christ?  Then after all, that is exactly what was prophesied.

 

But then too, here at last, we are coming to see the second and better appearance to – the Second Coming of – Jesus Christ.  Seeing him clearly, advocating not blind faith; but the Science of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF REGULAR TEXT

 

 

 

 

 

Afterword

 

 

 

[Did we, in our discussion on Job, embrace the standard theory, of the Argument from Design?  As it turns out in our later works, that is not just the material evidence suggested say, by a) the theory that the existence of God is proven by Design; from the common theological supposition that seeing the material wonders, the design of the universe, suggest a great Maker behind them.  As it turns out, “Design” is a step in the right direction, but is not quite the full or adequate method that God wants us to have.  As we may note in later works, from seeing great powers in nature, we might well indeed decide there is some kind of Power behind nature somewhere; and seek to learn its laws.  But finally, we also need to see if that power, exactly corresponds to this or that religious assertions – or not.  Job began to see that there were powerful things, big animals, in nature; and so Job rightly wants to learn to observe that world … as indeed, God walks us through a visual tour of some great things in nature in fact.  Yet to be sure, in the years since Job, there will be a few advancements to be made, on the simple idea that Design proves every single detail of this or that religion or church.  To be sure, the existence of massive forces, powers, structures, designs in the universe, seem to prove that there are some kind of vaguely definable forces, powers, structures out there, many might note that such evidence is not specific enough, to suggest exactly how those forces are best personified (if at all).  That is there is not enough detail to suggest that specifically the Catholic’s “God” for example, is the one that is indicated in Nature; rather than some other god, like Zeus say.  That is, we look up into the universe, and see the stars, and they are impressive; and we might well assume that is some powerful maker or energy behind all that.  But what is there in nature that indicates that it is one god, and not another?  That it was Jehovah that created this universe … and not Zeus?  Or Thor?  Or some other Nature?  We look into the sky, and we do not see “Jehovah is God,” written out in stars.  What we see is both larger and smaller than that.  What we see is an awesome physical universe, and mysterious powers … whose exact nature however, is not really very exactly specified.  So that the Argument from Design, is not quite enough to affirm specifically, the Judeo-Christian God; it is merely enough to confirm the existence of some, as-yet-unidentified powers in nature.  So that we will now need to go on, and look at all the more specific, commonly asserted attributes of God, one by one individually; to see if each and every one is confirmed.  (While thus far, we do find them confirmed however:  the traditional idea of God, the “Lord” to which we as farmers or tenants give our payments or sacrifices, corresponds to a pattern of life that proved immensely fruitful in real life; it is essentially the deification of early civilization, obedience to a central leader and government; a government which protects us with its army, its health services, its granaries, its infrastructure … in exchange for our “sacrifices,” taxes/ “tithes,” tribute, to the clerks of the Lord.  While in later works, we will also note the close correspondence between many miracles of the Bible – even resurrection  – with certain natural and technological wonders.  So that so far, we can improve on the generalities of the Argument by Design, and begin to triangulate and cross-references and correlate specifics of Christianity, with specific things in nature and natural history, proven to be materially powerful.

 

But to be sure, which specific Christian church if any, does such evidence support?  For now, we will speak of a generalized Christian core; which so far, seems provisionally verified; and found to be true.  While indeed, we move on next, to showing how Christ comes fully to earth … as all the particulars of the Bible are scientifically verified.  Even resurrection. 

 

As we will see in our later scientific/natural explanations, of “miracles” – especially such miracles as “fire from heaven,” “resurrection” and “immortality,” the Bible is absolutely true, and now even scientifically verifiable.  But to be sure, it is true in a way that our preachers have yet to learn to “face” or “bear.”  Most preachers till see miracles incorrectly and falsely; seeing them in essentially Magical terms.]

 

So that by blind faith, the world has been led for 2,000 years to follow a mostly false, mostly magical, conjuring Christ of “miracles”; or a believer in invisible “spirit”s.  But while this is so, some of us are at last, coming to see a new and better appearance to Christ.  Christ advocating not blind faith, but a science of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF CHAPTER;

END OF MAIN TEXT BOOK 4

 

See Appendix?

 

 

 

Advertisements

God’s Science 4.4 Science of Jesus; Appendix on other NT “Faith”

 

 

 

 

 

The Destruction of Heaven, Vol. 4:

The Science, the Second Coming, of Jesus

 

 

APPENDIX 1

 

 

Other Parts of the New Testament

On “Faith”;

Parts Not Attributed to Jesus Himself;

Or to the Apostle Paul

 

[Last edited by author, to page 46-66 END, Sept. 9, 2009]

 

 

 

In our book so far, we have previously presented three earlier major sections, on different major parts of the Bible. First we examined the 1) the Old Testament; then 2) the words of Paul; and then 3) we examined lines on “faith” said to have been delivered by Jesus himself, in first person, in the New Testament. But to be sure, there is one more small group of sayings in the Bible, on faith, that does not fit in these three major groupings: there are 4) sayings on faith and work, in the New Testament, that were delivered not personally by Jesus himself. But by the apostolic and other authors of the New Testament. And so we might cover this last group briefly, here. To be sure, some of this was already covered; the writings on faith and works in Revelation particularly. But it is worth summarizing these books, here and now.

 

Jesus himself to be sure they say, often speaks mainly in the gospels; the books of Mathew, Mark, and Luke; and somewhat, John. That is to say, there are many places where Jesus is pictured saying things, that are put in quotation marks, to suggest Jesus himself in person, is voicing them. And those remarks are perhaps the most important. But there are still a few remaining odds and ends of the Bible, that do not report words said to have been voiced by Jesus himself, in person. But contain words, editorial messages, by the authors of the books.

 

Sometimes, especially in books written well after his death, Jesus himself almost never appears, and is rarely if ever directly quoted in some books. As in the books of 1 Peter and 1 John, Revelation. Acts, and so forth. And so, to present a complete, exhaustive survey of what the entire Bible says about faith vs. science, we need to look at New Testament sayings about faith that were not uttered by Jesus himself. But by the writers of the Bible.

 

Many of the quotes covered here have been already covered at random in the rest of our book. But it is worth systematizing them here. In this vein, especially interesting will be the last book of the Bible that we will get to: the last book of the Bible on the End Times: the book of Revelation.

 

 

 

 

Other Parts of the Bible,

On Faith

Aside from the Old Testament

And the Gospels

 

 

The Biblical Book of

Acts

 

 

Strictly speaking, the physically living Jesus appears mainly in the Gospels. To be sure though, the book of Acts narrates an appearance or vision of Jesus to Paul; on the road to Damascus (in Acts. 26.13-19). To be sure, this vision or appearance is thought to be written c. 56 AD; a full generation or two after the death of Jesus. And this appearance of Jesus is just a “light,” a “voice,” a “vision” it often seems; not Jesus in normal, full, physical appearance. But in the interest of addressing all appearances of Jesus in the Bible, and especially in the interest of outlining all the major examples of the Biblical dialogue on faith vs. science, we should look at the book of Acts. Especially, the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus.

 

First, note that a) like the rest of the Bible, as a whole the Book of Acts logically cannot really expect us to believe, without the assertion of physical evidence … since this book includes accounts of many physical wonders. Indeed, it begins with the assertion of one of the most spectacular physical wonders of all: it recounts aa) the apparently physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for fourty days:

 

“Appeared to them over a period of forty days…. After …. He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid them from their sight” (Acts 1.3, 9).

 

This physical resurrection was moreover not the only wonder; since next, after forty days, bb) Jesus seems to be physically taken up into heaven “before their very eyes.” And what is more, cc) these huge physical wonders, took place before the “eyes” of witnesses.

 

So in point of fact, whatever it may say about faith later on, neither Acts nor any other part of the Bible, can really ask us to have very strong faith; or faith with hearing physical evidence. Since Acts and the rest of the Bible, recound one physical wonder after another. Including both the physical resurrection of Jesus, and the apparently physical assumption of Jesus into heaven.

 

Surely almost every Christian that believes, will have read such accounts, of asserted physical proofs. So that indeed, if “faith” means believing in God, without physical proofs … then none of the Apostles, nor even Jesus himself, had faith. Since they had seen – and as it is said, having themselves produced – many physical wonders.

 

Jesus himself is said to have appeared to Paul therefore, on the road to Damascus, about 30 years after his death on the cross. But if so then after all, what we have here is not offered for us to believe, without physical signs and so forth: the physical resurrection of Jesus, is of course often presented to us in priests (if not in the Bible itself? Where it is a “vision”), as a physical sign proving the divinity of Jesus.

 

The book of Acts of course, also continued to present many, many other accounts that are alleged to present physical evidence. Even associated with the rather “faith”ful Paul. Indeed, b) in addition, there are assertions in Acts, that even Barnabas and Paul spoke of or even produced, visible “signs” and so forth:

 

“The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (Acts 15.12).

 

If faith is believing in things for which no physical evidence is presented, then none of the apostles could have had faith. And no one who has read much of the Bible, can ever have faith. Since the Bible is full of presentations of alleged physical wonders; evidence, signs.

 

Among many other such passages in Acts, let us continue to read the passage in Acts, especially, which asserts that Paul saw a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus. Here – as is typical – the Bible asserts there are many physical miracles and wonders going on; in this case, Jesus aa) appearing to the eyes in a vision; and bb) blinding the literal “eyes” too. And note some other citations of evidence in the passage too. As Jesus asks others to see him, and thus be “witness” of physical things, etc.:

 

“Going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests … I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun.… We all fell to the ground, and I head a voice sauying to me in Aramaic [“Hebrew” RSV] ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to then to open their eyes …. so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven…. I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (NIV).

 

“I have appeared to you to apoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles…. To open their eyes ./. so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26.16-18).

 

Here, Jesus himself once again appears. And he peaks as if he knows – and accepts – that his points will be proven, that others will believe or have faith, only if real physical wonders are first produced; only if “witnesses” testify to what they have often visually “seen”; and when Christians do great “deeds” and works, in order to “prove” that Jesus and they are from God. Thus once again, Acts – and for that matter, Jesus – reaffirm not the blind faith without evidence, that preachers calls for. But instead, Jesus described once again, a science of God.

 

Indeed, if we include this as an appearance of Jesus, note that cc) Jesus too, in this vision, supports physical evidence, and thus science. Here again, Jesus dd) calls Paul to be a witness; to what he had physically seen. Furthermore, ee) Jesus himself even tells people to “prove” their spirit is real and good, ff) by “deeds.” Then too gg) by showing himself in a visible miracles, and only then asking for faith, furthermore, Jesus once again affirms that the normal process of faith, is for the holy man to work physical wonders first, and only after that, expect faith. Indeed, Jesus even makes this fairly explicit; in one reading, he says he works physical wonders, precisely so that others can “witness,” to what they have “seen,” and so that they might next, have faith.

 

c) Perhaps someone might object, that Paul said elsewhere, that we are saved by faith in God, alone; in fact, we do not contend this point here. Perhaps indeed, just faith in God would be good enough. But our main point regarding this controversy here, is that even if we might be saved by faith alone, still, you cannot even begin to be sure that what you have faith in, is really the right idea of God. You cannot be sure that what you have faith in is not a false Christ or a false spirit pretending to be God … unless or until that entity produces lots of good work, wonders. As God said in the Bible itself.

 

A scenario that Acts seems to reproduce and support too, over and over. It is only in the midst of the assertion of dozens of huge physical wonders, that the text begins to encourage “faith”:

 

So the churches were daily strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers” (Acts 16.5).

 

Here again then, we see that even specifically “the faith” of churches, was supposed to be based on physical evidence, many would say.

 

d) In this period too, Paul does not rely on simple blind faith – or even narration of miraculous visions – to convince others; but Paul also “reasons” in the synagogues:

 

“So he reasoned in the synagogue” (Acts 17.17).

 

e) Both physical evidence, and “reason” therefore, some would say, are asserted, in Acts. Even by Jesus himself, some might say. And even Paul. And just the assertion of a “vision” is not all the evidence that is alleged either:

 

“God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sink, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them” (Acts 19.11-12).

 

f) See also another alleged resurrection from the dead, as well (20.9-12).

 

g) The Book of Acts therefore, contains many, many elements that were often presented as real physical evidence. While indeed, it even seems to tell us that even “the faith” of the Church, was supposed to be based on physical proofs, signs.

 

h) To be sure, Acts is an account of Jesus, long after his death; and by the very spiritual and faithful Paul. And no doubt a mere “vision” might not be regarded as very, very physical, concrete evidence. Still, such things and others, were often presented to us by priests and paintings, as very, very, very physical, material proofs.

 

i) Therefore after all, if we want to understand what “faith” meant in the Bible, we should no longer just note the parts of the Bible that seemed to stress faith, but should do the “whole will of God” (Acts. 20.27). And read – and finally obey – the whole Bible. Especially the parts that told us to ask for real material proofs, before even thinking of accepting something as a holy word from God.

 

Of course note that the text says that Paul has “faith.” But notice that Paul has previously, many would say, seen many physical proofs; indeed, Paul has just seen a “vision” at least of Jesus himself on the road. Therefore, Acts/Paul once again, does not really stress faith without physical evidence. Instead, it confirms indirectly, the opposite point here: that when the Bible asks for “faith,” it really means, most often, not faith in things never evidence by physical events, proofs; instead it means predominantly, faith in things seen with our physical eyes. Jesus appeared here, in a visible vision, a “light,” (elsewhere, a voice; 26.14). One which explicitly moreover, tells Paul to bear witness to what he has “seen.” While their obedience is proven by “deeds.”

 

j) To be sure, these things might be metaphoricalized, and read as spiritual metaphors. Yet we will have argued against that possibility earlier. And in our later books (on over-spirituality). (Note incidentally, some variations in various Bibles: in the NIV, Jesus speaks in “Aramaic”; in the RSV, in “Hebrew.” In the Greek, roughly, ‘ebraidi. Which Bible is right? Which vision?). Clearly the bulk of the Bible outside Paul, intended to promise very, very physical things to us; not just spiritual sensations. To be sure, “visions” are not quite as reliable as seeing things clearly, physically; often visions seem to many to be mere mental sensations. Yet many other wonders are presented in Acts, as very, very physical events.

 

k) Deeds related to Paul, to be sure, seem rather vague. But references to “faith” in the rest of Acts, include a physical healing by Peter too; in Acts 3.2-16. Peter to be sure was once called “Satan” by Jesus (Mat. 16.23). But in any case, we are asked to believe in Jesus, largely because of a narration of a physical wonder or proof. Finally we ourselves are asked to believe, have faith, only after many, many narrations of physical evidence:

 

“A man crippled from birth … jumped to his feet and began to walk…. Praising God… When Peter saw this, he said to them:…. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see (Acts 3.2, 8, 9).

 

l) Sometimes, in some individual cases of faith, it seems as if the specific miracle happens after the faith is attained. But note that when people came to Jesus to be healed, they came to him because had faith in him already. And where did that faith come from? It was probably largely because they had heard of previous physical wonders.

 

m) Likewise in Acts, Stephen is called a man of great “faith” … but he had previously witnessed many wonders; and in turn “did great wonders and miraculous signs” to create that faith in others (Acts 6.5-8). Furthermore, Stephen appeals finally to the Argument from Design, the visible, material goodness of the universe, to suggest God is great (Acts 7 50).

 

n) Likewise Barnabus, a “Good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith,” was “glad and encouraged” when he “saw the evidence” (11.23).

 

o) Curiously, to be sure, Paul himself was struck physically blind when he “saw” Jesus. And then too, similarly, when a proconsul is converted to “the faith” by seeing someone, curiously, he too was made physically blind, by Paul and his faith (Acts 13.8-12). Which in any case, would be a physical wonder. And probably signify Paul’s slight antagonism to physical evidence and sight, to be sure. While suggesting too however, the disadvantages of the great faith that does not value what we see with our literal eyes: being made, in effect, physically blind. In any case, this is a physical wonder; though a negative one.

 

p) In any case, in other places in Acts, again Paul is pictured performing wonders (14.10-11).

 

q) And Peter again says people are saved by faith … but then cites physical wonders as proof that what he has faith in, is true (Acts 15.7-12).

 

r) If Paul at times seemed to stress faith, even perhaps faith without evidence, was Paul therefore, perfectly clear in his own mind, about what faith was? Did Paul himself have the right faith? Clearly we see Paul’s own “faith” and “spirit,” often do not lead Paul to physical prosperity; they lead him to “prison and hardships,” (Acts 20.23; 24.24-27, 27.25-26). Which would be physical evidence that Paul himself, after all, was not favored by God.

 

s) To be sure, the main voice for faith in the Bible, the person who spoke the most about it, was Paul. And Paul was quite spiritual too. And indeed, Paul’s perhaps merely mental “vision” is offered as his main visible evidence that he has of Christ – and a “vision” might not seem too concrete; visible as it is. Yet at the same time, Paul finally encouraging people to “see with their eyes” (28.27). At the end of Acts.

 

t) While he seems to consider indeed, one of our major points: that it is a lapse of faith, only when people don’t believe in physical evidence (28.27). The great sin, is for people to have eyes, but not use them.

 

And finally, that means, we find here, in the prevailing reading, not their “spiritual” eyes primarily … but failure to use their real, literal, actual eyes.

 

u) We have only a sort of half-appearance of Jesus and God in Acts and Paul; a “vision,” a “spirit.”

 

v) But finally in fact, note that even the very title of this book – “Acts” – hints that it is not primarily mental or spiritual faith, but material “acts,” that are important.

 

 

. . .

 

 

To be sure, by now, the individual stories, taken by themselves, seem to set up the chronological sequence that was to dominate sermons and theology for two thousand years: people are asked for faith first … and only then do miracles follow, second. But this sequence, is illusory. It has only a very vaguely implied priority; while again we will have noted here that this sequence exists only in an illusory way, or for the reader who reads or thinks only of individual stories, or mere fragments of the Bible. The fact is remember, that this sequence does not really exist in the whole Bible, nor even does it really exist for individuals in the stories either; since by the time that an individual petitions Jesus to heal him for example, that individual has already, long since, heard many previous stories of Jesus healing … which asserted physical events, physical proofs. So that for all practical purposes, there are probably few – if any – instances of people coming to Jesus, then or today, with a pure “faith”; a faith that was, deep down, inspired by mere loyalty and love. Faith without evidence. The fact is, all of us today have heard preachers constantly assert that Jesus worked physical miracles; therefore it is logically impossible for us to come to Jesus with a pure faith; without having heard preachers asserting physical evidence.

 

To be sure, the Bible at times appeared – especially in Paul – to give “faith” without evidence, a sort of priority. But that appearance was illusory. Looking more carefully at the entire Bible – and now we add, the sequence of reading or hearing not just one, but many of the stories of the Bible – we now find that the Bible did not stress faith without physical evidence, as much as preachers did. Instead, the Bible stressed at least two elements of life; spiritual and physical, both. And so preachers commit an extremely grave sin, when they stressed only one element, one side, one appearance, of the text. When they stressed faith … and ignored, denigrated, the side of the text that called for, invoked, material evidence, and science.

 

Preachers for centuries have criticized everyone else, other than themselves; they have constantly harrangued the masses, for lack of faith; for failure to use their spiritual “eyes.” And preachers have clearly seen the dangers of over-materialism; greed, gluttony. Yet preachers for centuries have committed the opposite sin to over-materialism: preachers have been over-spiritual. Gnostic. And preachers have failed to use their physical eyes. And they read and obeyed only parts of the Bible and God; essentially all our preachers read and followed only the parts of the Bible that seemed to stress spirit … and sinned continuously, grievously, culpably, fatally against the physical side of God and life. They disobeyed God’s science. And the results of that, we will show, have been physically fatal. It is the reason they have prayed for things for two thousand years, that never arrived: preachers did not get physical miracles very often, because they were not really following God. And specifically, they were not following God not in that they did not have enough faith; but in that they had all too much. They were all too faithful, all too loyal, to their own vain, false idea of Christ. Faith made them all too gullible; so that that followed, with great loyalty, false Christs, over and over. Until this very day, today. When at last, they should see a “second” and better, appearance of Christ.

 

 

 

A Reminder on Paul in the Rest of the Bible

(See Chapter on Paul and His 14 Books in the Bible)

 

 

We have previously written an entire section just on Paul; since indeed, Paul founded what was called “Christianity”: as it was presented to us in church. As “the” or “our faith.” But when we look more closely even at Paul, as he came up in Acts, we find that even this very faithful and spiritual proto-priestis introduced as at least seeing “vision”s; and others describe Paul as working rather more physical miracles; as his handkerchiefs curing others of diseases and so forth.

 

Regarding Paul specifically too: Paul is prominent in the rest of the Bible outside the remarks directly attributed to Jesus, in Acts. Indeed, Paul is said to be the author, of 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament. So we might remind the readers here, of the writings of Paul; the 14 biblical books attributed to him.

 

Here we will remind that the reader that to be sure, it was not God, nor Jesus, but Paul, that greatly stressed “faith.” That mentioned it by name the most times, by far; that devoted the most pages to explicating faith. So that the assertion by many theologians, that it was not God or Jesus but only Paul, that founded Christianity, is in effect true, but needs to be refined: Paul founded the idea that Christianity should be based on “faith” and the character of Jesus … as opposed to God, and his “law”s. Which was however, “another Christ” than the correct or ultimate one.

 

To be sure though, remember that Paul knew deep down he was making mistakes; Paul admitted he was not yet “perfect,” even as he wrote his half of the New Testament; Paul called himself a “fool,” and admitted to doing “evil.” To be sure, Paul tried to justify being a “fool for Christ,” and so forth. And blamed the “evil” in himself, on his “flesh,” and not his spirit. But to be sure, Paul at times began looking forward to another, “second” coming of Christ.

 

Most importantly though, even the very, very spiritual, faithful Paul, acknowledged at times, that our own (perhaps even physical, with our “hand”s) “work,” was important. Indeed, Paul finally agreed in part with James, saying that those who do not work, “shall not eat.” So that finally, even the very, very sinful, foolish, im-“perfect” and “evil” Paul, with his different Jesus from everyone else …began to see hints, of a second and better vision, appearance, of Christ. The one that in fact, we are revealing in part, today. As we begin to unveil, the Christ, the Jesus, of science.

 

Our position here on Paul, will be that a) Paul himself is the primary voice supporting faith in the Bible … but that was mostly just Paul. While b) Paul admitted, himself, that he was a “sinner,” im “perfect” and so forth. While indeed, c) Paul in any case finally supported physical science, to a degree; citing his own physical “work” at times, etc..

 

Though finally, we do not doubt the Bible here; even the parts by Paul. Indeed, we accept as absolutely canonical and binding and true, Paul’s statement that Paul was simply, a person who did great “Evil”; the worst “sinner” there ever was.

 

As we found in our chapters devoted to the faith of Paul especially.

 

 

 

 

Peter:

1 Peter, 2 Peter

 

After reviewing Acts, and then the 14 books of Paul, we now might look at references to faith, in the two books of the Bible, by Peter. (As in 1 Peter 1.5-21; 5.9; 2 Peter 1.1-5).

 

The Roman Catholic Church likes to present itself as founded especially on the writings of Peter; it calls itself the “Church of St. Peter”; and its main cathedral is the St. Peter’s cathedral, in Rome. But surely this must be meant as an indirect admission by the Church of its own sins. Since to be sure, “all” the apostles sin and err, both in their personal lives, but also in their doctrines. And particularly, a) the apostle and saint Peter, is unreliable As our best example, note that right after Peter firmly affirms that Jesus is the Christ, and seems to have the most faith in Jesus, right after Jesus seemed to declare Peter the founders or head of Jesus’ “church” … Jesus himself aa) at first “blessed” Peter … but then bb) “warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” While cc) Jesus told Peter of the necessity of the crucifixion, the execution, of Jesus. While then, shockingly, dd) Peter rebelled against Jesus; Peter told Jesus that Jesus was wrong, on a major doctrinal matter; the necessity of the resurrection. So that finally, after Peter’s many betrayals of Jesus, ee) Jesus called Peter, therefore, “Satan” (Mat. 16.23).

 

Roman Catholic priests like to quote just the first part of the following text; the part where Jesus seems to call Peter a “rock” of solidity, and seems to claim that his church, based on Peter, will be powerful and cannot fail; because the “gates of Hell shall not prevail” against him and his church. But here as usual, our priests deceive themselves and others, by quoting just misleading parts of the Bible. Whereas we should now look more closely, at the fuller passage:

 

“He asked, ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah…. And I tell you that your are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be found in heaven, and whatever you loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

 

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

 

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!'”

 

Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.'” (Mat. 16.15-23 NIV).

 

How reliable is Peter? And for that matter, the Church founded on him? Here as usual, Catholic priests quote just the parts of the Bible; where Jesus at first seemed to support this apostle, calling him a “rock” and so forth. But finally, Peter turned on Jesus, “rebuked” him and said Jesus was wrong. And if Jesus for a time seemed to support Peter and his church, Jesus finally, note, called Peter “Satan.” The part of the Bible our priests all ignore, and disobey. Following Satan therefore, in the end.

 

Many apologist priests today try to suggest that St. Peter, in spite of errors in his personal life, still was “inspired” or protected by the Holy Spirit in his more official “doctrines.” But which things did Peter announce as doctrines? While we found earlier and elsewhere, that even the Holy Spirit often stands aside and lets people err; indeed, too, many people mistake “false spirits” for the Holy Spirit.

 

It seems therefore, that whatever Peter said in his writings – 1 Peter and 2 Peter – should not be trusted too much … or followed too faithfully. Including his pronouncements of or on “faith.” Especially since Jesus himself called Peter “Satan.”

 

b) Peter himself knew that even our holiest men, even among Christians, were unreliable (even he himself). And he warned us all of that, there would be great sins, even among “you” followers, believers, Christians. Sins, “false” things in Christians, in “you,” even in your leaders. Until the “day” of the End:

 

“There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies ….” (2 Peter 2.1 NIVE).

 

Peter unfortunately did not himself very directly admit that he himself might be partially false; though his gospel does have Jesus calling Peter Satan. Which an intelligent reader should see.

 

c) What however, if we are compelled by various institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, even under pain of death, to follow Peter and his Church? As we often were, historically; and in the hands of Opus Dei, and some ordinary believers, still are? Then, if we must follow Peter as authority, then let us recall that Peter, like Paul, noted things lacking, in faith. Peter here for example, telling us that we need more things than faith to get along in life:

 

Supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control … and brotherly affection with love…. For whoever lacks these things is blind” (2 Peter 1.5).

 

Here, Peter himself finally told us to move past faith, to acquire “virtue” and “knowledge.” And Peter even says that those who – like preachers, we note here – have only or primarily “faith,” who lack the fuller “knowledge” of God, scientific theology, are “blind.” (A criticism of the faithful confirmed even by Paul; when he said that those who walk with faith, walk this way because they are “far from God” or cannot physically see him; Paul also confirming that he and other Christians saw things as if only through a bad mirror, “darkly.” Paul also confirming that Christians need to supply whatever is lacking in their faith).

 

d) The two biblical letters attributed to Peter therefore, at times begin to admit sins in our holiest men, priests, apostles, churches. And indeed, although millions, billions blindly, faithfully followed preachers, religious teachers, until now, Peter knew that one “day” especially, they would wake up. And aa) acquire “judgement”:

 

“Their destruction has not been sleeping. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell …. Then the Lord knows how to …hold the unrighteous for the day of judgement” (2 Peter 2.4, 9 NIV).

 

And perhaps even now, many are waking up.

 

To be sure, bb) the “day” a believer, one of the all-too-faithful, acquires “judgement,” is a very, very painful, shattering day. But here too, all this is as foretold. Remember that Peter for example, verified Malachi and others. And warned that in the end, even Christian disciples, prophets, shepherds in heaven itself, would be found wanting. And even the holiest believers, the very “family of God,” would have to pass through a painful but refining “fire,” before they are fully good:

 

“Dear friends, do not be surprised by the painful trial you are suffering…. For it is time for judgement to begin with the family of God” (1 Peter 4.12, 17 NIV).

 

In fact, cc) Peter knew that our holy things would not be fully good, until especially, his Heaven itself, the heaven that “now exist”ed for Peter, was purged, dissolved in “fire”:

 

“The heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men…. The heavens will pass away….” (2 Peter 3.7, 10).

 

“The heavens will be kindled and dissolved…. But according to this promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3.12-3; new works appear here).

 

 

e) To be sure, there are other parts of Peter that are quoted constantly by preachers; the parts that seem to stress faith, and the Church. But those parts are all too well-known; and they are misrepresentative. While only in our books here, will we have begun to finally, balance out the larger picture of what God really, “full”y said. Only here, have we begun to reveal the second, “full”er view of God; by looking at all the parts of the Bible, that pries neglected, denied, and disobey. The parts that tell a very, v ery different story, that reveal a very different theology, than what we heard in church. The parts that confirm that indeed, the Bible was right: our holy men were extremely unreliable; all have sinned. And specifically, their theology of “faith” was false.

 

No doubt, neither Peter himself, nor his writings, are fully reliable. However, for those who still insist on following Peter faithfully, or who believe that parts of what he said are true, then note this: we will have just looked at Peter closely. And we have revealed Peter noting problems, in faith in itself. Peter noting problems even in heaven itself. Peter noting problems, even in the very “family” or “household of God”; Peter noting sins and errors, in our priests and angels. Problems that definitely imply, finally, that we should not have too much faith in disciples, or priests, or their faithful, spiritual vision of God.

 

f) There are many huge sins, even especially in our holiest men; and even the doctrines attributed to them as the very core of Christianity. Like the stress on “faith.” So what finally is the solution? If you believe or do not believe in disciples, Christianity, there is an answer that is accepted in both the Bible itself, but also in popular, everyday culture and life: the answer is to use science. Examine all things, to see if they are materially productive or not.

 

While finally, even the normally-unreliable and even “Satan”ic Peter (to use Jesus’ language), began to back away from extreme faith. As he told us that we will be found to be good, only if we do “good deeds.” (To silence mere “talk,” in some translations). As Peter says here, people will emphasize “deeds”; and furthermore, they must be verified by the literal eyes of others. Only after “see“ing good deeds, will they glorify God:

 

“Though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2.12; 3.16).

 

g) To be sure, Peter, who has often been presented by the Roman Catholic Church as the patron saint or founder of the Church, was often evil and unreliable. Said Jesus himself. But insofar as many may still follow him and his church, those who still follow Peter and his church, even after Jesus himself called Peter Satan, should note very, very carefully, all the words by and about Peter, in the Bible. Not just the words that priests have chosen to emphasize.

 

To be sure, the New Testament admittedly, normally, rather consistently considers two possibilities – faith and God’s science. Very often, side-by-side. In the case of 1 Peter, we might see this in Peter 1.17, versus 1.18. Normally, first the “faith” side is presented in the Bible; then the empirical side. But in this case, it happens to be the reverse; first we hear about God “judge”ing us for our probably material “work,” and only after that, do we see possible allusions to the possible value-lessness of material things:

 

“Since you call on a Father who judged each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ….” (1 Peter 1.17-19).

 

Here to be sure, Peter, like most of the Apostles, is torn between (the Jewish, Old Testament) God, and Faith. But first note, the text indeed reminds us aa) of the Old Testament God, the “father” who “judge”s us by our material “work.” To be sure, it bb) seems in the very next sentence, contrasts that, to a more spiritual Christian idea; where were are redeemed, saved, not by material things like “silver” or “gold.” Here the text almost begins to suggest that we are saved, “redeemed,” only by the sacrifice of Christ. While next, Peter is even seemingly open to the heretical suggestion that the Old Testament God and his ideas, the “Father” of our “forefathers,” had an “empty” way of life. Peter suggesting – with Marcion – that the New Testament of Jesus simply replaces and cancels the Old Testament, and God, the “father” who “judges” people by their “work.” (Even gold and silver?). And his “laws” as Paul called them. Yet to be sure, here Peter heads straight for heresy: rejecting the Old Testament God. Suggesting too that this rule and God were for others; whereas “you” early Christians “know” that they are not redeemed by material things. So that here Peter begins to hint at turning his back on the Old Testament god; in favor of a new definition of god, in Jesus. Though to be sure, Peter could only distantly hint at this. Since stated boldly and clearly and honestly, would get Peter condemned, rightly, as a heretic; as going against God himself. Though most Christian ministers secretly believe that the New Testament and Jesus – and the “new covenant” of Paul especially – effectively canceled in fact, many of the old laws of God. And made Christianity into a different religion than Judaism.

 

But in fact, the very, very popular theology that is hinted at by Peter here, could not be clearly and honestly stated; since it would then be obvious that it went against God. While indeed, the more obvious manifestations of the move away from the “father,” and “judge”ing by “work”s, in favor of spirits, and faith, were condemned by the Church itself; as the church condemned Gnosticism, and Marcionism, etc.. The Church officially condemning the views which held that the spiritual New Testament and Jesus “hated” material life – so that the Old Testament God, who was often materialistic, and created the whole material world, must be evil. So that we should it was said, simply forget about the Old Testament; and follow only the New.

 

There were – and still are – many elements in religion, even in Christianity, that try to cut Christianity off from “the Jews,” and the Old Testament. That try to be just “spirit”ual, and to forget God and his materialism. But there were obvious theological problems with this. And so to be sure, the more obviously anti-God versions of spirituality, were criticized by the Church itself; in its attacks on Gnosticism and Marcionism among other things. While furthermore, we will have been showing here, that the fantastically popular, even predominant spiritual, “Christ”ian theology, does not hold up to a closer look, even at the Bible itself. When we look at the Bible as a whole, first the aa) Old Testament, it is clear that God himself emphasized physical, material proofs and signs. Then bb) when we considered even the New Testament, we found that Jesus himself was said to have concentrated often on very, very material wonders, miracles. And cc) if Paul was quite faithful and spiritual, and against the “law” of God secretly – to the point of Gnosticism in fact – finally, even Paul made some concessions to material proofs, and “work.” While dd) we will find with the apostle James, that such over-spirituality, violent anti-materialism, is not only heretical and secretly against God; it is actually physically crippling, and then fatal, in real life. So that the various hints at the spiritualization and near-cancellation of God, just do not hold up to closer critical inspection. According to our investigations here (and as we will see far more clearly, and startlingly, in our later writings on the evils of Over-Spirituality).

 

Indeed, the Bible itself was always anxious about this conflict between religious faith, and the science of God. And it constantly offered both positions. As it did above. Or sometimes it offered even just individual sentences that were open to two or more readings; and particular, to a pro-faith vs. a pro-science reading. To be sure though, finally, though the Bible systematically presented both ideas, often side by side, in one passage after another, finally note, that the Bible ended up discussing both … but finally favoring only science. For example, note the final sentence in our specific passage here from 1 Peter. Where those Christians who feel they were “redeemed” by perhaps only one sacrifice, the “blood” of Christ, or even perhaps no “perishable” material things at all, might well feel anxiety, “reverent fear”; because after all, they are crossing, denying, the “father who judges” us by our “work.” Because they are going against God.

 

. . .

 

 

No doubt, there are things in the Old Testament and Judaism, that should be updated. But unfortunately, the spirituality and strong emphasis on faith, the ignorance and daily neglect in their sermons, of science, the Pauline attack on the “law” of God, repeated by nearly all preachers today, in effect attempts to surreptitiously cancel God and the Old Testament. Reminding us vividly, that Jesus himself called Peter “Satan” on at least one occasion (Mat. 16.23).

 

No doubt in fact, Jesus told us in effect not to trust Peter, nor those who refer to him, many would say. But finally, though the New Testament itself often flirted with canceling, attacking, denying God, in favor of the spiritual side of Jesus and Paul, finally it continued to at least represent both faith and science; while ultimately, it came to favor the material science of God. Peter himself, after doing many things Jesus would condemn as “Satan”ic, finally partially repenting of his exaggerated faith and spirituality; and reminding us not by our faith, but by our “deeds”:

 

 

“Live such good lives among the pagans that … they may see your good deeds” (1 Peter 2.12).

 

To be sure though, Peter suggests, ambiguously, that we should do this here, not for God, but for “pagans.” While Peter stressed “spiritual milk” (1 Peter 2.2) So that finally, many might well “judge” – with Jesus himself – that Peter followed “Satan,” and opposed the “father’s” material standards. That Peter in effect, opposed God. Not only opposing and denying Jesus three times, and not only abandoning him in his personal lapses, but Peter abandoning Jesus and God, in several matters of fundamental doctrine and dogma. Including not least of all, abandoning, denying, and attacking the science of God himself.

 

We should have known; remember that in the Old Testament, there were only five or six mentions of faith by name. And recall especially that the major advocate and inventor of the test of “faith,” was not God, by explicitly, Satan. In The Book of Job (Job 1). While remember, Jesus himself called Peter “Satan” in Matthew 16.23).

 

So let us move on, carefully, past Peter; now. Reminding us that one “day” even the “heaven” of Peter itself, even Peter admitted, was to be destroyed (2 Peter 3.10-12; Rev. 21; Isa. 34.4 ff). By God, himself.

 

While we will see in our last section on Revelation, the last book of the Bible, Revelation, which is largely about the last “day,” confirms a very spiritual Christian’s fear … that in making the transition from “the Jews” and the Old Testament and “God,” to another, significantly different religion, Christianity, and its New testament, and Jesus, we may have … gone too far from God. Specifically, there is a fear in Peter, that in the end, we are to be “judged” not just by Jesus, but even more than that, by “God.” While Revelation in fact will confirm, even more fears: in the end we are indeed “judged” more by God; who moreover, contrary much of Paul, judges us, not so much by our faith or spirit, but by our fruits, works, signs, and especially “deeds.”

 

(See our section on Revelation).

 

When confronting Catholic priests who cannot face this, simply deliver this line, and leave:

 

“Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me” (Mat. 16.23).

 

 

 

 

John:

The Gospel of John; 1 John, 2 John, (See Revelation below)

 

As for the parts of the Bible, attributed to Jesus’ disciple, John? Especially 1 John, 2 John? (See also the Gospel of John above; and Revelation, below).

 

a) Note that the Gospel of John, has been previously examined; in our study of Jesus himself. We might add briefly in passing, though, that aa) this gospel contains many words, sayings, not by Christ himself; but by the author of the text. Who is said to be one “John.” While bb) the gospel of John, is not one of the synoptic gospels; it is widely thought to vary, conflict, not synchronize significantly, with the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

But those who accept the Gospel of John as authority, should note the following: the Gospel of John, strikingly, bb) does not mention faith at all by name; not even once (in the RSV).

 

While as for having faith in holy men? When Jesus elsewhere in the Bible was asked by the mother of John, to cc) put John at his right hand, Jesus would not promise that. In fact Jesus next tells the mother of John and others, that dd) those who want to be “first” do not know what they are asking. While Jesus then goes on to tell the disciples, to be humble, and not be so concerned with being “first.” So that the disciples – and present day priests – should not have been so proud, as to think of themselves as first with God.

 

John therefore also warned about sins in our holiest men and angels. Thus indirectly implying that any very, very strong “faith” in our holy men, is misplaced.

 

And so far as explicit statements about faith, by name? There are none whatsoever, in the gospel of John (in the RSV). Suggesting after all, that “faith” is not so central, after all.

 

b) But what about the other works attributed to a “John” in the Bible? Like 1 John? There is one statement to be sure, in 1 John; 1 John 5.4. A statement which seems to support faith: “The victory that overcomes the world, our faith“? But here, note many ambiguities in the phrase. Note a different reading, open to the possibility that there should be victory not just over the “world,” but also, victory even over our “faith”:

 

“Everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith”

 

Or, if this remark really supports faith, note that ultimately even in John, faith is only proven good, by its fruits, deeds. Or here, “actions”:

 

“Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3.18).

 

Then too, with reservations about John’s use of the term, we might note that, it was precisely 1 John, that began to tell us to “not believe” or have faith; and to indicate a need for a science of God, of “test”ing especially even “spirits”:

 

Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4.1).

Even our spirituality is in question, even with John.

To be sure, regarding this last quote, John’s later statements might suggest to some bad readers, that the “test”s we are to bring to bear on spirits, consist only of a simple loyalty oath. But …John noted that we must see Jesus as being partially material; indeed, his oath or “test” might involve confessing, asserting Jesus as “coming of Jesus in the flesh” (2 John 7). Then too, we have shown that, in the context of the rest of the Bible, whatever “test” it is that John described, the “test”s that we must apply even to spirits, are not limited to a mere loyalty oath, about this or that doctrine of Jesus. Finally, the “test”ing that the rest of the Bible described, outside John, is clearly, overwhelmingly, full scientific testing.

To be sure, 1 John is perhaps one of the most spiritual books of the Bible; about as spiritual and priestly as say, Paul. As part of that, John attacks the “world.” Which might be read by some, as an attack on the physical world; and on the physical evidence required by science. And indeed too, in his attacks on the “world,” John seems vulnerable to the ascetic, Gnostic, priestly assertion: that whatever “works” we are required to have, do not include real, material, physical works on this physical world. But John’s apparent attack on the “world,” we will have found here and elsewhere, cannot be taken as an attack on the entire physical world. Attacks on the “world” in general, we find (along with the Glossary of the NAB), cannot be anything more than an attack on the “world” or “century” or “secular” of Jesus’ time; not the whole of physical existence (or our “secular” culture today, either). Since indeed, from the beginning, God made the physical “world” and said it was “good” (Gen. 1). And if God ever cursed the world because of Adam’s sin, the material world was cleansed once with the Flood of Noah; then again “redeemed” and “overcome” by Jesus.

John, like Paul, lived after the physical death of Jesus. And so John tried to de-emphasize the importance of physical life. But John could do only so far with his spirituality and “hate” for the “world” … without all too obviously conflicting with God; who made the physical “world” and said it was “good,” etc.. (Cf. the problems with Gnosticism, Marcionism). And so finally, John finally has to back off the attack on the world; and to remark that “God … loved the world.” That he gave his son Jesus, to save it (John 3.16; cf. 1 John 3.16):

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world though him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned” (John 3.16-18 NIV).

To be sure, the Bible is written in such a way, as to seem at first to allow both a priestly reading – which emphasizes faith and spirit – and a practical, scientific reading – which emphasizes science, or even the physical world. And this passage is open to the reading that stressed faith. At the same time however, even this passage begins to mention the possiblity that if God ever cursed the world, even the “world” might have been redeemed, made good again. While other parts of the Bible confirm that indeed, if the “world” was ever bad or curse, that evil world was destroyed and washed clean, at least twice: once in the Flood, and then again when it was “redeemed” by Jesus. So that in effect, the old bad “world,” has long since been destroyed as foretold; while today we have a world or earth that is in principle at least, fundamentally good and sacred.

To be sure, John is just another unreliable disciple. And whatever he says, is to be taken with a grain of salt, or taken provisionally at best. However, those who follow John, might note that even the very faithful and spiritual John (who is often so, so spiritual, that in fact he often seemed to commit the sin of Gnosticism), warned however, that there are “many deceivers” in religious things.

 

Indeed, 1 John even warned hat deceivers came from the crowd around John; from “us,” even early Christians:

“So now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that is it the last hour. They went out from us” (1 John 2.18-19).

John suggests that the false Christ etc, came out of his own crowd … and then left “us.” But to be sure, which of us today, inherits the right tradition of John? And not the false one? Finally there is no way to tell, as we find elsewhere, but the science of God.

To be sure, 1 John is perhaps the most spiritual work of the entire Bible; in its attack on the “world” especially. And yet it suggests that after all, those who have money, can be good, by using that money to help others

“If any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3.17-18).

1 John also, by the way, is addressed often to “little children” (1 John 2.1, 2.12, 2.18).

In any case, John pretended to begin after all, testifying to what he had heard and seen:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands … and we saw it, and testify to it” (What was seen of the “world” to be sure). (1 John 1.1-2)

And John promises physical things, among other things:

“We receive from him whatever we ask” (1 John 3.22).

c) And John 2?

Here, John begins stressing “work” (2 John 8).

Finally, ultimately, given so many problems with conflicting disciples, John finally emphasizes not faith in disciples or their doctrines; but only “love” (2 John 5-6). Given so many conflicts between holy men, nothing triumphs or resolves it all; except some have thought, a rather broad, liberal tolerance. Or “love.” Though to be sure, we ourselves will have located science, finally, as a stronger determinant. Physical evidence. Not mere sentiment. Since even love can fail us: “hearts,” the Bible warned over and over, are often “false” and “deceived.”

Finally, it is deceivers who do not see Jesus in physical “flesh”:

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the comign of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the anti-christ. Look to yourself, that you many not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward” (1 John 7-8).

This almost completes a brief survey of parts of the Bible attributed to a “John.” Who might have been “beloved” by Jesus … though Jesus of course loved sinners. So that this love does not constitute endorsement.

