The Gospel According to Self-Righteous

I had a very interesting exchange of posts with a former Mason who became born again and was now in the most infallible correct church of God Almighty. Our discourse was civil and for me enlightening. The Pastor was under the impression that the United States of America was under the evil influence of communism. I did not completely disagree with him as the Socialist movement especially the Radical Environmental Socialist Movement was becoming a threat to society.

What started the rhetoric was my contention that most Masons I knew were very moral men and gave great and good effects on the society. It seems that the biggest issue in most of the charismatic/Pentecostal groups is they literally translate the word of the Gospel. They have problems with Masons because they do not view the Godhead as a triune. In fact they actually conduct rituals and worship what would be blasphemous in the strictest sense of hard-core Protestants and Catholics; and to add another category Charismatic/Pentecostals whom believe the gospel is the literal translation of the word of God and Constantiniun Council of Nicene did little to change the inspired word of God.

Aside from the extant apocryphal writings that have been around for several centuries, the scroll from Qumran have enlightened scholars to the political, social and spiritual atmosphere of around AD 30. There was great lost when John the Baptist was done away with and this left a void in the Qumranian structure. A figurative pillar on the right was meant to be that of the King and the figure on the right was that of the High Priest. These things have been discovered and many cases refute the writings in the "Holy Gospel".

My quasi/seminarian/historical rant is meant to warn those that are cornered by enthusiastic Christian types. There is a whole new work of the time that alters and frankly demystifies the so called Magical works that Jesus did. In fact, Jesus was more of a revolt leader against the Romans and Sanhedrins...most wont believe that, but if you want to blow their mind ask them why he was called Jesus of Nazareth. Most will proclaim he lived in Nazareth. Ask them to find to find Roman or Hellenic presence of Nazareth before 60 AD. Jesus was a Nasorean or Nazarite--see Samson, a holy man.

This rant is not to take away from the incredible teachings that were passed along by Jesus and his brother James the Just. More simply, it is to ask those that spew gospel from a 2,000 year old bible with numerous translations and derivations to simply agree there is a truth out there, but are we, no matter how much faith, equipped to truly proclaim on high this is what God meant!

One post script that differentiates Christianity from most other religions is, if Jesus did not arise to heaven on the third day we are dead in the water. But, does this negate the teaching of love, charity, prudence, aid to ones fellowman? I think not. Buddha died, Mohamed died (or went away), Krishna was crucified, and rose again. Could it be that Jung was right and there is an archetype that pervades the human psyche that connects certain emotional, spiritual and even sexual sub-conscious emotions.

I ask our charismatic/Pentecostal/Assembly of God and all other sects of the Gospel that proclaim the bible is the virtual history and word of God to briefly suspend their enormous faith and investigate if just possibly that 3000 years of verbal communication and multiple translations into various languages may have lightly alter what was meant to be the true Gospel?

What I am learning is, when all the myths and early church cover-ups are sifted through--there was a true Jerusalem Church that was motivated and infused with the teaching of Jesus and James the Just carried on this true holy Gospel, until the Paulians bastardized it with an Hellenic Mystery Religion that has little to do with the true Gospel of Jesus. Thus, Pauls condemnation of the Phillipians, Galations; etc..

Open your eyes! Yes, use the bible as a reference, but also look at the writings that were rejected by the later church but were written during or shortly after Jesus' deaths. Likewise. become familiar with parlance of the Jews of that time. The English translation cannot be taken at face value. One must put the scriptures in the meanings of the Jews and Romans of that time.

I don't plan to convert anybody, hell I don't have anything to convert anybody to, but I would like some people to open their minds and look beyond the written scripture. The thought that a Levitical Jew would, in the case of Lazarus, touch a rotting putrefying corpse to bring him back to life, simply goes against all cleanliness rules of that time--especially that of a holy man. THINK ABOUT IT!