Finally though, we should remember that there is one more book, the very last book of the Bible, Revelation, that is sometimes attributed to John (Rev. 1.1) Those who want a complete summary of the works of “John,” should therefore read our separate passage on Revelation. Where we show that however, that final word in the Bible [final, before the Second Coming adds new words], does not stress “faith,” either. But pictures us as being “judged” in the end, just as much by our fruits, works, signs, “deeds”; what we have “done.”

d) If we are to acknowledge 3 John, then to be sure note this:

“It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about our faithfulness to the truth and how you walk in the truth”

If we are to have “faithfulness to the truth” (3 John 3 NIV), then after all, this does not preclude or vitiate the finding here, that first, we must find out what the truth is; and that is found primarily, better than blind obedience, by … the science of God. As the rest of the Bible finally decides. Even in 3 John, John help for our physical “health” (3 John 2); that we will “render any service” to those who are good (3 John 5); hopes that we are “workers” in the truth (8); says “he who does good is of God” (11); and expects that an important meeting with John “face to face,” is to come (13). One better than scripture, than “pen and ink” (13). So that even the very, very spiritual John, who all but “hates” the “world,” still values physical “appearances” better than mere spirits and words and letters, it seems.

 

 

 

 

 

Jude

 

 

In wrapping up the odds and ends in the Bible, after looking for some time at major sections on Jesus, and Paul, and then minor appendices on Peter, then John, we might next briefly recall the book of Jude. In Jude as in Paul, we are seeing increasing signs of a professional priesthood; which uses the word “faith” as being one and the same as following Jesus; referring to what is now, after the death of Jesus, called “the” faith (Jude 3). And so the text makes the usual bow to faith. But then it next also, makes the usual bow to … acknowledgments of problems with faith. Here, Jude also notes that false things and people are found among even “you,” the holy men in Christianity itself:

 

“For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God” (Jude 4 NIV).

 

After bowing to faith, the Bible normally next however qualifies that, and warns about faith. While indeed, Judge warns that false things “have secretly slipped in among you” believers (Jude 4). While for that matter, Jude affirms next, that even those with great authority in religion, even “angels,” or no doubt bishops and popes, often do not merely just slip in their personal behavior, but also lose their religious authority, and therefore no doubt err even in the most sacred dogmatic and doctrinal matters:

 

“The Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe … Angels … did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home – these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day” (Jude 6).

 

Belief, faith in itself, is not a good thing: you might believe or have faith that you are Napoleon; but that would be a false belief, and not good. If those who do not “believe” are destroyed (5), after all, it is only those who do not believe in …the right idea of God. And the only way we can know what the right idea is, when even “angels” are false, is not by listening to angels or other religious leaders, and their “authority,” which often is lost. But instead, the best way to bet the right idea of God, as we have clarified here, is to follow the science of God.

 

In the meantime, there are many who told us to be content just with spiritual results, and forget our physical bodies; but those are the “Dreamers,” we have found; who do indeed, “pollute their own bodies” (8); pollute or defile, destroy, their own physical side.

 

Then too, Jude defends “reason,” a major element in science; Jude attacks those who are “unreasoning” (10). And especially Jude notes the sin of having no empirical, physical results; being persons “without fruit” (12).

 

Though Jude concludes with a priestly prayer, (called even a “doxology” in the NI; in notes between 23 and 24), hating “corrupted flesh,” the condemnation of “corrupted flesh” is open to two readings; in one of them (the right one; the only one consistent with God), we condemn only “corrupted” flesh; but not all flesh. Not all flesh we might say here, is corrupted, or unclean; defined as staining our “clothing”; there are those who wash and wipe, after all.

 

Indeed, not all “flesh” is corrupt. Recalling too that Jesus himself after all, was God … come to “flesh” and “world.”

 

Or, if some flesh or world is corrupt, then note, he “redeemed” or “overcame” them. Or Christ even, if seems, could make matter not intrinsically bad, as Paul might have imagined with Plato, but “redeemed” matter. By showing that even flesh can be as sacred as … God in the flesh, Christ, after all. God entering “flesh.”

 

And thus the material “world” was long ago redeemed, cleansed, “overcome.” Long ago. So that whatever “world” it is that we have today, is probably good enough. Or is not intrinsically, eternally bad.

 

If some faith is “most holy” (20), then which faith is it? The faith that you are Napoleon? Blind faith? Finally the rest of the Bible makes clear, outside this extremely brief epistle or part of the Bible, the only faith which is holy, that is faith in God, is faith based largely on empirical experience that is confirmed by science.

 

Judge affirms that the power of God is manifested in physical acts; as he “destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 5). And refers to the coming of God to judge those who engage in “ungodly acts” (Jude 15). Thus at least our evil acts, have a negative importance.

 

Works attributed to John to be sure, are usually the most spiritual parts of the Bible; it is John who more than anyone else, attacked the “world” and so forth. But even in John, we see traces of a God who does not “hate” the world, but comes to “save” it (John 3.16). While in a final book attributed to John – Revelation – we indeed firmly see the return of the God who “judges” us by our “deeds” and “fruits.”

 

As we will see in our separate entry on Revelation, below.

 

 

 

 

The Book of James

 

 

After considering a) the God of the Old Testament, and b) words attributed to Paul, and then c) words said to have been spoken by Jesus, here we have come to d) merely the other apostles after Paul, and their writings, apart from the words of Jesus himself. To be sure, the apostles themselves, remember, often admitted themselves, with Jesus, that their “faith” was not very great. And Jesus warned that the apostles often failed him and us; and were even often “Satan”ic (Mat. 16.23). But among the apostles, finally we should recall again, especially, the apostle James. Who finally did some important things. Though James may have at times and in parts of his book, appeared to support faith and spirituality, James finally delivered the central attack on faith and spirituality. Where he warned in effect, that if many does not live by material things alone, he lives by material things in part. And a religion – like priestly, spiritual Christianity – that does not deliver material things, leaves us physically starving to death, for example; killing our physical bodies.

 

James said firmly that those who, like most priests, offer primarily “spiritual” things, sermons, words, or faith, do not give us enough to live. The fact is, human beings are not just spiritual creatures; they are also partially physical. And the “Lord knows” that we have physical needs as well as spiritual ones. So that those preachers who give us primarily spiritual things, like faith, but do not guide us reliably to real material physical necessities, “prosperity,” actually do not really represent God. Indeed in fact, those millions of preachers, leave us physically dying; out their neglect of the physical side of life, physical necessities. As James especially, began to note. In the following, absolutely crucial passage. Where James noted that “faith alone” was inadequate to our salvation; that “deeds” that take care of our “physical needs” are also necessary, for a complete, fuller sense of Christ.

 

a) Here, James is sometimes considered to have gone exactly against Paul himself. When Paul suggested we are saved by “faith” alone. Here James directly attacks that position. Warnings that faith “alone,” without good work or deeds, not only “dead,” but physically fatal to those who try to follow it:

 

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has not deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead…. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless [Paul, advocate of faith, using Abraham as his chief example, calls himself a “fool”]? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.… You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone…. As the body without spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead” (James 2.14-26 NIV).

 

James here voiced perhaps the most powerful and definitive condemnations of faith and spirituality in the Bible. Not only does he condemn it; but he also notes that following too “faith”fully, and being too spiritual, had disastrous, physically fatal consequences. James warning that excessive spirituality, neglect of the physical side of life and God, actually lead people to physical death. As we see in fact, in the history of priestly asceticism; where priests who despised physical food, “fast”ed and did not eat it; to the point that many of them literally, starved to death. Of starvation.

 

So that in fact, against what we always heard in church, very spiritual persons, like preachers, are not really so good or holy at all. They do not do enough; they are not good people. James in fact, gave us our central picture in fact, of the very, very great evil in spiritual persons, priests. There is a massive, literally fatal side of millions of preachers who deliver mostly sermons as their primary work; or who tend primarily to the mind or spirit, but who neglect or deny physical reality … including the reality of our own physical bodies. Such very, very priestly, spiritual persons, James noted, lead us not to God, but to physical death.

 

James notes in our key quote above, that there is actually, amazingly, therefore, something massively, hugely evil in priests. Specifically, their spirituality and faith is often extremely evil. The millions of priests and ministers who have constantly preached “faith,” and “spirit” – and who necessarily therefore, correspondingly neglected the physical side of life – not only have a bad, inadequate theology, and a false idea of God; their theology is actually, moreover, physically fatal. As James brilliantly began to note.

 

Far worse, we will show later, the damage done by priests, their over-spirituality and faith, is far, far worse than what James saw. As we will begin to note later, when priests attacked “worldly” ideas, practical “knowledge,” “reason,” and “science,” when they over-valued “heaven” and hated the “world,” and our “flesh,” they did a massive, subtle but incredibly evil hidden damage to mankind. As we we will show, when priests thus attacked practical sense and work, they encouraged ignorance of the very practical forms of knowledge – of medicine, farming, housing, the science of God – that had “saved” billions of physical lives from disease, starvation, and exposure; and would have saved a billion more, if not for the interference of priests. So that, after James, we will soon note a massively evil side to religion, not yet sufficient outlined. Though mentioned by others, to this very day, the world has not really come to yet see the real “sins of the Church”: has not yet seen the massive enforced ignorance of practical things, which caused billions of cases of ignorance, dysfunctionality, then poverty, disease, and premature death, caused by priests and ministers. Cause by their false, fatal, over-spirituality, and faith. Which attacked the very practical trades and sciences that had saved so many already … and that would have saved a billion more people. If the vast majority of priests had not constantly attacked and weakened science and practical sense. In the name of “faith,” and “spirit.”

 

b) This to be sure, is not the place to review the massive literature on the infinitely divisive dialogue on “faith vs. works.” Which is not directly relevant to our point here, as we will have explained here. Here, we issue a position that in fact, allows for either opinion: either that faith is not enough to save or … or even perhaps faith in God alone can save us. But to be sure, we say here that even if faith in God is enough to save us, without our doing “works,” still, we cannot know whether what we have faith in, really is God. And not a “False Christ,” or a false idea of God, given to us by “false disciples.” We cannot even begin to know that … until first, those many preachers and others who claim to speak for God … produce material wonders, works. To prove that they are indeed, from God. (Or to thus begin at least, the first stage of the verification process).

 

Those who feel that God said we could be saved just by faith alone, as Luther suggested in his rebellion against the Church, should note here that James (a disciple whose writing, whose book of the Bible, was apparently not much loved by Martin Luther; Luther calling his epistle however, ambiguously, a “right strawy epistle”), makes it abundantly, repeatedly clear, that faith by itself, has some limitations. That we need other virtues to be considered fully good. Beyond faith, James said, we need especially, worthy “works.” Or in some translations, “deeds”:

 

Faith without deeds is dead” (James 2.14-26 NIV).

 

This passage is perhaps the most important passage in the entire Bible, to our own times, and to the current priesthood. It is one of the very most important – and by priests, least obeyed – passages of the Bible. Here, James in effect, condemns most priests and preachers today. Since the average preacher today delivers most sermons, and ideas or “spirit”; delivers “faith” and spirituality, kind words or sermons; but far less material goods. Some churches divert some funds, to hospitals and food kitchens and so forth. But we will show that priests and religious persons, deliver far less material good, per capita, than scientists, technologists, farmers. The priest who funds one food kitchen for example, might feed a few dozen people a day, typically. But he delivers far, far less material good than say, the medical researcher that invents a vaccine, that saves millions. While indeed, overall, scientists and technologists, and people with practical jobs, have physically saved ten times more people, than saved by priests. So that by this standard in fact, the “calling” (as Calvin called it; cf. Paul on “many gifts”), of the practical working man or woman, is far, far closer to God than priests. And saved ten times more people than priests saved. So that finally we will show, it is not the priest, but the good working man, most valued by God. Indeed in many respects, priests are “last” of all, to God himself.

 

c) To be sure, there are tiny parts of even James, that seem to support “faith.” Like the following:

 

“Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? (James 2.5).

 

“Believe and not doubt” (1.6).

 

But does even this passage really champion physical poverty? And faith? Note first of all, a detail of biblical language in this passage, that preachers have always overlooked: aa) James is technically making no statement at all here. Remember: this is all in the form not of a statement, but a question. “Has not” God chosen this?

 

Preachers typically mis-read all leading questions and hypotheticals, as strong definite statements. But in fact, when the Bible chose to present things as questions, and not flat statements, that was deliberate and extremely significant. The Bible chose to present some things as open questions … usually to indicate some problems, questions, about the theological position outlined there.

 

While also note, bb) James suggests that real faith is to be followed, verified, by real results; a “kingdom.” And in the rest of the Bible, the kingdom is normatively taken as a very physical place, described in great detail in Revelation, etc.. Indeed remember, James himself thought that a religion that delivered on spiritual things like “faith,” was an evil Religion in effect, that lead us literally, to physical death.

 

And in fact, if someone wants to say that at least, James left the important question open, as an open question, note that even here, this is only a part of the text. While cc) most conclusively and finally, whatever hesitations James might have had about all this, is followed finally, in the book of James, by James thorough, final condemnation, in James 2.26, of faith without works. Where James concludes not as an open question, but as a flat, declarative, definitive statement, that “faith without deeds is dead.” As cited at the beginning of our section on James, above.

 

d) All this to be sure, leads to shatteringly unconventional conclusions: if James is right, then many generations of preachers – indeed, 99% of all preachers – have been horribly wrong. And evil.

 

Is James really prepared to face, even suggest, this shattering possibility? That essentially all our holiest men have been wrong, deceived, and even evil? In fact, James verifies that he is prepared to come even to this apocalyptic conclusion. Seeing huge, horrible, massive, literally fatal evils, in precisely the very most spiritual, religious, faithful people and priests, James began to
upbraid even the “brothers.” Which is one name for all dedicated Christian believers. Especially fellow monks, priests. Though strikingly, James was even said to be the “brother” of Jesus. So that no one knows how far his criticism goes.

 

James – James who was called the “brother of Jesus” as some say (if the older brother, then more important?) – began to warn about, his brothers. To warn about massive dangers, massive and literally fatal evils, precisely in our most religious rabbis or “teachers” or priests or religious leaders; James warning about huge sins, even in his “brother”s. James specifically warning about these problems with our founding brothers, priests, and ultimately our very highest religious leaders. Warning that aa) many of the first Christians were bad “teachers.” That bb) all have sinned, and all “stumble” and “make many mistakes.” Particularly, cc) those many preachers who live by speaking, sermonizing, should note James telling us that the “tongue,” our language, “is a restless evil,” that “no man can tame”:

 

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. [“For we all make many mistakes” NRV]. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his who body in check….[But] The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts… No man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father…. (James 3.1-2, 4, 8 NIV).

 

Finally, even the holiest “brothers” of the apostle, our very preachers, our holiest men, our religious “Teachers,” and for that matter dd) even “we” disciples said the disciple James, “stumble,” err. While those who do much talking, speaking, in particular, are often extremely “evil” persons.

 

Clearly, finally, James does not have much confidence in the holiest men around him; even his brothers. Indeed, he warns us in effect, that they are often “evil.”

 

So if our holiest men and preachers, even apostles, are often wrong, bad, and evil, how then, do we find the truth and God? What then what is the solution? When our Bibles themselves were written by after all, apostles?

 

  1. Then James tell us to value deeds:

 

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like” (James 1.22 NIV).

 

f) Finally, if we are to believe the Bible at all, then we should note the parts in it at last that seem confirm-able by common sense and experience. The parts that told us that real “wis”dom, and “understanding, is found only by those, who look for and present, physical, material proofs, of what they say. Or as James said, after his general attention to “works” and “deeds,” above:


“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom (James 3.1-2, 5, 8, 13, NIV).

 

g) James at times, to be sure, at times and in parts of his text, supports the “spiritual” (3.15). And attacks the “world.” And even says that “covet”ing things makes us bad. And says – or asks – whether “friendship with the world is hatred toward God?” (4.4). But many of these phrases, are presented not as statements, but as questions. While we have shown than any attack on the “world” in the Bible, must either be taken as false … or as being just an attack on the excessively greedly “world” of Jesus’ time. Not as a condemnation of the entire material world; which God made, and said was “good.” While by the way, those who say that God will reward us physically, but later in time, “tomorrow,” should note James saying that no one knows what happens tomorrow: “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow” (4.14).

 

If James at times seems to attack materialism, he might be better said to attack only the most extreme and abusive manifestations of it. James merely and rather conventionally attacks just Greed, and the “rich.” Especially those who get their money dishonestly. But at the same time, James supports those who work at physical occupations, to make honest wages. Indeed, to those many preachers who decided that God only supports primarily priests, and not ordinary “secular” laborers, God in James actually chastised those who fail to recognize the value of the working man. And those who fail to give him his just wages or dues:

 

“Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you” (4.4. See also elsewhere, Biblical references to holy men who put “heavy burdens” on others).

 

i) If James at times tried to suggest we should wait, be patient, until the Lord’s coming, for results, note that we are to be no more or less patient, than especially the greatly productive working man, the “farmer”; who waits only a few months, after all, for his crop to come in. Indeed, we will find elsewhere that it is the farmer (/shepherd) vs. land”lord” relationship, that is the very core of Judaism and Christianity. So those who read the following, might pay particular attention to this and then other references in the Bible to farming:

 

“See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near” (5.7; at most three years, 5.17).

 

“And the earth produced its crops” (5.18).

 

Incidentally, those many preachers who suggest that physical results come only at the end of time, should reconsider; here and elsewhere we will show, we need much more immediate, timely results; enough to save our physical lives, in our lifetime, it seems in James 2.14, etc.. Even in six months or so from the moment you begin; the way a farmer gets results from planting, very soon. At most, James refers to Elijah praying for rain for “three and a half years” (5.17), and then getting rain.

 

James at times to be sure, mentions “faith” and spiritual things; and attacks the “rich” (James 1.11). And the “world.” But then too, finally, James reflects, repeats, backs, many of the basic ideas, of the Science of God. He reiterated the importance of “deeds,” and “work.” And note finally, that we are to have faith primarily in things that have brought proven, empirical results; even things that produce real, literal, physical fruit. Or food “crop”s (James 5.18 NIV).

 

James’s work, like most of the New Testament, equivocates between spiritual faith and practical material activity; but finally has plenty of references to support the science that God himself mandated in the Old Testament.

 

While parts of James, quoting Jesus for example, seemed to advocate “treasures in heaven,” note that perhaps technically Jesus did not say things in heaven were eternal; but only that they did not “rot” and so forth. While if things do not “rot” in heaven, heaven however, manifestly, does burn, in “fire.” So that even Jesus eventually began to suggest of material things, as James did, that “God knows you need these things too.” While likewise, James ends up recalling that the real model for the Godly man might well be the “farmer,” more than the priest; a practical working man who has only as much patience, faith, “perseverance,” (1.2), as it takes to see real material results in say, 3 years or so.

 

While as for those many very spiritual and faithful, who have strayed from this, because of their very spirituality and faithfulness? While as for those millions of “believers” who have strayed from God, when they remained ignorant of the science of God? Finally, James allows us only to wait for the coming of the Lord … which however he says is “near.” As he said, in 70 AD; two thousand years ago.

 

There are very spiritual, even Buddhist elements in James; in his attack on the “world,” on the greed and “envy” that is “unspiritual” (3.13-16 NIV). But indeed, God and even James himself, warned that even the holiest men make “mistakes” or “stumble” (3.2). And in the end, there probably will have been problems, sins, even in St. James. But indeed, we can affirm that the Second Coming of God, is always near, and not too far off, nor too hard to find. Since it is in effect, the moment you grow up. Or as Paul said, “mature.” But that, we will have found outside James, does not mean “grow in your faith” as preachers claim; indeed, it means the opposite of that. It means precisely, growing up beyond faith. Beyond the blind faith in religious authority, teachers, that has dominated religion (if not the rest of us), for millennia.

 

The fact is, we are supposed to move beyond blind faith; to finally see the science of God. James among many others in the Bible, cited many examples of prayer followed by real results, on the “earth,” as tentative proof (necessary if not sufficient in itself) that a given religious idea is good. We believe Elijah because his prayers brought real observable “rain,” as James notes, in three and a half years.

 

James in particular, notes decisively, that “faith, if it has no works, is dead.” While if we are to come back from this death, even the very spiritual and faithful apostles like James almost began to see, that the means to come back from bad faith in false things, is by acquiring the science of God.

 

To be sure, James might see good works as merely some kind of necessary correlate of being good; the morally good person will do good deeds. But beyond James we now see a more vital and central function: a person is not proven good, does not prove he is following the right idea of God, until he is materially fruitful.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, what about the last book of the Bible: Revelation? We have mentioned Revelation dozens of times in our book earlier; especially Rev. 21. In our Epilogue here though, in our present review of books of the New Testament that contain many words not directly attributed to Jesus, we might well end finally, with a review of Revelation. It is particularly appropriate to summarize Revelation at the end of our book – since Revelation is itself, the last book in the Bible itself; and is a study especially of the End Times.

 

So what does the Bible say, in the end? This last book of the Bible, to be sure, does not contain many words attributed to Jesus himself in person; 99% or more of Revelation, is attributed more directly, to a “John”; a John sometimes assumed to be the same as the John that wrote the Gospel of John. But while this final book of the Bible does not contain many words directly attributed as quotes from Jesus himself, or even God himself in person, still, Revelation is about the End Time. And since it does mention some relevant topics, suppose we take a look at it. As it turns out, it confirms the fear by spiritual Christians, that spirituality went a little too far from God. And it confirms that in the end, people are judged as much by the God and the materialism they drifted away from, as much as the gentler Jesus, or Paul.

 

Revelation is today said to be written by the Apostle John; one of the Twelve. Or perhaps another John, on the Greek island of Paphos. The book is a surrealistic, dream-like assemblage of weird catastrophic events, and strange beasts with many heads and eyes. (Apparently it is important to have physical eyes here). Apparently, Revelation overall attempted to summarize and explain the events of c. 30-100 AD; from the execution of Jesus, to the martyrdom of many Christians, to perhaps the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD and later. These events would have seemed to many early Christians, to be a succession of surreal terrors; horrors that suggested even that Christianity itself was false. Because it often claimed to protect people from physical disease and death, but it appeared to lead many to death and destruction.

 

The Bible indeed, addressed a major objection to Christianity: that even its leader Jesus was physically executed, and could not even save himself (Mat. 27.42):

 

“The chief priests, the teacher of the law and the leaders mocked him. ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘but he can’t save himself!? He’s the King of Israel!? Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him'” (Mat. 27.41-42 NIV modified with question marks).

 

Christianity at first seemed to think of itself as a simple and loyal, faithful extension of Judaism, including its constant promises of physical prosperity; Jesus was said to have worked many material wonders. Yet the record of what was coming to pass, was that in spite of an occasional reported wonder or miracle, Christianity was not always bringing the material “prosperity” and so forth that God promised, to those who truly understood and followed him. Instead, Jesus himself was physically killed. Though later Christian apologists were to suggest that God being killed was a good thing – Jesus thus sacrificed himself for the good of all – still, this did not quite fit earlier promises, that God would come to earth to live here with us himself; not get killed.

 

While next, in the time of the apostles like John, many other disciples and Christians were also executed, “martyred.” Christianity for the first few hundred years, it seems, constantly promised and asserted physical miracles and wonders … but now and then was found to actually have brought poverty, and death, and destruction. According to many parts of the New Testament itself. So in this moment, what did believers do and say? There were countless apologetic arguments to try to explain away the lack of material results. Many like Paul became spiritual, and hinted that after all material things, material life, was unimportant. Priests eventually all but reversed the old material promises of Judaism, and turned to actually embrace, as some orders said, “poverty”: “poverty, chastity, obedience.” But when Jerusalem itself was destroyed in 70 AD, and Jews were forbidden from living in the city, Judaism and Christianity could survive only in scattered remnants, exiles; perhaps like John on the nearby Greek island of Patmos. But for John to be sure, the whole collapse of Jerusalem looked like an incomprehensibly surreal apocalypse or disaster or a bad dream. And so he presents a surreal, dreamlike sequence of events, as a vision of the (present and?) future, for Judaism and Christianity.

 

Ultimately, Revelation is full of so many chaotic, surreally disconnected and symbolic supernatural events, that it has no very clear meaning at all, for most readers. Christianity often promised huge, spectacular, reliable, timely miracles; the ability to walk on water, and get all the miracles we “ask”; all the wonders that Jesus did, and “greater things than these.” But even in the Bible itself, it occasionally failed to produce all he material results that were promised. And then in the time when some may think Revelation was written – c. 90 AD ff.? – when Jerusalem itself was burned to the ground, and Jews were not allowed to live in the city? The situation would have seemed like a nightmare; and that describes Revelation well. The situation was so catastrophic, that traditional apologetics – like the idea that God was temporarily testing our faith – did not seem to match what we saw then. But in the end, as we indeed confirm here, there was one – and perhaps only one – motif or idea or prophesy, from the Old Testament, that could explain what was happening: the apostles were coming to the End Times; when the old Jewish heaven itself, was about to collapse.

 

With the material promises of Judaism collapsing, with Jesus physically dead, and Jerusalem physically destroyed, with believers martyred and killed by Rome, it would have seemed to many former believers that the promises of Judaism and even Christianity, were simply being proven false.

 

  1. But amazingly, similar bad things had happened in the past; and all this, some would say, was in effect foretold, in the Bible itself. In the past, things had gone badly; in part because of sins and errors in the Jewish followers of the Lord. So that one “day” or another of the year, the king would examine their tribute or fruits … and when found inadequate, the king would punish them.

 

  1. Or sometimes, things went wrong because of bad “noble”s, angels; or a bad lord or Jewish king. And at such times, huge disasters were a result. And indeed for that matter, one “day,” much of the Bible suggested, the household of the lord was to collapse. Or indeed, our heaven itself and “all” in it, is supposed to collapse (Isa. 34.4 ff). And the Book of Revelation began to fix on these traditional ideas, as an explanation for the disasters that were happening in Jerusalem, and in Christianity.

 

The most common sermons that tried to explain the death of Jesus, the collapse of Jerusalem, the martyrdom of Christians – as a “test of faith”; as a goad to “spirituality” for example – are found here and elsewhere, to contradict the core, materialistic message of God. And to have therefore been presented only with many question marks and hesitations, even in the New Testament. So what explanation remains, for why such bad things happen to allegedly good believers?

 

 

c) Finally, in the end, Revelation and other parts of the Bible, came to only one plausible conclusion. Finally, out of dozens of other apologetics for the death of Jesus and so forth, and the suffering of Christians, there is only one early attempt to explain material suffering in Christianity, that came close to the truth, and that fits the Bible itself: the Apocalypse. We must conclude that, as foretold that aa) our holiest men and angels and lords had failed us; had been partially false. And that bb) therefore, they and our heaven itself, were being righteously destroyed.

 

Many apologetic arguments for material problems in Judaism and Christianity were offered. But ultimately we will show (especially in our refutation of all apologetics for the lack of miracles, in Sermons as Excuses), there is only one honest apologetic or explanation of so many physical failures. There is only the single explanation which was advanced in effect, by Revelation. Revelation and other parts of the New Testament, began reading these disasters, as indicating real sins in our holiest men. To the point of being … fulfillment of end times prophesy. Fulfilling the foretold moment when our holiest things are found to fail, and collapse. If even the faithful, even the “household of God” as Peter said, were suffering materially, even being physically killed, then this was because they had not been as good as they thought. And so they – and our heaven itself – are supposed to collapse.

 

Chronic physical failures in our holy men, seem to match, and be explained by, finally, only ancient prophesies, threats, of a “Day of the Lord,” a day of “judgement.” This seemed to match ancient promises that God would expose sins in our holiest men and angels; and then too often allow our enemies to slay us; in part because after all, even believers were often bad, and sinned. The only biblical scenario that really fits what many of see, is that indeed one “day” or another, God would come not only to punish the obvious enemies of God, but to unveil, expose sins even in believers and angels and priests; and submit them to punishing but also purifying, “fire.” While indeed, since great “faith” follows not God, but Satan, then after all, our believers have indeed sinned mightily. And now is the time for our childhood trust and heaven, to collapse.

 

This was long developed throughout the Bible. But it came to a peak in the time after Jesus was crucified, and then thereafter. When huge physical disasters befell many early Christians – when Jesus himself was physically arrested, tortured, and executed; when many other early Christians also found incarceration and physical death, like St. Stephen and Paul and so forth –the Bible itself, found that there might after all, be only one valid – if devastating, apocalyptic – Biblical explanation. It might be that after all – as foretold – we were simply discovering as foretold, massive sins and shortfalls even in our holiest religious leaders. Even in this case, in our first Christians and early Christianity, and its very angels and churches and doctrine.

 

This would explain too why those disasters were happening: it was because our holiest men were actually, not as good or holy, as they constantly, proudly told themselves and everyone else. If there were physical catastrophes falling on Christians, then those parts of the Bible were true, that began to suggest that God found massive sins even in Christian “believers,” the “faith”ful. And that God would often punish apparently “good” people. Because actually … they were not good. Their idea that they were good, was only a false idea, an “illusion” or “delusion.” Of people following “false spirits,” thinking they were the Holy Spirit of God.

 

 

. . .

 

And so, if early Christians at times experienced material poverty and death, instead of the material prosperity and health and healings that God often promised in the Old Testament and often even the New? Then it was because after all, there were very, very real sins even in our “good” Christians, priests, and their doctrines. And so indeed, even the “household of God,” the priesthoods and even especially the disciples, were often finding physical punishment and poverty and death. And if this seemed to be happening especially around 30 AD to 70 AD? Then after all, perhaps that was at least the beginning of the foretold, “Day of the Lord.” Where many are punished for their sins … and for following a “False Christ.” (As John suggested in 1 John, if not Revelation). Or a false idea of Christ, conveyed to us by unreliable messengers; bad angels, bad apostles.

 

The book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible – suggesting indeed, even, termination – begins with the assertion that this book is the revelation of Jesus. But to be sure, it is Jesus as given to us through at least two intermediaries: first “angels,” then speaking in turn to “his servant John.” Revelation presenting itself as:

 

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angels to his servant John” (Rev. 1.1-2 NIV).

 

In our book here, we like many scholars, have been particularly interested in words attributed to God himself; and then, to a lesser extent, to Jesus himself, in person: remarks with quotes around them, to indicate that God or Jesus themselves uttered them. Though technically all the Bible is often said to be the word of God, many might feel it is often rather the word of disciples; while in any case, words attributed as having been spoken by God himself, are often thought to have the highest reliability by many. But here, we find that Jesus himself is not speaking directly, very much, in Revelation: the introduction tells us that Revelation is not so much by a) Jesus himself in person. But Jesus, sending his message by way of an b) “angel.” An angel who is speaking c) in turn thru “John.” This might mean that most of Revelation did not belong in our account of words attributed to Jesus himself, in person; that indeed, this is at best a third-person account, for the most part (with only a minor exception). However, though it is not by Jesus himself in person, or the character “Jesus,” still, in the midst of impossibly dense surrealism, it addresses and summarizes in part, the End Time, “Day” descriptions of the rest of the Bible. Descriptions of a prophesy which we have found to be very substantially true, or sustainable and useful, in our book here. Though we find aspects in it, that preachers have not noticed or followed or emphasized, earlier. In particular, we suggest that when elements of Christianity seem to fail or be false, rather that “whitewash” over that, or “twist” the old material promises around with metaphors, rather than emphsize “faith” and generate countless apologetics or excuses … finally the Christian should simply accept that this is the foretold day that God exposes sins, deep in ourselves, but also in our churches and our Christianity, too.

 

This book was no doubt in large part, one of dozens of attempts to try to explain the many disasters that were happening to early Christians. But while some of the apologetics tentatively hinted at in the New Testament, hold that early Christianity was perfect, this final one rather more honestly, began to confess sins, deep in those who thought they were faithfully following “Christ.” Sins deep in our holiest men and angels, and their allegedly most “inspired” doctrines. If physical disasters were befalling our allegedly good and holy priests and Christian believers, if Jesus himself on the cross assumed that God was abandoning him, then … after all, perhaps many had done something wrong. Perhaps God was finding sins, if not in Christ himself, then in … even “all” the disciples, and “all” believers; “all have sinned” after all. Perhaps after all, this was not a test of faith; but part of a “day” of punishment, for being partially bad and evil. For indeed for example, as we find here, being all too “faith”ful tp wrong ideas … while ignoring the science of God.

 

When early Christians often found material disaster, many of them attempted to hint that perhaps after all, this might be explained by many different arguments; especially Paul and others hinted, that it might be explained as a goad to us, to develop our “faith” in holy men, or God as pictured to us by holy men. But the whole idea of “Faith” was always advanced equivocally, apologetically, hesitantly. While in fact, Revelation and other End Time accounts, began to suggest another, better, opposite idea. Christians were not being presented with trials, so that they would strengthen their commitment to their ideas; but the opposite of that: they were being punished because many of their most sacred ideas, attributed to God, were false.

 

Indeed, some Christians deep down, allowed this. Many knew – and know to this day – that there are sins even in our holiest men and angels. And yet however, few priests have really correctly characterized these sins. Today there is a common apologetic, that says that even disciples like Peter, were “human”; and now and then made errors in his personal behavior. And yet it is claimed that these sins and errors were not important; since Peter at least was “inspired” or protected from error by the Holy Spirit, when he issued major doctrines and so forth. Yet we will find here and elsewhere, that the Bible itself made no such very firm guarantees of perfection, in disciples; even in the key moments when they were formulating the doctrines, laws, dogmas of Christianity. Though the Holy Spirit is always there to protect us, often we do not accept the Holy Spirit; or often, disciples took in a “false Spirit,” that posed as the Holy Spirit.

 

So indeed, God warned constantly of massive sins, even in our holiest men and angels in heaven itself; they, and their most inspired doctrines. And therefore indeed, God spoke of a “day” of the Lord,” and/or a day when God and his kings would come to defeat the enemies of Judeo-Christianity – but also particularly to find sins deep in those who thought they were following “Christ.” But who are to be found to have been following a false idea of Christ and God, after all. So that God must in the end, “judge” “Christians.” And expose massive sins in even their holiest priests and angels. As we find them here and now, today. Finding that even our holiest churches sinned, when they stressed “faith.”

 

Can even our greatest churches have sinned? Revelation begins with letters to seven of the first Christian churches. And Revelation finds huge sins and errors in most of these earliest churches; sins in these, part of the institutional foundations of modern churches. Sins in their (idea of) “God” and “Christ.”

 

 

  1. These bad things include bad things in our first, foundational churches and apostles.

 

Revelation begins as a letter or epistle, addressing “the seven churches in the province of Asia” (including Asia Minor; modern day Turkey). But note this: it is a letter in which Jesus, or John, or the angel, finds many good things in many of our earliest Christian churches… but also many bad things in them. Revelation in other words, find bad, evil things, even in these, some of the earliest Christian churches. Even the first churches, founded and overseen by the apostles themselves (like John?) it seems. And so there were sins and errors in the churches, right from the beginning. Says End Time prophesy.

 

What did God think was right, and what did God think was wrong, in these, some of the very earliest churches? First, in Revelation, God does not
just congratulate people on their “faith”; just as much or more, God congratulates those who have done good “deeds,” and “hard work.” While furthermore, God congratulates those that in effect, did not have much faith in holy men and apostles, but who have instead “tested” things in religion, and have “tested” and found false, even our holiest alleged “apostles”:

 

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:…. I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false

 

God therefore once again confirms our hypothesis here: God does not value “faith” that much; rather he warns that there are often false things in our holiest men; and therefore, rather than having faith either in them, or their idea of God, he actually wants us to carefully examine our holiest men and doctrines, with science. Looking to see that they produce, perform good “deeds,” “hard work.” Before we follow them. (While Revelation will also eventually show God judging us by that in the very end, too.)

 

 

 

e) Rather than telling us our churches and their “angels” are perfect, God explicitly warns that he is looking not just at the faith, but even more the “deeds,” of even the holiest churches themselves. And when he does, God finds that both churches, and their very angels,
often sinned:

 

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus…. I know your deeds…. I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love” (Rev. 2.1-2-4 NIV).

 

To be sure, God seems to feel this church lacks a rather spiritual quality: “love.” And indeed to the end, the Bible includes a dialogue on both spirituality, and science. But at the same time, not even this passage seems to really, fully support the “faith” that churches have today. Note that even this equivocal passage is after, all finding sins in the church at Ephesus. Suggesting we ourselves should not have too much faith in churches today.

Nor is this passage, critical of an early Christian church, an uncharacteristic fluke. In fact, other sins are found in at least five other Christian churches here; (in seven churches; all except for perhaps the church in Smyrna/Izmir, and Philadelphia.) This book criticizes even churches, as it turns out, equivocally; in “double” language. But language that after all, among other things, cuts against “faith” too. Especially, finally, the often “double” sword of the often equivocal Bible, finally attacks especially, faith and the faithful. For being without good works. Thus:

 

“To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. I know where you live – where Satan has his throne. You remain true to [faithful to?] my name.… Nevertheless, I have a few things against you…. Eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immortality” (2.12-14; cf. Peter allowing all foods).

 

God, looking at another of the first churches – here, the church is Pergamum, Turkey – seems to be sure, to be valuing “faith.” But then after all, he finds a limitation in that faith; it is partially false faith. As proven by the fact that it does not results in – in this case – good deeds. Those who claim to be faithful to the right idea of God, still do bad deeds, and produce bad works: they eat the wrong food, and are sexually immoral.

 

But not only were the first churches often evil; so were even the very angels that founded or oversaw them too.

 

. . .

 

f) So what finally, is the solution to huge sins, errors, in the very household of the Lord? Finally, we must learn to simply identify sins, errors at the top. We must learn that after all, even our holiest leaders can be wrong at times. And the way we discover that? Is by examining the fruits of following them. Or looking at their “deeds.”

 

Although God often mentioned faith, and churches, in the end, God stresses not faith, nor churches. But “Deeds.” Indeed, God begins to allude to a day, to an
end; when all – including the highest holy leaders – will be judged not so much by their thoughts, or love, or faith; but by their “deeds”:

 

I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: Your tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immortality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols… I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds (2.18-23).

 

  1. And so it is time for our conclusion: what specifically do we find, when at last we begin to see “judgement,” when we acquire the science of God … and begin look at the “deeds” and “works” of our holiest men?

 

First we begin to notice that from the beginning, even just in the Bible itself, God often finds the “deeds” and “works” of even the holiest men – here, even the “angels” of the first “church”es – to be insufficient, and even bad:

 

“To the angel of the church … I know your works…. I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (3.1-2 RSV).

 

“I know your deeds…. I have not found your works perfect” (3.8 NIV, RSV).

 

Finally, in Revelations, speaking of the time of John, and the End too, God addressed many of the very earliest churches, on which all present Christian churches are largely based. But God did not find even our “foundations” perfect.

 

Indeed, God here and elsewhere, found many huge, massive sins, in the very earliest Christian churches, and a shortfall in their works and deeds. As well as in priests, prophets, disciples, doctrines, spirits, etc.. While here and now, we have at last located and identified specifically some of the major sins of the clergy, of preachers, priests and ministers: a) over-spirituality; b) faith; and c) lack of knowledge of d) science especially.

 

God already found sins in the very earliest churches. Therefore, it would not seem wise for any church to claim it is perfect, today; because most churches today claim to be descended from the earliest, first churches. Or certainly from the Bible that was in their hands. And yet those churches, God told us even in the Bible itself, made massive errors.

 

This has long been known by some. But today we are coming to explicate, at last reveal, what some of those massive errors were: first of all, the whole stress on “faith” was an error. Since God stressed not faith, but instead, a critical science of God.

 

But then what will science tell us next, about even more sins, in our holiest men? Sins in say, their promises of “miracles”? For centuries, priests attracted people to themselves by promising they would give them miraculous powers to walk on water and make bread appear out of thin air; that the people would work all the “wonders that Jesus did, and greater things than these”; to get “whatever we ask.” And yet however, there is much evidence that after all, these promises were often false; or priests were not good enough to deliver on them. So that the millions, the billions of people who organized their lives around these promises … we let down; and lead into suffering and poverty and death. As we will see (in our writings on miracles).

 

 

. . .

 

God himself constantly warned there have been longstanding sins in our churches, even from the earliest days. And here we are beginning to reveal what they were. Surprisingly, shockingly, some of the ideas that have been presented to this very day, as the very most sacred, core ideas of Christianity – like faith – have turned out to have been sins, errors. Even according to the Bible itself.

 

After heavily, adamantly criticizing some of the earliest Christian churches, the institutional foundation of all later Christian churches, God next moved on, in Revelation, to describe “what must take place after this” (4.1), in the end. And that vision of the end, is not much more reassuring for Christians, than the long preface. Where God notes massive sins in essentially all the earliest churches that were to be the foundation of present day churches, and of Christianity itself. All churches were found to have bad things in them; (except perhaps, among others, for the church say, of “Smyrna.” Which is now Izmir, Turkey.)

 

But what in any case, was the final solution in the Bible, for all these huge problems, even catastrophic collapse, in the heart of all that was thought to be holy and true? Billions thought that the coming of Jesus and Christianity resolved all this. When Jerusalem, the Jewish kingdom, was burned to the ground in 70 AD by Rome, a new gentler, meeker credo, a religion of co-operation with our “enemies” appeared, in Christianity. Jesus apparently finding some good even in non-Jewish “Samaritans” and a “Roman” centurion; Paul urging Jews to get along with, merge with, Greeks and Romans; and to “obey” their leaders, governors, etc.. But to be sure, Jesus lives just before the collapse; Jesus died for our sins c. 30 AD; and yet neither Jesus nor his followers, early Christianity, were able to prevent the collapse, the burning of Jerusalem, 40 years later, in 70 AD. While indeed, if Rome itself became Christian, c. 300-400 AD, Rome collapsed immediately after becoming Christian, in 410 AD. For this and other reasons, though Christians at times like to suggest that the coming of Jesus completely “fulfilled” all the promises of God, most feel that yet another, “second” coming, second appearance of Christ will be necessary, before all is fulfilled. And indeed the Book of Revelation “saw” a huge apocalypse, even the destruction of heaven itself (Rev. 21) as perhaps a prelude, after all, to another, new, better heaven. As Peter saw, one even after the “present” heaven of Christianity. Revelation suggesting that God might come again … but to “judge” us not so much by our faith or spirit (or even our “thoughts”?), as much as by our fruits, works, “deeds.” And in this way, begin to give us another, slightly different, better, fuller appearance of God and truth; and a better, fuller “kingdom” of God, of Good. Not just in the old heaven, which is now destroyed; but on earth (Rev. 20 ff).

 

While indeed, our revelation of a second and better appearance to Christ – Jesus advocating not blind faith in our leaders, but instead, a science of God – begins to partially fulfill that ancient promise. A blindly “faith”ful believer, who formerly rejected practical “knowledge” and much “wisdom” and “work,” and who therefore did not get a real job or a paycheck, who could not flourish, could not find prosperity, who became a beggar, living on welfare, out of simply praying and being “good”- and waiting in “vain” for bread to appear in his priestly beggar’s collection plate, by “miracle” – can now find real truth and respect and prosperity, at last. On learning the science of God; and as part of that, learning science and practical knowledge. To get a real job. And thus begin to help him- or herself flourish; even as he or she contributes to the larger material welfare of all of humanity. And the kingdom of God, good, “on earth.”

 

All this as foretold, by the Bible itself; as commanded by God himself.

 

 

 

 

Appendix II

 

Paul – And Jesus

 

Paul

 

 

 

Note that the books of Paul, are like the rest of the Bible; any statement that can be taken as firm support for preachers, is almost always within a half page or so, of another statement, warning about holy men. And Paul’s statements claiming that Jesus considered him faithful, is no exception. Note the part of the text that seems to support Paul, and his faith, alternating soon with another part of the text, that suggests the opposite:

 

“I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

 

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst” (1 Tim. 1.12-15).

 

Normally priests will assure us that Paul’s sins were in the past, after he saw Jesus. But note that Paul often says he is “imperfect,” in the present tense; as here he says he is – “I am the worst.” Paul writing in present tense. Paul therefore being the worst sinner … even as he is writing half the New Testament.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did Jesus Himself, Ask for “Faith”

Specifically,

That He was Himself, God, or “Son of God”?

 

 

 

Did Jesus really even stress faith? Even say, faith specifically, in himself? Many parts of the Bible seem to have believers being congratulated on their faith in Jesus. But let’s look finally, at those passages. As it turns out, Jesus did not even really tell us to have great faith, even in Jesus himself. Instead, Jesus told us to evaluate him, and to follow him, only insofar as following him brought real material results; fruits, works, signs.

 

Did Jesus stress faith in he himself? Many very intelligent scholars even suggest that Jesus (almost?) never really, firmly, even told us that he was aa) God, or even the bb) Son of God. (Cf. the “Christ,” “Messiah,” “Lord,” etc.). Jesus cc) at times claimed many things for himself it seems; that he was the “way,” the “life,” and so forth. And dd) many of his disciples claimed many more things about him. But let’s look very carefully, at what Jesus himself actually said. And specifically, let’s look to see if he ever claimed that he was, specifically – as the doctrine of the Trinity might imply – the promised God come to earth; or “Son of God,” especially. At times, Jesus seemed to ask for some faith; though there, just enough for others to believe things well proven by material experience. While we might well ask furthermore, whether he himself ever really did ask for faith specifically, say, that he was, say, “God”? Or Son of God? (Leaving aside the title of “Christ” for a while). Many times, Jesus has seemed, to many people, to tell us he was God, or Son of God. Or to ask us to have faith that he is such things. But finally we will find that actually, Jesus himself chose to leave his own status, deeply ambiguous and undecided. While Jesus did not even really ask us – himself – to have great faith in him; instead finally, Jesus asked us to believe in him … only insofar as he or his followers, were able to produce great works; to prove they were good.

 

a) Far from stressing faith in holy men – and even himself; even a “Christ” in fact – Jesus like God in the rest of the Bible, knew there would be many false things in religion, holy men, angels; and that therefore blind faith in anyone was rash. Indeed, remember Jesus constantly warned there would be many false things, like “false prophets.” And even specifically “False Christ”s, in even Christianity. Which would not encourage us to trust any vision or idea of “Christ” too much. But to ask for evidence, before following it. Since even if Jesus was the Christ, say, we cannot be sure that the vision of him that we are getting from a given priest, really is the right, authentic view of him.

 

Should we, therefore, believe the disciples if they say Jesus was Christ? In fact, because Jesus warned of many false things even in his own apostles. So that apparently, Jesus actually wanted us to question … even Jesus himself it seems at times. Question whether he was the foretold Christ.

 

Even if Jesus himself was authentic, Jesus knew there would be many false views of Christ after his death, regarding the reliability of reports that, specifically a Christ had come, Jesus noted that there would be many messages, said to have come from a Christ, that after all would come from false or anti-Christs. So therefore, when it comes to any and all alleged messages of, or to, or from a “Christ,” after the execution of Jesus … Jesus in fact, told us rather strongly, not to blindly believe it, or have faith in it:

 

“Do not believe it” (Mat. 24.23; Mark 12.21).

 

Amazingly therefore, here Jesus here does not tell us to have faith, or believe in various reports of a (any?) Christ: he tells us to do precisely the opposite of that: “do not believe” he tells us.

 

Though this is universally taken by preachers, to mean merely that we should question anyone who claims to be Christ again, finally, this can be taken to question … the existing Jesus Christ; and/or the views of him that preachers have given us for so long.

 

If there are many false things in holy men, if the whole earth is to be dominated by a false Christ and his associates (Rev. 13.7-8, etc.), should we therefore entirely believe, even our present, Jesus Christ? Or the “Christ” that is pictured to us by preachers?

 

Or, that is, should we believe the apostles, when they said Jesus was God, or Son of God, especially? Here note, actually, that if you believe him, then Jesus himself, puts another very strong limitation or check, on the amount of belief, faith we are supposed to have, even in perhaps Jesus himself. Jesus here warning that in at least one type of situation, we should not be too ready to believe and have faith: when someone says he sees (or is?) the Christ, do not automatically believe it. Since after all, there are many false things in religion; even false ideas of Christ himself; false Christs. Therefore logically, we might question even Jesus himself.

 

b) Jesus said, apparently, that there are many false prophets … and many false Christs too. And therefore finally, he told us even to question he himself, it seems. He told us how to find out who is true and who is not: “by their fruits you will know them.” Not by their oaths and asseverations; not by the faith that your or others have in them. But only by the material evidence that they can get real material results. And finally he even told us not to believe even in he, Jesus himself; unless or until he produced real material fruits, works:

 

It is largely for that reason in fact, that in the few instances where Jesus asks for faith, Jesus asks for faith … but only after having furnished many proofs, wonders. Jesus in fact, remember, far more consistently warning that far from simply trusting and having faith even in Jesus himself, instead, we should, carefully evaluate them, by whether they got real empirical results – fruits, works – or not.

 

So did Jesus really stress faith in himself, as say God or Son of God? Finally in fact, as noted above (with regard to “works”) we will have found here that Jesus told us to follow him not with total blind faith, or “believe me”; but to follow him only if he (and his followers?) got proven “works”:

 

 

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe in me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works” (John 10.37).

 

Thus it seems, ironically, Jesus himself, often did not stress faith in himself as God or Son of God, at all. In fact, he firmly told us the opposite here: to believe and follow him, only if he (and his followers) furnish real material proofs; works.

 

. . .

 

And therefore to this day, we should not even trust the Apostles’ view, typifications of Jesus … unless or until we have found sayings attributed to Jesus, to be materially fruitful, today.

 

We cannot be certain at all then, that Jesus himself, ever stressed faith at all; indeed, if anything, we will say here that Jesus constantly stressed “faith”fully following only those would-be prophets and holy men and even “Christ”s… who show real material signs, proofs, of being from God. By their producing real material “works,” “fruits,” “signs,” “deeds,” proofs.” Even when Jesus asked for “faith,” then, he asked for only a very little; only enough faith to believe things well proven by material evidence (above). Finally, Jesus himself did not even, usually, ask us to have faith even in he himself; but chose to stand or fall, as good or bad, a true Christ or a false one … according to whether he – and his followers – got good “works,” real material results, or not. Jesus actually remaining an empiricist, to the end. Even with regard to his own status, especially, as God or Son of God.

 

c) In fact, his own modesty – and even real doubt, not faith – regarding his own status, was so consistent, and so tied to actual material success, that when at last he was crucified on the cross – which would seem to be a material failure – Jesus himself assumed in fact, that God was punishing him, or “forsaking” or abandoning him, for doing something wrong:

 

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Mat. 27. 46).

 

[Here by the way, it would seem that one way or another, logically, Jesus would have had to be bad here. Either, aa) Jesus was right, and God had forsaken him; in which case, he is not worthy of our attention, having been forsaken by God; Jesus is not a reliable leader. Or bb) Jesus is wrong, and God had not forsaken him; in which case, Jesus here was wrong … and once again, was not the perfect son of God. Since he did not know the truth, but made an incorrect assumption. Amazingly, it would seem, in either case, Jesus was forsaken by God, and his perfection, it would seem. Which is a surprising conclusion seemingly at odds with many church doctrines. Since this would indicate that Jesus himself was not quite as perfect as one would hope.]

 

Indeed in fact, therefore, amazingly, the Bible itself turns out to be far more ambiguous – even on the status of Jesus as God, or Son of God – than our preachers thought. i) Indeed it is well known and admitted in classic Theology, that the doctrine of the “Trinity” – that would make Jesus God, say – was aa) never spelled out in the Bible itself, by name. While indeed, it seems likely from the above, that the concept is not even consistent, as an analytic derivative, from many parts of the Bible, in fact.

 

So what should we say? Ironically, we would have to say that … amazingly, Jesus himself, so far as most of his own statements seem to say, did not stress “faith,” even in himself, as specifically “God” or “son of God.” And ironically therefore, it appears that those who have great faith in Jesus … are not really following or obeying him. As we will in fact, see. Amazingly, Jesus himself in fact, did not really express full faith or confidence even in himself. But instead, he left it to science – the examination of his “works,” “fruits” – to finally determine, decide, whether he was the promised God or Son of God … or not. (Cf. “Christ”; a different term).

 

 

d) So first of all, Jesus was deeply ambiguous in statements of his own status. Note carefully in fact, that when others asked who he was, Jesus most often responding to questions about his status, by merely asking others turns, “who do you say I am?” Far from telling people to have great “faith” in him, or telling them he was great, himself. Here in fact, Jesus is not really telling us he is God, or Son of God, at all; but only asking others what they think.

 

e) To be sure, most preachers believe that Jesus was referring to himself, as God, when he spoke about the future deeds of a wonderful “son of Man.” Yet note that Jesus aaa) normally spoke of the “son of Man” in third person; as if he was someone else, other than Jesus himself. (A fact that is consistent enough, that any isolated exceptions should be carefully examined in the original text, to see if they are mistranslations). While indeed, bbb) there are many references to a “son of Man” that are not definitely to Jesus himself; the Bible referring to Ezekiel for example, by that term, over and over, at the beginning of chapter after chapter, in the Book of Ezekiel. While indeed, ccc) some scholars suggest the term “son of Man” after all, does not quite say son of “God“; and indeed, ddd) the term may have been just another name for “mortal.” Men being mortal, as opposed to Gods.

 

Jesus therefore, does not really firmly say he is son of God, 99% of the time. (And the one time he seems to say so? Is in account that is narrated in another gospel, that suggests that it was merely the false assumptions of priests, that believed he had said such a thing; q.v.).

 

f) For a second, we have focused on what Jesus himself said, about himself as God or “Son of God.” And Jesus himself was not clear on this. But for that matter, what about all the others around him? The disciples and others? Who it might seem, frequently said we must have faith in Jesus as God or Son of God, say? We will find out that in fact, amazingly, though there were many people in the Bible who said Jesus was God or Son of God and so forth, none of those persons were reliable witnesses. According even, to the Bible itself, nearly
all those who had great faith in Jesus, and/or who said Jesus was God or Son of God and so forth – were almost universally described in the Bible itself … as people with sin and corruption, “unclean” spirits, “demons,” in them. Including Gentiles and Romans; who were Gentiles and therefore by traditional Jewish standards, unclean. Jesus noted sins even in the Twelve Apostles.

 

Many people in the Bible, to be sure, might have seemed to think of him as God or Son of God. But as it turns out, amazingly, all of those who say that, are unreliable witnesses.

 

Amazingly for example, remember there were several Roman Centurions and soldiers, who expressed great “faith” in Jesus; yet we found this faith was not as unambiguously good as many preachers assured us. Romans were not considered entirely kosher; entirely good witnesses. In part because after all, Romans and other gentiles, were not considered entirely good persons, by many Jews. So that their testimony on many things, would be considered … unreliable, even “unclean” in effect. Because they ate non-kosher foods, like pork, and had unclean, infected, non-Jewish ideas.

 

How about the Apostles? Were even their testimonies of great faith in Jesus reliable? Consider Peter himself. If Peter seemed to have great faith in Jesus, and to declare him “Son of the living God,” actually we find there were flaws, shortfalls, sins in the reliability of even Peter. (In Mat. 16.16; note chapter # corresponding to verse #; usually a sign of a writing about or reflecting something false in religion.)

 

We have noted earlier that in fact, the Bible itself noted that Peter committed errors, sins so grievous, that finally, Jesus himself called Peter, “Satan” (Mat. 16.23);

 

“He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’“.… “Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah…. “And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him…. But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.'” (Mat. 16.15-16, 20, 22, 23 NRSV).

 

Amazingly, note that Jesus here does not stress the reliability even of his closest and most influential followers; even the very Twelve Apostles that are credited with writing much of the New Testament; writing the descriptions of Jesus that we have. Nor did Jesus therefore embrace the disciples’ endorsement of him as, God, Son of God, or so forth. The fact is, that to be sure, aa) Peter himself, seemed to have great faith in Jesus, and to declare him son of God (Mat. 16). And bb) Jesus at first seemed to approve of Peter and his belief, as a “Rock.” But cc) next note that Jesus told the disciples, not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah, for example. While dd) next, Peter turned against Jesus, and “rebuked” him, or told Jesus that Jesus was wrong (wrong on a major doctrinal matter too: on the necessity of the crucifixion). So that amazingly, finally, shatteringly, ee) finally Jesus himself called Peter, “Satan” (Mat. 16.23).

 

So finally, should we trust that Peter was a reliable witness? When he obviously turned on Jesus, even in a major doctrinal matter? And when Jesus himself called Peter, even just once, “Satan”? (See many other statements by Jesus, warning of essentially all holy men and apostles; in our Destruction of Heaven).

 

For that matter by the way, note that here too in Mat. 16, amazingly, Jesus once again, does not tell Peter – or anyone – that he is the Christ; but once again only asks others who they think he is:

 

“He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?'”

 

The pattern then, is actually that only unreliable, “unclean” people, in the Bible, testify that Jesus is God or Son of God. And not only are disciples who call Jesus God or Son, not approved of by God or Jesus; likewise, in the rest of the gospel, it is primarily those with “demons” and “unclean spirits” only, that call Jesus Son of God, or such:

 

“Two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met him…. Suddenly they shouted, ‘What have you to do with us, Son of God…'” (Mat. 8.28, 9 NRSV).

 

“Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, ‘You are the Son of God! But he sternly ordered them not to make him known'” (Mark 3.11-12).

 

“In the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Let us alone! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? … I know who you are, the Holy One of God.‘ But Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be silent…'” (Luke 4.33-35; see also 8.28).

 

“Demons also came out of many, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them'” (Luke 4.41).

 

Amazingly then – and exactly contrary to everything we always heard in church – aa) Jesus himself normally does not say he is God or Son of God; bb) indeed we will see there is only one time when he seems to that – and that incident is narrated differently in other gospels; cc) indeed Jesus often tells others not to say such a thing; dd) while here we see particularly that it is primarily (and even solely?) unreliable, unclean witnesses almost solely it seems, that say specifically, Jesus is “Son of God” and so forth (cf. “Christ,” a somewhat different situation).

 

Even when a “voice” comes out of heaven to say Jesus is “my Son” (Luke 9.34; Mat. 17.5; Mark 9.8: “And suddenly looking around they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only”)… the Bible does not make it immediately clear that this voice from the heavens is God – and not say, Satan or one of his angels. Who are often also in heaven. So that even an endorsement of Jesus as “son,” out of the “clouds” in “heaven” itself … is from in effect, another unreliable, uncertain, witness. No doubt, endless preachers – who want to make Jesus out to be definitely a great, infallible authority; even God or Son of God – will assert that any voice out of a cloud or heaven, must be God. But very strictly speaking, it does not have to be, after all. (Clouds are often associated with God – but sometimes not: “May God above not seek it, nor light shine upon it. Let gloom and and deep darkness claim it. Let clouds dwell upon it,” Job 3.5. Ps. 97.2).

 

g) Therefore, here is yet more evidence, of a massive, ambivalence or equivocality,
in the Bible, regarding its own authority. An ambivalence that extends even to … Jesus himself not being firm, even on his own status. While finally, we will have seen here, Jesus gave real authority, really, only to finally, things proven by material fruits, works, signs, deeds, proofs. Amazingly, nearly all – and perhaps all – the witnesses in the Bible that declare Jesus to be God or Son of God specifically (cf. “Christ” etc.) … are said to be unreliable witnesses, even “unclean” people with “demons.” While Jesus himself merely asks to be judged not by firm statement by himself on how great he is; but judged instead by how good is work is. The proof is in the pudding.

 

h) Therefore, amazingly, even if we do trust and “have faith in” the Bible, or in Jesus, then we should have faith in its message … that essentially all the major witnesses to the divinity of Jesus, are at best unreliable. That those who insist Jesus is God or Son of God are even, more often than not (or even, always?), relying on false and deceitful demons.

 

So that, with incredible irony, it would seem that those who really trust and believe in Jesus … will not believe or have faith in him; that he is for example, God or Son or God. Rather, they will leave it to … science and history, to verify – or dis-confirm – his status. Just as Jesus himself demanded.

 

i) In fact, not only does Jesus not say he is God or Son of God; after briefly “bless”ing Peter, Jesus finally does not appear to ultimately allow such statements. Or support those – even Peter – when they say such things. Indeed, Jesus often expressly forbade others calling him the Messiah, and so forth. Indeed, Jesus often confirmed that those who said he was the Christ and God and Messiah, were flawed people with demons; when he said that any who called him such things as the Messiah, were from – or even were – “Satan”:

 

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God'”…. Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah…. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him…. But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.'” (Mat. 16.15-16, 20, 22, 23 NRSV).

 

j) Amazingly, Jesus in Mat. 16 even explicitly
tells his disciples not to tell anyone he is the Christ … or the “messiah” more exactly. A command that all the disciples must have disobeyed; since they described him as such, in the gospels.

 

So what do we have in our Bible? It says itself, that finally in fact, in the Bible, most (even all?) of the descriptions of Jesus as Messiah (and miracle-worker, etc.) that we have, were from …. disciples that disobeyed Jesus. From disciples that went specifically against his command not to describe him as Messiah, miracle worker, etc..

 

So finally, what did Jesus himself really say about faith himself? Faith in Jesus? As God or Son of God, son of Man, Christ, God, or Messiah, and so forth? In fact, there is much evidence that most of the time … Jesus himself, in the Bible itself, ( and perhaps many of the earliest reports, including perhaps some suppressed early documents, things written and “seal”ed in the “secret” Vatican & orthodox archives, until the End?), did not really want to call Jesus God. Or Son or God. Or to demand “faith” in him as such.

 

Indeed remember finally, Jesus at times even told us “do not believe” in him; but believe in him only if he – and by extension his followers – produce the actual physical “works” that were promised in the name of God. So that in the end, Christ defers even his own authority, to physical evidence. And ultimately, science.

 

 

 

The Practical/Scientific

Working Man Vs.

Our Over-Spiritual Priests

 

 

 

 

God Warns of Falseness in All

Priests, Ministers, Preachers

 

 

God, Christ, ultimately wanted us to follow not so much faith, but at most faith in things reasonably well proven, by science. But to be sure, this conclusion contrasts dramatically with many centuries of priests’ sermons and homilies. And no doubt, many priests will simply ignore or continue to try to topspin, all our Biblical quotes supporting science, noted here.

 

So what should we say finally, about our priests and ministers? About the generations of priests that came before us, and who delivered a very, very different message from what we are delivering today? Who insisted that religion, Christianity, was supposed to be “faith-based,” as they say?

 

What should we say to and about, those many generations of priests? In part, we should say they were partially right, but also partially wrong.

 

Is that possible? Could almost all the priests all over the world have been partially wrong? Our priests, preachers, ministers, religious leaders, will have often insisted to us, that they themselves were “humble”; but at the same time, there has been a great, secret Vanity and Pride in them: they have presented themselves after all, as the perfect or “holy,” voicepieces of God. Even though in fact, the Bible itself noted over and over, that our holiest men and angels, could be – would inevitably be – often, wrong. A massive falseness in our holiest men and preachers, had often been discovered many times; even in the prophets of Israel; even those who say they follow Christ. Such things exist at all times; though they are uncovered particularly, in the end.

 

Here are just a few of the hundreds of quotes in the Bible, warning about preachers:

 

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule as the prophets direct; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

“Let no one deceive you with empty words” (Eph. 5.6).

 

“The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him [Jesus]” (Mark 14.1).

 

“When one of this people, or a prophet, or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden of the LORD?’ you shall say to them, ‘You are the burden, and I will cast you off'” (Jer. 23.33).

 

“He would not be a priest at all” (Heb. 8.4).

 

“Now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen … then I will send the curse on you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart…. I will rebuke your offering, and spread dung on your faces….” (Mal. 2.1-2 NRSV).

 

“Both prophet and priest are ungodly” (Jer. 23.11).

 

“An abomination is he who chooses you” (Isa. 41.24).

 

“I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.6).

 

“For with you is my contention, O priest” (Hos. 4.4).

 

 

Priests and ministers, preachers today, will often try to say that the Bible warned only about preachers in past times; or preachers of other religions, other churches. But it is clear that a) God warned that “all have sinned“; and b) it is clear from the warnings from Jesus and others, above, that Jesus clearly said there were “false” things and bad things, even in the holy men of his own time; and that “false prophets” and others would persist, even within Christians, until the End of Time. Jesus himself constantly warned that essentially the whole world, even essentially “all” those who believe they are Christians, even priests, could be hypocritical, and/or simply deceived; would be following a false idea of Christ, a “false Christ.”

 

Many preachers today will try to say that any such “false” priests, false holy men, are in the past, or in other religions. But always firmly remember that Jesus and his followers, warned about false things in essentially all holy men, even after Jesus. Indeed, they will always be fallible; so that they must be constantly examined, with real science. Even after Jesus. As Jesus warned in phrases like these:

 

 

“Beware of false prophets…. You will know them by their fruits” (Mat. 7.15-16 NRSV).

 

“There shall arise false Christ’s” (Mat. 24.24 A & RV).

 

“False prophets and false Christs” (Mark 13.22).

 

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers. Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man” (Mat. 7. 15-24 NRSV).

 

(See far more on “False” Christs, “brethren” “apostles” etc., in our book on False Priests).

 

You might hope that priests at least, would rise above such errors. But in fact, priests were among the greatest enemies of Jesus; it was they more than anyone, that wanted him arrested and executed, for heresy:

 

“The chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him” (Mark 14.1).

 

“The priests in the temple profane” (it); (Mat. 12.5).

 

Today, most people know about religion, Christianity, pretty much solely from what priests tell them. The Bible itself after all, is very hard to read. And so most just trust to preachers to summarize the text for them. But this has been utterly fatal, to the people. Because they have been utterly at the mercy of priests; priests who inevitably read to the people, only the parts of the Bible that priests want them to know. In particular though, at last, finally, it is time for the people to begin to hear about the parts of the Bible your priests did not want you to hear. Especially, the people should at last begin to hear the hundreds of warnings in the Bible, about false and vindictive priests, preachers, churches, and so forth. Hundreds of such references are found in our bibliography, and our book on False Priests. But here are a few more random comments on false things in our holiest men and angels and institutions:

 

“False prophets” (Mat. 7l.15; Mark 13.22).

 

“False witnesses” (Mat. 15.19).

 

(Mat. 24.11).

 

“False brethren” (2 Corin. 11.26; Gal., 2.4).

 

“False Christs” (Mat. 24.24; Mark 13.22).

 

“False apostles” (2 Corin. 11.13).

 

 

Preachers will try to say that these false things in our holiest men and angels, are all firmly in the past. And cannot infect modern Christianity. But false things in religion, were indicated a) in the Jesus’ past, in Israel; and b) in his own apostles, in his lifetime. And c) Jesus warned of false prophets and others to come after him; and d) these persist until the End in fact. As it seems clear, in Revelation. As it warns about “all” nations and peoples being deceived, until the End; by a “false prophet,” and likely a false Christ:

 

The whole world was astonished and followed the beast…. And he was given authority over every tribe, pople, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast – all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Rev. 13.3, 7-8 NIV; cf. Is. 66).

 

“The false prophet” (Rev. 16.13; 19.20; 20.10).

 

Many priests will assert that they themselves will have special immunity from delusions and so forth. But if some special persons have immunity, no one – especially not priests, preachers themselves – can be sure who those special persons are …unless or until we apply the science of God to them. Since many think they are following Christ, but will have been following after all, a “false Christ.” “Another Jesus” than the right one.

 

Many churches will insist they themselves are true and good somehow; yet the Bible has God rebuking even Christian churches: “to the angel of the church …” John said of one Christian church even overseen or founded by the Apostles, “I have not found your works perfect” (Rev. 3.2 RSV; or “deeds complete” in NIV). Indeed, those who are sure they are holy and perfect can be immediately be found to be “last”; because they have committed the sin of Pride and Vanity; because they have claimed to be “first” with God.

 

Now in fact, in the end, even most of the angels are found to have been bad; to side with Satan ( Rev. 12.7: Satan “and his angels fought back” ). And these false things and persons that rule the world and religion too, are to persist until the end of time (Rev. 20.10); until the old heaven itself is destroyed; and a “new heaven” appears (Rev. 21.1); one that comes down to this material earth at last (Rev. 21.2-22.6).

 

Some priests may try to say that some Bible translations, condemned false “science” so called. (1 Tim. 6.20; A & RV). But then again, that only refers to false science, not real science. While indeed, the original word, was “knowledge,” from “gnosis”; which related more closely to “Gnosticism”, the over-spiritual heresy that was condemned by the Church. But never really stopped. Until now?

 

How much authority does real science have over traditional religion? To be sure, real science occasionally makes mistakes. But real science is humble; it is always open to revision, correction, as new data comes in. And in any case, it is given enough authority we will find, to examine, correct, even the highest saints and angels; Jesus himself cited his “works” as the source of his “authority.” While we might seek to examine say miracles today, to see if they are real … or might be read more a metaphors, allegories, for natural phenomena and so forth.

 

In the meantime, though preachers may protest, our holiest men and angels – and preachers – are not entirely reliable at all. “All have sinned”; not just in their personal lives, but even in their allegedly most Holy-Spirit “inspired” moments, we will show. Therefore, regarding the authority of our holy men, we might as well close with Jesus’ words to one of the authors of the Bible, the apostle St. Peter. When his apostle turned against Jesus, and said Jesus was wrong (on the matter of the necessity of the crucifixion); and then Jesus turned and said that one of his highest, holiest apostles, one of the authors of the Bible itself, was “Satan.”

 

Catholic priests in particular, like to quote the first part of this; where Jesus seems to have complete confidence in Peter:

 

” ‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, “blessed are you…. You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Chris.” (Mat. 16.15-20).

 

But the great sin of preaches, is that they quote misleading parts of the Bible; “part”s that emphasize their own authority. While our preacher leave out, topspin, “twist,” “whitewash,” the many parts of the Bible where God warned us constantly, about huge sins in essentially all priests, and their sermons … and the holy men they followed. Like the apostle/saint, Peter. As when Jesus himself, called Peter, “Satan.”

 

Right after appearing to hand over full authority to Peter, above, note, Peter differs with Jesus on a religious matter; he then turned on Jesus and “rebuked” Jesus; or simply, said Jesus was wrong. As which point, Jesus himself tuned on Peter in turn, and effectively revoked, partially, his earlier endorsement of Peter. As Jesus called the author of part of our Bibles, “Satan” in fact:

 

“Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests … and that he must be killed…. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!‘ Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me'” (Mat. 16.21-23 NIV).

 

All our priests have followed the Bible, and the words in it; written by apostles like Peter (commonly credited as author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter, and founder of the Roman Catholic Church); and our priests are found of quoting the parts of the Bible, that taken by themselves, seemed to give priests and apostles great authority from God. And yet however, the Bible itself warned that there would always be huge sins and errors, even in our holiest men and angels; while here in fact, Jesus himself is pictured, warning that the author of part of the Bible itself, was often one and the same, as “Satan.”

 

So that finally of course, some might well follow the Bible; though it might be best to follow, honor, particularly, those parts whose goodness seems to be confirmed by independent experience; or by science and practical experience say. While indeed, fortunately, the Bible itself … allows us to do precisely that, it now seems.

 

Jesus himself constantly confirmed that there are many false things even in “all” those who say and even sincerely feel, that they follow “Christ,” “Lord, Lord.” Jesus finally telling us that the method by which we would “know” which holy men were good and which were not: “by their fruits you shall know them.” “Fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.” By which, we now see, he did not mean just or primarily mental or “spiritual” goods, fruits; but real, measurable, material fruit, and so forth. Real material things, good; confirmable by real material science.

 

Though many priests and preachers and bishops and even our holiest leaders may protest, remember that after all, God warned that especially our holiest men often sin and err, and are unreliable. So that finally, we must weigh the things they say and claim, against real science; what is really materially, productive.

 

As noted, even in the Bible itself.

 

No doubt it will be hard – almost impossible – for many priests and ministers to see this; to acknowledge sins, errors, not in everybody else, in the common man and women … but in they, themselves, and their holiest tradition; their perhaps exaggerated promises of huge “miracles” and so forth. And yet however? Finally, our preachers must learn to “face” and “bear,” countless “signs” of huge sins and errors, not in everybody else; but in themselves. In order to have the humility to sit down and last, and burn off their false ideas and dead wood; and to be “refined” at last.

 

As foretold by the Bible itself; by God, himself.

 

In the past, many believers and preachers resisted science; believing that it was opposed by God and the Bible. But here at last, we show that the one book many believers follow – the Bible itself – authorized a science of God, to have authority even over the highly holy men and angels.

 

This is utterly consistent with the Bible itself; indeed, a) all our books here, are based on seventy, a hundred and more, quotes from the Bible itself. All b) our books are written to be utterly consistent with the Bible itself. And c) finally, all this is now offered, to you the reader, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And especially, in the spirit, the vision, of the second coming, the second appearance, of Christ.

 

Which many readers may begin to see in their mind’s eye, even here and now.

 

 

 

 

 

END END END

 

 

END OF BOOK 1

 

 

 

More Events in Revelation?

 

 

Revelation began by warnings of sins and errors, in the very first Christian churches. Sins even in the angels in heaven, that lead Christianity, and thus lead us all, all over the world.

 

After Revelation finds sins in the churches, we for a while see merely chaos. Indeed, the chatoic end-time events that are described or prophesied in the rest of Revelation, are extremely surreal and unrealistic-seeming. And hard to decipher. Sequentially, first we see a throne in heaven with “someone” sitting on it (4.3; probably God in 4.10-11); around this throne are many other people and things, who participate in a series of strange, unexplained events; involving seven scrolls, that are being read. They are read by a strange beast, a “Lamb, looking as if it had been slain,” with “seven horns and seven eyes” (5.6-7). This Lamb might be taken to be Jesus … but it is not clearly named as such. While indeed, we see more of the God that “judges” largely by “deeds,” than Christ in the end, it often seems.

 

Still, a “Lamb” at least, opens the first seal on the first scroll. And next a vision of a series of seven major Apocalyptic events unfolds: including wars, plagues, apparent volcanic eruptions, and so forth. In the midst of this, 144,000 persons – Jews from the 12 tribes – are “sealed” or certified as good. Some things said by the seventh seal or “thunder” was kept secret, or “seal”ed up it seems (10.4). Then more end time catastrophes are narrated; including a “woman” being pursed (12.1).

 

There are many, many surreal and for now indecipherable events in this, the main section of Revelation. But most interesting for our purposes, is the next moment; the moment when there was war in heaven itself, bad things, in heaven itself, and Satan is cast down from heaven; who then “leads the whole world astray” (Rev. 12.-9). When that happens, many bad things happen even to alleged Christians, who thought they were good because they had faith, but who had bad deeds. And because we might adduce, they followed the “false Christ” other parts of the Bible warned about. In any case, here various king-like persons and “beast”s fight with many nations; and significantly for us here, the dead who had good deeds, only, are blessed because “their deeds will follow them (14.13).

 

To complete the narrative: then comes one “like a son of man” (14.14); followed by many plagues and so forth. Then follows the pursuit of “the great prostitute, who sits on many waters” and who deceived many kings (17.1; Babylon? 17.5. Rome?). But Babylon falls (18). Then appears a white horse with a rider, who at first has no name (19.12), but who “with justice judges” (19.11). And who fights with the name of God it seems, on his robe; but God not as a priest, but as a “king of kings” (19.16). This king defeats the forces of Satan it seems, for a time (19.19-21). The devil is bound “For a thousand years” (20.2); the famous millennium. Perhaps Jesus is on earth at this time; the dead come to life and “reigned with Christ a thousand years” (20.4).

 

This thousand years, is the famous “millennium.” When a King reigns with Christ. For a thousand years. But it is not today known when it was, or will be. To be sure, Christ is “with” and “in” Christians all the time; so this may or may not be a real, live presence, during this thousand-year millennium. And many kings have already ruled in the name of Christ, Christianity. So that some theories propose that this thousand years is already passed: it’s time frame is widely speculated on, and may have extended c. 1 AD – 1000 AD; 52 AD-1052 (Paul, to the split between Rome and the Orthodox Church); 410-1410 AD (the fall of Rome, right after becoming Christian, to the beginning of the pagan Renaissance); 800-1800 AD (Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, to Napoleon as the devil). In this period it seems (?), those who “had been given authority to judge” reign (20.4), as priests of “God and of Christ” (20.6). And many kings have already reigned in the name of Christianity; so that perhaps the “millennium” has already passed.

 

But if so, then there will have been also a period when Satan was on the world. Since after the millennium, for a while, “Satan will be released.” To do some damage. Before he and his forces are finally, decisively defeated and thrown into the “fire” (20.7 ff).

 

Many naïve preachers think of these things as an “Apocalypse”‘; an Apocalypse that is yet to come. But to be sure, these things were often said in the Bible, to be coming “soon” in John’s time. While indeed, many parts of the Bible spoke as if the “kingdom” and the end, the false Christ, were already present in the time of Jesus himself.

 

So that there is good evidence, that all this began long ago; the millennium may already be over. And surely there have been enough disasters in history, to qualify the earth as having passed through much of the Apocalypse already. Indeed, there are already many, many persons that have been nominated for the coming of “Satan” or his minions and beasts: various theologians have suggested that Satan came with ..Caesar, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler. Which would mean that much of the coming of the millennium, the coming of Satan, and the Apocalypse, is already over. Indeed, we suggest thal all that might indeed be already over. Including the coming of the False Christ depicted in other End Time accounts: the false Christ, was the false image of Christ, of Christ over–stressing faith, and spirituality, given to us by the historical churches.

 

Much of the End could be seen as having been completed. But any case, the moment that we are most interested in, in our books here, is the key moment in the End, the Day, that we suggest has not yet been completed, but is waiting for you, and for our time. Indeed, our preachers especialy, have yet to see and face, the key to the whole End: the devastating moment when God reveals … sins even in the holiest men and angels in heaven. And when God therefore, destroys heaven itself.

 

Priests normally present themselves as reliable; as “sacred,” “holy,” as the reliable spokesmen of God. And they quote the parts of the Bible, that seem to suggest that “heaven” is perfect, and “eternal.” But first, essentially, God actually suggests that the whole world is to be found to have been deceived, even in its religion; even in what it “worships

 

“And I saw a best coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads… the beast I saw ressembled a leopard… The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dramgon … And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast – all whose names have not been written in the book of life” (Rev. 13.1, 3-4, 7).

 

Most preachers next assert that they themselves at least – the preacher and his church – will be among the few who are not deceived; that they themselves are among those written in the holy books who will escape all that. But to think that is to be Vain, Proud, and Presumptous. To be sure, no one but God, not even the priests themselves, really knows who the good priests are. As we will have seen here. We cannot trust or have faith in those who assert that they are the chosen elite, good preachers; we must “test everything,” as even the all too faithful Paul finally said.

 

Most prechers today, claim to be among the few, undecieved persons predicted in Revelation and elsewhere. But it seems impossible that any present-day Christian priests are to be found wholly good … since nearly all preachers today follow heaven, and the entities in it – though God finds sins even in “all” those in heaven itself (Isa. 34.4 ff. Etc.). And since finally, God destroys their heaven itself:

 

“And there was war in heaven. Michaell and his angels fought against the dragon [/Satan[, and the dragon and his angels fought back” (Rev. 12.7; see also Isa. 34.4 ff.).

 

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away…. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them'” (21.1-3 NIV).

 

“He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true'” (21.5).

 

How can any preachers at all be considered good, if the very heaven nearly all preachers constantly cite as absolutely good authority, is to be found bad, and is to be destroyed? Some might say that heaven is only eventually to go bad; but what is there is a good heaven, that could go bad? There must have been something bad in it, from the start.

 

Preachers followed the messages of “angels”; a word which means, “messengers” from God. But they neglected to note in the Bible itself, many warnings that the angels themselves were unreliable. Warnings found in Revelation, among many other sources. In Revelation, when John fell down to worship perhaps the very angel that delivered Revelation itself … the angel warned John, against worshipping him:

 

“I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you'” (22.8-9. Remember also Satan “and his angels,” Rev. 12.7; also proving angels can be very, very evil).

 

Here is therefore, yet another bit of the massive part of God, that most preachers constantly hide from us; that preachers constantly deny, and disobey. Here once again, as it did hundreds of times, the Bible reminds us that even the holiest men and angels are not so reliable. That indeed, they are not to be worshipped (even the angel that narrated Revelation to John?). Nor even, we will find, followed. To be sure, finally Revelation itself, is attributed to Jesus himself; but it is offered as the word mediated to us by an angel:

 

” ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star'” (Rev. 22.16 NIV).

 

To be sure, it is hard to know who to trust or have faith in, if anyone, in the end. But if we are to believe the Bible itself as millions do, then we should note the stress in the Bible itself, not on faith, but on science. We should note to everyone, here at last, the parts of the Bible that preachers suppress: the Bible’s constant assertion that our holiest men and angels and preachers, are often sinful and wrong and evil. They themselves, and also as we will see, many of their most inspired doctrines we will find; they and the “spirit” and “Christ” they follow.

 

Yet while all our holiest men and angels are partially bad and evil, the Bible does not finally leave us in total despair; it finally shows us, in the end, the better part of God. If the Pauline “Faith,” the Christ of faith, that lead us for so many years, is partially false, still finally, the Bible itself warned about that. And the Bible itself leads us eventually, to the truth beyond blind faith. Ultimately we have shown here, books like Revelation show us what is most important and reliable from God’s point of view; and how God himself will judge us; and how we should judge holy men ourselves, and find the truth. The ultimately key however, is not more and more and more “Faith,” as Paul and generations of preachers thought. If faith was good for a while, in our “child”hood, eventually, we are supposed to move on to a better, more “mature” vision of God. As even Paul began to say.

 

But what is the more “mature” vision of God? Preachers often seem to think, it is the more faithful, spiritual view. But here and now, we reveal what the “second,” more “mature” vision, “appearance” of Christ, really is: it is precisely not a call for still more “faith.” Who indeed needs so much faith, when the works of God are evident on this material earth? What God finally really asks us to do, instead of emphasizing faith, is not to have so much faith at all; but to learn to evaluate “everything,” even our holiest men and angels and their ideas about God, by way of looking at the “deeds” of people and angels. Looking to see if they performed, did, good physical acts. Looking to see whether they produced prosperity, fruits, works, signs … or not. Then we are to evaluate all that material evidence, by the supreme material evaluation: science. Finally, if following any alleged holy word from God, does not bring material prosperity, then far from continuing to follow it faithfully, instead, we are to simply deduce that God himself did not really say what was claimed as his word.

 

So what about it, when preachers tell us that Christ stressed “faith”? For many centuries, the whole world has followed an idea of Christ from angels or disciples or “messengers” allegedly from God; angels who often seemed, in preachers’ understanding, to stress faith and spirit. But if we are to believe or have faith in any words in the Bible at all, today we should have faith in, especially, the words that seem to prevail in the Bible itself. And what was the prevailing, final message in the Bible? What was the standard by which we were most often to be finally “judge”d in the end? Finally, books like Revelation, have us being judged in the end, not so much by our faith, as by our “deeds.”

 

To be sure, the book of Revelation is one of the Books of the new testament; and the new Testament as a whole, vacillates, equivocates, or swings two ways, with a “double”-edged sword; it systematically entertains both faith, and the emphasis on visible material things. But finally, even Revelation decides rather more firmly, on science. While in any case, Revelation confirms that it is not just the spiritual Jesus, but also especially God himself, the God of the Old Testament, who reappears in the end. While, whatever the New Testament might have done, the Old Testament God we found, was adamantly in favor not of blind faith, but of a science of God.

 

No doubt, all the elements of the Trinity are interrelated. But different aspects of the Godhead are emphasized, with one name or another. And Revelation confirms that it is part Christ, but also especially God himself indeed who, in appears at the end; and does something Jesus said he himself would not do: he “judge”s.

 

Indeed, God appears at the end; and judges even most of those who thought they were good, Godly; even priests and saints. (And even, “Christ”s?) And he judges them in large part, not by their faith; but are more than that, by their material fruits, works, signs, deeds.

 

And furthermore, we can learn to partially apply this final principle of God, here and now, today. As we have here looked at the many parts of the Bible that our preachers ignored; the parts that told about the shortcomings of faith; and outlined a science of God.

 

In our later books, we will begin to further apply this science. To further reveal specifically which things our holy men have said are true, and which were false. But here and now, we have already fulfilled many prophesies, and have – just as foretold – already found a very significant sin or two in our holiest men. Specifically, we have revealed here, the first great sin of essentially all preachers: it was their very, very great “faith.” As it has turned out, God himself, did not really stress faith as much as priests insisted. Instead, God most often, encouraged us to develop and follow not blind faith, but to follow the science of God.

 

As noted again and again, in the Bible itself. By God, himself.

 

 

 

. . .

 

 

 

 

If Jesus at times mentioned faith, recall that God himself however, the God of the Old Testament, rarely mentioned faith by name; and God was ultimately very, very adamant and detailed, about us all acquiring a science of God. While in the End, we see a sort of partial return of God himself. In that … Christ and God himself, the God of the Old Testament, are found ruling together at the end, on the throne (Rev. 20.6; 22.3; 14.12). So that even if we are “faithful” to Jesus, we are also to obey God’s commandments:

 

“They will be priests of God and of Christ and they will reign with him a thousand years… then I saw a great while throne” (20.6, 11 NIV).

 

“Obey God’s commandments, and remain faithful to Jesus” (Rev. 14.12).

 

“The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face” (Rev. 22.3-4).

 

In the end, according to Revelation, we do not just have “faith of Jesus,” but have also the “commandments of God” (15.12 NIV; sometimes less accurately, “in” Jesus). But whatever Revelation said in the New testament, finally in the end we have an at-least partial return to God, and the Old Testament. While we found that in the Old Testament especially, God of course, very, very firmly, adamantly, advocated evaluating people as good or bad, according to the material good, the physical wonders, they produce.

 

And even if not just Paul, but also Jesus, stressed “Faith”? Then remember that Jesus of course, normally followed God, and constantly deferred to him, or to a “father” in heaven. A father who we found here, firmly backed a science of God. So that even any mustard seed of faith in Jesus, surely, finally, must be taken to be faith … primarily in things proven by experience, and science.

 

It is sometimes thought by priests, that the gentle Jesus, and the New Testament, effectively, totally replaced or supplanted, the God of the Old Testament, and all his “law”s as Paul called them. But to think that too absolutely, is to commit heresy; of Marcionism for example. And while no doubt, we might hope that God might cancel or change some of his more severe “laws” – like the laws that demanded a death penalty, for working, gathering food, on a Sunday or Saturday “Sabbath” – finally, given countless passages where both God and Jesus appear in support of a material science of God – and then too, given the immense fruitfulness of science and technology, the strength and evident usefulness, completely aside from religion – finally, the core aspect of God that our preachers should never have abandoned, was the command by God, to honor science. And to incorporate it into the every core or every sermon, every thought, no doubt.

 

Indeed, if the New Testament stressed faith, in the second coming however, we see a partial return of God himself; the God of the Old Testament. First, Revelation confirms that God and Jesus both, are found together in the end. And thus, we should also have a partial return to the materialism and activism of God himself; now, in the end. While furthermore, the partial return of God himself, is confirmed in Revelation … where we see many deeds more typical of God, perhaps even more than Jesus: the dead and living are “judged,” and not by their spirit or faith, but by their “deeds.” While the old spiritual “heaven” itself, full or angels, is confirmed as having sins, Satan in it (Rev. 12.7-8). Indeed the spiritual faithful heaven s destroyed (12.7-8, 21.1); while the “new heaven” comes down to be a place here, on our renewed material earth (Rev. 21). So we see God’s materialism make a partial return.

 

As for Christ? What we see finally, in Revelation, is a Christ, who begins to be a bit more like God himself; a Christ re-unified with God himself. In the end, we see a deity who is not just or primarily a spiritual “priest” (in the order of Melchizedek, etc.). Indeed, even Paul seemed to hint that if Christ or God was here again, he would not be a priest at all (Heb. 8.4-9-13; cf. 2.14, 5.1-8.4). While if Paul seemed to feel that the old God – or his law – was completely abolished by a “new covenant,” then note that finally, Paul modestly noted that even he himself and his ideas, were not yet entirely “perfect.” While in any case, we cannot regard just part of the Bible – the parts written by Paul for example – to be absolutely definitive. To know the “full” Bible, we need to read it all. And if we do read outside Paul, then we get the fuller, better view of God … advocating science, deeds, over faith.

 

Indeed, Revelation or the End should be read; where we see a partial return of the old God. Of God himself. Who is not so much a priest; but more a king. Even, a “king of kings.” And like a king, as opposed to priests, he is not so concerned with “spiritual” things like “faith.” But is more concerned, like God himself, with real material, physical results, observed and confirm-able with our material eyes and science, here, on this material, physical earth, again. Making the world, earth, partially divine again; making a “new earth.” (As perhaps a theologian like Jurgen Moltmann might have confirmed partially, in his book, Science and Wisdom, SCM Press, St. Albans Place, London, 2002, trans. Margaret Kohl, 2003; pp. 2-7, 76-78, 151).

 

And so, while the old vision of God had him too much as just a spirit, in a heaven hopelessly above us, our understanding here corrects that, just as prophesied: with a heaven that now comes down to earth.

 

But as for the timing? In part, we often imply it is happening “now.” More exactly though, as foretold, the exact time is not known; but it is not far off. This has long been locked for; but it was never really so “far away” after all. Indeed in part, we can for once read part of the Bible as metaphor; and read the destruction of heaven, the Apocalypse, as being a mental moment, primarily; the moment when you grow up beyond blind faith in adults, authority. And to be sure, here the exact time is not known. No one knows the exact moment you will grow up beyond blind faith. No one knows the “day” you begin to “mature”; and see sins in our holiest men; and discover the material science in the Bible and Christ. No one knows the exact day that you get at last a good view of a “second,” “fuller” view of the Bible, and of God. Though that moment is always close, always near; one can mature in religion, a see the science of God, in the “blink of an eye.” Quickly. And any time: “soon.” And thus see at least a preview – and we suggest, the very substance – of the foretold, second coming, or second parousia or “appearance,” of Christ, God. See him moreover, not just in heaven, but here in material things; and therefore, in the flesh, on the earth, again. As foretold.

 

 

 

 

 

It is hard to say anything from the infinitely surreal book of Revelation. But if we are to use it, then a sort of partial return of some Old Testament sense, in the Second Coming, and/or the “Day of the Lord,” is further confirmed in say, the book of Revelation; when it for example, verifies that the “throne” that is to rule the earth finally, is the throne of “God and of the Lamb”; or God and Christ it seems. Incidentally by the way, there is not “temple” or church in the city of God, Heaven come to earth, it seems. In any case note, it is not just “I Jesus” (Rev. 22.16) or a “Lamb” that is on the throne of the kingdom. But also, clearly, the God of the Old Testament:

 

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them” (Rev. 20.11).

 

“And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21.10; 2).

 

“I [John] did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple….” (Rev. 21.22).

 

“On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every moth. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face” (Rev. 22.2-4).

 

“These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angels to show his servants the things that must soon take place” (Rev. 22.6).

 

 

 

Many preachers have all but taught that the materialism and severity of the Old Testament God, was changed, all but dropped, by the gentle, spiritual, forgiving Jesus, and Paul’s “new covenant.” But most cannot do this openly; the Roman Catholic Church declared such ideas to be heresies, the heresies like Marcionism, Gnosticism. Because indeed, the New Testament itself was sometimes ambiguous about its ties to the old God, and the status of Jesus (the doctrine of the Trinity was never explicitly outlined in the Bible itself, by name; but only later, by “theologians”). But the Old Testament had some remarks, many would say, that would seen to not allow any other gods, or any different successors; and there is evidence that Jesus himself constantly referred to old holy words of God, and to a “Father” in heaven, suggesting that though Jesus and God are often “one,” still, the Father has a higher place in any trinity. So that Jesus himself, most of the Bible, apparently did not mean to entirely replace or change, our idea of God; to completely supplant the Old Testament God. Who we found next, was quite materialistic, and scientific. While indeed we now add here, if Jesus himself was rather spiritual and faithful, still, he could only be so ambivalently; to oppose science firmly, would be to too obviously opposed God. While now we are adding, in the book of Revelation, it seems clear that Jesus himself must be rather more consistent with the God of the Old Testament than anti-materialists thought. And insofar as the extremely surreal Book of Revelation for example, can be seen as being clear on anything at all, it seems to be rather clear that the End, the Day of the Lord, were ideas that came originally from the Old Testament. And in the end therefore too, it is not just the spiritual, forgiving Jesus that we are to get in the End; but also God especially. While indeed the final arbiter who “judges” us, is often taken to be God himself especially; since Jesus often said he himself would not “judge,” and so forth.

 

So that in the very end, it seems, beyond Jesus, or expanding our understanding of Jesus, Revelation and other end-time predictions, seem to picture a Godhead, a Trinity, with rather more of God himself in it, than many have thought. While God is quite materialistic, and science-oriented. So that in the end, we come “face-to-face” some say, with a Godhead which is rather unlike the ascetic side of Paul, and supports and emphasizes not the spiritual faithful side of Jesus and the New Testament; but rather, of the many voices available in the Bible, it seems to be finally the voice of the material science of God, that triumphs, predominates; in the End. Indeed, particularly, Jesus often declined to “judge”; to condemn an adulterer for example. Whereas, if we are to be “judged” in the end, in Judgement Day, the Day of the Lord, then one of the chief judges and Lords in the Bible after all, is particularly, God himself. While indeed, we suggest, good “judgement” comes to a faithful believer, only when he or she matures … and sees the reason and logic behind Christianity; when he or she moves beyond a childlike faith in priestly authority; to begin to see (a) higher theology, and the science of God.

 

And so some might say we seem to see a resurgence, in the end, beyond Jesus, God himself. Jesus comes a “second” time … but now recombined more smoothly with elements of the classic Old Testament. Specifically, we do not see the full return of the most severe “law”s of God, to be sure; the return of the Old Testament death penalty for working on a Sabbath for example. But we do see at least, a return of “judge”ment and reason and “logic” (the real meaning of “Logos”; not the “word”). Or indeed, since these are related too to science, as part of that, we see at last, a return to the science of God.

 

Revelation often seems to confirm a partial re-unification of the New Testament Christianity, with the Old God of the Jews and the Old Testament again. In that it seems to picture God himself as much as the “Lamb,” in the end. While particularly, the science that God developed in one Old Testament book after another, and in one side of the New – has been earlier confirmed not only in a) Jesus’ occasional reference to the elements of science; observing “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” and “proofs.” While a return to a greater emphasis even in religion, on the importance of science, had also been confirmed by b) the fact that we see much of the OT God himself, in the End particularly. While the OT itself originated the idea of the return of the Lord. And indeed we see an explicit joining of Jesus, to God, in the “throne” above. And then too, we see many qualities of the OT God returning, in the many figures that are found in Revelation; including God not as priest, but as a “king.”

 

While indeed finally, given that in the end we see a new heaven, coming down this physical earth, we might suggest that it is precisely the nature of the second coming, that we at last see a God that melds the heaven of spiritual religion, to the materialism of the Old Testament God, and of science.

 

Indeed, Revelation pictures the Second Coming/End Time, as joining heaven and earth. It sees the Second Coming of God/Christ to earth, as bringing a new spiritual heaven, down to this material earth. Thus joining not only God and Jesus, but God’s materialism to Jesus’ spirituality. In images like this one, that we have used constantly in our books here, to illustrate the return of religion, to material things. Conveniently pictured, symbolized in the book of Revelation as the Holy City of heaven, coming down … to be a place at last, here on this material earth:

 

“I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them” (21.1-3 NIV. Cf. the contemporary de-deification of Caesar; and the come of the “son of Man,” meaning “moral”).

 

The idea, that God, heaven, will be very evident here on this material earth again, is confirmed also, in that this passage suggests that “God is with men.” And again, when it says of God that he “will live with them.” And will be visible; even his “face” some say. (While even Paul spoke elsewhere of new spirits animating our “bodies.” And Jesus also previously spoke of the coming of a son of “Man”; suggesting that mere physical men, are to be given some dignity, value, even as material beings, “men”).

 

All this confirming furthermore, and repeating even better, the widely-acknowledged importance of the first coming of Christ: God, spirit, descending to the material earth, and becoming “flesh.”

 

So what does God or Jesus or the Trinity, finally look like? In the end? Finally? What we see in the End, some might have suggested earlier, is the end of heaven/earth; religion/science, spirit-flesh, God/Jesus, Priest/Worker hierarchical dualism. (Or vicious “double”ness in the Bible?). We see “all” things coming together, “full“y. Including “heaven” and “earth.” Which means, among other things, the coming together, of perhaps the Old and New Testaments, God and Christ .. but also word and world, spirit and flesh; as part of the re-merger, of spirituality and materialism. Which all happens we assert here, when you at last see, understand, the science of God … and thereby experience a balanced, heaven-and-earth theology.

 

The New Testament as a whole to be sure, often even simultaneously, even within single phrases, entertained both practical science, and faith. But finally, the New Testament warned of stresses and strains, between the “new” patch, and the “old” material. And at times it seemed to even all but suggest that we cannot serve both God and Mammon. But if the New Testament at times (if not always) seemed almost ready to break off from the Old, if it seemed ready to split in half, finally, the Bible finally saw things coming together too. Heaven coming down to earth; the valley next to Jerusalem apparently ending; God coming to Man again. And in effect, when we re-join religion to science, that begins to happen once again.

 

And of course, once again, if parts or one whole stratum of the New Testament seemed to over-emphasize spirituality, faith, the overall Bible as a whole, but more stress on empirical things. While in the End too, we see a re-surgence of the importance of “work” and so forth, and “labor.” Indeed, those persons – priests? – who neglected such things, are now to come under very, very, very severe judgement indeed. Regard in the following the huge importance, to God himself, the God of the End, of material, physical “work,” and “labor”: .

 

 

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind…. I will rejoice in Jerusalem….and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain” (Isa. 65.17-23).

 

Our over-spiritual preachers did not know this. But the Bible did:

 

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.”

 

(This is continuous with Mat. 25.14-21-23. Where we are ordered to use our “talents” in good works; not keep them buried. Also Luke 12.42, 16.10-19.17 on being trusted with “little”?).

 

(John 16.26).

 

“The house of the righteous will stand. A man is commended according to his good sense, but one of perverse mind is despised. Better is a man of humble standing who works for himself than one who plays the great man but lacks bread” (Prov. 12.7-9; James 2.14 ff).

 

“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Ge. 3.19).

 

“Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you” (Exd. 16.3).

 

“He who tills his land will have plenty of bread” (Prov. 28.19).

 

“Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples” (Mat. 26.26).

 

“Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you.” (4.4. See also elsewhere, Biblical references to holy men who put “heavy burdens” on others).

 

“So I will come near to you for judgement. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages … ‘ says the LORD Almighty…. Return to me, and I will return to you…. But you ask, ‘How are we to return…? . You are under a curse – the whole nation of you – because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,’ Says the LORD Almighty, ‘and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit ‘ Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and very evildoer will be stubble …. Not a root or branch will be left to them” (Mal. 3.1-5, 7, 9-11, 4.1 NIV).

 

How can you survive judgement? From the parts of the Bible we have quoted here, finally many of us should even now, begin to “see”; see the God who valued after all, the practical work of our hands. A God who in fact, supports those who worked with their hands. While our God will punish those who did not give the practical materially productive working many, his “wages,” or due. (While those who did not value material things, who will “not judge by what he sees with his eyes” (Isa. 11.3), after all, some say, even fall “In that day” in the end – Isa. 22.25; 24.2). In a moment when we now see sins, even in the highest angels in heaven itself, and priests too. As foretold.

 

And since God is here to deal not just with spirituality and heaven, but also materiality and the earth, he also notes sins in both, and punishes elements of both:

 

“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below” (Isa. 214.21. See also 34.4; Peter on the household of God, etc.. Zech 11.15 ff.).

 

This of course, will be a shock to our very spiritual preachers. But after all, this is what the Bible really says. While many theologians have long warned too, that the materialistic/scientific God of the Old Testament, did not change so completely, with Jesus. So that on this final day, a rather severe God is to sit with even our highest priests and bishops and popes, to “refine” and even severely “judge” even them, the sons of the priestly tribe, of Levi. While always remember, God punishes those (often very spiritual persons) who did not value the work of physical “laborers”:

 

“But who can endure the day of
his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire…. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. So I will come near to you for judgement. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages … says the LORD Almighty. I the LORD do not change” (Mal.3.2-6).

 

This to be sure, is an Apocalyptic moment; one that requires some massive readjustments among believers, and especially priests. Many have thought that the New Testament and Jesus, even reversed, “change”d, or superseded, the Old Testament God and his science, totally. But Jesus often deferred to the “Father” in “heaven.” While indeed, if preachers especially have over-valued spiritual things, there were many warnings in the Bible that indeed, preachers and holy men in particular, would be found wanting finally. Even Peter knew that even the holiest “household of God” itself, the holiest Christian believers, would be judged and refined, in the end (1 Peter 4.17; 2 Peter 2.1-4, 3.3 –4). While Malachi confirmed it was preachers especially, the tribe of Levi, that would have to be submitted to the “fire,” and “refined.” While nearly the whole Bible warned continuously that it was our “worship,” our very churches, our very idea of “Christ,” that is to be found to have been deceived, “false,” even more than the world of working people, in the end.

 

Indeed, the ordinary good but also practical person, has already long since informally balanced religion and science roughly. The average person is not just spiritual, but also devotes the bulk of his week, to practical, materially productive “work” or a job. Just as the commandment ordered. While actually, it was primarily only our priests, that ignore the part of the commandment that orders us to work the bulk of the week.

 

So finally, against all priestly expectations, it is not even so much the everyday working man or woman, the “laity,” that is to be changed here, in the end. Or in any case, priests and preachers equally are to change. Indeed, preachers today need to change a very great deal, before they can be regarded as even “good”; rather than evil.

 

Preachers especially, should be changed by this final development. To see the God that after all, did not change from the Old Testament, much as many Christian priests had thought. Thus confirming warnings about priests and holy men in the Bible itself.

 

Indeed, what priests should now see in the end, is a god who as a mater of fact, seems to find the ordinary good but practical working man – like the Good Samaritan, closer to God, than a priest or a rabbi. Since indeed, the working man has many more obvious material, physical fruits. Indeed we will eventually find that, the “farmer,” and not even a “shepherd,” is the hero in the Bible. The real hero that in almost the very end of the Old Testament, the second-to-last book in the Old Testament, replaces even the prophet. (Zech. 10.1 -11.4- 14.1).

 

Indeed, God, Christ in the end, re-appears rather less like a priest, than a practical king. While then too the priests who thought they were “first” with God, find that even they themselves are actually … in many ways, “last.” As we find here and now; in the end.

 

And so it is our balanced, heaven-and-earth, religion and science theological vision of God, that is finally reaffirmed in the Bible; especially in the End. When, as Jesus says, we are judged by God, not by our thoughts or spirit or faith; but by what we have “done”:

 

“Then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Mat. 16.27).

 

“Whoever practices … these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 5.19 NIV).

 

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind…. I will rejoice in Jerusalem… and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain” (Isa. 65.17-23).

 

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.”

 

“My chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands” (Isa. 65.22).

 

“And the dead were judged according to what they had done” (Rev. 21.12).

 

“Because of their actions and their imaginations” (Isa. 66.18 NIV).

 

 

To be sure, much of the Bible gives some importance to the mind or spirit, as well as our hands and body and physical works. But finally, the best way of reconciling mind or spirit, and body, is science; the “full”er “knowledge” of God, that studies both the Bible and God in the world; which finds the spirit of or embedded in, material reality.

 

What is “work”? Many parts of the New Testament, seem written or edited by and for priests, religious scribes, to use as a resource for spirituality; to prove that their own spiritual devotions, good deeds, are “work.” But such indications as the New Testament made of that after all, could never be too unequivocal; they could not say such a thing too firmly; just doing religious things like say, a) prayers; or b) devotions; or c) moral deeds or acting morally in the world, is just a very small part of what the overall Bible described as work. Finally it becomes clear here, that what God wants by deeds and so forth, is d) especially those acts that get real, material, physical results; that bring real physical prosperity and power. While anything else – even a very great ascetic spirituality – is simply, “death.” Faith, if it has no works, is dead. As James said.

 

This to be sure is an alarming, apocalyptic, heaven-shattering “new,” “second” vision or “appearance” of God and Christ. But if so, then it is biblical precisely because of its disillusioning and shattering aspect, too. One “day” after all, God is supposed to reveal sins and errors in our holiest men and angels; and if this new appearance of Christ seems to shatter our vision of heaven itself, then in fact, that fulfills prophesy: one this day, God is supposed to destroy heaven itself. In order for us to see a new heaven … that comes down, to merge with this material earth.

 

So here and now therefore we present, the second appearance – the Second Coming – of Christ. And finally, what we say here does not deny, but “fulfill”s the Bible. But with the “fullness” that finds God in the things of the “earth” too after all (q.v.).

 

As foretold, to be sure, we now see many huge sins in our preachers. The Lord “leads priests away stripped.” (Job himself, in Job 12.19 etc.). As foretold, those who thought they were first with god, the first, are found last. The Bible is true … but true in a way our preachers have not, until now, understood.

 

In spite of a superficial humility, preachers have always implicitly presented themselves to us in effect, first with God. Presenting themselves with immense Pride, as having already attained the status of a) “holy,” “sacred,”” righteous,” “perfect,” infallible; as at least, the extremely reliable spokesmen for God. And then they assured us that b) if we followed them with total “faith,” we would c) get physical “miracles.” And a saving d) “spirituality.” But we have begun to find here, that our preachers were wrong, deceived, in many ways. First of all, 1) the Bible warned that there have always been huge sins and errors in our holiest men and angels and preachers; in them personally, but also in their most “inspired” doctrines and sermons. Therefore, 2) God told us not to have too much faith in holy men at all; but instead, we are supposed to “test everything” in religion, Christianity, with science.

 

So already it is as foretold; acting for God, we have found two or three huge sins or errors in our preachers, the very angels of the church. In their sermons, their theology, their vision of God. But 3) then what will happen next? When we begin to apply the science of God, to specific promises from our holy men? To their promises of, say, huge physical miracles? The fact is, science will be found to say that … our preachers’ promises of huge physical miracles were false too. While 4) their spirituality usually followed a false spirit, and was literally, physically fatal. (Just as James began to note, in James 2.14 ff).

 

So that indeed, as foretold, the 5) “heaven” that we were introduced to in church, begins to “dissolve” … exactly as foretold (2 Peter 3; Rev. 21; Isa. 34.4 ff). But what we have know, is a religion, a Christianity, that can at last meld with, work with, be part of, science. And which therefore, should begin to share at last, the enormous fruitfulness of good (if not bad), science.

 

So what should we finally say? The Bible was true, after all. But it was true in a way that our preachers were never able to see, or “face.” Yet those of us – and even especially priests – who now can learn to face this side of God after all, who at last begin to recover, rejoin, practical sense and science to our religion again, will be rewarded at last with a truly whole and holy view. And those who at last see the fuller Christ of a balanced theology, should flourish, find prosperity, just as God promised. (While in contrast, the hundreds of millions of deceived women and men, who followed false preachers, false holy men, a false idea of Christ, all too faithfully, all too loyally. And who found poverty, suffering … as their just reward.)

 

But finally, let those who are honest, who can confess not only their personal sins, but even the sins of their holiest traditions and doctrines and holy men, confess those sins publicly, repeatedly, at last. And begin to preach the second and better, fuller vision of God and Good. The vision that sees religion joining and at times even deferring, to real classic science. That sees at last the lost links, between word and world, spirit and flesh; and thus sees them … coming together again, at last.

 

That and only that, it seems today, is the only whole and holy vision, that is really true to the entire Bible itself. While that and only that, the science of God, shows real “signs” of being able to actually guide us to “all” the prosperity; the ideal kingdom of God and good, that was promised so many centuries ago.

 

As foretold, as promised, as commanded, by the Bible itself. By God, himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

Amazingly therefore, we come here and now to a surprising, even shocking, second view, appearance of God, of Christ, of Jesus. One that is however, totally consistent with the Bible itself; supported by hundreds of quotes from the Bible, itself. But – exactly as God foretold – our “second” “appearance” of God, must chastise, rebuke, even our holiest men and angels. As foretold, our second coming of God reveals that even our holiest men were – as foretold – essentially “all” deceived, or deceivers (they deceived themselves, and then others). Our holiest men were deceived when, for example, they a) stressed strong “faith.” And b) when they became over-spiritual, and attacked – or merely neglected – “science” and practical knowledge, practical physical accomplishments. (Though also we will find, they deceived when they false promised huge physical “miracles” that they cannot actually, provably, produce).

 

And so the Christ we now present, is rather exactly as foretold. Christ appears a second time; to expose (‘uncover”) and “refine,” even our holiest preachers and their most sacred doctrines. To demonstrate sins even in the things they thought were holiest and most from God and Christ. And then to show them the better, “full”er, more “mature,” second vision, second coming, of God. In, as it turns out, the Fuller Science of God. Which shares the already-proven, materially fruitful record, of the rest of science and practical knowledge. And which demands that holy men be evaluated not primarily by their words and promises or spirit, but by their concrete physical results. A standard by which most holy men will always, largely, fail; none of them having produced physical results “full”y as great as promised. So that from now on, we should never follow holy men with such total “faith” at all.

 

That therefore, is finally the real message of God, regarding “faith,” and related matters, like “authority.” And that is the first part of the “second” and better “appearance” of God foretold. Finally we are not to even begin to consider trusting and believing – and having faith in – people, religious leaders and holy men -or even Jesus himself – unless they demonstrate real physical results, here on this material earth, before many reliable witnesses; and ultimately, we have seen, we should believe results only if verified not by the preachers and holy men themselves, but by real, objective scientists. (While even then, we are to remember that there are false prophets who can work “signs”; so that we will have to examine their short- but also long-term fruitfulness too). This stress on evaluating religious figures and doctrines by their physical fruitfulness is so great, that often Jesus himself told us to not believe or have faith even in he, Jesus himself; but to examine instead, his “works,” to see if even Jesus himself was really good, or not.

 

Among other things, insofar as say, religious “authority” is concerned, in actual practice there is no authority, even for or in Christ, Jesus said … except that proven by material results. To be sure, we will show later, there are false prophets who temporarily deliver material results. (So that producing signs is, in the words of Bacon, “necessary” but not “sufficient”; a necessary element, but not all one needs, to be sure). But even then, the demand for material results is useful to identify false prophets and priests: since a) anyone who cannot deliver any material results at all, can be rejected right away, as real prophets. While b) we will find later that we can apply longer-term tests, to apparent material results, to show whether they are ultimately fruitful. So that proven material results are absolutely necessary (if not entirely “sufficient” in themselves, as Bacon would say).

 

And so finally, what about the main subject of this section: “faith”? If Jesus often called for “faith,” then it is for a very, very limited, small amount; no more than, as Jesus said, a “grain of mustard seed.” For Jesus, the mild faith we should have, is not the total, blind faith that preachers ask for: it is not following, believing preachers and their sermons endlessly, even when they produce no physical results, wonders, at all; even when their followers are in poverty. Instead, Jesus told us over and over again, that if our holy men do not produce, in a timely way, real physical “fruits,” if they stand behind promises of huge material miracles but do not produce them on demand before our eyes, then, far from continuing to follow them endlessly, faithfully, instead, we are supposed to simply deduce that, no matter how clever their words and sermons are, they were just … bad, false priests, bad, false preachers. False prophets who claimed to speak for, or thought that they spoke for, God. But who were simply, “deceived.” As foretold.

 

For centuries, therefore, we must say that essentially all our preachers gave us a Jesus, a false Christ, who demanded total faith in preachers, or their view of God. But as we began to re-read the scriptures here more closely, then, as for the disciples on the road from Emmaus, Christ that begins to emerge from perspectives that once seemed strange, and not to have Christ in them. As we began to read seventy, a hundred and more neglected passages in the Bible in our book here, we began to see, here and now, a second Christ. A second Christ that is in some ways the same, but in other ways quite different, from the image of Christ we were given in churches. Our second look at Christ, reveals a Christ that will have to confront and “refine” even the holiest preachers and bishops and popes; because our Christ definitely does not stress faith, even half as much as preachers have. The Christ that we now see here –and remember, all from the Bible itself; from God himself – tells us that you should not even begin to trust and believe – and have faith – that something or someone is from God, unless following the things they say, gets real, scientifically verifiable, timely, physical results. As we found here in our major sections on 1) the Old Testament, then 2) Paul, then 3) Jesus himself, it is only this cautious, moderate, tentative, partial faith – not the near-total faith in preacherly authority that preachers demanded – that is the real core theology or message of God. Indeed, it is only this Jesus or Christ – the Christ of Science – that begins to reveal the, “full”er Jesus or Christ.

 

Did Jesus himself really ask us to have total faith, even in he, Jesus himself? From our discussion on Jesus above, it seems clear that Jesus did not demand faith even in he, himself. Instead, Jesus a) constantly warned of false things in our holiest men and angels … and “Christs.” While b) Jesus most often, when asked if he himself, was the foretold Christ, did not respond “plain”ly, but merely responded with a question: merely asked others “what do you say”? While finally c) rather than stressing “faith” in himself, instead Christ commanded us to believe in him … only if he himself and his followers, produced real, verifiable, empirical “works.” In a million churches all over the world, we heard sermons delivered to every people, every tongue, presenting a version of image of a Christ that demanded total faith in preachers, and in Christ. But that Christ had a limited utility; and was not the final, definitive appearance. What we here and now reveal, is a “second” and “full”er picture of Christ; of a Jesus who 99% of the time, did not even say that he was the Christ; but merely asked what others said about him. Or who even told his disciples “not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” And by this, Jesus did not mean to simply keep his status as Christ a “secret”; far from it. Rather, he intended to keep it an open question. One to be resolved only by the material record, of history and science. Finally Jesus asks that even he himself, be judged by his fruits, works.

 

Amazingly then, Jesus did not demand such strong “faith” in he himself. Indeed, he told us “do not believe me,” as he said, if he and those who preach in his name, cannot “full”y produce the physical wonders they promised:

 

“‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’ Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me.… I and the Father are one….Do you say of him whom the father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works….” (John 10.25, 30 NIV, 36-7. Cf. “false” “witnesses”).

 

“Believe the works”: with these and many other words, Jesus asked to be finally judged, evaluated, believed or not believed, followed or not followed, not according to blind faith in his own proclamations, or the sayings of disciples (or even by proclamations from the “cloud”s); but rather instead, we are to follow Jesus, only insofar as following him produces proven material works. And this does not mean now blindly believing ancient accounts of miracles; but rather, since the rest of the Bible makes it clear this is to be evaluated by science, science demands that ancient accounts, old books, be verifiable, reproducible, in our own time. So that you should demand to see such wonders, performed in a timely way, before you yourself, today.

 

At first, this vision of Christ, of God stressing science, even partially over faith, no doubt seemed impossible. Or it might seem to be against the Bible and God and the churches. Or it has seemed like the impossible, “strange new doctrine” that Paul warned about. But here again, for those who do not believe, are the critical words from the quotes above; where Jesus himself is telling us, amazingly, not to believe him. But to believe only in works:

 

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works….” (John 10.25, 36-7; note double meaning?).

 

“Do not believe me…. Believe the works” (John 10.37, 38).

 

 

Christ could not be clearer: we are not supposed to have faith eve in Jesus himself; so much as in “works”; whatever gets real material results. Whatever works. As observed in this material earth. And amazingly, this seems to hold to the extent that – amazingly – Jesus tells us not to have faith in him or believe him: “do not believe me” Jesus commands.

 

Amazingly then, Jesus himself allows us not to believe or have faith even in Jesus. Instead, Christ – in the only reading consistent with the Old Testament science – tells us to follow him, only if he – and his followers (“whosoever asks”) – get the exact physical results, the exact works, that were promised.

 

No doubt, to be sure, many say that the words of the Bible are open to many “interpretations.” But finally, we will have shown here, there is only one reading that speaks with “authority.” There is really only one reading that is firmly consistent with the whole, “full” Bible; with 1) “all” of what God said in the Old Testament; with 2) all that Paul said; and with 3) “all” said by Jesus himself. Finally, the reading that is most consistent with the overall Bible itself, is ours; one that stresses science as much as – and often more than – faith. Though the major sources in the Bible now and then mentioned “faith,” finally, ultimately, God commands that we are to give equal – and normally, slightly more – weight, not to ancient sayings and allegations and writings about God, but to things scientifically provable by material, physical results.

 

If Paul or even Jesus at times toyed with stressing “faith” and spiritual things, by the way of course, Paul and Christ were good, only if they largely followed God. While of course, we will have shown here that the God of the Old Testament stressed not faith, but stressed following only things well proven from empirical experience. (Those who in Psalms and Lamentations seem to follow God in spite of privations … have their opinions presented as their own opinions; not as the words of God himself in person).

 

Related to all this, it is worth saying that of course, any true vision of Christ, must be quite consistent with “God.” Though Paul and others at times, toyed with the idea of God changing his “law”s and so forth, neither Paul nor anyone else could really begin flatly or openly canceling too many of God’s commands, without … too obviously going against God. But in contrast, our herein finding and obeying the Christ of science at last, is finally, more fully seeing and obeying, God himself.

 

Today, we often hear of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; or Jesus. And though in many ways they are “one,” they often present themselves with different emphases. But if finally it is not just Christ, but also God, the Lord, who presents himself at the end, then therefore now at the end we should examine or remember not just Jesus himself, but also God himself. Even Jesus remember, often (if not always?) deferred to a “Father” in heaven; a “father” who is usually presumed to be God himself. Indeed, Jesus constantly quoted old scriptures, that also deferred to God. Indeed, a Christianity totally cut off from the Old Testament, would simply be … turning away from God. Would be in fact – as the Jews said – a heresy; would have been following a false Christ. Would have turned away from “God.” While finally of course, we found earlier (in our section on the Old Testament) that the old God … very, very firmly outlined and told us to follow, not so much a faith, but a science, of God.

 

So now at last, in the end, we begin to see not just Christ, but also God more clearly, too. And by the way we now begin to see Him not just in a spiritual heaven; but here, in and among the things of the world, the earth, again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No doubt many will say there are many “interpretations” of the biblical quotes we have offered above; interpretations that read Jesus as saying something else than what we concluded here. Indeed, many might say that much of the New Testament seems written in deliberately ambiguous or ambivalent language, that allows Christ to be read either as stressing either a) spiritual things, or b) physical things. Or even a) heaven and b) earth. Or a) a priesthood, or b) a world of practical rulers and material goods. But if so, then clearly, to be sure, our preachers decided to go with, follow, only one side of the Bible, and of God: with the preacherly side that stressed spiritual things, like faith. While nearly all preachers have in contrast denied and refused to follow, the full picture of God; the parts that mentioned, stressed, science. The side of the Bible that actually, found the average practical working person, with a practical job, to be closer to God than priests.

 

But the fact is that essentially all preachers, have really failed to follow God well enough; they have (once again, like the Pharisees), denied the side of God found in material things, the “flesh.” And no doubt, many preachers will want to deny – and even cruficy again – any one that finds God in the world and flesh; just as their religious predecessors, the Pharisees, had Jesus crucified for allowing himself to be perceived as God, come to flesh and world. But finally, it is time for everyone – especially preachers – to recognize their own longstanding sins. And to realize at last that the Old Testament – and God himself – for example, strongly stressed material deeds, accomplished here on this physical earth. It is time for ministers to see more clearly and fully than ever, the “second” track left open by God, for good men: not the spiritual track of ministers … but of good but practical working men and women. The many billions of good men and women who go to church now and then, but who also know that the good, godly life requires us to produce material goods. The billions of people who have a practical job … as an electrician, or plumber, or businessman. Producing not just “spiritual” things, but real material goods.

 

There are parts of the Bible to be sure, that have often been read as commanding the life of a priesthood, for everyone: God asking the Jews to be a nation of priests, a “holy priesthood” for example. But such lines are often ambiguous. Or are modified by later lines in the Bible. While we will find that they also appear to be disastrous in practical life: if everyone was a priest, and there were no farmers for example, everyone would starve to death.

 

For many centuries, a few preachers have been aware that there is a good biblical argument, that the priesthood itself, and the ascetic life, was not the only or best, road to God. While parts of the Bible, taken by themselves, seemed to stress an ascetic, priestly life, finally many other parts allowed for another breed of person: the good but materially-productive working person. Even Jesus himself was sometimes said to be a carpenter and literal fisherman; and was said in any case to be God come to the “world” and “flesh.”

 

So what should we say about all those parts of the Bible that seemed to stress only the spiritual life? We have here begun to read them a little more closely. To find that those passages were always countered by other, more materialistic phrases; and were even in themselves, far more ambiguous than many thought. That even Paul spoke of the “flesh”-hating existence of our preachers, ascetics, as being only a personal choice; not necessarily the life commanded by God for everyone; as being valid only “for me” as Paul himself said, for example. No doubt, it is possible to be over-materialistic, to be sure; and for that reason, a kind of spiritual anti-materialism began to evolve particularly in India; with a number of wealthy former nobles, princes, kings like Buddha (c. 500 BCE) and Chandragupta (Greek: Sandracottus), c. 298 BC, renouncing the “world” and fleshly “desires,” renouncing their material “kingdom”s, to become poor, starving mendicants, or religious ascetic monks. No doubt, when the material promises of the Jewish Lord, God, seemed not to come true, when Jesus himself was physically executed, there was a fairly readymade tradition from 1 to 2,000 miles east of Jerusalem, from India, Buddhism and Jainism, etc., that could explain all that; that would offer philosophical consolations for material loses, and help provide the model of a noble or “lord” that would renounce or fail to produce a material “kindom,” and who would die in poverty. Chandragupta being said to have become an ascetic Jain monk, who finally even, fasted to death.

 

The birth of Jesus in fact, was said to have been attended by “three wise men from the East”; who gave Jesus “gifts.” And yet however, there might have been problems with those gifts. On the positive side, the eastern, anti-materialistic models of various worldwide, ascetic priesthoods, no doubt informed and corrected the too-simple, greedy and rapacious over-materialism of Mediterranean merchant cities; the dangers of over-materialism are well known to priests. At the same time however, we will see that what our preachers desperately need to see today, is that just as over-materialism is dangerous, so is over-spirituality; which we will see does not merely console the already-dying, but actually often leads followers to physical deaths. As it lead say, Chandragupta and others; even Jesus. The “Wise Men” from the East, the Magi (root of “magician”) no doubt left many “gifts” at the manger of Jesus. But still, look at the vast material poverty of India. Hinting at the dangers of “hate” for the “world” and the “flesh,” leading to neglect of physical needs, actively stripping people of material things and the skills needed to flourish physically … lead them past greedy over-materialism, beyond moderation, to complete distaste for physical life; which means lack of material things, or poverty; and then, for lack of material food, death. As we will see in our books on over-spirituality. Precisely what James began to warn about.

 

The Old Testament or daily business life, some might say, was simplistically materialistic: almost whatever gets us immediate material prosperity, is good. And so the New Testament began with a counterbalancing, anti-materialistic rhetoric. With a rather Eastern ascetic, mendicant, proto-Gnostic attack on “possessions,” the “world,” in favor of our “spirit” and so forth. With Jesus physically killed, and no physical “Kingdom” in sight, Paul and other early priests tried desperatively to find a spiritual, not-obviously physical, justification for Christianity. Like the Buddhist movement to control our exagerrated and destructive desires, Greed, for material things and “possesions.” Yet we will have been saying here, that one of the great lessons that preachers need to learn, is that just as materialism can be over done, so can asceticism and spirituality. Which carried to excess, neglects and even weakens the physical side of life, depriving of our ability to take care of basic physical necessities, like food. So that finally, the really spiritual person dies of “fasting,” or starvation.

 

Spirituality in fact began to reach its fatal peak in the writings of Paul especially; or later, in the works of the Gnostics, and ascetic Christian monks. To be sure though, already, some tiny elements of the Christian Bible itself – including especially James 2.14 ff – began to notice some dangers, in the too-spiritual view of the Lord. While indeed, the entire Bible, the Old Testament particularly, had always contained in it, the insistence that material things were quite important. In fact, alongside and even within occasional warnings about excessive Greed for material things, the Bible contained within it, at one level of meaning, the insistence that however, material things were still quite important. And that indeed only those “lords” or “Christ” who guided us to material prosperity, physical wonders, were really from God. So that there was within the Bible itself, a balancing factor. Indeed, the Old Testament had been so materialistic, that the new Christian ascetics – the Christian priesthood – could not carry their anti-materialism very far, without obviously going against the Old Testament god.

 

So that indeed finally, though nearly the whole New Testament often hinted at giving up , “hating” the whole material “world,” to just attend to “spiritual” things like “faith,” in the manner of Eastern mystics and ascetics, mendicants, Buddhist monks, Gnostics, ultimately the new Christian priesthood (which replaced for Christians, the Jewish priests, rabbis) could not attack all material things all that totally and unequivocally, without obviously going against God himself. So that, though nearly the whole New Testament constantly hinted as the primacy of “spiritual” things, it could only distantly hint at that. While normally, even often right alongside any potentially very, very spiritual, world-“hating” remark, was another remark, asserting the importance of physical, material proofs, rewards. Indeed, the language of the Bible borrowed from the linguistic devices of poetry, so that even individual phrases, sentences, would be open to two or more interpretations; usually, one favoring spirituality and hate for the material world; the other reminding us that we “have need of” material things after all. So that if in one sentence, John or Jesus seemed to tell us to “hate” the “world” of over-materialistic people say, the next major passage will caution us that those who “hate” our brothers and sisters, are not themselves good. And the hate messages are modified by the Christ who tells to “love” our “neighbors”; and the often very, very over- spiritual John that told us to “hate” the “world,” later gives us a Christ that tells us however that “love” is the most important emotion; and that Christ came to “save” the “world,” not condemn it. In the passage that rightly became famous in the 1960’s: John 3.16.

 

Today to be sure, the business “world” is no doubt typically over-materialistic; or better said, too concentrated just on short-term material goals; not long-term ones. It no doubt lacks knowledge of the even material value, to long-term survival, of altruism and personal sacrifice for the greater, long-term good. So that a counterbalancing, spiritual priesthood has been no doubt, at times, necessary. And yet however, our priesthoods have presented an exaggerated and essentially rhetorical counterbalance, as the whole of the truth. Which in effect, the real truth of life, is gotten as an average or balance between business sense, and long-term idealism; the practical life, and spirituality. Common working people, vs. priests. While priestly over-spirituality is not only wrong; it subtly destroys physical prosperity.

 

But priests are very, very proud; very very sure, that they and their Tradition, are the only voice of God; and that everyone else is evil. So how can we ever get preachers, Catholic and Orthodox priests and Protestant ministers, to stop condemning the sins of everyone else, and to see their own sins? The sins of too much faith; too much spirituality? Finally, the only way to appeal to the over-spiritual, the over-religious, is to appeal to the only text they respect: the holy books themselves. And fortunately, we have found here that the holy books, the books of the Bible itself, were a) originally, in the Old Testament, far more materialistic. And were b) at best, only equivocally faithful, spiritual, in most of the sayings of Jesus himself. Whose material miracles might be read as spiritual metaphors … but normally should not be. So that c) even the very over-spiritual Paul, the founder of over-faithful Christianity, occasionally made half-concessions to material life. While finally, d) a line or two by James, and many lines from the Old Testament and new, form an early advance warning, about literally, physically fatal results from the new priestly spirituality. While e) later Church attacks on Marcionism and Gnosticism, attempted to further counter parts of the problem of excessive spirituality and anti-materialism. Noting that such an idea ultimately, went firmly against God; the God of the Old Testament. Whose materialism still had some very considerable value.

 

And so fortunately indeed, the most sacred text of our preachers – the Bible itself – comes to our rescue. Specifically, we here suggest a greater, conscious balance between the New Testament, but then back to the Old, somewhat. Christ, and God himself. And if it at times seems hard to reconcile the two, we have noted here that the spirituality of the New Testament was always aware, line upon line, of the possibility that its faith and spirituality, would cross, deny, cancel, God himself, and his materialism. While we find finally, that we can now derive, not just by way of the informal, common ad-hoc balance between Religion or Christianity and common sense, that everyday people commonly make. But we can arrive at a “full”er, more practical, balanced, materially-responsible theology, even while remaining totally within the Bible itself. By simply noting the competition even within the Bible itself, between what are likely its two major, competing themes: the call for faith and spirituality, balanced against awareness of sins in our religious leaders, and sins in over-spirituality. While finally, we are therefore able to at last present a reconciliation between Word and World, Heaven and Earth, the New Testament and the Old, Religion and Science, Spirit and Flesh; we are able to make use of, partially fulfill the prophesies, that have God and Heaven, returning to this material earth. By rediscovering and foregrounding the competition between the two advocacies of the Bible and God; the spiritual and the materialistic. And we are able to reconcile them, at last, bring them together, in the science that after all, God himself often commanded us to have. The science of God. Which might be seen by some who favor spirituality, as a harmonization of a kind of intellectual/spiritual life, in “knowledge”; knowledge for and respect for, material life.

 

It has long been vaguely known to some priests, after all, that the Bible might allow for two vocations, or two life styles, or paths to God: the priestly ascetic, but also the good but practical, materially-productive working person. The farmer, the electrician, the medical doctor. Who has some devotion to helping others, but also in a very material way.

 

But to be sure, while our preachers have vaguely known of such things, the priesthood was self-selected to be the place for those who believed deep down, that the material side of life, the material side of God, was the least important; the priesthood has always been (and some might say, will always be?), the place where over-spiritual persons go. And since they proudly think they know absolute truth, and proudly think their spiritual vision is absolutely, the only vision really approved and mandated by God himself, finally our preachers and many of their followers, have even normally been, narrow extremists. Persons who are incredibly hard to correct; perhaps who can see and descry the sins of everyone else, or even the “sins” of failure to obey the over-spiritual vision; but who have been absolutely, proudly convinced that their spiritual, faithful “tradition” however, especially their “faith,” is absolutely infallible.

 

And so, how can we reach these persons? Who in spite of a certain superficial humility, are actually the very last people to see and confess their own real sins? The sin of over-faithfulness and over-spirituality? To merely note once again, the other track, other Path to God, through the good but practical life, good works, being a medical missionary, has long been known … and obviously, has by no means been enough.

 

And finally, the “stiff-necked” side of rigorous “faith” – great faithfulness is always stiffneckeness – has left us still, with a priesthood that is still very over-spiritual, over-faithful. In spite of increasing “engagement” with the “world,” our priests are still all too often, dominated by the typically ascetic, spiritual, physical-world-hating, “faith”-loving side of God; while the priesthood thus often dominates – and often seriously misleads – the world. Not just neglecting the physically starving, but we will see, beyond what James knew, often actively leading the world into phsyical dysfunctionality, and physical death. (As we find in our writings on Over-Spirituality, and the evils in priestly Absolutism). In fact, there has always been a massive evil, in all priesthoods; as they even champion physical death, to the point that they actively lead not only themselves, but others who would otherwise have taken care of themselves materially, to unnecessary material poverty, and premature death by starvation. By neglect of the physical side of life.

 

But while there has always been a great evil deep in the heart of even our Christian priests, finally, perhaps now this can be repaired. By our rediscovery here, of the materialistic, scientific side of even the Bible; of God himself. Which now sees that beyond the rabbi and the priest, the Jew or the rabid Christian, the better “neighbor” after all, might well be … the but ordinary man, the good neighbor, even the Samaritan; a non-priest who, rather than pontificating on the unimportance of physical life, finally just takes practical measures, to help the physically suffering.

 

Indeed, were here find that far far better than the spiritual priest – and ironically, even, far closer to God, the “full”er “mature” vision of God and Good – is the good but practical man; who is devoted to good works; to bringing better physical food, housing, to the poor, and the physical power of science and technology and practical knowledge, to us all.

 

In the past, we might have thought that various good but “lay” persons could fulfill this role; though most often, lay persons understand neither spirituality nor materialism, and create unworkable and dangerous compromises between the two. While in any case, such persons do not normally run our churches. So that finally, we have always needed a far better, more sophisticated, Biblical way of re-integrating religion, priests, into, onto, the world. By rediscovering and foregrounding, the material science of God.

 

And indeed, beyond ad-hoc (but often failed) attempts to empower a “laity,” there have long been in scholarly theology, elements of a whole new and better school of Christian leaders. For some time, there has been an emerging school of scientific Christianity, in the new, rational/scientific Biblical scholarship; in Religious Studies, and so forth. And if such movements at times have made mistakes of their own, perhaps those mistakes can be fixed … or their good points further refined, by our own Science of God. Which for now remains within the boundaries of absolute respect for the Bible itself; but notes that after all, the Bible itself allows for the value of classic, well-established science. Which is given even, indeed, a limited but very real power or “authority,” even at times, over our highest religious leaders. Enough to say, allow a limited but real naturalism, practicality or prudence, into our cloisters. Enough to compel say, finally and definitely, the naturalistic reading of “miracles.” As we will see in our writings on that subject.

 

In the end, God himself, the Bible itself, gave real science, at least that much authority. Some authority, even over our highest holy men and angels. While indeed, God comes in the End, not just as a priest, but as a more practical, more traditionally Old Testament model: a practical, real, “king.” One who gets real accomplishments, not just in our mind or spirit; but here, on this material earth.

 

 

 

 

 

END OF

Destruction of Heaven;

The Day When Judgement Comes,

BOOK 1:

The Second Appearance, the Second Coming of God,

In Science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Paul?

 

 

 

In Acts 16.15, a woman merely asks to be judged by Paul himself, as to her faith, Acts 16.15..

 

In 1 Corin., it is not us but “God” who “is faithful.” In 1 Corin. 4.17, we have faithful “child”ren in the Lord, but they are known by their hard work and fruits (4.8. If priests suffer, that is their understanding of works, 4.11 ff). In 1 Corin. 10.13, it is again God who is faithful to us; not we to him. As in 2 Corin. 1.18.

 

In Ephesians, some saints and others are faithful; but who, which are they? (Eph. 1.1; 6.21). If some were faithful in the past, that does not tell us much about who really understandings Christ, and who is faithful today; indeed Paul warned about many following “another Jesus” than his own. While in any case Paul is not “perfect.” And finally, in the Book of Revelation, the Ephesians are criticized by John or the author of that book (Rev. 2.1-5).

 

In Colossians, the same problems with all of Paul in general, and with his faith apply. To Col. 1.2-7, Col. 4.7-9. Also: ! Thess. 5.24; 2 Thess. 3.3; 1 Tim. 1.12, 3.11; 2 Tim. 2.2, 2.13; Heb. 2.17, 3.2-6, 10.23, 11.11. If in some translations Paul asserted he is a “teacher of the true faith,” in other translations this is broken into two parts: “in faith and truth” (RSV); suggesting that faith and truth might be different. In a way more in keeping with the original Greek. While then indeed Paul warns us abut, in effect, traditional priests: about people who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” (1 Tim. 4.3; see meatless Fridays, Catholic priests not marrying).

 

 

 

 

 

So what we have here – and in parts of rational theology, Religious Studies, and so forth – in the science of God, can be seen as the partial fulfillment of prophesy. As God exposing sins in our holiest men and angels … exactly as foretold; as authorized by the Bible itself. Even when they are at times critical of religious traditions, scholarly, scientific Theology and Biblical Criticism and Religious Studies, are not therefore, the enemies of God; but are in fact, His Right Hand. Pointing to the many “false” things in religion, that in fact, God warned about. Separating them out, into good things, and false, “dead” wood, “tares,” “chaff.” And then intellectually burning them, in intellectual/spiritual “fire.”

 

And so this, we suggest, is how ancient prophesies are fulfilled. To be sure, many different persons and institutions – like the church – have often claimed to be fulfilling prophesies; to be the foretold ideal kingdom for example, coming down from heaven. And we know that none of them were ever quite as good as the “full” promise of God; of an ideal kingdom where there would be no more “mourning,” nor pain, etc; where the “wolf” would lie down with the “sheep,” the lion with the “ox,” and so forth. (See Isa.? Rev.).

 

But realistically though, what party has actually shown the most signs of producing the material wonders foretold? The Church was often good in many respects … but never quite as good as advertised, or foretold. Even Pope John Paul II experienced pain no doubt, when he was shot by a would-be assassin; in any case, many believers were in “tears.” While of course, finding thousands of priests sexually molesting tens of thousands of boys, over history (projected), reveals anything but an ideal kingdom in the Church. So that indeed, we must criticize even the “angel of the church” (Rev.).

 

No doubt the churches have done some good, in teaching the people to control their destructive desires and passions. But actually, just as much or more, ironically, it has been … not religion, but science, and practical knowledge of practical trades and so forth, that have shown the most “signs” of being what God wanted us to have; since they have shown the best signs of delivering the material “prosperity” that God promised. Over the centuries, we had huge churches, and lots of prayers; and yet however, we had material privation often, including plagues and periods of starvation. While it was not until practical knowledge and science developed agriculture and medicine, that people were increasingly saved from physical problems. So that oddly enough, if we are looking for the field that shows the most material “signs” of being from God, it is not spiritual religion; what shows the most signs of being from God is surprisingly; amazingly, not the spirituality of priests … but is, ironically, practical knowledge; and science and technology.

 

How can this be? How could it have been the very science and practical “knowledge” often attacked by priests and ministers … that actually, was closest to, “first” with, God? As much as – or even more than – priests and their spirituality? In fact, all this was foretold by the Bible itself. Many of the very fields, activities, people, forms of “knowledge” that priests thought were “last” with God, in fact, turn out to be … closest to him, in the end. As indeed, we see, now.

 

Just as foretold; in the end, the first are last, and the last, first. (Not Mat. 19: 30 ff;, but Luke 13:30).

 

What did the “first last, the last first” mean? For centuries, preachers constantly assured us, in one of their most common sermons, that it is the worldly materialist person, who things he is great and “first” today, who will be found last. But here we find that our spiritual preachers were far too “proud,” “vain,” and “presumptuous”; even “false.” The fact is that ironically, a) preachers are very, very esteemed in this world; for one thing. So that we might expect them to have problems on that account too.

 

But then too, b) God especially, constantly warned constantly about huge sins in our holiest men, not everyday working people. Indeed, when it comes to being “first” with God, look at what happens when our holiest apostles, begin arguing about who is the greatest apostle (in Mat. 18.1, Mark 9.36; Luke 9.46, 22.24-6):

 

“He was teaching his apostles…. He asked them, ‘What were you arguing about on the road?’ But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, ‘If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all'” (Mark 9.9.30, 33-35).

 

Do our preachers really believe their Bibles? Are they really prepared to be “last”? Or will they go on, “proud”ly, presenting themselves and their faith and spirituality, as the infallible or totally holy, reliable, sacred voicepieces of God? Are they prepared to defer to a second coming of God, to mere “flesh” again? To a second coming of God? Or will they like the Pharisees, oppose that? Will they again oppose the discovery of God, good, in “mere” flesh, in the mere material world? And thus … again be “last” with God, when they insisted they were “first”?

 

There were many generations of preachers, who have asserted that religion, Christianity, did not really need to get real material results, but only needed to get “spiritual” results. Like bringing us what Paul called the “fruits of the spirit”; and 1 Peter called spiritual control of our destructive “desires,” and “salivation of your souls” (1 Peter 1.9). While many preachers hinted all we had to do to be good, was to just keep our “Faith.” But in fact, even the authors of these early hinted apologetics – apologies for the lack of real material results – were hesitant about this at times; knowing that God had in fact promised not just spiritual things, but also many material works. Even Peter therefore felt anxiety, and “fear,” as he attempted to justify himself and his followers. Specifically, the very spiritual Peter was anxious about being “judged” by a Father who, after all, judges us not by our faith in the end, but by ur “work,” (or as Revelation said, what we have “done”):

 

“Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver … that you were redeemed” (1 Peter 1.17-18 NIV; see Paul too, citing Plato’s im “perishable” Forms in heaven).

 

 

Peter himself, remember, was once called “Satan” by Jesus himself. (While we add, the whole idea that religion is to be based on “faith,” a test of faith, was literally an idea from Satan, in Job 1). And so, after having been so full of spiritual “milk,” after suggesting that we are not redeemed by physical thing like silver, Peter here can be read as being a little nervous; and as counseling fear, hesitation, about this matter of producing mainly spiritual things, but not so much real, reliable, physical “works.”

 

And though Peter apologetically went on try to hint that not material works, but mere “spiritual milk,” was all that anyone needed in life (1 Peter 2.2), there were problems with his “spiritual”ity too, even in itself. Among other problems, after Peter called for spiritual “milk,” a) even the likewise rather spiritual apostle Paul was to insist that we must eventually “mature,” and move beyond “milk”; to eat “meat” like adults. Indeed, Paul went on to heavily criticize Peter in many ways; noting that as “Cephas,” Peter often acted “hypocritic”ally; sharing fellowship with Gentiles and non-Jews at times … but then not seating Jews and Gentiles together at table (and at communion?). While b) remarks about the adequacy of just spiritual things like “faith,” were heavily attacked by the apostle James. And c) indeed, many remarks that seem to advocate spiritual faith, often note its limitations; its subordination to “love” and so forth. While indeed d) though even Paul at times supported faith, other times he admitted that he himself was not yet “perfect,” even as he wrote his parts of the Bible; that he himself only knew “part” of the truth; the fullness of which being revealed in fact, only in the end. While some e) often have, in current translations, found a curious double, negative meaning that is critical of faith, in such texts as 1 John 5.4; where John is speaking of a victory that … “has overcome the world, even our faith.” Which in one reading suggests … overcoming the world … and overcoming faith. (Or NRSV: “Whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith.”) The Bible is written here as in many places, to equivocate on this matter; to be open to two readings. One is that our faith is a victory. But another says the opposite of that: that we are to conquer not only the world, but also our faith. In any case, “faith” was not what the Bible really, fully supported in the end. Finally the bottom line is this: though perhaps faith in God will save us, how can we know who, what is really from God? And not from a false prophet? Finally, the only way to know that, is not “inspiration” – since there are many “false spirits,” and since even the spirit of God failed those in the wilderness, said Paul, etc.. But instead rather, the only objective way to know what is really from God, is to follow what brings real material … fruits, works, signs, deeds, proofs; short- and long-term both.

 

When Jesus was physically killed, and when a physical kingdom did not appear, the apostles for a while were no doubt, nonplused; and many came to feel that Jesus-based Christianity was simply, false. But after having followed Jesus as their Lord for a time, the Apostles remained partially loyal to him in spirit. Though we must suggest here, that in Peter and others, there can be found a genuine sense of unease and fear, about their occasional lack of some important material works. Like the material kingdom. And many feared that because of this lack, if God, Christ came again … he might not fully approve of the spiritual religion, that the apostles or others were calling Christianity; of their vision of “Christ.”

 

While indeed, our study of the Bible, even of the writings of the Apostles themselves, the gospels and other books, suggests that as a matter of fact, though on the surface the Bible seemed to stress faith, underneath, or more carefully read, on “second” glance, we find that … in point of fact, real religion, real Christianity, was all along, not supposed to deliver just mental or (or feminine?) “spiritual” goods, like “faith” and “hope” and “love”; but instead, those who really understand and follow God, should be able to deliver real, material, physical things. In a way confirm-able if not by older, cruder science, then by … our own refined version, of the Science of God. As introduced here; and as further refined, defined, by our later books (on the Destruction of Heaven; Natural Christianity, Natural Wonders/Miracles; our books on scientifically provable Immortality and Resurrection through DNA and cultural survival, etc.).

 

And if this seems to find some sins even in our holiest apostles? The authors of the Bible and their most inspired works? Then after all, we will see, even the Bible itself often suggested that our very holiest men and angels, often sinned and erred. While they told us how, however, to find the truth for ourselves: by using after all, our Science of God; to see whether following this or that saying, writing, attributed to God, really brought not even so much “spiritual” things, but real material … “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.” As verifiable by real, objective, “science.”

 

What will happen to be sure, to our holy men’s reputations, and their works, when we apply science to them? To their promises of physical miracles especially? To be sure, that will be an alarming event for many. And yet however, remember that finally, the Bible itself authorized a critical, scientific approach, employing the root of Biblical Criticism, Religious Studies attitude, even toward our holiest men, and their works and promises or prophesies. Though many might feel a Science of God does not quite have the power to simply find parts of scripture false, certainly at the very least, it has enough authority, according even to scripture itself, to compel reading promises of supernatural physical miracles – the ability to walk on water; and/or the ability to make bread appear in empty baskets; and/or the ability to make real, physical “mountain”s move – as being inconsistent with science; and therefore compelling us to read such things as metaphors, or rhetoric. Or – best said – as “figures,” “allegories,” “parables” – metaphors – for rare wonders in nature and technology. (A rather natural “wind” blowing back the sea for Moses, for example, in parts of the Bible; the baskets of bread being filled by believers, when it was passed to them, as an early collection plate in effect; etc..).

 

We therefore have a new “appearance” to Jesus. And his wonders. But what should we say finally, for those “stiffknecked” conservatives, who will not “see” this second Jesus? Who will remain totally “faith”ful to old traditions, or to what they heard as children in church? We will say that they have simply, not read their Bibles closely enough. Or obeyed God fully enough. And so, those who “walk by faith and not by sight,” are indeed, too “far from God,” as the fuller quote says; they have not read their Bibles well enough, and so they have not “fully” “seen” him yet. His “second” and “full”er “appearance” (“parousia”), as advocate (“counselor”) of the science of God. His “appearance” which emerges, in large part, when we, like those at Emmaus, read our “scriptures” more fully; and then begin to perceive in them and other good people around us at last, a new and better, “second” vision, second appearance, of God, of Jesus. Seeing a Jesus, a God that amazingly advocates, commands, not the total “faith” of preachers at all. As we now see instead, a scientific Jesus; one that commanded all to learn, our science of God. And to honor it even it seems at times, over faith. Or, if we are to have much faith, it is faith in things proven by science. And not more than a grain of mustard seed; a grain that is to be allowed to grow, only when it lands in the soil of well-proven, empirical results.

 

Jesus’, God’s Science of God, is very, very authoritative. It is normally (albeit cautiously; gradually) given sway, even over the very highest religious authorities; bishops, churches, preachers, apostles, angels, doctrines. Even over the first coming of Jesus himself, it seems. Note that though Jesus himself usually would not tell us exactly who he was, or the source of his (or the Son of Man’s) authority (Mat. 21.23-27; Mark 11.27-23; Luke 20.8), except to cite God as “one” with him – but then, more importantly, he constantly cited his material, physical “works,” good or bad, as his authority. While he here finally, explicitly says this is where his (or the “Son of Man’s”) “authority” comes from; from material proofs, wonders:

 

“‘That you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ….’ Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, take your mat and go home.’ And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat. 9.6-8 NIV).

 

And so it is; we are to follow even Jesus himself, his first and second “appearance” or coming no doubt, only insofar as … he and his followers both, get real, verifiable, physical wonders and results. As determined by the real, objective, “science” of God. As described here. And furthermore, we cannot ever rest on the Bible’s accounts of miracles in the time of the Old Testament and the New; but, since God told us use real “science,” we must demand real, fully scientific evidence of real material success, from preachers or their followers, today too.

 

This standard, which was set by God, is a hard standard to meet to be sure; in fact it may seem certain to many that no priests or ministers today can really, fully pass this test fully. It will seem to most, that when today’s preachers are asked to produce works on the scale that the Bible often promised – huge, spectacular miracles on demand – essentially “all” our priests and ministers, very single one, will be found partially, largely, false. But if so, the after all, this is partial “fulfil”ment of prophesy: one “day” after all, we are supposed to find that all our preachers have been partially false. And here we are beginning to find them false in two major ways: their stress on “faith” was false; while likely, many will say, if we are to believe science, then their promises of miracles were false too.

 

It will be hard for some preachers to “see” this Jesus; and acknowledge him. And “confess” their sins, and the sins of our holiest traditions. Yet to be sure, passing through this purgatory “fire,” having their “chaff” exposed and burned away, is now more possible, more acceptable … now that we have shown here that after all, this is absolutely consistent with the Bible itself. The Bible itself commands it. We do not here deny or “debunk” God; on the contrary, many of us are hereby reading the Bible far more closely, and fulfilling the Bible even better, than the average priest or bishop or Pope.

 

We are not debunking the Bible here; we are following it more perfectly than almost anyone else. And are beginning to “fulfill,” it in fact (q.v.).

 

Since our major arguments are backed over and over by the Bible itself, finally at last, it should not be so difficult for preachers to at last, reconcile themselves to science and technology; and thus help heaven come to earth at last. Because, painful and iconoclastic as this is, it is all … absolutely obedient to the Bible itself (so far as we humanly can tell, in this draft of our text).

 

And the gains from preachers who at last see this Science of God, should be immense. First, b) after seeing the second and better coming, appearance/”parousia” of Christ, all our alleged priests and ministers and holy men, should always, from the moment of that realization on, serve in truer humility; acknowledging huge sins in themselves and their holiest traditions (of “faith” in miracles for example) in the past; while using this experience to remain officially inadequate, humble, always. Those preachers who have passed through this fire, and found sins in traditions they thought were holy, should at last, tone down their Pride and promises; they should admit publicly and repeatedly, every week, every sermon, that even our very, very holiest men often sinned in their promises.

 

And out of this systematic, new humility, we should see fruits. We should see, we call for c) next, a new generation of preachers: contemporary, scientific/practical preachers, “counselors.” Preachers who defer more than preachers ever have (more than the Bacons? Gregor Mendel?), to science. Such preachers, we should find, should begin to work far, far more realistically and effectively to produce material good here on earth (as medical missionaries, already do); producing results often not as obvious as spectacular miracles; but as humble, more moderate, as better medicines that save milliions. Producing not spectacular, showy miracles … but far more modest, but far more reliable, material results. Thus contributing realistically, measurably, materially, reliably, to a real material kingdom of God and good, here on this earth, at last. As foretold. God is not so unjust, as to overlook their humble “work.”

 

To be sure, this means a come-down, a step down, by all our preachers, and especially our highest bishops, and so forth; who have been far too proud anyway. When our highest bishops and other religious leaders of each and every kind, are at last “measured” (see the meaning of the words written on the wall), by this standard of material performance, to be sure – exactly as the Bible warned – essentially “all” or most preachers – Protestant ministers and Catholic and Orthodox priests and bishops, included – are even now found to have been largely inadequate, or false.

 

Preachers to be sure, will ask – with Peter – that if even our preachers are found partially evil, then “how” will ordinary people rate? But notice here a semantic nuance in the Bible; Peter strictly speaking, never firmly said that ordinary people would of course do worse then preachers, in the end. Strictly speaking, Peter made no statement at all; but only asked a question; if judgement begins with the holy “household of God,” Peter then merely asked, (1 Peter 4.17), as a question, not as a statement, the following: ” For it is time for judgement to being with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel o God? And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?'” 1 Peter 4.17-18, quoting Prov. 11.31). Here note, Peter merely asks “what” will happen; he does not tell us. While we should add here, that after all, we now find that the average preacher’s presumption that he himself is a believers, and others are unbelievers, is often, incorrect; those who followed science, were ironically, often (if not always; in the case of extreme atheists, beyond agnostics) far, far closer followers of God, than nearly all preachers. The very persons preachers thought were “last” are really, first.

 

Our preachers and holy men, have always had a very impressive, but superficial humility. But their modesty and humility were superficial and hypocritical; underneath it all, was a colossal vain presumption: that they themselves, and their tradition, were the reliable (even at times, explicitly, “holy,” “sacred,” and “infallible”) voicepieces of God, and ultimate truth. But here we find a third great sin or error in our holy men: “Vanity,” “Pride,” “Presumption.”

 

And ironically in fact, here, in the end, we find that far, far better than the very household of God, far closer to God and the Science of God, than a) ordinary priests, preachers, or even bishops, and b) religious radio networks, have been c) many scientific religious scholars. And d) the very few scientific parsons (Bacon? Gregor Mendel) But especially e) the ordinary good but practical (and allegedly “compromised”) working man or woman. Ironically, the very people that preachers often criticized most – as “compromising” their religion with practicality, were actually, far closer to the proper fuller, balanced theology, the “fuller” vision of God, than preachers. Indeed, the people were almost always closer to the second coming, the second and better vision of God and Christ, than preachers were.

 

Given their huge, spectacular, egregious shortcomings and “false”ness, is there even any room for the profession of preachers any more at all? Many might argue that there is no room at all for them. But consider what finally, would a good preacher look like, if at all, in our era. If there are to be any preachers at all, any more, a Real Preacher should be at last, really humble; by ceasing to speak so dogmatically, of God. Indeed, the name of God should be sacred again -and not be invoked much if at all in public, even in sermons; since His “name” was invoked constantly, in past sermons, over false ideas; invoked in vain. So that ironically, if our era mentions God less … in a way, that makes the name of God more sacred, not less so. Indeed, in ancient Jewish culture, the name of God was so sacred, we were not allowed to utter it in public; or write it down fully either. To go back to an era where God is never mentioned in public – or seldom if ever by preachers, in sermons – might well be, ironically, far more reverent than people would superficially think.

 

If there are to be any preachers at all in the future, a good preacher should be – as some already are – a) very, very circumspect. Since aa) God is infinitely complex, and all their words here are earth about God are going to be, inevitably, grossly false oversimplifications. And especially bg) since preachers, priests, have sinned greatly in the past, when they presumed to describe God, Jesus to us. Then too, if there are to be any preachers at all, then b) especially of course, to try to correct for their many huge errors and sins in the past, our preachers should … always be announcing their inadequacies and sins, and those of their tradition, to us all, with every sermon or homily or service. While finally though of course, c) they should be constantly correcting themselves, with the Science of God. The science that indeed systematically, very say, reminds all preachers, that “all have sinned”; including preachers and our holiest men, themselves. The Science that demands all our holiest men and angels (except Jesus?) have sinned, erred, aa) in their personal behavior, and bb) sinned and erre, even in their best, most “inspired” ideas, doctrines, dogmas, etc., about God. Any future preacher will be less like the preachers sermonizing today … than scientific, psychological “counselors.” Who, as all scientists, know that our best ideas about God and good, are always mere hypotheses, or initial data; hypothesis, data, that could always be at least partially disprove, as the science of God advances. While again, all our religious leaders, the very preachers and bishops and religious leaders that deep down, pronounced themselves “first” with God, are here and now and later as well, vulnerable to being found not first, but last, with God. As we find all previous preachers, here and now, in the end (Luke 24.24-35; Mat. 16.23; Isa. 22.20-25, 24.21; Rev. 6.14).

 

It is a severe vision. But so we have it all now; the second appearance, the Second Coming, of Christ; a God who, after “second,” “full”er look, in his second “appearance,” does not stress “faith”; or especially, faith in spiritual things. But who, if he stresses faith at all, stresses faith in things well proven with science.

 

Or proven – in the very words of Jesus himself – through “observ”ing real material, physical, “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.” Thus the Second Coming confirms at last, brings back as foretold, the Old Testament God; and His very, very firmly outlined … Science of God. Which reveals, is part of, the foretold Second Coming of God; to earth and flesh, again.

 

As foretold in the Bible itself; by God, himself.

 

 

 

All this we ask will be accepted by you today; this we ask in the name of God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END END END

 

Additional Notes?

 

Fear of an Apocalyptic End to

Too-Spiritual, Too-Faithful Christianity

 

 

In spite of many reputed wonders and miracles, early Christianity met many devastating, material, physical defeats. Jesus himself was physically tortured, and executed. As were many of his followers. While the physical material “kingdom” promised in much of the Bible, did not appear. Instead in fact, as History later recorded, the would-be capital of any such kingdom, Jerusalem, was physically burned to the ground. In 70 AD.

 

If what was called Christianity often met with such massive material defeats, and/or if it now and then could not produce material miracles on demand (as God said a good religion should, in the Old Testament), then what did that mean? To many, it would have seemed to mean that … maybe a) the old promises, and/or b) the new Christianity, were somehow, partially, false.

 

If spiritual/faithful Christianity was partially false, then as Christianity caught on, and became the official religion of Rome and the world it dominated … that would mean that the whole world or earth, and most of our preachers, were – as foretold – “deceived” even in their religion, their Christ. Were “under a strong delusion,” an “illusion” or false “dream” or “enchantment.” And were following a false idea of Christ. At first, this conclusion seems of course, totally heretical or impossible. But as a matter of fact we will have begun finding out in our book here, that these startling, shattering conclusions, were actually prophesied, authorized, in the Bible itself. The Bible itself said that one “day” as a matter of fact, you are supposed to see that a) the whole earth, even essentially “all” our holiest men and angels, were “deceived”; under an “enchantment,” a “strong delusion,” an “illusion,” a “lie,” a “false prophet,” “empty promises,” and so forth. One “day” we are supposed to see this; as part of seeing b) another, better, “full”er, more “mature” “second” “appearance” – a Second Coming – of Christ.

 

So if we here and now find huge sins an errors in our holiest men and priests – in their all-too-faithful advocacy of “faith” and “spirituality” for example – then after all, all that is not against the Bible itself; in fact, all that is in fulfillment of the prophesies of … the Bible itself; of God himself. The fact is, one “day” you yourself, are supposed to see another, better, “second,” “full”er, more “mature” vision or Coming of God. In that moment, (as we will show more fully, in our later books on the Destruction of Heaven, etc.), you are supposed to see God expose sins and errors, even in “all” our holiest men and angels; all holy men and angels on earth, and in heaven itself (Isa. 34.4 ff; also “all have sinned”; James confessing we “all make many mistakes,” etc.). If here and now, we find that all holy men erred, when they put such stress on faith, then after all, that is justified, as fulfillment of prophesy. And then too, it should be palatable at last … on finding that after all, there is a tremendous reward for passing through this fiery, painful moment: in the same moment as our “child”hood “heaven” of faith and spirituality is collapsing, we are indeed – exactly as foretold – also coming to see at last, a view of God, good, not just in spirit, but in the “flesh” again; here on this material earth. A God who is found in and among the things of this material earth again; in a second coming. A God who is not just a spirit, but who also, we will show soon, delivers on the old material promises.

 

And indeed, when we acquire the Science of God, we say here, many things foretold, authorized by the Bible, begin to happen. We have at least a partial fulfillment of scores of old prophesies. First, we have a new “appearance” of God; one that “dissolves” our old spiritual “heaven”; but that pictures heaven as coming down to this material earth again; as foretold. That gives us God, good, as being firmly in and among not just “spiritual” things and heaven … but God coming down to this material earth again. First in that we aa) see God, good, not just in and among spiritual things, but in and among material things, again. And then too, bb) when we have this mixture of religion and science; we also have the return of spirit to flesh, cc) word to world. We dd) re-incarnate, resurrect Jesus. And ee) have the mixture that destroys our over-spiritual “heaven” as foretold; but gives us a “new heaven.” One that – as foretold – ff) comes down to this material earth. But especially, gg) when the over-spiritual person finally learns some common practical sense and science, he or she has a vision of God that, but combining science into religion at last, is “full” enough to give us at last, real practical material abilities. To learn how to make better boats and houses and medicines and agricultural crops. And in that way, help at last to realize the kingdom of God or Good, here on this material earth at last.

 

 

 

 

 

Looking Ahead To Problems With “Miracles”:

More End-Time, Apocalyptic

Prophesies Fulfilled, by the Science of God

 

 

 

God clearly demands that religious figures who say they are speaking the words of God, prove it; by demonstrating real material, physical results.

 

a) So why did our preachers long ago, start disobeying the theology, the side of God, that demanded real material results, of holy men? In large part, it was undoubtedly because … our preachers read the old texts as promising material … miracles. Bread out of thin air; the power to make “mountain”s fly through the air. And yet however, no doubt the problem with that was … that most of us do not get these specific miracles, today; suggesting to many, that promises of miracles – or indeed, our preachers came to hint, all religious promises of material, physical gains – were false.

 

b) In fact, many preachers today have partially given up on, decided to disobey, the part of God and the Bible that demanded material fruits, works, signs, deeds, proofs, as the core command from God; they gave that up, ignored and disobeyed that, in order to try to say that God never really promised material, physical rewards; but only mental or spiritual
ones.

 

Yet indeed to be sure, the idea that holy men must produce material evidence, signs, is firm in the Bible. So firm that Jesus himself, like most of the Bible, often agreed that we can even know who is truly from God, and who is not, not by their apparent faith in, or knowledge of, say scriptures, or faith in holy men’s assertions about God; but instead, we can know who the real believers or holy men are … by looking to see if any given holy man, can produce real material evidence – especially, significant “signs” – in the material world. This Jesus confirmed over and over and over in the Bible itself; by his repeated, dramatic, constant emphasis on real material “wonders,” “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.”

 

Yet finally, to be sure, the reason that our preachers came to abandon much of physical, material religion … was that this whole core theology of God, that apparently demanded real material results from holy men, was normally interpreted by priests, to be promising miracles; and miracles came into doubt. Huge physical promises had been made; promises of miracles. But those promises promised more than priests could deliver. Therefore, priests had to either conclude that they themselves, or part of their tradition, was false. And priests did not want to “face” this humbling, apocalyptic conclusion.

 

Indeed in fact, some questioned parts of the Bible did promise much, much bigger material things, than priests – or anyone – could deliver. Like the following, for example:

 

 

“And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover….’ The Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it” (Mark. 16.17, 19 … found in NRSV with Apocrypha, & some Bibles)

 

 

The main reason the material side of religion came to be questioned, and was partially abandoned by many preachers, was that the material side of God had been thought to promise lots of big huge physical miracles. Like handling snakes and taking poison, without harm. And so forth. But eventually – as we will see soon, in our writings on Miracles – there was much evidence that promises of material miracles were false, or exaggerated. So that in fact, preachers or someone, began to try to suggest that we take the old promises of miracles, as being just metaphors for spiritual things; and decided that the Christ that was implied by this last passage above for example, was a false Christ. The passage above, that promised this specific miracle – that preachers could handle snakes and take poison without harm – was taken out of many Bibles. As in effect, presenting a false Christ.

 

So what should we say? Perhaps “miracles” are not quite right; rather, we should take such things as metaphors; or in the words of the Bible, as “figures,” “parables,” “allegories.”

 

Indeed, the failure of “miracles” is the main reason that finally, many preachers, holy men, churches, began to lose confidence in, faith in, the material side, the material promises, of religion, of Christianity. As when many rejected Mark 16, above. And yet however, our point will be that though some of our preachers secretly came to the correct observation – there are no miracles – they then came next to the wrong course of action, the wrong conclusions. They should not have become over-spiritual, and abandoned the material side of religion for spiritual “faith” and “hope” and “love”; but should merely have noted – as most scholars do – that God never really promised “miracles” per se; but rather promised more natural and technological, “wonders” of practical knowledge. Those who know snakes after all, can handle them fairly safely. And though to be sure, the promise that anyone can be immune to poison seems exaggerated, then after all, at least the above passage that promised that, was simply thrown out of many Bibles.

 

As we will see in our writing on miracles, preachers began to give up on the material side of religion, because of problems getting material miracles. But there is a better way of dealing with that problem, than completely giving up on material life. As we will be noting later, most “miracles” can be simply re-read. They can be seen to have been more natural and technological things, than priests thought; to have been plausible, if we re-read them as figures of speech for things in nature and technology. If Moses was guided by a column of smoke by day, and fire by night … then after all, he was probably guided by signal fires.

 

Many are disappointed with such natural explanations. But note that these explanations have many huge advantages finally. For example: we do not have to a) entirely abandon the old promises, if science finds some understandings of miracles false. And b) we do not have to or metaphoricalize the old material promises of religion, even its “wonders”; thus indeed we find, c) the old promises of the Bible itself are true enough, and materially true too. Just true, to be sure, in ways that our priests, until now, have not understood.

 

No doubt, many spiritual priests will not want to see things this way. But we ask them to remember that Jesus warned that “all have sinned”; even priests and prophets. And therefore, rather than condemning everyone else, Jesus told even priests to learn to see the “beam in their own eye.” Here, it is hoped that our priests today will learn to “see” and open their “eyes,” here and now at last. And learn to see the second and better vision, appearance, of God. The vision where God tells us to value, after all, science.

 

And if you do that? Then after all, the problem of miracles, simply … goes away. Or is solved.

 

And in fact, we will be showing next, that finally, though at first the science of God seems to “disprove” or “debunk” or minimize wonders, miracles, like resurrection and so forth, finally, the science of God ends up not a) “reducing” miracles, or b) “disproving” them; but c) proving them to be scientifically real.

 

So that in the end, next, we will prove that Resurrection, Immorality, are real; prove it scientifically. So that indeed, our old “spirit” and our “heaven,” will be seen soon, coming down to earth.

 

Exactly as foretold, after all.

 

By the Bible itself. By Jesus, himself.

 

 

 

Many say Jesus already gave the “full” truth to this or that Church already; but Jesus himself said he had not told us all. That “all” would not be known by us, until the Counselor came, at the end:

 

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16.12-13 NIV).

 

 

 

 

 

END

 

 

 

 

 

Recap

 

 

At first, seems impossible; or shocking. Or too incredible to believe. But as we here and now read our Bibles a little more closely, with a little science, we begin to see a different, second appearance to Jesus. As we re-read our Bibles here and now, we will begin to see beyond the vision of Christ as stressing “faith.” And we will come to see hints of a second Jesus; a vision of Christ stressing not faith, but .. science. And when we do that … this can be read as … being at least partial (and even complete?) fulfillment of a whole, massive series of prophesies in the Bible itself; of a “day” when we see God expose a massive illusion or delusion in the whole world that believed in a “Christ” (Rev. 13; & references to the anti-Christ, or “another Jesus” than the right one). We are finding that the whole earth followed a false idea of Christ, when it believed in Jesus advocating “faith.” But we are – also as foretold – seeing too, at the same time at last, a “second,” “full”er, more “mature” vision, “appearance” of Jesus; when we read our Bibles again here … and see that Jesus and God did not want such a total “faith,” but actually, faith balanced against … reason and Science.

 

. . .

 

Today, everyone thinks of Jesus Christ, as the great spokesman of “faith” and “spirit”uality. But if we begin to look at the New Testament just a little more closely, here, we will begin to see the outline emerging … of a second Jesus; a Jesus who stresses not faith, but Science.

 

We submit that our vision, our unveiling, of this new and different vision, this new appearance of Jesus, is in effect at least a preview, of what Jesus looks like in the Second Coming. Or indeed, the moment you look into the Bible and see this Christ … is possibly, amazingly, even the very substance of the Second Coming of Christ. As we re-read our Bibles more closely here, we begin to see another, “second,” better, “full”er vision, “appearance,” of Jesus. Which is at least a preview – and possibly is part of the real substance – of the second coming of Christ. We read this as at least partial fulfillment of the many prophesies of the Second Coming. In that what we will see is is a 1) “second,” 2) “fuller” 3) “appearance” (“parousisa”/coming/appearance) of Christ. Who, since he is now found not just in spirit, but in the material earth, in effect comes down to the 4) “earth,” exactly as foretold.

 

And indeed furthermore, when you “see” this second appearance of Christ, since it brings you new, rational/scientific skills, it comes to bring you and all of us – as foretold – the ability to find “prosperity.” Or even, as we all learn to work together to make the world a better place … many would say that 5) we can even realize at last, the promised “kingdom” of peace or prosperity, here on earth at last. As foretold.

 

 

. . .

 

 

It might seem strained, or too metaphorical, to suggest that the Second Coming of Christ appears in large part, when we read our Bibles more closely. But 6) this would not be the first time, remember, that Christ appears, when scripture is read: remember the Christians on the Road to Emmaus; meeting the “stranger” who re-reading the scriptures to them; and as the scriptures were read … suddenly the followers of Jesus … saw that the stranger was really, Jesus.

 

So that the Bible itself said that another Christ appears, when scripture is read more closely. As in fact, just like the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, as we re-read our New Testament here and now, we will also begin to see the first glimmerings of a second appearance of Jesus. As we re-read our Bibles here, another, vision of Jesus appears (in our mind’s eye?). But this time, after our long look at the Science of the Old Testament, the Christ we see today, is 7) so much “full”er than what we knew or “saw” in the past, and so much more rooted here in and among the things of this material earth, that 8) it amounts to really, a “second” Jesus. Coming down to earth.

 

As we re-read our New Testament here, looking at parts of the text that our preachers often missed or misunderstood, the reader will be seeing 9) a startlingly more real, fuller, more material Jesus. A Christ who, amazingly, advocates not pure faith, but a material Science of God. A science of God that is so advanced, that it is able to – against, as foretold – a) “refine” our priests; and b) expose longstanding sins and errors in our holiest men and angels. But also – since with the Science of God, we at last can combine the full resources of Christian spirituality with the full proven material successes of science and technology – we have a second vision of God … that c) can, rather exactly as foretold, bring material “prosperity.” Indeed, when you see the Science of God, then you have at last a vision, d) a “mature” understanding, that e) is perhaps even “full” enough, to eventually produce a material “kingdom” of good, on earth.

 

Amazingly therefore, in our new, “second” vision of Christ, we may be offering here, the first glimpses – or even part of the real substance – of the foretold, Second Coming of Christ.

 

But to be sure – 10) also as foretold in the old Apocalyptic prophesies – the Second Coming is not an entirely easy moment. In the end, many things thought to be “first” with God, are found to be “last.” And that includes … even 11) especially for Christians. Because Jesus after all, comes the second time … to note sins and errors in our holiest men and angels – and priests and believers. Indeed, Christ comes to … reveal that the whole earth was “deceived”; “under a strong delusion.” And to reveal that even those who thought they were following “Christ,” and calling out his name, “Lord, Lord,” were, most of them, following a wrong vision, understanding, of Christ; a “false Christ.”

 

But this seems shocking; is it possible that the world has been following a false idea of Christ? And 12) what specifically, has been wrong in the common idea of Jesus? It is of course, our finding that Jesus himself did really say that spirituality and “faith” are supposed to be the center of our Christianity. That Jesus a) constantly deferred to “God,” who backed science. While b) Jesus himself finally stressed not faith, but science.

 

If we look here, at the sayings by Jesus himself, Jesus in person, we will see that, as it turns out, Jesus himself to be sure, now and then, mentioned spiritual things; like “faith.” And at times, seemed to stress “spirit” and “heaven.” And yet however, we are about to find out here that amazingly, shockingly, overall, Jesus actually, continuously, told us to be far more involved than preachers have thought, in the material things of this material earth.

 

Jesus a) himself, remember, was said to have been God or spirit, made into material “flesh.” God on this material earth. And what is more, b) Jesus is pictured in the gospels, as every, very involved with material things: indeed, he promised – and was pictured as producing – real material rewards, wonders or miracles.

 

Jesus was very, very, very involved not just in spirit and heaven … but also even more, this material existence, we will be showing here. In fact especially, finally, c) Jesus attached so much importance to this material earth, that he came to “save” the “world” not “condemn” it.

 

Especially finally we will show here, d) Jesus attached so much importance to this material existence, that he noted that we could know who was really from God, and who was not; not by their “spiritual” qualities; but by whether our alleged holy men got real, timely, physical, “prov”able, “observe”-able, material results, on this material earth. And in fact Jesus really continued the Old Testament emphasis, on a Science of God, as outlined earlier by Daniel (1.4-15), Ezekiel (2 Kings 18.20 ff?); and others (Mal. 3.10 ff). A science which told us precisely and exactly the opposite of what we heard in most churches. An entirely different vision of God …that adamantly did not tell us to trust and believe and have “faith” in and follow, our holy men and angels; God instead ordering us to actively, constantly question the truthfulness and rightness of our holiest preachers and holy men; and to discover, which (if any) holy men were from God. And not by faith, but by science: by using our physical “eyes” to “observe” their material – not primarily spiritual – “fruits,” “works,” (to a lesser extent, “signs”), “deeds,” and “proofs.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF BOOK 1

 

 

 

 

 


 

God’s Science v. 4.5 The Science of Jesus FOOTNOTES

 

 

 

 

 

Vol. 4 The Science, the Second Coming, of Jesus

 

THE “DAY” WHEN GOOD “JUDGEMENT” ARRIVES:

The Destruction of Heaven;

The Resurrection of God on Earth,

Through Science

 

FOOTNOTES,

BIBLICAL REFERENCES

 

Part 1

 

The Bible, God, Refer to

A Science of God

 

 

For an explicit Biblical command to follow “science,” see Dan. 1.14-15 KJE. For references to God commanding us to use scientific, experimental method, applied to Judeo-Christianity, see Dan 1.4-15; 1 Kings 18.21-40; Mal. 3.10 ff; etc..

The Bible itself warns constantly about false, bad things in our holiest men and angels. Therefore, religion and Christianity in particular, was never supposed to be “faith-based”; religion, Christianity, is supposed to be science-based  (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; Deut. 18.21-22; Mal. 3.10, etc.).  Perhaps we are not to “tempt” God.  But we are commanded to carefully, scientifically “test” everything” in life and religion (1 Thess. 5.21; Mal. 3.10; 1 Ti 3.10; Gen. 42.15; Ps. 11.5, 66.10,; Ecc. 7.23; Jer. 9.7, Lam. 3.40; Dan. 1.12; Zech. 13.9.  If God seems to tell us that “thou shalt not test,” God, other translations, rightly translate that are not “tempt”ing God  Luke 4.12 RSV).  We should not test God’s patience with immoralities; but in contrast, we are commanded to scientifically test everything, as it turns out here, with real “science” (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE, Deut. 18.20 ff; 1 Kings 18.21-39).  

Indeed, we are to examine everything in religion to see if it is really from God or not … by using science, the observation of how things work out or “come to pass” here, on this material, physical earth:

 
 

“How may we know a word the LORD has not spoken?’ – when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him” ” Deut. 18.21-22. 

“Beware of false prophets…. Thus you … know them by their fruits” (Mat. 7.15-20).  Then Ps. 139.7; 1 Kin. 8.23-9.2; & St. Paul; italics, mine. 

 
 

Note that Jesus’ apparent injunction not to “test” God, is often better translated as telling us not to “tempt” him with immoralities; as in the phrase the “Temptation of Christ.”  Since indeed, we are even commanded to “test” religion, God, in Malachi:

 
 

“Put me to the test says the LORD” (Mal. 3.10).

“Test everything” (1 Thess. 5.21).

 
 

Are these spiritual tests of some sort? At times St. Paul and others seemed to attack attention to “things on this earth” (Col. 3.1-3); but for the importance of using material evidence from the “earth,” and science, to discover what is good, see also Gen. 1.10; Isa. 1.18, 1.21-24, 6.3, 26.9, 29.4, 42.1-5, 65.16; Ps. 37.3, 104.24; Ps. 115.6; Ps. 115.16; Job 28.2-25; Sirach 37.27; John 12.25 vs. 12.47 & 3.16; 1 Corin 1.28, 10.26; Col. 1.16-20, Col. 1.19-20;  Rom. 1.20; Ps. 37.11; Matt. 8.3-4, 6.33.

 
 

“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” Jer. 23.34.

“In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1.16).  

 
 

For more on the supreme importance of knowing God through observation of nature, knowing God through looking at material things, and sometimes specifically through “science,” see:  Job 28.2-25; Jer. 31.35-7; Prov. 1.22; Prov. 25.2-3; Isa. 7.10-14, Isa. 1.21-24;  Mat. 7.20; Mark 2.10-12; Luke 21.24, 21.25, 21.27, 21.29; 1 John 4.1; John 10.17-18 NAB, John 14.10-12; Rom. 14.1, Rom. 8.28 NWT, ref. Ps. 145.17; John 9.3;  Rev. 2.2, 11.1; Titus 2.16.  And technology and practical knowledge, in Catholic Bibles:  Wis. Sol. 1.1-7; 7.16-17; 8.5-17 vs. 13.1-14.7; 16.17; 19.11-21.  Also 1 Kings 4.29-33;  Dan. 2.60-81.   For a more complete survey, see our entire chapters on Science, Asceticism, and latter, Matter.

We are to examine the real material “prosperity” that comes from each saying attributed to God; its real material “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs,” here on this material “earth,” as “observ“ed and “test”ed with “science,” and observation of what or what “does not come to pass” (Deut. 18.20 ff), here, on this earth, in a timely way; “soon,” “at hand,” “presently,” the “time is near,” “quickly,” in at least a “generation.”  (While rejecting St. Peter’s suggestion that soon might mean thousands of years; since Jesus called Peter “Satan”).   In this way, we use God’s Science; and in this way we next find, the better outline of God, and Truth; of what is Good.  For biblical quotes telling us to “test”: “put me to the test, saith the LORD,” Mal. 3.10 RSV; “test everything,”1 Thess. 5.21. 

And this is not the forbidden “test”ing God’s patience; this is testing life, with real science.

As for spirituality? There are many warnings we will see about false spirits. And we are to test even them; “test the spirits” (John?). And this turns out in context here, not to be just John’s testing of them, by a loyalty oath.

While even the spirit is known by looking at things that are visible; “invisible” and “spiritual” things are important, we are to know even spirits, even Paul admitted … mostly by way of the visible, material things they effect:

“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1.20 RSV).

And can we test even the holiest men and angels and preachers? Most importantly, the Bible warns constantly that our holiest men are often deceived, deceptive. And so it describes at length several sessions where holy men describe in great detail, how we are to scientifically test holy men, for real material results. As in Dan. 1.4-15; 2 Kings 18.20ff ? (Ezekiel); Malachi 2-3; Deut. etc. (See our OT section).

 
 

 

Part 2

 

Warnings By God

Of False Things In

All Our Holiest Men and Angels

Bad things in All Christian Priests, Ministers

 

 

Why do we need a science of God? Why not just listen faithfully to our preachers? And let them lead us to truth? The reason is in part … that God warned our preachers and holy men – even the apostles and saints and angels in heaven itself – are not reliable.

Our preachers have always read to us just parts of the Bible; especially the parts that seem to tell us that our preachers and holy men, are all but absolutely reliable and good.  But our preachers left out, or “twisted” or “whitewashed,” seventy or a hundred parts of the Bible … that warned that there would always be bad and “false” things in all holy things, even in Christianity,  even after Jesus and so forth.  Bad things to the End of Time … and/or until the Apocalyptic coming of God’s science.

For a look at the whole side of the Bible, of God, that priests denied and hid and twisted, for seventy or a hundred or more scriptural, Bible references to bad things in religion, including Christianity – and the desirability to use science to find out what they are – here is a good biography:

For scriptural references to false and bad things in religion, even in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition:  the Bible itself says, there are sins, errors, in effectively “all” religion“All have sinned” (Rom. 3.23);  “if we say we have no sins, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1.8); “if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar” (1 John 1.10). 

Indeed, as we will see here, even “all” our religions – including Christianity – are full of bad, “false” things; “false prophets” (Jer. 23.23 ff, etc).  Even the angels and saints in our “present” Christian heaven itself are bad (Job 4.18; 13.4; 15.15; Rev. 12.7, etc.). “All” have sinned.  And “all” in heaven are to fall:

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll.  All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgement…” (Isa. 34.4-5). 

“The heavens … that now exist have been stored up for fire…” (said Peter, in 2 Peter 7.7).

Preachers like to tell us that whenever God notices sin or error in holy men, that means everybody else, but our preachers today. But we will find, sins in “all.” And it becomes clear that means … sins in even the saints and angels in heaven.  Which will of course mean that our preachers today, who followed heaven, will have erred too. That is why finally, our childhood, naive sense of religion – our heaven – is being destroyed, for bad things in it.  In order to show a more “mature” “knowledge” of God. 

After generally noting God warning of sins in “all,” even all in heaven, note specific criticisms – of first, of bad things in angels. Whose name means messengers from heaven. Who have sins:  “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting agains the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev. 12.7-8 Revised Standard Version); “Even his angels he charges with error” (Job 4.18); “all the host of heaven will rot away” (Isa. 34.4).  and “God did not spare the angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4); “To what angel has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand’?” (Heb. 2.5).  “It was not to angels that God subjected the world” (Heb. 2.5). “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corin. 11.14). “Neither death, nor life, nor angels” (Rom. 8.38). “To the angel of the church … I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (Rev. 3.2, also 2.4, 2.13-14-16, 2.18-20; 3.14-19). When someone bows down to an angel, this happens:  “Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that!  I am a fellow servant with you and your comrades…. Worship God!” (Rev. 19.10 NRSV). This is indeed the great sin in churchgoers:   they are following, worshiping the words of priests, who are angels, “messengers” from God … but they forget that most messengers, angels, are unreliable:  worship God himself, as he exists apart from all merely human characterizations of him.

See also warnings about false “apostles,” plural; more than a) Judas (John 21.20-24).  Shockingly, shatteringly, b) St. Peter once told Jesus that Jesus was wrong in something, “rebuking” Jesus (Mat. 16.22) … and c) then Jesus called St. Peter “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23:  “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan!  You are a hindrance [“stumbling block”] to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.'”  Then d) St. James then admitting of himself and other apostles no doubt:  “we all make many mistakes” (James 2.2).  Then e) St. Paul admitting he himself, at the time when he wrote his part of the Bible, was “not … perfect” (Php. 3.12). .  Regarding  “James the son of Zebedee, and f) John his brother” (Mat. 10.2), “the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him and asked … ‘Command that these who dons of mine may sit, one at your right hands and one at your left, in your kingdom.’  But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking …. to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant.'” (Mat. 20.20).   Confirming Jesus – who called Peter “Satan,” and noted he would “deny” him many times –  Paul too noted problems with St. Peter or “Cephas” as well:  “‘Cephas’ (which means Peter)” (John 1.42); “But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he … acted insincerely” (Gal. 2.11, 13).   While indeed, all the disciples fled and abandoned Jesus, when the Romans came to arrest him (Mark 14.50).  At times, preachers will try to say that churches and others “test”ed apostles, and found out all that were false, and left them or books attributed to them, out of our Bibles:  as when Revelations congratulated those who “tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false” (Rev. 2.2).  But even those churches who did such “test”ing were themselves, Revelations itself notes, not perfect in every way; Ephesus which did the testing is supported in some ways.  But then opposed in part:  “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love that you had at first” (Rev. 2.4); while other elements of other early Christian churches were also not “perfect” in every way (Rev. 3.2).   While indeed, even those of the Twelve Apostles who were accepted, who were canonically accepted into our Bibles as authors of the gospels … are often found false by Jesus, God, above. And if the Twelve Apostles themselves were unreliable, then …?  Who which preacher today is better than them?

Then too in effect, believers and congregations, who are “hypocrites.” And even those who are sincere, but mistaken. Those who cry, acknowledge “Lord, Lord,” but who are following a false idea of Christ. Warning them to look for false things in themselves; criticizing others for the “speck” in their eye … while ignoring the “beam” in their own eye (q.v.).   Though many think they are good, many who think they are “first” in the eye of God, are “last” in the End; and though many “judge” others to be bad, they themselves will be judged.  And ultimately, only God himself knows who is good and who is bad; only God judges in the Last Judgment. Congregations (Titus 1.12-13; Gal. 1.2-8; Revelations 1-3).   We all make mistakes James 3? See also false things “among us” in Peter, etc..

Related to sins in congregations, specifically Christian churches can be bad; see Paul’s criticism of the churches of Galatia and Ephesus, in “Galatians,” and “Ephesians”; or Revelation’s criticism of many churches, Rev. 2.3. Related to this, see “congregations,” etc..

“False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13.22).  “If some one comes and preachers another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corin. 11.4).  

Priests often claim that they themselves, or congregations, if they quote Jesus, his “name,” are protected from sin or error (after 1 John 4? Acts. 2.21);  but … Jesus said many would call “Lord, Lord,” and yet still be wrong (Luke 7.21).  And (Luke 6.46, 13.25), it is not just because they say the name, but don’t do the deeds; it is also … because most who thought they were following God, will be found to actually have been following a “false christ.” 

While indeed there are many bad, false boasts and claims in religion (Isa.15.6).  

Even a “Christ” can be bad: see warnings about false or “anti” Christs too (1 John 2.18-4.3).  “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13.22).  “If some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corin. 11.4).  There are warnings about false christs, and surprisingly, warnings even of Jesus himself (Gal. 3.13; “Christ redeemed us from the cure of the law, having become a curse for us – or it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hands on a tree'”).  By Jesus himself in (Mat. 19.17:  “Why callest me good” KJE? ; etc.).  Indeed, many false or “anti-Christ”s has already come, even in the time of Christ or John:  “many antichrists have come…. They went out from us” (1 John 2.18,19).  And if John thought they were “not of us,” with John and true followers, it is presently impossible to know which are the true followers of John; indeed, Christ himself would not promise any particular status to John, when his mother asked for that.  Regarding  “James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother” (Mat. 10.2), “the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him and asked … ‘Command that these who dons of mine may sit, one at your right hands and one at your left, in your kingdom.’  But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking …. to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant.'” (Mat. 20.20).  

Bad Christians: see sins in even the “household of God,” and those who follow “Christ” but are following a false idea of him; others who cry and acknowledge the “name” of Christ, “Lord, Lord,” and yet are hypocrites, or deceived. As even the “present” heaven of Christianity is destroyed too; see also 2 Peter 2.1, Jude 4, false things “among you.”

Most priests and churches claim that they, or their church, have weeded out any false things.  But related to the above and below, there are things even in the first, holy Christian churches overseen even by apostles in person
(Rev. 2.4, 2.20, 3.2; all of Galatians, etc.   “To the angel of the church … I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (Rev. 3.2, also 2.4, 2.13-14-16, 2.18-20; 3.14-19).  “Do not trust in these deceptive words, ‘This is the temple of the LORD'” (Jer. 7.4). Will God live in a house built with human hands, also, asks Solomon; Jesus had to clean out the temple.  “Do you now know that you are God’s temple” (1 Corin. 3.16). 

As for councilors? There are bad “councilor”s (Sirach 37.8). 

And of course problems in pleasant lies, illusions, enchantments (Isa. 47.1-12-16).

And false gods (Isa. 41.23-4 etc.).

Problems with hearts. (Gen. 6.5, 42.238; Ex. 7.13, 9.14; Numb 32.9; 2 Sam. 15.6; Job 15.35; Ps. 10.3, 12.2, 73.7; Prov. 6.14-18, 10.2; Mat. 15.19; Mark 7.21; Rom. 1.21; James 4.8).

 There are even bad things in heaven itself; indeed to the point that heaven itself is to be destroyed; citing mainly Jesus in Mark 13.31-2; then 2 Peter 3.7-14; Isaiah 24.21, 34.1-10 & 24.1-21, 51.6, 64.1-66.22; Rev. 6.12, 9.1, 8.12, 12.4, 21.1; Mat. 24; 1 Kings 8.27.  For Muslims:  Koran 11.108, 14.48.  See also the literally hundreds of references in the Bible, and Quran, to a “day” or “fire” and “judgment”; the day when the Lord comes to earth, to judge and destroy evil; the Day of the Lord; Judgment Day; the End Time; the Apocalypse.  Including Isa. 2.2; Mal. 3.2; Mat. 24.22; Mark 13.31; Acts 17.31; 2 Peter 3.8? (See also the “household of God”).

Even the Holy Spirit can be faked by a false spirit it seems, 2 Corin. 11.14 etc/; or even the real Holy Spirit itself will stand by and let us sin (see spirit coming in, Acts 2.4, John 20.22, vs. sins even after, 1 Corin. 10.5, John 21.18, “Cephas”/Peter a “hypocrite” Gal. 2.13, etc.).

Indeed, as some in the book of Job asked, who can be considered good, next to God himself?   And so finally, “all” in heaven are to fall (Isa. 34.4); all the “host of heaven” (Isa. 24.21).  Even the greatest Christians saints like St. Paul, admit they themselves are not “perfect”; Paul said, regarding perfection, that he had not yet “attained” it (q.v.).

Bad things in the holiest religious kings, like Saul; even David; bad things in leaders (Isa. 3.12).

Religious “law” (Gal. 3.13; 2 Corin. 3.6-7), and outdated “old covenant”s or contracts between God and men can be bad: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Mat. 5.17-18); but … “heaven will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.6).   “Sinful passions aroused by the law” (Rom. 7.5, 3.20); Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4); “a man is not justified by works of the law” (Ga. 2.16, Gal. 3.2-5; “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Gal. 3.10; “self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal. 5.23); “the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7.19); “the law has but a shadow of the good things” (Heb. 10.1).  The “perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1.25).  “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).”Jesus the surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 7.22).  “A new covenant” (Heb. 8.8, 12.24); “even the first covenant was not ratified” (Heb. 9.18).  See God saying he made bad ordinances and laws earlier:

“I the LORD am your God….  But the children rebelled against me…. I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD”  Ezk. 20.20-21, 26 RSV).

Bad things in promises of miracles:  “There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD hearkened to the voice of a man” (Josh. 10.14).  “Do all work miracles? … But earnestly desire the higher gifts.  And I will show you a still more excellent way” (1 Corin. 12.29-31).  See false promises, false prophesies … which are often false promises of miracles after all.  So that finally, we are to ask those who promise them, to actually produce them … or be called an “abomination,” a hopeless bad and evil and false religious leader.   (See Science, below). See also the prophet who works false “signs” etc..

Bad things in patriarchs (criticism of Moses by Paul; Rom. 10.5; see also “dispensation of death” 2 Corin. 3.6-15;  Rom. 7). “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).  “The dispensation of death” (q.v.).

Bad things even in the “perfect“:   “O Tyre, you have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty….  The east wind has wrecked you (Ezk. 27.3, 26).   If “the law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” (Ps. 19.7), “I have seen a limit to all perfection” (Ps. 119.96); “if perfection had been attainable … what further need would there have been for another priest” (Heb. 7.11).  “For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man .. .But no one can tame the tongue – a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3.2, 8). To the Christian churches:  “I have not found your works perfect” (Rev. 3.2).  “The law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7.19).  The perfect does not come till the end of time:  “when the perfect comes” (1 Corin. 13.10).  The only perfect law is the law of liberty:  “The perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1.25).

Even prayers have problems (Josh. 10.14; see Jesus or Paul on public prayers with “vain repetitions”).  “There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD hearkened to the voice of a man” (Josh. 10.14). Often “God pays no attention to their prayer” Job 24.12. No doubt the prayer of the “righteous” is effective (James 5.16); but who is righteous? More problems: 1 Corin. 14.14: my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. Ps. 80.4; Prov. 28.9; Isa. 1.15; Lam. 3.8; John 16.26-17.9; Jer. 14.11; Mat. 6.6-7, 9.38).

Then look at specific references to:  bad things in priests. Including – but not limited to – priests without “knowledge,” (Isa 5.13, 28.7, 45.20; Jer. 8.10; Lam. 4.13; Mal. 2.1-8; Heb. 7.11; Hos. 4.1-6; Jer. 14.18, see also 23.25; Ecc. 7.12).  These were warnings not just about priests in other religions either; but those in Judeo Christianity too:  “The high priest then questioned Jesus” (John 18.10); “And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him [Jesus] by stealth, and kill him” (Mark. 14.1). “He would not be a priest at all” (Heb. 8.4).  See the priest vs. the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.31).  “With you is my contention, O priest” (Hos. 4.4).  “I reject your from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.6). And these things are to persist though the era of our own Christian priests; till the end: “An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land:  the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.31).  “From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).  “Both prophet and priest are ungodly” (Jer. 23.11). “If perfection had been attainable … what further need would there have been for another priest” (Heb. 7.11).  “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests .. They wandered, blind, through the streets” (Lam. 4.13-14). While even the “household of God” itself is bad (1 Peter 4.12-17).  Though priests say others are worse, God himself did not say that; it was only speculated, as a question. A good “Samaritan” can be better than a rabbi or a priest.

Bad things in prophets  (Jer. 23.15-40 & 27.16;  Isa 28.7; Lam. 4.13; Ezek. 13; Zech. 13; Deut. 18.20; Mat. 7.15 & 24.11-24; Mr 13.22; Lk 6.26; 2 Peter 2.1; 1 John 4.1).   “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity” (Lam. 2.14). “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests .. They wandered, blind, through the streets” (Lam. 4.13-14). 

False religious rabbis/ “teachers” (James 3.1 etc; John 1.28-49. The rabbi vs. the Good Samaritan).  False churches (Mat. 12.6; 1 Corin. 4 14 ff; Gal. 1.6-3.1; Eph. 4-5);  false apostles (including St. Paul himself – Phil. 3.12; 2 Corin. 11.16 – Peter in Mat. 16.23;  Mat. 26.34). 

And especially, false “spirits” (1 John 4.1):  “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”  “A spirit of jealousy comes upon him” (Num. 5.14).  “An evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul” (1 Sam. 19.9).  “How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me” (1 Kings. 22.24).  “The spirit of God is in my nostrils” (Job 27.3) … but “The breath of our nostrils, the LORD’S anointed, was taken in their pits” (Lam. 4.20).  Even good spirit can be taken; see too bad spirits:  “the unclean spirit” (Mat. 12.43, Mark 1.23, 6.7; Luke 8.2-29, 9.42, 11.24).  You are not good “unless one is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5); ” gave them a Spirit of stupor” (Rom. 11.8). 

Bad things in shepherds (Zech. 1.4-13.7; Ezek. 34).  Even of the house of David and Jessie? (Isa. 21.20 – 22.25).

False “Day” and other “stars”  (Isa. 14.12-21).  “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (Rev. 22.16 – but “How you are fallen from heaven, O day Star, son of Dawn! … You are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit.  Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you:  ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble'” (Isa. 14.12, 15-16).  “The stars will fall from heaven” (Mat. 24.29).  See false leaders from the house of David; “pegs” that give way (Isa. 22.22ff).  False, blind “servants” of God (Job. 4.18, Isa. 42.19 etc; even the saints, apostles, “all” in heaven are bad (Job 15.15 KJE; “holy ones” RSV). The “host” of heaven is to fall (Isa. 34.4).

Reputed wise men are really “fools”; “honorable” men are really bad “knaves” (Isa. 32.5). 

Written laws, code, are wrong and fatal:  “Not with ink but with the Spirit” (2 Corin. 3.3); “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6).  See Scripture, below.

 

All Other Alleged Special Saving “Gifts,” Graces

 

Additional gifts?  Whenever, churchgoers discover shortcomings in the major elements of religion, every preacher or church picks up some other, almost random thing from the Bible, and tries to make it into a special gimmick; some allegedly special gift or grace, that will always help when all else fails.  But if you look each of these up in a concordance, you will find that each of them have something wrong with it, or is not enough, or often fail or are taken away, by God, at some time or another. 

So for example:
 1) even the “anointed” priest can “sin”; 2) even those who take the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, communion, with Jesus himself, even with their hand on his table, can sin later, and betray him; 3) likewise the “blood” therefore fails us, and indeed the Jewish God told us never to consume blood; 4) even the “elect” can be “deceived” it seems; 5) even “righteousness” can become unrighteousness, or we can be “righteous overmuch”; 6) “Grace” can be lost, and the “staff” called “Grace” “broken”; 7) “sanctification” has problems and can be spoiled or forgotten (Num. 20.12; 2 Ch. 30.3); 8) “offerings” and 9) “sacrifices” (“The sacrifices of the wicked is an abomination”; Prov. 21.27, Jer. 6.20; etc.; “offerings” Mal. 2.3),
on the 10) “altar” can be refused by God.  Likewise, there are problem with 11) “church“es; 12) “tradition“; 13) “pillar”s; 14) “rock“s; 15) the word “sacraments” come from “oaths,” which Jesus tells us not to make;  16) while “mysteries” are after all things uncertain and vague and therefore unreliable; of various 17) spiritual “gifts,” or charisms, there is almost always one higher;     (q.v)..  And there are problems with 18) relics, good luck charms, sacred objects like “cross”es, etc.; which can become “idols”; thought of like the forbidden
“pieces of wood” and bone thought to have powers; as if a piece of wood could speak.  (See church on “superstition”).  Then too, 19) God they sometimes say answers all prayers; but God can refuse to hear many “prayers.”  20) Likewise, there are many kinds of “baptism” ... and even the best is not enough by itself; since you have to be born of “water” and the “spirit.”  21) Even “discernment” is not enough; since people with this can be “taken,” deceived, even in the “discernment”s and “wisdom” (Prov. 19.12? Isa. 44.18).  Likewise, 22) “doctrine”s; 23) “dogmas” “infallible” or otherwise; and 24) special things communicated “orally,” or by the “tongue” or related to that, 25) “tongues.”  Even 26) “the cross” in itself, as an object, or when duplicated, becomes a mere piece of “wood” or “idol”; while the sentiment associated with it – self-sacrifice – can at times be bad or unnecessary too (when we seek “prosperity” and fruitfulness).  Then too 26) liturgies are full of prayers and words, that can go astray.  Likewise 27) even the “perfect” we will see.  Then 28) “covenant”s come and go.  Then too there are problems in various types of 28) “body” and/or flesh.   

All these things are spoken of at times as good in the Bible; but then later the Bible mentions limitations in them.

While 29) in addition to all the parts of the Bible itself that note problems, failures in these and all other allegedly special saving graces, practical experience teaches us that many who have had one or more of these, do in real life, still often seem to fall, sin,
and do or experience, bad things.  You can take Holy Communion, and yet still have bad,  impure thoughts, and even sin mightily, right after, in the parking lot.  Today the Church recognizes that most of these are not good, unless you have 30) the simple will to be good. But in that case, why not just acquire the will or work on your will … rather than playing around with such placebos, false
idol intermediaries? See also 31) problems with virgins (Isa. 47.1-5-15); and 32) a Mary who does not understand, but has to ask what things mean.

All these, the Bible itself says, can fail, or be falsified or spoiled. In addition to problems with major things like “faith,” “Christ,” “church,” “spirit,” “Holy Spirit,” “scripture,” and so forth.  Finally, the best option is Gods “science.”  Which is itself not perfect either; but which is advocated in the Bible in hundreds of ways; and which we add is always systematically humble, and aware it can be fooled, and is never absolute; that if must always seek evidence for its claims; and that is its great strength.

 
 

Magic:

Bad Influences in Christianity

 

Then, infecting religion, Christianity proper … check the Bible on the various elements of Magic that, we were warned, would infect religion, including Christianity.  From related persons, magician-priests, like …  astrologers (Dan. 2.27); augers (Deut. 18.10), enchanterers (Ps. 58.5; Isa. 47.9-12; Dan. 1.20), fortune-tellers, magicians (Dan. 2.27; Rev. 13, 22.15; cf. the Three Wise Men or Magi/magicians), necromancers, soothsayers (Deut. 18.10), sorcerers (Deut. 18.10), witches, wizards.  Or related false “wise men” (Dan. 2.27; cf. the Three Wise men, “magic,” magicians). Including not just the overt magician Bar Jesus; but especially the Christ, the false Christ, seems associated with magicians, magic, and illusions and lies or false dreams, images, hopes, spirit.

Bad preachers, who believe in magical miracles – and others like “false prophets” – cause:  false promises, empty words, illusions, delusions (2 Thess. 2.11; Isa. 41.29, 19.13, 44.20; Jer. 10.15, 51.18; Ezek. 13.8), lies, enchantments, false dreams, false images (Isa. 40.20; Jer. 50.38; Dan. 3.10; Rev. 13.14ff),  empty consolations. False prophesies (cf. miracles, spirit) not from God or the Lord.

 

Scripture

 

Here we honor the Bible. But does the Bible honor itself? Is the Bible reliable? If all those involved in religion can be false, then can their writings – scriptures – be good?   In a sense, “the Bible” is never mentioned in the Bible.  And indeed Paul and others told us that “all scripture” is good. But which scriptures was he talking about? And how good? Some say that our fallible apostles were temporarily protected from error, by the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. But God warns of false spirits and devils, presenting themselves; perhaps as the Holy Spirit.

It seems there are many false, bad writings, scripture; including false things even in our own Bibles it seems to some. For references to problems with, changes in,  holy “scriptures,” scribes, books, letters, empty words, promises, prophesies, or East “wind,” things “written” in stone, sayings, things that are said, language – including often, the New Testament writings of Christian saints and Apostles, like Paul, too –  see our Scripture chapter.  Citing, especially, John  5.39; Jer. 8.8; 2 Corin. 3.6-8; Gal. 3.22 NRSV; Rom. 7.6; Heb. 7.18-19; Ez. 20.25-26.   Then:  Gen. 11.9 ff; Job 13.4, 13.1ff; Isa. 6.18, 34.4; Ez. 20.25-22.28; Jer. 8.8, 23.23-31; Lam. 4.13-19; Prov. 1.4-6; Wis. Sol. 19.14-18; Ecc. 3.1-6; Zeph. 3.9; Mat. 3.7, 5.17-18 vs. 2 Pet. 3.10, 7.21 ff, 9.16ff, 16.19, 13.10, 13.33-35, 13.52, 23.14, 23.23, 23.1; Mark 2.7-20-22; 4.11-20; Luke 16.1-25, 10.1-20, 16.25, 21.25; John 3.39, 10.6, 16.12-25, 21.25; Acts 9.18; Rom. 1.14-15, 2.14, 2.29, 3.20-23, 7.6-10, 12.1-2, 14.4; Heb. 7.18-19, 11.19; 2 Corin. 2.15, 3.3-8, 4.2-4, 10.10, 12.17; Gal. 3.13-22, 4.24; Phil. 2.12-13; 1 Thess. 5.21; 2 Thess. 2.2-15; 1 Peter  2.13-17; 2 Peter, 1.9, 3.15-18; 1 John 4.1-3; Rev. 6.14, 2.2.  Vs. John 10.35; Rom. 15.4; 1 Tim. 4.13; 2 Tim. 3.16, 4.16; 2 Pet. 1.16-18; Rev. 22.18-19.  Specifically:  false or inadequate or suspicious gospels:  (Gal. 1.6-8).  False letters purporting to be from Paul, (2 Thess. 2.2.) “Not with ink but with the Spirit” (2 Corin. 3.3); “The written code kills” (2 Corin. 3.6). Paul admits he is not “perfect”… even as he is writing his half of the Bible. James likewise admits that he – “we all” – make “mistakes.”

Many preachers try to say that our scripture, our Bible, could be perfect, even though written by imperfect men, because the Holy Spirit came into them, and made them perfect while they were writing scripture.  Thus, according to this doctrine of “inspiration,” imperfect or bad saints and holy men, could become good, could write perfect scripture.  However, God warned there were “false spirits” (1 John 4; Isa. 29.24); and that sometimes very bad things disguised themselves, as very good things; “Satan” himself comes to us disguised as the “angel of light” (q.v.).  Therefore, we cannot be sure whether saints really were hearing the Holy Spirit … or a false spirit, posing as the Holy Ghost. 

Those priests, apologists, theologians, who have always covered this up, hidden this from themselves, and from the people, the churchgoers, should read warnings about apologists; who are “whitewashers” of errors in religion (Job 13.4). There are warnings about false Christs, churches, and even scripture.  Even “all” scripture (Rom. 3.23;  John 5.39; John 21.25; Jer. 8.8). 

Even prayers have problems (Josh. 10.14; see Jesus or Paul on public prayers with “vain repetitions”).

 

 

Not “Faith”

For these reasons, the Bible ultimately did not stress “faith” in religious leaders, churches, or their pronouncements, sermons, about God or Christ.  Instead, the Bible itself told us to “test everything” in religion, even the holiest scripture, with “science”; to find if it gets real material results, wonders, “fruits,” or not.  And if not, we are not supposed to follow it, but reject it as a word that God did not actually say (Deut. 18.20 ff).

For biblical references to the command, by God, to found religion on science, more than faith, see our Chapter 3 – Science-Based Religion, was Ordered by God; Not “Faith-Based”; “Test Everything.”  Because there are always false and bad things, even in our angels and saints, as God said, to find the truth, we were not supposed to “faith”fully follow anyone on earth, or follow church or holy man, just on faith.  (James 2.14 ff; 1 Thess. 3.10; 2 Peter 1.5; Rom. 4.14; Rom. 14.1; 1 Corin. 13.3 ff; Gal. 3.12).  We are to have no more faith than a “grain of mustard seed” (Luke 17.6).

 

“As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him” (Rom. 14.1).

“Faith , hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest … is love ” (1 Corin. 13.13).

“Your faith is in vain” (1 Corin. 15.14-17).

“We are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corin. 5.7).

“The law does not rest on faith” (Gal. 2.12). 

“Supply what is lacking in your faith” (1 Thes. 3.10).

“Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2.17, 24, 26).

 
 

Those who “walk by faith and not by sight” are note, far from the Lord.  Those who can “see” God in real material things … are much closer to God.

For scriptural references finally, to the final destruction of heaven, and the appearance of a “new heaven,” see our first chapter, the Destruction of Heaven; citing mainly Jesus in Mark 13.31-2; then 2 Peter 3.7-14; Isaiah 34.1-10 & 24.1-21; Rev. 6.12, 9.1, 8.12, 12.4, 21.1; Mat. 24.  For Muslims:  Koran 11.108, 14.48.   

See also the literally hundreds of references in the Bible, and Quran, to a “day” or “fire” and “judgment”; the day when the Lord comes to earth, to judge and destroy evil; the Day of the Lord; Judgment Day; the End Time; the Apocalypse.  Including Isa. 2.2; Mal. 3.2; Mat. 24.22; Mark 13.31; Acts 17.31; 2 Peter 3.8; Rev. 21?

These are just a few of our seventy and more references, from the Bible itself, to false and bad things in religion, even in Christianity especially.  But then to God’s command to use science, to find out what the false things are.

 
 

 
 

 
 

END

OF FOOTNOTES

 
 

God’s Science v. 1.0 Intro to the Destruction of Heaven, TITLE Page only

 

THE BIBLE BACKS SCIENCE, OVER FAITH 

Vol. 1:

Introduction to

The Destruction of Heaven

By

“Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, Ph. D”;

[Last edited by Dr. Griffin Gaddie Ph.D., July 9, 2014.]

Amazingly, we can see the first clear outline of

The Second Coming of God – here and now.

But – as the Bible foretold –

The second “appearance” of Christ on earth,

Is not entirely what preachers and churches expected.

Today, God destroys our Heaven of “Faith” in “miracles” and “spirituality.”

And advocates

Religious Science, over Faith:

“With you is my contention O priest”;

“Listen to me…. The heavens will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.4-6);

“Heaven cannot contain him” (1 Kings 8.27);

“Test everything…” (1 Thess. 5.21);

“… Understanding science” (Dan. 1.4 KJE).


God’s Science v. 1.1 Intro to Dest. Of Heaven; God Arrives to Destroy Heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BIBLE SUPPORTS SCIENCE, OVER FAITH;

Vol. 1 The Destruction of Heaven

 

 

Chapter 1

 

 

 

God Arrives To …

 

Destroy Heaven Itself

 

 

“Listen to me…. The heavens will vanish like smoke”

(Isa. 51.1, 4, 6, RSV).

 

 

 

One “day” the Bible says, God or Christ is supposed to return to earth again; in a “Second Coming.” And as we begin to re-read our Bibles here, especially the Biblical prophesies of the Second Coming, we can already, amazingly enough, come to see the outlines of a “second” Christ. But the Christ that we now suddenly see? The Christ of the Second Coming, that we begin to see in part even here and now … as foretold, reverses many common ideas that we heard in church.

 

First, the God or Christ that we now suddenly see, does not really stress “faith” as much as our preachers did. Indeed, the God or Christ that we now suddenly see, warned continuously, about sins and errors, in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels:


All have sinned” (Romans 3.23).

 

“Why do you call me good? No one is good, but God” (Jesus, in Mark 10.18).

 

“Speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions” (Isa. 30.10).

 

“Prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (Ezk. 13.2).

 

“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 9.7; cf. Acts 26.24-5).

 

To the angel of the church … I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God” (Rev. 3.1-2).

 

“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2.18).

 

“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).

 

“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer 6.13, 5.31).

 

“Now this is for you, O priest” (Hos. 4.4?).

 

“He leads priests away stripped” (Job 12.19).

 

Preachers try to suggest, that these passages mean that there were many false things in the religions of the past; as some note even apparent sins, even in Judaism. And indeed, God himself calls our attention to sins in the Judeo-Christian tradition; even in the very prophets of “Israel.” But finding false things in our holiest men and churches, is not just something that can be comfortably relegated just to the remote past; many false things were foretold, even deep in all that Christians thought to be absolutely holy. Indeed, false things were already being seen, in the Twelve Apostles. And many false things, were seen in the Apostles’ future – and for the entire future history of Christianity in fact.

 

Especially, the New Testament often warned about false things in religion that “will” come, even after the time of Jesus. Especially, the Bible warned those who came after Jesus, to look for “false Christs,” false prophets, and various “beast”ly persons, magicians, and “sorcerers.” And so forth. Especially dangerous, are these kinds of key false religious leaders. Leaders who, God said, would successfully deceive essentially the whole “world.” Who would deceive not just the whole “earth” – but also its religion, its “worship.” And among those false religious leaders was, prominently, a “false Christ.” Who is associated it seems, with “sorcery” or magic:

 

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.24; Mark 13.22; Acts 13.6).

 

“Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Mat. 24.11 Revised Standard Version).

 

“And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written” (Rev. 13.7-8).

 

“And all nations were deceived by thy sorcery” (Rev. 18.23).

 

Most Christians today think that these and hundreds of others warnings from God, about people believing false things – about people following “false” things in religion, false Christs, false religious leaders, -are just warnings about other religions, other groups, other churches other than our own. Most churches today think these warnings are not addressed to “us”; to we themselves. To our own church; our own pastor. But while there might have been some special group that was somehow protected from sin and error in religion, it has been extremely hard – indeed we will show, it has been all but impossible – to know which church today, represents the right group, the “one true church.” Especially when essentially “all” those who have claimed to speak for the Lord, even the holiest apostles, are found false, in the end:

 

All have sinned” (Romans 3.23).

 

“We all make many mistakes” (admits the apostle James).

 

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?’ But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame. From prophet to priest every one deals falsely” (Jer. 8.8-9-10).

 

“No one is good but God” (q.v.).

 

The Bible said that 1) “all” of us have sinned; that none of us is entirely good. And then it 2) warned specifically, that there were already many bad and false things being offered even in the name of Christ, or the “Lord”; even as early as the time of the writings of John. The apostle John (or author of the biblical books that appear under the name “John”), said that already, there was an “antichrist” – even in his own time, c. 90 AD. To be sure, John suggested that we, or “us” Christians, those who followed John, will have escaped such deceptions; John seeming to assure us that the false believers had left the building, and were not among “us” any more. Yet has been functionally impossible to tell which group today, represents the group that correctly followed Christ and/or John. It is hard to know, which group or church is the right, good “us.” Indeed, probably no church whatsoever could be entirely good. Not when churches follow the writings of apostles like Peter – but then Jesus himself calls Peter “Satan.” As he does in Matthew 16.23. Or indeed, we might wonder whether John himself, was entirely good. Some preachers like to assure us that the Apostle John, was the “disciple that Jesus loved,” in biblical text. But many scholars are not sure that John was the referent of that phrase. While in any case? Even if Jesus “loved” John, that does not mean that apostle was good: Jesus, after all, loves sinners.

 

 

 

Preachers Quote Only Misleading “Parts” of the Bible

 

 

 

Jesus himself called Peter himself, “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23. So why haven’t we heard about this second side of Jesus, from our preachers? The side of Jesus that severely criticizes and warns about … essentially all our holy men, and preachers? Preachers it seems obvious, want to proudly preserve their high status in society. And so they quote only the parts of the Bible that seem to support them; while they leave out other parts.

 

For centuries, Catholic priests and others, have loved to quote misrepresentative fragments of the Bible. Fragments that seemed, taken out of context, to have Jesus expressing full confidence in the Church of St. Peter, as the “rock” on which a perfect church would be founded. But here and now, we will begin to see a Christ who says very, very different things, than what we heard in every church. Here at last, we will begin to foreground hundreds of parts of the Bible, that our priests did not fairly or honestly present to us. The parts of the Bible where God, especially, began to warn about … preachers and churches. And the part of the Bible where in fact, Jesus himself called St. Peter, “Satan”: in Matthew 16.23 (NAB).

 

The Bible itself, as we will see, often warned that even our religious leaders like Paul, saw only “part” of the truth (1 Corin. 13.12; 2 Corin. 1.4?). And the Bible even warned that the “part” of truth seen by even “our” Christian “prophets” and holy men in particular, are often wrong, or misleading. Until we finally see God “face-to-face” in effect:

 

“As for prophesies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child…. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Corin. 13.8-12).

 

Related to that? We will show here that your preachers could never quite “face” or tell you about, the larger, fuller outline of God. Instead, all our preachers always read to you, just misleading fragments, misleading parts of the Bible. As Paul warned, your own preacher saw or presented, only misleading “parts” of God. And all our preachers were false, in this way.

 

What parts of the Bible did preachers see and quote continually? In particular, preachers have always only quoted a “first” superficial or self-serving impression of the Bible. Especially they have quoted the surface, the part of the text, that seemed to absolutely support the authority of preachers, and churches. But here we will be looking closer at the Bible – and will be bringing out a “second” and “full”er view of what the Bible really, more fully said. By looking at the parts of the Bible, that our preachers could not face or bear.

 

Finally, when we take a long, hard, “Second” look at the Bible; bringing out the parts that our proud, vain preachers could not “bear,” in particular, what do we see? Here and last, we will be looking more closely at the many, many parts of the Bible, that preachers left out, or that they semantically “twist”ed and “whitewashed.” The parts … where God warned about preachers; about priests and ministers, and about “all” holy men. The parts of the Bible that our preachers hide from us and from themselves. The parts where Jesus and God, effectively retract, any apparent earlier endorsements of holy men, preachers. Where God himself retracted, canceled, any apparent endorsement of even “Christian” churches and their allegedly most holy doctrines. Were God even repudiated, core “Christian” doctrines – like “faith” in “miracles” and “spirit.” Where God himself in fact, even warned about the “Christ,” that you probably have been following. That “Christ” being largely a creation, of very, very flawed churches, and very false holy men.

 

 

 

 

“Faith”?

 

Christianity is Not Supposed to Be Based on “Faith”;

But on Science

 

 

Clearly, God himself warned that there were many, many problems with religion in the past. Even in the religion of Israel. Even in the highest prophets and priests of Israel, as we will be seeing here. And there were many warnings about sins even in the earliest Christians, too. And warnings about still more false things in holy men, yet to come. But to be sure, whenever we begin to notice these things, our preachers 1) try to generate endless proud arguments, sermons, to try to prove that God of course, never meant to criticize they themselves; our own preachers and churches. In particular? Preachers assure us in effect, that 2) God told us to ignore any and all “signs” of sin in our holiest men and angels … and preachers and churches. And to simply 3) “have faith” in them, no matter what.

 

But did Jesus really stress “faith” that much?

 

There are several firm indications in fact, that God never wanted us to have too much “faith” in holy men or angels – or in their ideas about God. First, 1) God constantly warned about sins in holy men; while the logical deduction here would have to be that, since our holy men were unreliable, God clearly did not want us to have too much faith in them, or in their ideas about God either. Furthermore, beyond this logical implication …2) though Jesus at times seemed to support some kind of mild faith, there are even statements in the Bible, and by Jesus himself, of problems with, greater things than, frequent failures in “faith” and “belief” by name:

 

“Certain persons … made shipwreck … of faith” (1 Tim. 1.19).

 

“The simple believes everything” (Proverbs 14.15).

 

“Faith, hope, love abide, these three: but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corin. 13.13).

 

“Faith without works is dead” (James 2.17 & 26, paraphrased).

 

“Praying earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith?” (1 Thess. 3.10).

 

“As for the man who is weak in faith, faith, welcome him” (Rom. 14.1).

 

More than anyone, if was just the apostle Paul that spoke of “faith”; hundreds of times. Yet we will be showing here that the Bible overall, Jesus himself, in the end, noted problems with “faith.” The main problem with faith especially, is that there are many false things in life, and in religion, as God warned: false religious leaders, false ideas. So? If we just faithfully follow religious things … we will often end up following false leaders. While 3) indeed? One “day” we are supposed to discover that the whole “world” was following false prophets, presenting a false idea of Christ. As in effect, we are beginning to see.

 

 

 

God Destroys Heaven

 

 

 

As we begin to re-read our Bibles more closely here, we can begin, even here and now, to see the first real outlines of the foretold Second Coming of God to earth. Just from reading the Bible itself, a little closer. And in many ways of course, the second appearance of Christ on earth, is the greatest moment in a believer’s life; the greatest and most positive moment in History. But – exactly as foretold – the Second Coming of Christ is not quite as simple and reassuring, as most preachers and churchgoers assume: the God or Christ we see in the End? Is not the Christ that urges us to have “faith” in holy men, or in their vision of God. Quite the contrary. The Christ we see finally, is the Christ we are beginning to see even here and now: God, Christ warning constantly that there have always been massive and horrible and even “Satan”ic sins, even in our holiest men and angels, like the Apostle St. Paul, for example. Sins, as we will see, not only in their own personal behavior, but also sins in most of their most “inspired” “doctrines” too. So that? The “second” look at Christ that we offer here, gives us a Christ who … does not stress “faith” in holy men at all. Instead, Christ actually warns continually about essentially “all” holy men and churches. While in fact? God, Christ … explicitly tells us that even “all” the holiest men in Heaven itself, are great sinners. And that therefore? One “day,” God is supposed to destroy our traditional Heaven itself.

 

Heaven itself is supposed to be destroyed? For sins and errors, even in the highest holy men and angels, in Heaven itself? At first, this will seem utterly impossible to believe or face. The collapse of Heaven, would seem to be the collapse of yet another of the main pillars of Christianity: Heaven and all the apostles, saints, angels in it, is one of the very cornerstones of traditional Christianity. Therefore, the finding that Heaven is to be destroyed, “dissolved,” goes against nearly everything we heard in church; churches which constantly promised us an “eternal” life, in a presumably likewise “eternal heaven.” Yet as impossible, as shattering as it seems at first there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible itself, that strongly and continuously confirm it. With only a very few minor exceptions that we will explain later, the Bible affirmed over and over, that there have always been bad things – even in nearly all of our very holiest men and angels, on earth and in Heaven itself. Which is why therefore, one shattering “day,” our Heaven itself is supposed to be dissolved. Along with essentially “all” in it:

 

Listen to me…. The heavens will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.4, 6 RSV).

 

“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but … against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places….” (Eph. 6.12-17 NRSV).

 

“On that day the lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven” (Isa. 24.21).

 

“He will punish the host of heaven, in heaven” (Isa. 24.21).

 

“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.21, 6.13).

 

“Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos. 9.2).

 

“All have sinned” (Romans 3.23 RSV).

 

“His angels he charges with error” (Job 4.18).

 

“God did not spare the angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4).

 

“Lift up your eyes to the heavens…. For the heavens will vanish like smoke (Isa. 51.6).

 

The present heavens … have been reserved for fire…” (2 Peter 3.7, NRSV).

 

“The heavens will be kindled and dissolved…” (2 Peter 3.12 RSV).

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall … like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgement…” (Isa. 34.1-4-5 RSV).

 

“Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain him” (1 Kings 8.27; Ps. 108.4-5, 113.4-6, 115.3-15).

 

The Bible is clear enough; the parts of the Bible they never really honestly presented to you in church. Amazingly enough, there can be no doubt, about our five major points in this series of books: 1) the Bible warned that there have always – even from the days of Jesus, and the very foundation of Christianity – been huge sins in our holiest men, apostles and saints; in the very people who, tradition once said, wrote our Bibles. 2) Therefore? We were never supposed to have much “faith” in them. Instead? We 3) are supposed to always re-examine our holiest men and angels, with real “science”; to see which of them were true and which were false. And? If 4) the science of God suggests that essentially all our holiest men and angels – even those said to be in heaven – were false about their promises of “miracles” for example? And if applying science to our religion finds massive sins therefore, even in the holiest men and doctrines in Heaven itself? If indeed, a closer look at the Bible itself, and science, seems thereby, to dissolve “all”; even dissolve our Heaven itself? Then this apocalyptic, heaven –shattering conclusion, is fully justified, and is even indeed commanded – by the Bible itself. Which told us, itself, that one “day,” our Heaven itself is supposed to be dissolved. Because of precisely, longstanding sins in our holiest men and angels.

 

Some preachers will try hard not to face or admit this. They will come up with endless sophistical “whitewash”ing sermons, to try to explain all this away. For example: what is the “heaven” (or “Heaven: capitalized? Here use the capitalized and un-capitalized forms more or less as synonyms, interchangeably), that is to be dissolved? That Heaven moreover is not just – as some might soon claim – some past, or pagan heaven: it is also clearly our own, Judeo-Christian Heaven; it is Heaven itself. The Bible criticized over and over, every element of religion … including specifically Christianity, its saints and apostles and inspired doctrines; so that clearly, it is not some second or third or alien “heaven” that is to be destroyed, as some suggest; indeed, both Peter and Jesus for example, made it clear that it was their – and therefore our – own, “present” heaven itself. It is clearly the Judeo-Christian heaven itself. With essentially “all” our own Christian angels and apostles and other associates, that is supposed to come crashing down:

 

The heavens … that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men…. The day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise…. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be … waiting for the hastening of the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved…?” (2 Peter 3.7-11).

 

“The present heavens” (NIV).

 

Biblically, there is no doubt: one “day,” there is to come a moment that few Christians and preachers have, until today, been prepared to believe, or face. A day when their Heaven itself – our own Judeo-Christian heaven, and “all” the highest angels and apostles and prophets and saints – comes crashing down in flames. Around our ears. And this makes logical sense, and is verified by other facts as well. Since for example, if the Bible warned that angels and holy men are bad? And heaven is full of holy men? Then after all, heaven is not so good; and is indeed, worthy of dissolving. There can be no doubt of this a) the Bible refers to this directly, b) dozens of times. While c) it makes logical sense as well; correlating to other major biblical motifs.

 

In conclusion: how, why is heaven itself to be destroyed? In large part, it is because, the Bible said, there have always been huge sins and errors, in all our holiest men and angels; both those on earth, and also any of those that we thought were in heaven, as well.

 

Could nearly “all” our holiest men and angels, be bad? In fact, the Bible constantly assured us that there were. Jesus himself warned us that there would be many “false” and bad things, in religion; including “false prophets,” “false spirits,” bad priests, and even “false Christs,” coming after Jesus; false religious leaders, that would come even in the “name” of Jesus or Christ. Many false things, Jesus himself said, would be offered in the name of Christ and Christianity – and the “Lord, Lord.”

 

Indeed, a) many false things in religion, even the religion and “prophets of Israel,” were already in evidence, even in the time of the Old Testament. While b) next Jesus noted many false things in religious leaders – “scribes and Pharisees” in his own time. In fact, c) Jesus would note sins, even in his own apostles, like the Apostle Peter (Mat. 16.23). Furthermore, d) Jesus warned about many false things that would come, even in his name, after the death of Jesus. Many would cry “Lord, Lord”; there e) would be even “False Christs.”

 

False Christs and false prophets will arise … to lead stray, if possible, the elect… But in those days … the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mark 13.24-26).

 

If I am not doing the works …then do not believe me” (John 10.37).

 

If essentially all our holiest men and preachers, were often horrible, even “Satan”ic sinners and liars? Then finally, can believers, churchgoers, even be sure that the vision of “Christ” or “Jesus” that they got from preachers, in church … was entirely accurate and good? Can we even be sure that “Christ” as he was presented to us, was the true, right outline of Christ as he really, fully is? In fact remember, the Bible warned that f) “false Christs” will have begun to come, even in the time of Jesus and 1John. The Bible warned over and over, that there would be people who would claim to follow or even be, Christ; and yet all would be found to have been deceptive. Indeed, we were warned in Revelation, the final book of the Bible, that many false Christians, a false “worship” following “magician”s and “sorcerers,” following a false “Christ,” would “soon” (2,000 years ago), deceive the whole “world” (Rev. 13). Indeed, g) portions of the Bible even suggest that crucial false things – even false Christs, “anti-Christs,” had already appeared, in the time of 1 John. While indeed, h) much of the New Testament, especially the writings of the apostles, is dedicated to noting, and constantly trying to correct, sins and errors, even in the very first, foundational Christian churches; while warning that the whole “world” would be deceived by a false Christ; and indeed the world was already in the grip of the “evil one,” and anti-christs, even in the first days of Christianity.

 

So are our own preachers and religious traditions, trustworthy? Probably not. Early biblical warnings about false things even in early Christian churches and so forth, can be found in hundreds of quotes, from the Bible itself. Here are just a few samples, of the hundreds of such warnings, about every element of even “Christian” religion, from “angels” and “churches,” on. Note that we were warned furthermore, that these abuses, false things, “will” continue. False and bad things in religious leaders and all their works, will continue, indeed, to the end of time.

 

And finally? Even the “Christ” that all our preachers offered us, it seems, may even be a false Christ. May even be the foretold “False Christ,” after all.

 

But if so? If essentially “all” of Christianity, and all our holy men, were deceived; and if they even offered to the whole world, a “false Christ”? Then if so? Then today after all, we have come; to partially offer, even here and now, the “second” and truer, “full”er appearance of Christ.

 

 

 

The Second Coming,

The Second Appearance of Christ

 

 

Here our book is mainly about … beginning to show how the Bible itself, began to offer a strong first hint, of the nature of the “second coming” Christ; of what Christ looks like, in the end. Or what Christ was always in fact like; but how all our preachers missed his truer, fuller nature. In fact, our present books will show that God himself, 1) constantly warned that there have always been huge sins and errors, in our holy men; even in their most “inspired” doctrines. So that finally? 2) God told us that our Christ, our Christianity, were not supposed to be based on “faith” at all; but 3) instead, we are to learn and base ourselves, even our religion, our Christianity, on Science. And? If 4) discovering all this seems to shatter our childhood vision or image, of God, Christ, in “Heaven”? Then after all, precisely all this was warned about by the Bible itself: one “day,” after all, God is supposed to expose sins in all our holiest men and angels … and related to that, God is supposed to destroy Heaven itself. But if this seems impossibly hard to “bear” or “face”? Then after all … 5) all this shattering revelation is finally, to the good: since all this is for God to show us – show you yourself – a foretold “second” and “fuller,” “second” “appearance” / (“parousia”), a Second Coming, of Christ to earth. Where Christ clears up, exposes longstanding errors in our preachers and angels; and gives us at last a truer, fuller understanding, appearance, of God, on earth. While indeed? Our present study, begins to do that, in part.

 

Ultimately indeed, what are nearly all our many books about? Ultimately, they are about presenting, assisting God in the presentation of … the foretold second and better second appearance, the Second Coming, of Christ. The vision of Christ, God, really, finally is; when “judgement” comes: God … revealing longstanding sins even in priests and prophets especially; and their core promises and prophesies. But this is not an entirely negative development of course: God is exposing and burning off sins and errors in our holy men; in order to clear the way, after all, for a second and better appearance of God, Christ, on earth.

 

And here and now? We are beginning to see some of the first “signs” of that. Simply from re-reading the Bible itself.

 

Our books indeed, are about the arrival – in part, even here and now – of a “second” and better vision, coming, of God and Christ. An event which in part, begins for many, here and now. The second that you notice many sins in the traditional pillars of traditional Christianity, the second that you see problems even in “faith” in “miracles” and “spirituality,” the second you even just the bare possibility of a destruction of Heaven itself? Then indeed, our traditional heaven has already begins to dissolve, in our mind’s eye. In order to show us after all, a second and better, fuller appearance of Christ. A Christ who, however, no longer seems to stress such great “faith” in holy men, angels, churches, or in their inspired doctrines. A Christ who on the contrary, noted constant sins in our holiest men. A Christ who know tells us to therefore, learn a critical science of God; to advance beyond the blind faith of our childhood. To a second and better sense of Christianity.

 

Did Jesus really intend for Christianity to be based just on “faith”? Since all our holiest men and their churches, so often fail us, clearly God did not want us to have much faith in them, or in their ideas about religion. Instead finally God told us to learn to examine “all” our holy men and their doctrines, far, far more carefully than we have in the past; to examine them all specifically, with real science; with a Science of God. Far from blindly following holy men and angels, that have so often betrayed us in the past? Instead, we are supposed to, henceforth, all of us … learn to always take a far, far more careful look, at all our would-be holy men; learning to examine them very, very, very carefully. Specifically, since there are so many “lies” and “empty words” and “false prophesies” and empty “dreams” and “false spirits,” in religion? Therefore, we are not supposed to even trust, the sermons, the verbal arguments and tales of alleged holy men. Since it is all too easy, for an irresponsible tongue, to say, boast of anything, and to enchant the world with false statements? Finally, we are to insist – just as empirical Science always insists – that any given alleged true statement, “prove” itself. Prove itself … by producing real, visible, empirically-verifiable results.

 

If we are to have any “belief” or “faith” at all? Ultimately, God himself put the stress on believing … only in things that can be empirically proven to get real physical results. Or, in the language that the holy books used, we are not even consider a man holy or good … until he produces real physical “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs,” “prosperity,” in the “earth” and “flesh”; here on this material “earth.” Real physical results, that we can “observe” with our real “eyes“; and “test.” In a timely way (“soon,” “at hand,” right now). As proven by real “science”:

 

“Beware of false prophets…. You will know them by their fruits” (Mat. 7.15-16 RSV).

 

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already…. If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4.1-3, 20, 2.9-19; Rev. 16.13, 19.20, 20.10).

 

“And the king commanded unto Ashpenaz… that he should bring certain of the people of Israel, … Children without blemish, but well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom … and understanding science” (Dan. 1.4 KJE).

 

“And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?” – when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18.21-22).

 

Far from continuing to follow holy men based just on blind faith in them? Instead, God constantly warned about false things in them. And told us to submit every holy man and his words, to close examination, even scientific testing. To find out if they were really from God – or not.

 

Many preachers insist that when the Bible tells us not to “put the Lord your God to the test,” that means we cannot test religion with science. But ultimately, that quote is better translated as merely telling us not to “tempt” God with immoralities or excessive Greed. While in fact, God often tells us, even strongly commands us, to apply empirical testing to him;

 

“Put me to the test says the LORD of hosts” (Mal. 3.10).

 

“Ask a sign” (Isa. 7.9 ff).

 

“Test everything” (1 Thess. 5.21).

 

Ultimately, we will be showing here, Christianity was never supposed to be faith-based; it was supposed to be based on Science. God himself warned us constantly of bad and false things, even in the highest saints and prophets and apostles. Therefore, God did not want us to simply follow them, as priests have, with such total faith. Instead, God commanded us to always be examining all things in religion, even in the name of Christ, with science. Looking to see if following them produces not just “spiritual,” but real, physical, empirical results: real “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” and “proofs”; as seen with our literal “eyes” on this “earth”; as verified by real empirical “science” (q.v., Bibliography). Looking to see which things “come to pass” in physical life. And if they do not? Then far from continuing to follow them, instead we are supposed to simply conclude … that they are false. They belong to a false Christ. And then, we are to move on. To see the real Christ at last. Christ supporting Science, over Faith. Or supporting at least the new, more sophisticated, Science of God.

 

Ultimately in fact? In a highly consistent reading, that fits the entire Bible? A reading that is available in every single passage, as a plausible reading? Jesus told us not to believe, even in Jesus himself. Unless or until he and his followers, produce real, visible, material “works“:

 

“If I am not doing the works …then do not believe me” (John 10.37).

 

Here amazingly, we begin to see a totally different Christ than the one you were introduced to in church. Here we see Jesus himself, saying something that the Christ of blind “Faith” would never say: telling even, “do not believe me.” Do not have faith, even in Jesus himself. Unless or until? He and his followers, produce lots of real, empirical evidence, that their claims are true. Until they produce real, physical “fruits,” “works,” “prosperity,” “deeds,” “signs,” and “proofs.” As verified by real “science.”

 

To be sure, the language of the extremely complex; almost every sentence of the New Testament, is open to at least two or three major readings. (Namely? Among others, the – 1- physical miraculous; the –2 – spiritual. And then the – 3 – scientific). And any given phrase – like our last example say, John 10.37 – might be open to one or two other readings (which no doubt, your local priest will fix upon). Yet, while the New Testament especially is written in quite, quite ambiguous, equivocal, polysemic language? A difficult “tongue”? Finally, God himself told us that one “day,” he would return, to end the “confusion of tongues”; and to speak “plain”ly. While here we see that the one reading that is most consistent, with the most material of the Bible? The one reading that finally is “plain”est and clearest, and most consistent with all the many various ideas in the Bible? The one reading that really does that? Will finally be shown to be the reading … that at last hears God commanding us to learn and use … a Science of God. (In contrast? Consider the vast amount of biblical material other readings, merely ignore: like the constant warnings about holy men; like the passages on the destruction of heaven; etc.). No doubt, it is possible to read much of the Bible “spiritually”; or as promising “miracles.” But finally, there is only one reading, one theology, that best deals with the most biblical material. Only one that indeed, begins to fulfill so many, many prophesies. Including the most scary and yet liberating, apocalyptic prophesy of all: the prophesy that one day or another, God is going to … destroy heaven itself. And “all” in it. Which is one key prophesy that of course, all those priests trying to get to “Heaven,” will have failed to deal with, abjectly.

 

The fact is, that Heaven itself is supposed to be destroyed; in favor of a “new heaven” that comes down to be a place not above us, but here on earth (Rev. 21). And as we begin to see the side of Jesus that supported not blind “faith,” but science? We do in fact begin to see a second and better Christ.

 

All this is surprising, shocking, even apocalyptic enough. But if so? Then after all, it is the fulfillment of a crucial part of the foretold Apocalypse. It is the crucial part that preachers have never been able to face or admit: the moment that God exposes huge signs in our holiest men, and their vision of “Christ”; and God shows us a second and even “terrible” or frightening second appearance to us all.

 

 

 

When?

No One Knows the Exact Hour

 

 

When does all this happen? When do we see Christ in the Second Coming, as he really is? And when is Heaven destroyed? Famously, no one knows the exact time. But most will know it when they see the first “signs”; and then when it comes, apparently. But perhaps we are seeing some “signs” here and now.

 

Roughly a) speaking, much of this seems to happen in the “End Time.” But b) when, in turn, is that? There are many scholars, who note that may End Time events, were already being said to have been wholly or partially “fulfilled,” even by the New Testament authors, in their own time: 1 John 2.18 for instance seems to say that the “last hour” was already starting in the time of John; c. 90 AD (“Children, it is the last hour”). Still though, c) there are other scholars, and there is other biblical evidence, to suggest that not all the events predicted for the End, have already happened. Especially not, popularly the “Second Coming”; or – famously, in current scholarship – the coming of the ideal “kingdom” of God, on earth. Indeed, d) there are parts of the Bible that tell us that “no one knows” the exact “hour” of the Second Coming; whether it is here or there. While e) time itself is distorted by Peter; who tells us that with God, a single day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. So that indeed, it seems very hard to fix a time for all this. Yet while no one knows the “exact hour,” some say they can guess the approximate day. Or in any case, e) we ourselves do not claim here to know the exact time or hour. Though we agree with many, that the eschatological or End Time, Second Coming prophesies … seem to involve rather more extended time frames than many might have thought. Or indeed? Perhaps f) the destruction of Heaven, is the mental or spiritual moment that we at last, “grow” up, or “mature” – and at last notice the warts on our former religious heroes. In that case? It is all about a moment whose exact timing, no one can say: since no one knows when you yourself for example, will grow up. In any case? We agree with everyday notions that g) in one way or another, the End should always be in the back of our minds, and “present” in that way; and always effecting, lending gravity and direction to – and being present in – our actions. Every single day. Therefore, the exact timing will not be specified here, too definitively. But h) indeed, the Bible implies that we will know it – as we begin to see it; see the “signs” (like the “olive tree” and so forth; seeing the “desolating abomination” and so forth). While perhaps, after all, not just a few individuals, but many of us are beginning to see it … even now.

 

In a (for once) “spiritual” sense in fact, for many of us, the foretold apocalyptic day, when Heaven itself is destroyed has … already long since begun. The End of our childhood heaven, began all over again, recently. When 1) many of us looked at the newspapers and news sites – and saw stories about child-molesting priests, and 2) deceitful bishops, covering it all up, whitewashing the sins of priests and churches. Or 3) it began again, when some of us we heard Science (and even St. Paul?), telling us over and over, there were few if any miracles. Or 4) the foretold End began, when we ourselves saw, in our own immediate experience, that no one at all, in our own line of sight, was working all the giant miracles that had been promised to us. Our childhood “Heaven” offering “miracles,” began to collapse for many of us long ago; when as even a 5-year old child, we found that no matter how good we or others were, no one in our own experience, was literally, physically walking on water. Or perhaps the end 5) begins to come to many, when they go to seminary, and at last are exposed to contemporary theology, as it begins warning us about other, even worse sins, deep in our very holiest men and angels. Or finally? Maybe 6) the Destruction of Heaven begins here and now, for many people? When they begin to read at last, all those seventy or a hundred or more quotes, themes from the Bible itself. Showing them God himself, saying some very dark things about their religion; things that they had never really heard before, in church.

 

Some of us therefore, notice one or more of those disillusioning things, “signs” of problems, in our traditional religion, our traditional churches, long ago. And for many of us? Our traditional Heaven itself begun to dissolve, in our mind’s eye, long ago. While for others though, it is a recent and startling development; probably the recent uncovering of thousands (historically; through time) of child-molesting priests, for example, began to open some formerly blind eyes at last. Yet to be sure, even “just” the exposure of a few thousand priests, as child molesters, homosexual pederasts, is still only the merest tip of the iceberg; far down beneath even this horrible scandal, are a massive series of even more devastating scandals, that are yet to be faced by religious believers. Some of these scandals though are already well- and long- known, to scientists and theologians Many sins in our churches, are known even especially to many of our preachers, themselves; if secretly, privately. Though they have not chosen to make them honestly and fully known.

 

Much of this will be a literally Apocalyptic shock, to many ordinary people. But at least some of us are already well prepared to at last acknowledge the, after all, constant signs of sin in our holiest men. Probably a few people – even many ministers – are already fairly well prepared, even for the Destruction of Heaven. No doubt, some rough sense of longstanding errors in our holy men or clerics, some kind of “dark night of the soul,” or some other quick preview of the Destruction of Heaven, has long since come, for many scholars, atheists, and scientists. Yet while a few are prepared for this? Still, probably hundreds of millions of ardent, faithful believers, religious ladies lighting candles every day in church, may not have seen the collapse coming. Even in spite of constant signs of acute failure in our religion. In large part, many will have managed to suppress all the signs, have managed to miss all that – because they believe that they have been commanded by God, to “have faith.” And to … simply ignore all that. More than anything, of the greatest sins of bad priests, was to convince millions – cumulatively, billions of people – to believe that they are commanded by “faith,” to overlook any and all signs of bad things, in their holy men and religion. Millions of blindly faithful believers, think that they were commanded to have “faith” in our old holy traditions – no matter how many times our old traditions seem to fail. No matter how many times they prayed … and yet miracles did not come, they were constantly told by priests in effect, to ignore all that evidence of failure, falsity, in their religion. By the command to “have faith.” Indeed, traditional Christianity, with all its illusions and misstatements, has been held together by a misconceived “faith,” that compelled blindness.

 

But some are now prepared to open their eyes, and see.

 

Was Christianity really supposed to be based on such, very strong “faith”? Did God himself really command us to just continue to “faith”fully ignore constant signs of inadequacies and failures and falsity and massive sins, in our priests and ministers? Did the Bible itself, really order us to just ignore it when things that were promised, did “not come to pass” in any timely way (Deut. 18.21-22)? Did the Bible really say what our preachers assured us that it meant? That we should continue to follow our traditional religious leaders, our holy men … even when they seemed to be doing very bad things? As it is turning out here, in the final analysis, even the Bible itself did not stress such a very great or strong “faith” at all. Overall in fact, the Bible itself confirmed over and over – that even our holiest men and angels have sinned; indeed, “all have sinned” (Rom. 3.23; 1 John 1.8-10; etc.). Even the saints, the prophets, the apostles, the very angels in Heaven (Mat. 16.23; Job 4.18; Gal. 1.8; Isa. 34.4). So that in this end, that many of us will have come to here and now? Many of us are prepared to at last, hear the fuller words of the Bible itself; to see the more “awful” side of God himself. As they themselves, lead us by the hand, to the apocalyptic, heaven-shattering moment: to the realization that, far from ordering us to continue to have such total “faith” in our holy men, even when they appear to sin, even massively? Instead, our holiest books eventually said – to those who can at last “hear” the “second” voice in the text – that we were never supposed to be so entirely trusting and blindly believing; that we were always supposed to always be far, far more critical – or better said, far more scientific and objective – in regarding religion. Since essentially “all” our religious leaders often sinned, far from being based on any very strong or “blind” faith in them, instead, God himself constantly commanded those who can hear Him … that we should always to be prepared to accept evidence of error in our religious leaders. And indeed? We should be prepared to move on, to a rather different Heaven and Kingdom and vision of God, than the “image” of Christ that we heard supported, constantly, in nearly every single Sunday School and church, worldwide.

 

All of this adds up to a startling, unbelievably stressful moment of awful, Apocalyptic, Heaven-shattering realization, to be sure. And it leads to a series of lesser but still unconventional conclusions: that Religion, Christianity, ware not supposed to be based on “faith,” for example. And at first, the mind, the spirit, rebels, reflexively: all this seems impossible to believe. Or in any case, impossible to face, or “bear.” And yet the Bible itself told us – John told us for example – that they had many things to tell us later, but that we could not “bear” to face, long ago (John 16.12; Hos. 10.2?). While hearing such things – and especially, knowing that every major word of our present book, is supported by the Bible itself (so far as we know) – should give many ordinary people and even some preachers, the courage and conviction to at last, at last begin to “hear,” and “see,” and “face” all of this; face the deepest sins. Even the sins deep in the very heart of all that we were taught from infancy, was absolutely holy and sacred and perfect. Especially, people should be able to face this on discovering that after all, this does not contradict the Bible – but is supported by it, over and over. By dozens, hundreds of quotes. On finding that – amazingly – all this is authorized, even commanded, by the Bible itself; by God, himself. And furthermore, this does not “deny” or “debunk” the Bible; but indeed begins to fulfill the (threats and) promises of God. That one “day,” he would expose sins in our holiest men. But all in order to show us all something better. And what “day” do we see that? The “Day” could be any time; perhaps it is even a different time, for different individuals. But no doubt any of us can come to see at least a foreshadow of that day, any time; even here and now. Though facing that light, is not easy.

 

Indeed, readers should be seeing some important things, here and now. First? What is the thing that God really wants for us? That is so much better than blind faith? What turns out to be so much better, than the blind faith … that will led us to follow all-too-flawed holy men? What is so much better, will be the “second” and fuller appearance of God and Christ. And in part, we begin to see what that second appearance will be like, even here and now. And as foretold, that second appearance will shock many; even believers. Even those who thought that they were following Christ, crying “Lord, Lord.” And indeed? The whole world of faithful Christians will be shocked to see Christ’s appearance here and now; as he tells us not to stress faith. As he tells us to follow a more critical science of God.

 

No doubt, there are many false things in religion, as the Bible itself says. So how do we know the truth? In part, just reading our Bibles a little better, would undoubtedly help. And so, in our books here, we have absolutely centered ourselves around the Bible, and its quotes. While furthermore, those who read their Bibles with us, here and now? Anyone who does that should in fact, “see” a second and better appearance
to Christ and Jesus. Anyone and everyone who just reads the neglected, denied parts of the Bible that we at last present here, should be able to at last 1) “see” the Bible, “hear” God himself, see Christ himself, more fully, at last. And as foretold, this apocalyptic second appearance, is shocking, shattering: here and now, we see God and Jesus … warning over and over, that “all” our holiest men and angels, often sinned; sinned not just in their daily behavior, but sinned even in formulating their most allegedly “inspired” doctrines. Finally, anyone reading say, just the biblical quotes that we present here often enough, should be able to see 2) that the final, ultimate theology of the Bible, the fuller outline of Jesus … did not stress Faith as much as preachers have taught. Finally, 3) almost anyone should be able to make out the quick outline, of “second” and better idea, a second appearance, of God. Seeing specifically? 4) Christ and God as they really are: supporting not blind or very strong “faith.” But God commanding us all to learn instead, a more objective science of God (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.21-39; Mal. 3.10; Deut. 18.21-22; etc.). And 5) if this seems to demolish our childhood vision of Christ? If it seems to dissolve an idea of Christ, a Heaven, that promised “miracles” and “spirit”uality? Then after all, precisely that very ending, exactly matches what the Bible itself constantly foretold: finally, the second coming of God to earth, or the End Time, destroys Heaven itself.

 

At first, all this is utterly shocking. Could the Bible have really authorized, commanded, all this? That Christianity, religion, is not supposed to be based on “faith”? But on … science? A Science of God? Could it have really said that our Heaven itself, is supposed to “dissolve”? At first, all this seems impossible, or heretical. Over and over for two thousand years, nearly all our holy men quoted us many parts of the Bible, that seemed to assure us firmly, that our religion, our lives, should be absolutely based on “faith”; on faithfully, loyally following, even blindly believing, whatever our holy men told us. For two thousand years, our priests quoted parts of the Bible that stressed believing or having faith in our priests and ministers; or faith at least, in their ideas, their sermons, on God. Actually we are about to find out here that this classic core of traditional Christianity was simply, wrong. The fact is, that one “day” or another, the Bible said, God himself is supposed to dramatically uncover longstanding sins, errors, “false” sayings about God, in our holiest religious leaders; in priests and ministers, saints and angels.

 

So when does this happen? Though almost no one knows the exact “hour,” perhaps after all though, each of us knows the “day” when … we see it. When it happens to us; individually. While it may be however, that events, the news, will bring this awareness to many people simultaneously. Even soon; even “today.” Even as you read this very book.

 

 

 

Christ:

The Second Appearance

 

 

 

Whenever that “day” is for you yourself, you should be prepared for it; and know what is happening. While our books here should help you see at least a preview, and even perhaps the substance, of it all. In sum? The End Time, the Second Coming, the Second Appearance of Christ, reverses many accepted religious ideas. Indeed, the Second Coming, the more vivid appearance or return of God, reverses many “Christ”ians’ beliefs, about who the “Lord” God or Christ really is. First, in the End, 1) God is to expose false things in our holiest men and angels. And in fact, here and now, suddenly, we are beginning to uncover a few of them; specifically; even right now; to “day.” First of all for example: a) preachers have too often explicitly insisted, even explicitly, that they were themselves, reliable. Or b) by putting themselves before us every week as our leaders, preachers at least implied that they were reliable enough to present themselves as our leaders, and to tell us who and what God was like. Yet our preachers proud presentations of themselves, as our leaders, was too proud and vain. Here and now, we find that this major implied or de facto doctrine, was false: the Bible warned continuously about errors in “all” our holiest men and preachers.

 

The Second Appearance therefore, is supposed to expose sins in our holiest men; and here we have followed that, finding a first great sin in them: they proudly over-stressed their own reliability and importance. And as it turns out, God is now telling us that preachers committed countless other sins as well. Next for example, we come to see 2) a second, major error in our holy men and their idea of God: all our preachers insisted constantly, that the essence of religion, of Christianity, was “faith.” Faith in God; but which in actual practice, boiled down to faithfully following preachers, and/or their sermons, their vision, their idea of Christ. But while our preachers stressed faith? Here we will be reminding the reader, that that if God was constantly warning that there have always been massive errors in our holy men? Then clearly, God did not want us to base ourselves on “faith” in them. In them personally; or in their sermons about, their verbal pictures of, God or Christ.

 

All have sinned; especially our preachers and religious leaders. Therefore? Implicitly, God did not want us to have too much “Faith” in religious things. Indeed, 3) finally the Bible – God – explicitly tells us that instead of basing ourselves on the blind “faith” that our preachers wrongly asked for? Instead, God really wanted us all to base ourselves, on a kind of slightly more critical religious science. God wants us to follow science-based religious study; a Science of God.

 

The Bible told us that one “day” or another, we would see a startling “new,” “second” appearance to Christ. And that second appearance, would reverse, shatter, many things our religious leaders have taught us. While here and now, exactly as foretold, we are coming to see Christ … exposing huge sins and errors, in the very “household of God’; in our priests and ministers.

 

What startling new appearance to Christ, do we see, here and now? In the main, see now suddenly 1) see Christ … telling us that all our holiest men were great sinners. Telling us that 2) therefore, Christianity is supposed to be based not on faith; 3) but on science. When “all” our holiest men and angels often sin? Then clearly, we should not have been following them, or their verbal pictures of God, with such total blind obedience or “faith.” Indeed, Christ as we see him, present him here? Tells us amazingly, that because of so many sins in holy men, finally Christ himself de-emphasized “faith.” And came to stress a more critical Science of God. Far from telling us to continue to follow flawed holy men, preachers and their vision, their “image” of God, now we see a second appearance to Christ, even in the Bible itself. And 4) this appearance of Christ fulfills one End Time prophesy after another. Especially, prophesies of a Second Coming. And a 5) Destruction of Heaven.

 

As foretold of the Second Coming, here we indeed, see a startlingly different appearance of Christ; who does not, here and now, stress “Faith” at all. But who exposes sins in holy men and angels and the household of God – and tells us to learn a and follow a kind of religious science. Jesus here and now, warns about false things in holy men – and rather than stressing faith in them or their vision, instead Christ tells us to learn and employ, a critical science; to find out what things were true, and what things were wrong and false, in religious leaders and doctrines. Christ as we see him now, directing us to use Science to begin continually re-examining all our holiest men and angels, and their most “inspired” doctrines. To see if our religious leaders are really from God – or not.

 

Here now, we begin to see Christ giving us a scientific methodology, to determine whether this or that person, or angel, or saying, was really from God. But more specifically? Since it is all too easy, for people, ministers, to issue false words, empty speeches, hot air? We are finally not to trust any mere words at all – other than “The Word”; Jesus himself. While Jesus as we now see him, tells us that there were many false “words,” false prophesies, issued in his “name”; indeed, the world was hypnotized by a false image, a false “word.” So that? We must actively discover, which words are really from God; which words are “The Word,” the real commands of God. And this we can only do, not by listening to still more sermons. But by scientific study. Far from continuing to trust to the often false “word”s, the sermons, of preachers, instead we are supposed to trust far, far more, to empirical evidence. Rather than listening to still more possibly empty words, still more sermons? Instead, we are supposed to look to see if – as the Bible said over and over – following this or that prophet, or priest, or saying, produces real, visible, physical results. Far from following our preachers endlessly on the basis of just “faith,” instead we are to take a long, hard look at what material, physical good they have done. Looking to see if they are producing, not just more and more words and sermons; but are producing the promised physical – not spiritual – “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “prosperity,” and “proofs.” Which Christ himself calls for. From the New Testament, itself.

 

We are seeing a startling, shocking, heaven-shattering second appearance to Christ, here and now therefore. Here and now, we see Christ – exactly as foretold of the End – warning of sins even in holy men and angels. Warning us that therefore, many things are really the reverse of what our holy men told us. Christ even telling us even – among other startling reversals – that Christianity was never supposed to be based on “faith.” And for that matter, Christ beings telling us that our religion was not supposed to be based on “spiritual” things either: instead, our Religion is supposed to be based far more than most thought, on looking to see which alleged holy men, actually bring us real, material, physical wonders.

 

Finally, what does Christ say, regarding your own preacher? Your own priest or minister? What should we say and do? As Christ said often enough in the Bible itself, those persons who are really from God, are supposed to be able to demonstrate, produce, real, physical, “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “prosperity,” and “proofs”; as “observe”d and confirmed, with our physical “eyes,” in a timely way, before witnesses. If a holy man supports physical “miracles,” then we should ask him to work one, in front of us. And if any alleged holy man, cannot do that? Then? Far from continuing to follow a religious leader with total “faith” – instead, Christ himself now tells us that we are supposed to simply, conclude this: that the religious leader, the preacher, the priest or minister who could not get the promised physical results … was simply one the foretold, bad and “false” priests; a “false prophet”; one of the foretold false “minister”s. If a preacher cannot prove, by his physical material works, that he is from God? Then, far from continuing to follow him with strong faith, instead, we are supposed to simply deduce that our own preacher is one of the foretold “false” priests, following “false prophets.” And we should not continue to follow him (Deut. 18.21-22; 1 Kings 18.21-39). Those countless preachers who promised physical miracles, but do not produce them reliably, on the same scale they promised? “All” and “whatever” we “ask”? Those ministers should be simply pronounced to be, an “abomination” (Isa. 41.24).

 

Can all this really be? Many people – as foretold – will not believe the second appearance of Christ. Many “Christ”ians, the faithful, ardent believers … will be far too fixed to their old preconceptions, far too “stiff-necked,” to change, to see a “new heaven” on earth. Many will simply be unable, to “face” the “terrible” side of God; face seeing sins even in the very heart, of all that they were taught from infancy as holy. Yet facing all this … has often been almost easy, for a few scholars. And theologians. And scientists. And for many everyday lay people. Many of whom have already, long since, begun to notice many apparent errors/sins, in the very holiest men, and churches, and their doctrines. Many ordinary “secular” people, have already long noted evidence, “signs,” from many directions, constantly, calling attention to a lack of fruits, in most holy men. Many have noted 1) Science, calling attention to the problems with preachers’ promises of “miracles,” for example. Many people have already noted 2) their own experience, what “comes to pass” in daily life … suggesting that our preachers are not producing all the miracles that they promised. Then too? Many people note 3) History, calling our attention to how often the churches failed to be as good as their ideals. Then too? Many have paid attention to 4) the News; warning of the current priestly molestation scandal. In addition? Some have read 5) scholarly theology, religious studies … noting problems in traditional theology. While 6) some will have read their Bibles … noting constant warnings in it, about preachers and so forth. All these sources, and more, should have begun to suggest, even to the most uneducated person, that there are problems, sins, in the churches. Yet though many scholars and others are perhaps ready to face all this? Still, there are millions of people who have been, until today, unprepared to face and bear, something as disillusioning as all that.

 

Facing all this – facing the signs of very real and serious sin and error, in our churches – errors even in their major doctrines of “faith” and so forth – has always been very hard for the average, faithful believer. It will be especially difficult say, for that Spanish or Irish woman, that you see in church every week, kneeling and praying in the apse, or before the altar; praying before the carved icon of Jesus or Mary. And no doubt, facing all this will have been especially hard for preachers. Though surprisingly many preachers are prepared to face this, and almost prepared to confess all this publicly. To give up their comfortable life as a minister, and take up their cross, to really follow Christ, as he really is; as he now presents himself.

 

It is not easy. Many will see Christ, and speak to him; but still fail to follow him. It will be hard for the vast bulk of humanity. Because for centuries the whole “world” (to c. 1964) – was taught to follow, that all-too-simple theology of all-but-blind faith. The whole world in fact, was long ago firmly taught to listen reverently to their priests and ministers. And to simply “have faith” in whatever preachers taught; to have total “faith” in whatever “Christ” our religious institutions presented. Total faith in miracles and spirituality – even when those promises seemed to fail. To such people – millions; billions of them perhaps – it will be, at first, all but impossible to accept Christ, as he tells us that 1) there are always evils deep in our holiest men. As Christ now tells us that 2) therefore, our religion was never supposed to be based on “faith.” That religion, a Christianity, 3) must actually “prove” itself to be true, daily, with physical empirical evidence. To see and hear and obey this true voice of Christ, will at first be extremely difficult; it will seem utterly alien and seems wrong-headed. It is very nearly the exact opposite, to what millions, billions of people – the whole “world” – has been taught to follow, and to “worship” (Rev. 13). But if the whole world has long been deceived, and has been following a false “worship,” a “False Christ”? Then after all, all that is exactly as foretold (Rev. 13). While finally, there is now finally, a way to escape all that.

 

In the past, most believers, would not accept countless warnings of sin in their churches; because those warnings often came from “secular” sources; science, history, the newspapers. While religious churches, would not mention sins in themselves, much at all. But more recently, even The Church, has begun to tentatively “confess the sins of the Church,” as they say. While finally? There is one way to at last, capture the attention of the faithful; by showing them that one of the few books that they pay attention to, one of the few authorities they do follow – the Bible, itself – began to warn about false preachers, and churches; about “all” of them, furthermore.

 

For many centuries, there have always been a few intellectuals and others, who were aware of problems, sins, in our churches. Sometimes, there were many; as when Protestants and Catholics, began noting sins and errors in each other. But overall, the problem has been a sort of conspiracy of silence among the churches, not to rock the boat; not to note sins in each other any more. So that most believers are unaware, of the many signs of sin, in their own church. Unless or until? Until they are shown at last … the seventy, the hundred and more parts of the Bible itself, that warned of such things. Until they are presented, in a rather dramatic way, with the “second” “appearance” of Christ. When all this is presented, from the Bible itself, and in very dramatic form? Then even most of the millions, billions of blindly faithful believers, might well come to “see” Christ as he really, more fully is. Billions might at last see Christ rightly, more fully. Christ as he no longer supports any strong faith in holy men, or their images and sermons. Millions at last, seeing Christ as he really is: Christ supporting a crucial, Science of God.

 

 

 

But What Does Science Say

About Miracles

And Spirit?

 

A Second And Better Understanding, Coming,

Of Christ

 

Amazingly therefore, the Bible itself told us that in the End, few if any of the things we thought were “eternally” true, will really stand. In the end, regarding out holiest temples? “Not one stone will be left standing on another.” While finally? Even everyone’s “Christ” will turn out to have been a “false Christ.”

 

First we find that the Bible itself overall, did not really support the Christ of “faith,” as much as St. Paul and many preachers did. Instead, God constantly warned that essentially “all” our holiest men and angels sinned; and that there was really nothing at all, that could really, with absolute assurance, wash away those sins. Nothing at all: there are finally no special gifts at all, that can, with absolute reliability, wash away the sins and errors of holy men. Nothing at all from Angels and Anointings and Baptisms and the Blood, to Worship, and Zeal. Finally, there is nothing that is very reliable at all … except, God said, the Science of God. But if we follow Science, what do we see? If Christ really supported Science, then … what about the everyday ideas of Christ, the “Christ” that the whole world followed? The Christ who stressed “faith” in “miracles,” and “spirituality”?

 

All over the world, billions of people have confidently followed a Christ, a Christianity, that historically promised us over and over, that if we follow it, we will get 1) giant physical miracles. Though many preachers also say that we get not so much physical wonders from God, as 2) spiritual benefits, there seems little doubt that the heart of traditional Christianity, was promising very, very physical miracles to people. Jesus, we were constantly told, walked on water, and made bread appear out of thin air. And historically we were even told at times, in nearly all the churches, that if we follow our priests, we too will get “all” the wonders that Jesus did. Or even that we will get “greater wonders than these.” Indeed, many of us were read parts of the Bible, that seemed to promise that if we follow our preachers, if we are Christians, we will get “whatever you ask” from God:

 

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14.12- John 14.14; cf. Mat. 7.7, John 15.7, 16; 16.23; James 1.5).

 

“Ask for whatever you will, and it shall be done for you” (John 15.7).

 

“You will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you'” (Mat. 17.20; Mark 11.23; cf. John 4.20, 1 Corin. 13.2).

 

For 2,000 years, in a billion sermons, homilies and religious paintings, in millions of churches worldwide, 1) Christ was pictured to us constantly, performing giant physical miracles: as literally walking on water, making bread appear out of thin air; and promising us the power to move real actual “mountains” with just faith and a prayer (Mark 11.23-24). And indeed for thousands of years, 2) the thing that more than anything else, attracted billions of people to follow Christianity, was the promise that if we become Christians, we too can get wonderful material miracles. Biblical passages like those quoted above, promising that Jesus worked miracles, and that we would too … were read to us constantly in church. Over and over, the people of the world were taught by their preachers, that Jesus worked giant physical wonders – and that if we just followed our preachers, we ourselves would also work all the wonders that Jesus did – and “greater things than these.” That we would get in fact, “whatever you ask.” We would in effect, get huge physical wonders if we followed priests. And 3) all this was very, very firmly insisted; indeed anyone who said anything different, was often labeled a “heretic.” And was jailed, beaten, or even tortured to death; often, burned to death at the stake.

 

For centuries in fact, the whole “world” was presented, by priests, with a
Christ who was essentially a conjurer: who made things appear out of thin air. A Christ who made bread appear in empty baskets – like a stage magician, making a rabbit appear in an empty top hat. The world in fact, believed in the priests’ Christ – who was essentially, a magician or sorcerer. A Christ who was mostly spiritual …but who, if he dealt with physical, material things at all … simply made them appear out of thin air. As Jesus was said to, in the following passages, of what came to be called as the “Miracles of the Loaves and Fishes” (from Mat. 14.17,15.34, 16.9; Mark 6.3, 8.5; Luke 19.13; cf. John 6.26):

 

“They saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing…. Then Jesus called his disciples and said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.’ And the disciples said to him, ‘Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘How many loaves have you?’ Then said, ‘Seven, and a few small fish.’ And commanding the crown to sit down on the ground, he took the seven loaves and the fish, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples … and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied…. Those who ate were four thousand men besides women and children” (Mat. 15.32-38 Revised Standard Edition).

 

In the Bible – as the Bible was taught in Sunday School classes and many churches – we were constantly assured in effect, that Jesus had somehow fed, satisfied, thousands, “multitudes” … with just seven loaves of bread. And to explain this? Rather than suggest that the Bible was somehow false or misleading or metaphorical, it was constantly asserted by many sermons, that somehow, Jesus had caused “a miracle”; that out of broken bits of seven loaves, somehow the bread multiplied in the baskets. Enough to feed and “satisfy” thousands of people.

 

This was the famous miracle of the “Loaves and Fishes.” And it and stories like it, became the very backbone of Christianity. Indeed, the miracle-working Christ that preachers pictured from reading and interpreting passages like the above, became the core reason for the success of this new religion. The whole world came to follow Jesus, Christianity became a success, Christianity came to dominate the whole “world” … in large part because it promised that those who followed it would get not just “prosperity,” but even huge, amazing, physical miracles. Jesus, we were constantly assured in Sunday School and church, worked many miracles; including conjuring bread in mostly empty baskets. (As well as healing the blind, the lame, the dumb). And furthermore, we were constantly assured, those who trusted and believed and “had faith,” would also get all these wonders; even “all” or “whatever” we “ask”ed for. This was what “Christ” himself had promised, hungry people were constantly told. And because it promised us everything, because it promised us all huge material benefits, and even magical-seeming physical powers? This “miraculous” image of “Christ,” became fantastically successful; dominating popular religion, and dominating countless sermons, for many centuries. Indeed, the miracle-working image of Christ, eventually dominated the whole “world” and its worship. Crucially, this kind of Christianity was accepted by Roman authorities, with Constantine, around 300 AD; and this kind of vision, this miraculous Christ, became the official, ruling religion of Rome, c. 400 AD. Thus, the miraculous Christ ruled Rome. And when Rome itself – the heart of ancient civilization – endorsed this Christ … in effect, the miracle-working Christ, had a power platform from which to dominate the entire Roman Empire. And the West. And through that, eventually, the miracle-working Christ conquered the whole “world.” As this Christ conquered Rome, then Europe, then America; the leading powers that in turn, ruled the whole earth. And spread the worship of this Christ to every part of the entire world, through conquest, and much later, satellites.

 

The miracle-working “Christ” therefore, promising bread out of thin air, long dominated the earth; dominated the whole “world.” However? At times, there were churchgoers, pastors, who were not entirely satisfied with this (vision of) “Christ”; Christ as miracle-worker. Though millions, billions of people followed this Christ – and millions still do, to this very day – still, at times, some of our more intellectual or educated preachers, questioned the accuracy of this view of Jesus; the truth of this Christ. Possibly, some preachers found that in real or day-to-day life, somehow, they themselves could not make bread appear out of thin air, at times. Even today, now and then a follower of Christ, will experimentally try, him- or her-self, to pray for God to make physical bread appear out of thin air, or pray for the ability to walk on water. And yet? Though we were often firmly promised these abilities by countless preachers? Still, somehow, even some very good holy persons, found that we could not literally walk on the surface of the backyard pool. No matter how good we were; no matter how many times we prayed; no matter how good we were. No matter how many of the demands of the preacher that we met.

 

While surprisingly, St. Paul, himself, began to question miracles. Paul questioning specifically, whether in fact whosoever asked, actually got them as promised:

 

Do all work miracles?” (Paul, 1 Corin. 12.29 RSV).

 

“Let not many of you become [religious] teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man…. [But] the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things…. No human being can tame the tongue” (James 3.1-8).

 

As we will see, there were problems with ancient, “boast”ful and proud promises of miracles; even according to the Bible itself (to say nothing of what experience teaches many of us). And so? Though televangelists still present this miraculous Christ, as late as say, today, 2011, already by about 1950 or so, many ministers, were no longer spending so much time, on 1) the physical promises of God; or on the view of Christ as a worker of physical “miracles.”

 

Preachers once daily promised such giant physical wonders; miracles. But eventually, even many preachers came to no longer stress, Christ as the worker of physical miracles. Instead, most of our more intellectual preachers eventually began to present yet another, slightly different Christ. Some preachers long ago in fact, began subtly stressing not miraculous physical rewards, but began to stress instead, 2) the mental or “spiritual” Christ; stressing not physical rewards, but the mental or “spiritual” rewards that were said to come, from following Jesus. No longer were physical miracles foregrounded; instead we were told that if we followed this Jesus, we would however get benefits in our mind or “spirit”: we would get “love” and “faith” and “hope” and so forth.

 

This spiritual Christ, moreover, we were constantly told by preachers, could be found in the Bible itself; apparently even edging out – or even replacing? – the miracle-promising Christ Jesus. And if this replacement of one Christ, with another one, might have seemed to bother some people? There were in fact, many parts of the New Testament, that were written in such a way, as to seem in one increasingly popular way of reading, to justify this new Christ. Even the Apostle/Saint Paul for example, had at times wondered out loud about how common and reliable, the old promises of physical miracles, might be: “Do all work miracles?” Paul wondered (q.v.; look up the quoted words, in your Bible). While Paul began to stress the idea that perhaps the main lesson or promise of religion, was not physical wonders. Rather, perhaps the real core of religion, Christianity, consisted in teaching us mental or spiritual things; like suppressing our mental or spiritual “lust” and greed and anger; suppressing our destructive mental “passions.” While giving us more positive emotions, like “faith” and “love” and “hope.”

 

 

 

And the Spiritual Christ?

 

 

The relatively new “spiritual” vision of Christ, has been remarkably successful, in worldly terms. Without explicitly denouncing the old miracle-working Christ, it nevertheless subtly shifted the emphasis in religion; from promising physical things – especially, promising miraculous powers, that seemed problematic to many; shifting the emphasis in all of Religion – including especially Christianity – to “spirituality.” Without ever explicitly attacking the old idea of Christ offering us physical things, the average preacher today however, rarely mentions that old vision; instead the average preacher spends most of his sermons and services today, speaking on mental or “spiritual” things. Following apostles like Paul, many priests and ministers and religious leaders, to our very time today, came to “subtl”y shift the emphasis in our religion, the picture of Christ we are offered in church. Changing us over gradually, from the miracle-working Christ … to a more spiritual one. Instead of emphasizing physical miracles, today about half (if not all) of our preachers, about half of all sermons or more, are not primarily about 1) getting physical rewards from God, like physical food or “bread”; but 2) at most, getting a tiny token, symbolic bread wafer, at communion or Eucharist. While 3) shifting the emphasis from a religion that promises to take care of – even miraculously – the physical side of life. To a religion, a Christ, that offered only primarily, mental or spiritual gifts.

 

Today to be sure, a few preachers – especially televangelists – still promise us huge, amazing, “prosperity”; and even physical miracles. Especially magical-seeming healings of sick persons; “faith healings.” But the vast bulk of sermons today, are dedicated more to “healing” or training our mind or “spirit.” They are especially about a) learning to control our more destructive emotions; like the spirit of “hate” and anger, and greed, and “lust.” And b) replacing them with more positive emotions or “spirits.” Like, as it was said by Paul especially, “faith” and “hope” and “love.” Especially we are told, of course, that “faith” was the real, core message of Jesus; that “faith” is the true heart of Christianity. Indeed, we are constantly assured in churches all over the world, that if we just have faith in our preachers, or faith in the picture of Christ that they offer us? Then we can forget about mere physical rewards, which now seem unimportant; and instead we will indeed get huge spiritual benefits. Like “hope.” Hope of future material rewards; or even hope of a new spirit in us; a spirit that will be immortal.

 

And so, if we don’t really get real, physical miracles much any more? If we don’t get literal “bread” say, out of thin air, much today? Then that does not matter, we are now told in effect. Because physical things, like food, physical “possessions,” are relatively unimportant. What is really, truly important – as legions of very spiritual preachers have constantly assured us – is not material or physical things. But only our mental or spiritual hopes. And if we suffer from poverty and material deprivation in this life? We were told by spiritual preachers, that our physical needs for literal food, and our attachment to our physical lives, are unimportant; that what really matters, is perfecting our spirit. And if we still want some future rewards? Then we are often told that physical, material things, the material life, eventually passes away; we all get old, and our physical bodies die (as Paul noted, especially). Therefore, attachment to physical things is not good, since all physical things are fated to pass away. And yet however, we are assured (rather dualistically, Platonically), that if the material side of life is fated and unimportant, still however, there are essentially two aspects to the universe: the 1) Physical, and the 2) Spiritual. And of these two? All physical things are fated to get old, and “rust,” or “rot,” or die. But it is said that the universe is full of invisible “spirits”; which, not being material things, cannot rot or rust or die; which are even, immortal. And therefore finally? Pursing, desiring physical things, “riches,” “possessions,” is short sighted. The more important thing, we are told by our many spiritual preachers, is perfecting our “immortal spirit” as they say. Perfecting it so that when we die, or spirit will not separate from our body and go to Hell; but will instead, go on to eternal life, immortality – in a spiritual “Heaven.”

 

Today and for some time, Historically, institutional Christianity therefore has presented the world, with at least two different Christs. First, 1) sermons speak of the magical-seeming Christ, that promised us all huge, amazing, physical “miracles”; that promised bread, food, appearing for starving people, out of thin air. Bread appearing mysteriously, miraculously, in mostly empty baskets. Bread appearing in mostly empty baskets – rather like rabbits appear in allegedly empty, stage magician’s hats. Bread and other physical things were promised to us, often by “miracle”; by appearing it seemed, out of thin air. But to be sure, at times people tried to get physical miracles … and found that they were not absolutely reliable; they did not arrive every single day, in time to provide our daily meal; the promised miracles did not arrive, some said, “all” and “whatever” and whenever, we “ask”ed. So then, in addition to this magical or miraculous Christ, the whole world was also presented with 2) a more spiritual vision – or “image” – of Christ. This “new” Christ all but giving up on material things, and the physical “world” and “flesh” and material “riches”; these things, which were so often offered to us in the name of God, in the past, are now subtly de-emphasized. Indeed, the old physical promises, are now read as having been not literal, but as having been mere metaphors, symbols, for mental or spiritual things. So that the old physical promises, that were once presented to us as absolutely holy and sacred? Are subtly disappeared; metaphoricalized, spiritualized. And we are now offered instead, mostly mental or spiritual things only. Today, the average preacher – the average Catholic or Orthodox priest, the average Protestant minister – no longer emphasize the physical, or miraculous side of religion; instead, Christianity – and all Religion – is now thought of as being mostly about “spiritual” things only. Today, preachers teach us mental or spiritual convictions and feelings: “faith” especially; but also “love” and other feelings and emotions or spirits; the spirit of hope and so forth.

 

Today, most of religion – including especially Christianity – presents itself as “spiritual.” Yet to be sure? Historically, there was not just one, but there were two slightly different Christs in fact, that have been the very “heart,” the two major “pillars,” of traditional Christianity: the 1) physical miracle-promising Christ; and the 2) spiritual Christ, that seemed to turn completely around, into a complete opposite; to tell us that physical wonders, riches, possessions, were all but totally unimportant.

 

And so preachers have presented to us all, at least two – and two directly contradictory – Christs. Including first the Christ who promises physical miracles, vs. the spiritual Christ who said that physical things were unimportant. And these two images of Christ, have dominated religion, and the West, and the world, for almost 2,000 years. For almost two thousand years, these two – albeit somewhat contradictory – Christs, defined and dominated what has been universally called “Christianity.” And yet however? Though the whole world and its “worship,” have long been utterly controlled by these and other Christs? As we begin looking into all this, here and now, we will be discovering that actually, there are some biblical and practical problems, with both of these two views of say, Jesus. As it turns out? None of the most common images of “Christ” is exactly true, even to the Bible itself.

 

So that in point of fact? We should say that until today, the whole world has been dominated by … several “False Christs.” As the Bible itself long warned (1 John 2-4.1; Rev. 13).

 

So that? The old apocalyptic prophesies – of the entire “world” dominated by false “worship,” “false Christs” (Rev. 13, etc.) – were long ago, already partially fulfilled. Just as 1 John suggested (1John 2-4.1). So that we will need to finally see another, better, “second” Christ; indeed we will need a “Second Coming” of God, to straighten things out, and present us with the “full”er, more accurate vision, understanding, manifestation, of Christ and God. A Second Coming which however, surprisingly, we can begin to see, in its first clear outline; even in part, here and now. Thanks to the new discipline of, the Science of God; part of the continuing efforts of science-based religious studies. Though finally the Science of God is not just an academic enterprise, alone: finally it presents to the world, as partial fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.

 

Indeed, the Science of God presents to the whole world the first outline, the first signs of the foretold Second Coming; the “second” “appearance”/ (Gk. “parousia”) of Christ. Indeed, the foretold Second Coming of Christ, already begins to appear to our mind’s eye… just by looking closer, into the Bible itself. Re-reading here, dozens of quotes from the Bible, that our preachers left out; or that preachers could not “face” or “bear” (as per John 16.12, etc.).

 

Amazingly, as it turns out, there are even problems especially, with the “spirituality” that dominates our highest and loftiest churches.

 

 

 

The Sin in Spirituality

 

 

For many centuries, doubtless, many preachers have occasionally had trouble working all the huge physical miracles – even “all” and “whatever” we “ask”ed – that they often proudly promised to us, with great Pride and even Vanity and Boasting. And so, when our preachers could not always make good on their huge physical promises, what did they do? Over the centuries, they developed a huge range of “apologetics” as they are called: arguments that try to defend their religion and their assertions, against accusations that they have been simply, false. In particular, over the ages, holy men proposed the idea in effect, that if our religion at times does not give us quite as many physical wonders as promised – not “all,” or “whatever” and therefore whenever, we “ask”? Then that does not prove our preachers and their religion are false or in vain; for countless reasons, preachers claim. But among the many reasons, we are sometimes assured that God never really promised physical things at all; that the old apparent promises of physical “miracles,” were really just figures of speech, metaphors, symbols, for spiritual things. While the important thing in any case, are not physical rewards, possessions (even though God himself constantly promised them). But instead, religion and life is really about … mental or “spiritual” things, after all.

 

Indeed we have been told in countless church sermons and homilies, that the very essence of being good and following God, is to be “spiritual.” Indeed, the idea of Spirituality has been so popular, as to all but utterly dominate Christianity, and indeed all of religion. To the point that to be religious, and to be “spiritual,” are thought to mean one and the same thing; they are synonyms. And yet however, as we are about to show here, there are some really evil things deep in spirituality itself. Just as the Bible warned, Satan himself came to us disguised as the very angel of light.

 

God indeed, remember, told us that one “day,” God would show us, reveal, uncover, massive sins in our holy men. While even here and now, we are beginning to see some of them. But just as serious as any of the others, and often worst of all, their main error and sin, is the very “spirituality” that has become the very core of their profession. Their spirituality; that has been thought by many, to be the very latest and best and most enduring, of all their accomplishments. If the physical promises of miracles, by religion, seemed to fail us, or to be too “low” and “materialistic,” at least, our preachers have semi-secretly thought, our religion offers a higher, better mental or spiritual orientation; offers a “spiritual” sense of things, that lifts us far above crass, materialistic life.

 

1) But note here already, a problem with Spirituality itself. For one thing, a) in a casual way, just right up front, some might notice a sort of Pride in spirituality; spiritual people are thought to be much better than other, crass, materialistic folks. There is a powerful, irresistible temptation to Vanity in spirituality.

 

2) Then too, related to this Pride, the feeling of being better than other people? Better than mere materialistic, working people? Better than physical things? Note that in effect, this means that spirituality in effect, overvalues itself … and puts down the other side of life. Indeed, spirituality puts down the physical, material side of life. To the extent, that it has a dark side: an even massive “hate.” A hate for materialistic people. Or a hate in fact, for the whole physical world. Which is a truly massive hate indeed. Especially for a religion that claims to be founded in part on “love.” This hate can be seen in the isolated fragments of the Bible, that spiritual folks like to quote. Especially the sayings of the non-synoptic writings of “John”:

 

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14.26).

 

“He who hates his life in this world will keep it” (John 12.26).

 

“Do not love the world or the things of the world” (1 John 2.15; also 1 John 2-5; cf. Rev. 12.9. John 3.16).

 

“My kingship is not from the world” (John 18.36).

 

“The whole world is in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5.19).

 

The first secret sin, the first dark side of spirituality, that indicates that most of Christian spirituality follows a false spirit? Is its “hate.” The dark underside, the flip side of “love” for spirit … is “hate” for those who do not share that value; or even hate for all physical things. Hate for the physical universe that God himself had made, and said was “good.”

 

How much hidden, even massive “hate” is there, therefore, in our priests? Preachers traditionally hear and follow, only misleading parts of the Bible; especially the parts that tell them to be ascetic, spiritual … and to “hate” their lives in this physical “world”; to even hate the “flesh” or our bodies it sometimes seems. Indeed, ascetic monks often even whipped and injured their physical “bodies,” in order to try to punish them, and control our physical “desires” and “lusts” and “passions” for food, sex, and so forth. To even “hate” our natural, biological brothers and sisters; in favor of elective spiritual communities, like our church. Yet to be sure, though there were many such ascetic elements in the Bible, the spiritual side of the Bible was not finally, the prevailing or predominant voice, we will show here. In fact, the Bible often warned about problems with even Spirituality itself. While the problem with Spirituality, should be obvious enough; first of all, it is indeed, “hate” that spiritual people are partially feeling; not “love.” After all? They “hate” the “world,” or the “flesh,” and so forth. Even though there were parts of the Bible that a) warned about “hate” specially. And about b) “despisers of the flesh” or physical body, specifically. While c) indeed finally, though there were Spiritual elements in the Bible, finally the New Testament can to eventually warn about massive problems even in the Spirituality that is today often thought to be the predominant, highest value in Christianity. And among other warnings? 1 John had to finally remind our very spiritual new Christian priesthood and monks, that feeling hate is not good; as 1 John warned above. And that whatever Jesus may have said here and there, finally he was said to have come to “love the world” and save it; not condemn it (John 3.16 etc.).

 

The first great sin in spirituality then, is that most forms of it, divide all the universe into just two things: material things and physical things. And while it loves spirituality … it ends up “hating” a lot of other things. In the main, often, in many common ascetic readings, hating the whole material, physical side of existence. Which is a sin d) finally of Gnosticism; a too-spiritual movement that developed in part, out of Christianity itself in fact. While e) the ascetic monasteries, retained this “hate,” even in spite of the Church’s prohibition on spirituality.

 

And then, what is the next great sin in spirituality? 3) The next grave sins with preachers, relating to their spirituality? Is that their spirit, when it all-too-often came to hate this material world, is not entirely consistent with the entire, overall Bible. It ignores the times that even the normally over-spiritual, priestly/Platonistic John, finally relented. And began to suggest that those who “hate” their physical brothers and sisters are actually evil. So that Jesus is finally depicted as after all, “lov”ing the world. And not just in the abstract; or by issuing mere compassionate words or hot air; but by helping it physically. Physically healing the physically sick, feeding the hungry, and so forth. Or in any case, “loving” the world:

 

“God is love” (q.v., Bible).

 

“He who … hates his brother is in the darkness still…. He who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes” (1 John 2.9-11).

 

“If any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s live abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3.17-18).

 

Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us…’ (1 John 3.15).

 

“If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4.20).

 

“No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man…. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3.16).

 

To be sure, the Bible has two voices in it. And they are plain to see, when we review the anti-“World” statements above, versus the pro-world statements, here. Clearly, some parts of the Bible itself, seem at first to love “hate” for this material existence, our “flesh,” this “world.” But finally, those parts were very extreme, Gnostic, and over-spiritual. So that eventually the Bible itself, countered, balanced those extremist statements out. With far more positive statements about this physical, material existence – and a very, very firm condemnation of the Christ who seemed to have condemned this “world,” and our physical, biological families and so forth.

 

4) There are many problems with – sins in – the “spirituality” that is typical of almost all our preachers, therefore. Indeed, the extremely spiritual Jesus that we heard in almost every church (say, c. 1950-63), was a false Christ. That Christ reflected only less than half of what the Bible really said, overall. That Christ went against the God who said that from the very “beginning,” God made the physical universe … and said it was “good,” not evil.

 

 

 

More Sins in Spirituality

 

 

 

The sins in the “spirituality” that preachers taught as holy in fact, are endless. And huge.

 

For example? As the next great sin of spirituality? And its opposition often to physical things? Consider how it goes against the many times that God made and approved, of physical, material things.

 

If Adam sinned, and if God for a while “cursed” the “earth,” Jesus is said to have “redeemed” the world, and made it good again. While indeed, God himself said that God himself, “fills all things,” in heaven “and earth.” And if the “desires” of the “flesh” can at times be excessive, on the other hand, God so valued physical things, that he told us to take care of our “body” often; while God himself descended to the “flesh,” himself; as Jesus. So those spiritual people, who often condemn or even merely ignore or degrade, the physical side of existence – the earth, our bodies, real material food, and so forth – finally, end up condemning part of what God said was “good.” Those who condemn “flesh,” in the sense of our physical bodies, even end up indirectly condemning part of God himself. Since Jesus was said to be God made “flesh.” Indeed no doubt, spiritual ministers will likely condemn the Second Coming, for the same thing. And for the same reason their predecessors condemned Jesus the first time: for daring to say that Jesus was God appearing in physical things; as flesh.

 

These three sins are in themselves, massive; they pit the priest directly against God himself in fact, finally. But there are even worse sins in Spirituality itself, yet to come.

 

5) So what in fact, is perhaps the gravest sin in priests? In their vaunted spirituality? It is not just that their “love” of spirit, has a dark underside, in “hate” for so much of life. It is not only that their spirituality is not consistent with the overall Bible, or the Word of God. But in particular, finally? It is that – as one might expect – their sin, their “hate” finally has some really horrible, physical consequences, in real life. In fact, traditional ascetic/priestly spirituality is literally, physically, crippling, deadly. Often spirituality is even physical fatal; it physically kills people.

 

This, the great evil in spirituality, seems hard to understand, at first. But the Apostle James for example, began to comment on it, long ago. James beginning to note in James 2, that there was in fact something evil, deadly, even in the heart of spirituality itself. Particularly, in its inevitable neglect for, hate for, the physical half of life. The problem was simply, that those who hate or even merely strongly disregard the physical, material side of life … often neglect physical necessities. They often neglect say, the needs of our physical bodies. Many spiritual persons neglect to, or even actively oppose, physically feeding themselves. Or helping other starving people, with actual, literal, physical food or “bread.” So that ultimately our spiritual priests committed a very gross evil: they lead themselves – and worse, probably millions of others – into literal, physical starvation, and other forms of physical disaster. Due to neglect of the physical side of life. Of even physical material necessities; like the need to farm, and mill, to make food for ourselves.

 

The Letter of James, in the New Testament, began to outline a deadly, literally fatal side to spirituality. There the apostle James began to ask what happens, when priests or “spiritual” persons give physically starving people, only kind words, or thoughts, or spirits – but not physical food? James began to show that the very spiritual religion of priests, that gives us kind words and sermons, inevitably, criminally neglects the physical side of life. And thus leads us to physical disaster. For example, said James, the religion of priests, which gives us primarily sermons, but no so much physical assistance, leaves us often, physically exposed. And say, physically starving to death:

 

“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2.14-17; Isa. 22.8; Job 15.2 etc.).

 

“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?” (James 2.14). Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?” (James 2.20). “Faith apart from works is dead” (James 2.26).

 

After many centuries of very “spiritual” religion, the Apostle James rightly began to note … a strange evil or neglect, in spiritual religiosity: it failed to take care of the physical side of life. Spirituality often said that only mental or spiritual things are important; and that the physical side of life was transient, and fated. But when priests confidently declare this, it causes those who follow them, to therefore disregard, to neglect the physical side of life. To the point that they typically begin to neglect physical necessities; like the need to help others with not just “spiritual” “bread,” or kind thoughts; but real physical, literal food. While ultimately, this neglect of – and even active antagonism to, attacks against – the physical side of life, soon lead to the point that … this radical over-spirituality of preachers, even lead many priests- and millions of others no doubt – to actual, literal, physical death. From neglect of pressing physical problems, that might otherwise have been taken care of; if the people had been directed to take care of them.

 

Shockingly therefore, there is actually … a massive evil in the very core value of the traditional priesthoods: under the superficial appearance of “love” for others, there has always been a massive, black “hate.” And a massive evil, in spirituality itself. The great evil in priests’ and ministers’ spirituality, is that it neglects the physical side of life and of God – to the point of often, failing to help deliver the physical necessities of life. Too much spirituality, distracts the people from taking care of practical physical things. And leave them often, physically dying. From lack of physical food. Or medical care. And so forth.

 

Worse, the brief example of the sin of spirituality that was noted by James – the spiritual man who leaves physically hungry people to
starve to death – is only the tiniest tip of the really massive disasters, caused by spirituality. It is only the visible tip, a giant iceberg. As we will be showing in our books here and elsewhere, the spirituality of priests not only passively left, the already-starving, to starve; we will show that the active selling of spirituality, anti-materialism, actually, actively lead millions, billions of human beings into various forms of physical deprivation; including starvation. Persons that otherwise would have had enough commonsense to take care of physical necessities and so forth, were actively discouraged from doing so. By priests who oversold spiritual hate for the world.

 

The fact is therefore, there is a massive, literally physically fatal, practical evil, in spirituality. Here and elsewhere, we will show that spiritual priests, misled many millions of people, who would otherwise have had enough common sense to taken care of themselves, of the physical side of life. Spirituality caused millions of otherwise quite functional human beings, to be actively lead away from their better judgement. By priests. Who told the people that the physical side of life was unimportant; that our own “work”s were totally futile; that taking care of our own physical “body” was insignificant or even evil. And who even suggested that physically dying was good, was “gain”; because it freed our spirit from our “evil” flesh, so that it could go up to spiritual “heaven” (see Paul, “to die is gain”).

 

But if parts of, a voice in the Bible itself – especially parts of Paul – at times supported a milder spirituality, finally, that formula was literally, physically debilitating, and even physically fatal. So that ultimately, it is now time for preachers and others to look at the fuller message of the Bible; that take us partially back to the physical world after all.

 

In the meantime? We find here that shockingly, just exactly as the Bible itself warned, the very things that we thought were most “noble” and godly, turn out to have been from Satan himself. Specifically in fact, we now find that the very things that ancient and even modern priesthoods thought was the highest good – spirituality itself – was actually, in many ways, extremely, massively evil. Just as the Bible foretold: the very thing that was presented to us, as the very essence of Good, as the very “angel of light,” turns out to have been a disguise of … Satan himself (q.v.).

 

Therefore, we now find massive sins, in the very heart, the very core of priestly, Christian religion: in “spirituality” itself.

 

Possibly the greatest virtue – and the greatest sin – of traditional priests and ministers, has been their spirituality. Priests taught millions, billions of people – most rural; or third world; many women – an essentially, magician’s or magical vision of life. Millions were taught that 1) physical things were not important; only “spirits” are important (/only the spirit is immortal). Thus millions of people were taught to despise physical reality; science and technology, and even taking care of physical necessities. But here we will have seen that if man does not live by bread “alone,” he lives on it in part. So that, as James noted, those who do not get physical bread, starve to death. We cannot live on the mere “hope” of future physical rewards, or the mere thought of them. This means we were mislead, by those millions of priests who often implied that the physical side of life was insignificant or even evil. That any old promises of physical wonders, were just metaphors for spiritual rewards; who all but said, often, that spiritual things were all God really promised. Priests even often taught in effect that “hope” or spiritual, mental sensation of “hope” of bread, are as good as real bread. But those religious leaders who said and followed this, were often in effect, asking everyone to live on mere mental sensations, spirit, or “wind” (q.v.); which leaves us physically starving.

 

But can this really be? Doesn’t this go against the Bible, to suggest problems in spirituality itself? In fact, it does not. First, the apostle James noted problems with it. Then too, we now add, there is Biblical language, that suggested problems with “spirits,” and those who gave us mental or spiritual things, mere ideas instead of material help. In effect, those millions of priests who asked us to believe that all we need is spirituality, or just the hope or thought of things to come, were, asking us to live on mere mental or spiritual ideas, spirits. But if the mere “hope” or “dream” of bread, is not enough for a physically hungry person? But leaves us starving? Then those hopes, dreams, spirits, are more exactly … the foretold “empty promises,” false promises, false spirits, “empty” “wind.” And all those who gave us spirits only, and not enough physical support (beyond physical charity, guidance in physical sense, science), were in effect the foretold false prophets. Or in this case? The foretold evil “illusion”ists; “magicians,” “sorcerers,” disguised as priests. By asking us to live on mere mental phenomena and/or “spirit,” mere illusory ideas, our spiritual priests have been part of a particular class of foretold, false religious leaders: when they asked us to live mere ideas or spirits, expectations of things that did not come physically true? Then what our spiritual priests gave us were really just the forewarned a) “false hopes,” b) “false dreams,” c) “empty consolations,” d) “false prophesies,” e) “empty wind,” f) “empty words,” g) “illusions,” h) “delusions,” i) “enchantments,” and j) “lies.” All these are some of the many different words that the Bible used, for the attempt of evil and false priests, to tell us we can live on mere words, ideas or spirits. Instead of physical food, etc.. (Q.v.: see these words in a concordance).

 

Part of Isaiah, seems to have gotten to the evil in spirituality, the evil in taking mental ideas or sensations to be far more real than physical nature. Because? Often mental ideas are simply, wrong. And the more we validate them, the more we follow them, the more simply, we are deceived. Indeed, as it turns out, the whole dualistic idea that spirit can exist apart from matter, is likely wrong too. St. James rightly began to note that those who think they can live just on spirit, without food, suffer material death, no less.

 

So that the whole priestly notion of being a wholly spiritual being, takes us merely, into the realm of trying to live on “empty wind,” false dreams, and so forth. Indeed finally, spirituality is the very heresy the Bible had in mind, when it warned, in dozens of ways, about trying to live just on “wind,” on mere “words,” on “illusion” and “delusions,” and false “dreams.” Warnings found throughout the Bible; but the exact nature of the problem, as noted by James, might best be expanded a little, by quoting say, Isaiah. Who seconds James, and warns that man in effect is not just a spiritual being, but is also a physical one. And the spirituality that leads us to give up on the physical side of life, leads to a neglect even of physical necessities; leads us in fact, to physical death. Indeed, spirituality may even be a semi-deliberate deception, designed to snare, capture us, in illusions, delusions, the phantasms of the mind. While we ignore real physical things; and even slip into physical poverty and death. Following “spirits” that we thought were good spirits from God, that we thought were even the Holy Spirit. But that were often deceitful, bad spirits, posing at good things.

 

5) Indeed, the Bible itself constantly warned about false and bad things, even in “spirits”:

 

“Deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1).

 

” ‘Precept upon precept, line upon line…; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken….” (Isa. 28.13).

 

“As when a hungry man dreams he is eating and awakes with his hunger not satisfied, or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking and awakes faint, with his thirst not quenched” (Isa. 29.7-8).

“Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor, blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not with win…. For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep” (Isa. 29.9-10).

 

“The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine [cf. Eucharistic wine] … they err in vision” (Isa. 38.7).

 

“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel…. They have spoken falsely and divined a lie; they say, ‘Says the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them, and they expect him to fulfill their word. Have you not seen a delusive vision, and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said “says the LORD’…? Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Because you have uttered delusions and seen lies, therefore behold, I am against you…. My hand will be against the prophets…. [T]hey have mislead the people, saying ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, the prophets daub it with whitewash; say to those who daub it with whitewash that it shall fall!'” (Ezk. 13.2, 13.6-13.8-12).

 

“They are all a delusion; their works are nothing” (Isa. 41.29).

 

What is the main sin, in spirituality per se however? Spirituality, being lost in mental sensations, ignoring physical reality, may in fact be a deliberate trap and punishment, for potential enemies of the Lord, the Bible itself at times suggests; it is a sort of magical “enchantment,” an Opium Dream, a Lotus Land; that caused millions of people, to take mere mental illusions, for real reality. And thus it has caused millions, to back off from demanding, seeing the real Christ. Who stands as a physical reality, furnishing physical goods, in this physical world. As we will see, here. But Christ, we will see, did not promise “miracles” per se; rather he offered a rather more scientifically-verifiable prosperity.

 

 

 

The Real Christ;

The Second and Better Coming of God

To Earth … in

The Science of God

 

 

The “Christ” that we were presented with in churches, stressed “faith” in “miracles” and “spirit.” But that Christ was not the true Christ, that the Bible finally described.

 

As we carefully re-read our Bibles here, we will be revealing dozens, hundreds of biblical passages, that were not adequately stressed in church; or that were “twist”ed and “whitewash”ed, into something other than what they were. Preachers have favored only one or two aspects of the Bible – aspects like miracles and spirituality. But those two apparent themes however – offering miracles, and/or spiritual – were not the final message of the Bible, or the final, prevailing of God.

 

Promises of miracles, and calls to spirituality, we will be seeing here, were in fact questioned and even rejected, even in the Bible itself. So what finally, was the only reliable, good path to God, as outlined in the Bible? As we begin to re-read our Bibles here – just as happened on the road to Emmaus – the real Christ will finally emerge before our eyes (Luke 24.13 and following, or “ff”). But the Christ that we will now finally see at last, in our “second” reading of the Bible, is in many ways rather different from the Christ that we were taught in church. What we will discover is that – shockingly, shatteringly – most of what we were always taught as absolutely holy and sacred and good in church, the common “image”s of “Christ” that the world was presented by most preachers – Christ promising “miracles,” or demanding we become “spiritual,” and especially “faith”ful – was hinted at in the Bible to be sure; but was never quite entirely truly finalized.

 

For example? We have just noted problems with “spirit”uality in general, above; from writers like James. And then, as we look more closely at our Bibles here, regarding the stress on specific spiritual
qualities – like “faith” especially? We will find that actually, far from stressing “faith” – faith in preachers and their ideas about God? Actually, ultimately 1) the Bible itself warned continuously, that there have always been massive sins and errors, in essentially “all” our priests; even in our holiest men and angels. The LORD himself warned over and over, that there have always been sins and errors in preachers and even in the very angels. Sins a) in our holy men themselves, personally, in their own personal, human mistakes from day to day. But also? Sins b) even in their most “inspired” doctrines and sermons too. So that? Shatteringly, 2) the Bible itself, in the end, did not stress faith … in holy men. Or faith in their vision of Christ – their “Christ” – either. Instead, the Bible itself finally commanded us to always take a long hard look at our preachers and angels; to see where they might have sinned and erred, after all. Where they might have sinned and erred, even in their presentation of the Christ; even in their presentation of “God.” Looking to see where they after all, presented the world with several “False Christ”s.

 

For centuries, our preachers have told us in effect, that the very essence of Christianity, is composed of say, two major elements or pillars: 1) promising physical miracles; and/or 2) being spiritual; and especially trusting and believing and “having faith” in God. And yet? Here we will be showing that the Bible itself also often warned us about sins deep in our religious institutions; since even in our preachers, and holy men. Indeed, the Bible even warned us that the world actually, that the very “Christ” we follow, might be a “false” or “anti-Christ.” Jesus himself had warned of “false Christs” coming after him; and writings attributed to the apostle John confirmed that there were already many false or “anti-Christ”s all around him, even in the very first days, when what was to be called Christianity, was being formed (1 John 3-4.1 ff).

 

The Bible itself, we will see, warned continuously about trusting preachers or holy men, too faithfully; and it began to warn now and them, about their emphasis specifically, on “mircles,” “spirituality,” and even “faith.” So what finally, was the one more reliable picture of God, of Christ, that the Bible ultimately offered? We will be coming to an amazing conclusion here: 3) finally, far from stressing “faith” in whatever “Christ” we are presented with even in church, finally the Bible itself actually pictured God himself, teaching us a kind of critical religious Science. The Bible, God telling us not to have much faith in holy men; but to learn to a) “test everything,” b) “test the spirits,” to see what is really true in Christianity … and what might be “false” (1 Thess. 5.21; 1 John 4.1).

 

Christianity was never supposed to be based on trusting preachers, or having much “faith” in spirituality, and miracles? Instead, it warned that our holiest men would often be false; and so our religion, was always supposed to be based not on trust in holy men, but on a critical science of religion? That, far from being based on “faith,” would “test everything” in our religion? This is a side of the Bible, that most preachers do not want to “face,” themselves; or tell you about. And so, to avoid it? Preachers usually ignore the Science of God. Or they assure us that any such science, was firmly forbidden, by one passage that they say, tells us that we are not supposed to apply critical science to religion: we are not to “put the Lord your god to the test.” But we will be showing here, c) that particular passage is better translated, as telling us merely not to “test” – or better said, “tempt” – God’s patience, with various immoralities. While d) indeed, the rest of the Bible is filled with descriptions and commands from God, to “test,” with “science,” “all” things in religion; God even commands us “Put me to the test, says the Lord,” in Malachi 3.10; in a kind of scientific test in fact. While indeed finally, e) we are told to test everything specifically, with “Science.” As God said, in an important passage in Daniel for example (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE). And as Christ finally reaffirmed, in the many times he warned about false things in holy men; and told us therefore to “not believe,” to not even think of believing or having faith even in Jesus himself; unless or until he and his followers produce – as Jesus said, in his own words – real physical, not spiritual, “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” and “proofs.” Jesus finally reaffirming the authority of empirical evidence, over any statements he made, that appeared to support “faith” without evidence.

 

For centuries therefore, preachers have presented and dominated the whole world with, in effect, a false Christ. We have been told especially, that the essence of religion, of Christ, was spirituality – and especially, “faith” in God. Which in actual effect meant, having faith in Christ … as our preachers presented him to us in church. Here and now though, we are about to show that this common vision, that has probably defined Christianity for 2,000 years, and that has thereby dominated the whole world … was not really quite what the Bible itself finally said. Indeed, our five major points, in our various books, will be this: that 1) God continually warned that “all” our holiest men and angels and preachers, often “sinned” (Romans); sinned not just in their personal, daily behavior, but sinned and erred too, in their sermons, their holiest doctrines, their very image of Christ. Furthermore, none of the various special “gifts” of the Holy Spirit and so forth, were ever said to be absolutely effective, in removing the taint of sin, even in most our apparently holiest, highest, religious leaders. Therefore? 2) Contrary to what you always heard in church, the core of Christianity, was never supposed to be “faith”; we were never supposed to have very much “faith” in a) preachers or b) any other holy men. Or, more importantly, c) much faith in their (ideas about) “Christ.” Instead of being faith-based in fact? Ultimately 3) the Bible itself – God – told us that, since our holiest men often sinned and erred, real Christianity, should be based on not following preachers and their ideas, their sermons, their verbal pictures of “God” and “Christ,” so faithfully. Instead, God finally commanded each of us, to learn to critically, continuously examine “everything” in religion, in Christianity; examine, “test everything” in it, with a critical Science of God. And 4) if seeing this, seems to contradict every preacher, or find that his major message of “faith” was a sin and an error? If finding this seems to dissolve our Heaven itself? Then after all, this fulfills prophesy: the prophesy of Heaven itself, being dissolved, after all. As part of 5) God showing us a second and better appearance to, a second coming, of God to earth.

 

Rather than telling us to be based on “faith” in “miracles” or “spirituality,” actually, we will show here that the Bible, God actually commanded us to learn and follow, a kind of science. A science which will critically examine, even “test,” each and every thing in our traditional religion. Examining every single aspect of Christianity, religion, A to Z: from “angels” and “anointing”s and “apostles,” to “prophets, and religious “worship” and “zeal.” Far from telling us to just trust and believe and follow and “have faith” in holy men and angels and churches, or in their idea of “Christ”? Instead, God himself finally warned that any and “all” things in religion, even in “Christian”ity, are always partially false; only God himself is good. And so, we should not have too much faith in holy men or their “Christ” at but. Instead, we need to use a kind of real, empirical “science”; to more carefully examine things, and actively determine, which things are reliable, and prove useful, in religion, and which do not? Far from continuing to have blind “faith” in our holy men and angels, the Bible finally actually commands us all, to scientifically examine, each and every single aspect of religion, of Christianity; from A to Z; from “angels,” to “zeal,” and John Zebedee (20.20). In particular, God told us not to believe or trust or have faith in, mere sermons, speeches, and religious words (other than “The Word”); we should not trust sermons, since there are many false holy men … and specifically, false voices, lying and empty “words” and empty “wind” out there. Finally, because even our holiest, most “lofty” and “high” holy men, even “spirit”s, are often false? God told us to not be content, just to believe them – and especially, not their speeches, sermons, mere words, or “spirits.” But instead, God told us that we should always compare what they promised, to their actual, physical performance. Far from just trusting mere arguments, mere verbal assertions, or mere sermons – or what today we would call “hot air” – instead, we are supposed to actively look to see if following any given saying, is true, and is really from God, or not … according not just to verbal and written arguments, but according to whether it brings real, physical, material good; here, in a timely way (“soon,” “at hand“), in this material “world” or “earth”; as confirmed by real “test“ing and finally, “science.”

 

Far from stressing “faith” (as Paul did at times) in holy men, or their sermons, or their idea of Christ? Overall, finally, God actually told us that we are to carefully examine, each and every individual saying attributed to God. And then? We are commanded by God to confirm – or dis-confirm – each saying. In large part, we are to (as a necessary if not sufficient test), look to see, whether following any given saying, actually produces real, physical, empirical results. Or as the Bible itself said, we are supposed to look to see whether following any given saying, produces real physical – not spiritual – “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “prosperity,” “deeds,” and “proof”s. And if it does not? If the fruits promised do “not come to pass” (Deut. 18.21 ff)? Then, far from continuing to follow that statement attributed to God, with total faith? Instead, we are supposed to simply deduce that statement was not from God at all.

 

Amazingly in fact, God and the Bible ultimately told us that our religion, real Christianity, was never supposed to be based on “faith” at all; instead, Christianity is supposed to be based on … science.

 

At first, all this seems incredible, or impossible. But this is the point we will be proving, over and over, in our present books. And to prove it, we will be using, almost solely … quotes from the Bible itself. From God, himself.

 

 

 

What Remains?

 

 

 

To see and accept this side of the Bible and of God at last, to be sure, is a shattering experience. Indeed finally, even our Heaven itself begins to dissolve in front of our eyes. So here’s a problem: if “all” our holiest men are found to have sinned, if our childhood Heaven collapses, what is the final fate, of Christianity itself? Or even of say, God himself? If God is in Heaven, and Heaven itself is demolished … then does God perish?

 

The clear statement from the Bible, first, is that 1) the core of much of traditional religion, “worship” (Rev. 13), will be found “false.” And that 2) even “all” sinned; even the angels. So that 3) the host of “heaven” will “fall” (Isa. 34.4); while 4) therefore, heaven itself “will perish,” will “dissolve.” But then note that 5) still somehow, it seems that God and Christ, or their “word,” seem to survive, even when Heaven itself dissolves. God himself seems to survive all this perhaps … in part because God for example is said to exist, not just a) in heaven; but b) in “all things,” including heaven c) “and earth.” Or for that matter, God exists d) “above all heavens” (as the Bible notes).

 

So although many things are destroyed, in this moment, many things may survive; either 1) the Bible or the “word” of Christ. And perhaps 2) the very few people on earth who did not follow a false idea of Christ. While then too it seems, 3) God himself is not dissolved by the destruction of heaven, many would say. God himself seems to remain; and to remain even the “same” as they ever were, we are told.

 

The heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost remain the same” (Ps. 102.26; Mat. 24.35; Mark 13.31; Luke 21.33; John?).

 

Heaven … will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mat. 24.35).

 

A major part of religion therefore, is to be found false, and is to be dissolved; Heaven itself. And “all” in it, it seems (Isa. 34.4). Including all the saints and angels in heaven it seems. Them and many of their words, formerly attributed to God himself. Yet amazingly, some things seem to remain: 1) God and 2) the words of Christ it seems, remain. Whichever words those were.

 

Yet indeed, to be sure, as Heaven itself falls – and “all” in it? As Heaven itself “dissolves” … including all the saints or apostles in heaven, from Peter to Paul, and practically all the messengers or angels from God? If all these are to fall; they, and their doctrines? This still means that of course, our religion changes radically. God himself does not change
… but all our saints and prophets are largely discredited to some degree or another. While we see our preachers especially, fall in our estimation. We come to see them as mere mortals; the “sons of Man” in effect. And as we do that? We are enabled to at last, get beyond their more flawed ideas of God and Christ. To see a “second” and better understanding of God.

 

Even as God himself, and his own proper “words” themselves survive, still, many things, said by saints and angels, that governed our perception of God, are to be discredited, dissolved. And so, though God himself does not change, certainly our perception of God will need to change. And change radically. God himself never changes, in some metaphysical sense. And the “words” that Jesus truly spoke, will not change. Here in fact, in our present books, we accept the Bible – Revised Standard Edition – as the word of God. Though there are many editions, versions of the Bible, that somewhat change parts of what God is said to have said, we have made every effort nevertheless, to be absolutely true to every word of the Bible, that we have. (While acknowledging to be sure, the Bible’s own self-critical side?). Yet while God “himself” never changes? And while we base ourselves here on the Bible very strongly? Still, as we will be seeing here, even if our deity himself does not change … certainly our own understanding of him, does. Especially – as the Bible itself said – our understanding, like that of the young Jesus, is supposed to “grow” and “mature.” So that we are not like “child”ren in our reasoning and so forth.

 

There are many passages in the Bible, that allow that God himself does not change … but our understanding of him, is supposed to change, to progress. The Bible often notes that a) we are like “child”ren in our understanding; but b) that our “knowledge” and c) “prophesy” are often imperfect; so that d) one day or another, our understanding of God is supposed to change; to especially e) “mature” and so forth. In fact, even f) Jesus himself is said in the Bible to have “grown” physically – and have only progressively became “filled with wisdom” from the time he had been a child (Luke 2.40 & 3.52; not to be confused with John the Baptist, 1.80). Adding to this, anthropological lore tells us that g) many tribal cultures included particularly, a “day” of ritual initiation; when an individual or child, was initiated into the tribal secrets, or the role and knowledge of adulthood. While the Bible seemed to speak of many days and rites, of passage, and perhaps of initiation; from circumcision eight days after birth; to h) various special “day”s; to i) while perhaps some special items of “knowledge,” were j) to be given, when we become a “priest,” or an k) “elder,” and so forth. While indeed, k) Paul or another apostle seemed to allow that God is taught to various people, in slightly different ways, according to their abilities to understand and so forth. So that? Though God himself is eternal and does not change in some ways, at the same time, our own knowledge of God, is expected to change; to mature, and grow. Therefore, if God himself, and his true “words” or rules, do not change? Still, the way God looks to us, is supposed to change; and change very radically. At the very least, our understanding, our picture of God and Truth is supposed to “mature,” and “grow.” So that at the very least, the way God looks to you, can change a great deal. Indeed, it is supposed to change. If it does not, you are not really following of obeying the holy words.

 

Here, we have attempted to very, very strictly honor, every single word of the Bible itself, as the word of God. So far as we have been able, and know. We have accepted the Bible as the unchanging “word” of God. But amazingly, we will begin to show here that our understanding of the words of the Bible, is beginning to change. Indeed? Here we are beginning to notice seventy, a hundred and more major aspects of the holy books, that our preachers missed, or denied. And when we see them? Then our mental idea of God, begins to change, very considerably, from what we thought we heard as children, in Sunday School and church. Indeed, as it turns out the words of the Bible turn out to mean, often – almost exactly the opposite from what we heard in church.

 

It this heaven-shattering? Apocalyptic? Then after all, discovering these things – and related to that, even seeing our old Heaven itself dissolving in front of our eyes – was foretold and authorized, by the Bible itself. Indeed, it might be said that suddenly seeing these more negative parts of the Bible, the parts that warned about sins in holy men, can fulfill prophesy; the prophesy especially, of 1) seeing a “second” and “fuller” appearance of Christ; 2) a second appearance that however, is not entirely smooth. But that involves 3) suddenly noticing sins in things we thought were entirely sacred and holy. So that finally we mentally see 4) the collapse of Heaven itself.

 

Our present book in itself, might be seen as partial fulfillment of End Time prophesy. In it, we are seeing 1) a second and fuller appearance to Christ; (as we see Jesus advocating not just faith, as much as science. And exactly as foretold, 2) this appearance is difficult and “fiery,” even for those who thought they were good Christians, following Christ, the “Lord, Lord.” Since 3) many who thought they were very, very good, who thought they were following Christ …are now found to have been following a false idea of Christ, given to us by flawed holy men. Indeed, we are here noticing huge errors in holy men; just exactly like the Bible foretold. Seeing sins even in the vision of “Christ” that they imposed on the whole world. And when this happens? Our confidence wanes, in the angels and saints of our Bibles, the holy men that are often presumed to be in “heaven” itself (or even to be, some say, waiting in “fire” or purgatory). Indeed, our mental “Heaven” and all in it, do indeed seem to collapse, dissolve, in our mind’s eye. But if all these things happen … then after all, our book once again matches and follows the Bible itself, ever more exactly: one “day,” the Bible said over and over, we were supposed to see all of all this.

 

At first it might seem impossible to believe; since what we are seeing here, is so entirely different, from what we often heard in church. Yet if what we see here, all but exactly reverses much of what we were taught, by preachers? Then after all, once again, the very aspect of what we find here, once again, precisely matches what the Bible itself called for. What we are saying here, is exactly as foretold (of the End, and so forth). Indeed, the Bible itself warned over and over, in dozens of ways, that the second appearance of God reverses many of our traditional expectations. Specifically? 1) People we thought were “noble” are found to be “fools” (Isa. 34.5); while then too, 2) those priests and 3) others who lead our “worship” (Rev. 13), are found to be “false.” Even 4) the (mental picture of) “Christ” that almost everyone followed, can turn out to have been a “false Christ” (1 John 2-4, etc.) While 5) even the highest saints and angels in Heaven, things that seemed sacred, “righteous,” “lofty” and “proud” (Isa. 2.12, etc.)? Are found to be bad … and are seen to fall, in the theater of our estimation. So that? Exactly as foretold, even 6) the very Heaven itself, that everyone thought was the very essence of all that is so “high” and lofty? Even Heaven itself – exactly as foretold – begins to be found to be far lower than we thought. Indeed, our old idea of Heaven collapses. Once again – reversing the expectations of almost everyone. But this very reversal, thus fulfilling the Bible even more exactly.

 

Re-reading our Bibles here, we therefore begin moving, through at least a preview – and perhaps the very substance – of the heretofore-neglected heart and mainspring, of the real, final meaning of the Bible: The Destruction of Heaven. As we here see at last, God exposing sins in holy men, we are seeing many values reverse; seeing many things we thought to be entirely sacred, specifically, begin to fall in our eyes. In effect, we are perhaps beginning to see the last and most important moment in the End; the foretold Destruction of Heaven. Right here and now. But if so? Then painful and unbelievable as shocking as this moment might seem, to many people? Then still, what we are showing here, might make some sense of many things that earlier could not be explained, in a biblical context. That could not be explained in a way that matches what the Bible itself said.

 

Matching what the Bible itself said, is important for many reasons. Among other reasons, if there have been false things deep in the core of our religions, then it is precisely the most religious persons, who need to be told about this. Yet to be sure, faithful believers are among the very hardest people to reach; since they have always been told that they already, know the truth and God, well enough. And they are resistant to any kind of “new” message. Especially to any message that seems to oppose and even reverse, much of what they heard in church. Indeed, the Bible suggested that no one is as “blind” as God’s own servants and followers; “Who is blind as my dedicated one,” God complained (Isa. 42.19). Religious persons often think of themselves as very good, or even all but perfect; and so they cannot see the “beam in their own eye.” They admit that in their personal lives, in failing to live up to God, they are “sinners”; yet however, they tend to think of their sense of Christ and religion however, as sacred; they cannot see their theological errors. They never seem to guess that the “Christ” they are following, is only their own very flawed perspective on God; not God himself.

 

So how can we reach this last, hard core? How can we reach our new Pharisees, who imagine that they alone perfectly know Christ … and who therefore, are fatally proud and vain? Who cannot see the sins in their very ideas of all that is good and holy? At first, it would seem to be all but utterly impossible to cut through their massive pride. (Especially since it disguises, presents itself to them – by pretending to be humility before God). Finally though, there is one way – and almost only one – to reach such people. And that is by, giving them evidence of their sins and errors, from one of the very few authorities they do acknowledge or listen to: by quoting constantly from … the Bible itself. Quoting here, constantly, from God, himself.* From God, himself.

 

Will churchgoers finally listen to God himself? Will they finally see Christ, as he really, more fully is? Christ supporting not the blind faith of preachers; but supporting a Science of God? It is somewhat doubtful that everyone will see Him; most believers have always followed preachers and churches, instead of God. But it may be that, after reading our books here, a few will now open their eyes. To see, beyond their priests, God himself. A second and better view of Him.

 

 

(NOTE: *God, Allah, Jahweh, etc.. It is sometimes mistakenly thought by Catholics and Muslims, that they do not have to obey the Bible; so that nothing in the Bible is binding on they themselves, personally. But Catholics for example are commanded to follow the Bible, by the Church itself; in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, pub. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, c. 1997-2000; section 105, p. 31, to 134, p. 37, for example. Which tells us that the Bible is the word of God. Other sections make the position of the Catholic Church regarding the Bible, clear: that every Catholic is to obey the Bible. Indeed, the rulings of the Church, as the Catechism confirms, can never contradict the Bible; but only add too it, in places where the Bible does not speak. Similarly? Muslims are told in the Koran, that God and “Allah” are one and the same. While Jesus specifically, was said to be a great prophet. Therefore? The Bible should be a central authority, in many religions other than Protestantism).

 

 

 

Reversals;

Priests Chose Selectively, Among

The Many Meanings of

“The First Will Be Last”

 

 

In the end, the Second Coming that we see now, exactly matches the Bible; especially as is supposed to reverse many common ideas about God. Exactly as foretold. To be sure, preachers are infinitely clever, and “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 26.12-27.2). In spite of their superficial humility, there is a deeper arrogance in them: they believe they are the voicepieces of God himself. And they in any case, have found within the Bible, a single, first voice, that would seem to support preachers and holy men strongly. A voice or theme that we might call the “first” voice; because it is the primary voice or theme from the Bible, that preachers have picked up, and delivered to us all. But that voice finally? Though presented to us all as the “first,” the “high”est and “loftiest” voice of God? Is finally too proud, and too self-satisfied about preachers and holy men. While we must now find the “second” voice – the more humble voice of a hard-working and practical person, following practical knowledge and humble science – to be actually, the real, primary voice of the Bible, and of God. So that we might say that, exactly as the Bible foretold, we are even now seeing the prophesy fulfilled; that the “first” is now found “last”; the “noble” are found to be “fools”; things thought holy are now found to have been following”false prophets,” and a false idea of Christ.