Posted in
jesus by George Elerick on 12/8/2009
Symbols have power. For some, symbols might hold something even deeper than a memory, maybe your identity. For those who follow the god of Wal-Mart, it might be the cheesy yellow pin with a grin on it. For those who follow the god of the Dallas Cowboys, your symbol might be the blue star of Texas. And others who say they follow Yahweh, their symbol is a cross. For those in the Old Testament, their symbol may have been the burning bush or the two tablets or a map with little traveling nomads on it.
We can't get away from the reality that symbols shape us. Symbols might even have more influence than we think.
Semiotics, as an academic discipline, seeks to make sense of symbols and what they mean and why they mean what they mean. Take for example, the cross. We might think of the cross as a symbol of atonement or a symbol of self-sacrificial love or maybe a symbol of death. For Rome, the cross didn't signify atonement. It signified someone who deserved to die because they were insurrectionists. It was a tool of embarrassment and public shame. It signified failure on the part of the crucified ones. It signaled victory to the way of Rome. But, why the cross? Why has the cross come to mean so much to those who follow in the way of Jesus?
Some might say because it is the ultimate act of love and salvation of the God-man who came to earth on our behalf. Others say it is a symbol of deep hope and invitation to the world. If I can pose a question at this point in the conversation:
How would the electric chair be a symbol of hope or redemption or atonement?
Don't get me wrong, I think we needed Jesus to save us, but it is an act that is past tense in the sense of universal salvation. He is still saving us, and for that I think the cross can be a reminder of what He did for us and what He is doing. But the cross as a symbol becomes a bit anemic to the story of Jesus only because, according to Biblical witness, He comes back to life. And so, why isn't the symbol we hold dear the tomb? It was a sign of victory over sin, over death, over darkness and destructive ways of living. It was an act of defiant hope against all odds. The cross wasn't defiant, it was deadly. That's what the purpose of the cross was and is and anything else like it today would hold the same stigma. So, why end the story there in our symbols when we all know it didn't actually end there?
I think we might have been misled to think that the cross was the point. And so our symbols have gotten mixed up. Think of it like a radio signal. Every radio has its own signal it uses to broadcast its' station to the world. Now, those signals can even go over the Internet. But, we can easily flip the dial and switch over to another radio station because static is just that tricky. And so maybe in the historic static of semiotics, either the people who directly followed Jesus or those who followed after them might have mixed up their signals and have turned an instrument of death into hope. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is good to restore paradoxes, but that's if the story we subscribe to ends there, and as we know it, it doesn't.
It ends with resurrection. Which is a better symbol for hope. A better symbol to empower us to go and resurrect love, peace, grace and redemption wherever we go!
What do you think? Is the cross a good symbol for Christianity or is the tomb a better one?
George
loves the outdoors, singing in the shower and doing underwater,
synchronized pilates. He is currently working on a book entitled Jesus
Bootlegged: Recapturing the Stolen Message of Jesus for The World. You
can read more about him at his blog.
But Jesus DID say very clearly that we are to take up our cross if we want to follow Him. To me, THAT is what the cross should be...a reminder to me to follow orders (not to impress others who notice it.)
The tomb? I dunno. Feels more macabre to me. But maybe that's my conditioning.
By that I mean, if you see someone today wearing a necklace with a cross hanging from it. You don't feel like asking any questions... but what would pop into your mind if you saw someone wearing a coffin with seal broken off or an open, empty casket.
Yes, we are to take up our crosses everyday, metaphorically. Obviously we're not required to wear the necklace haha. But as far as symbols go. The cross has become a profane symbol, worn by anyone, and ignored by many. So maybe you're onto something. Maybe we should start flashing some new symbols. This article has sparked some though alone. I'm sure an empty tomb around my neck would spark a good conversation or two.
Peace, Love, and Chocolate Milk,
AnDy B.
i have a question for clarification. you said this:
"...a reminder to me to follow orders (not to impress others who notice it.)"
when Christ said the words 'take up your cross' do you hear 'follow orders'?
in your mind, what does it mean or what do you think he meant when he said that?
What do you think about the Christus Invictus, or the risen victorious Christ on the cross?
So when I say "follow orders," the "order" I was referring to is "take up your cross."
I'm not sure if I clarified or mucked it up some more.
:-)
If I can share my view on it. I think the cross was a metaphor for a bigger thing. a bigger way of life we could live. a cause we could link ourselves to. sure, there might be connotations of death in there, but jesus talks more about that afterwords. he says we should deny ourselves. the word deny in hebrew means to contradict. and if we see the cross as the cause we are linked up to, which could be anything because we are all different and God has implanted the cause we are meant for long before we even drew breath. and so jesus is saying there are going to be moments when you are going to have to go against the very grain you were taught to follow. that to make change you might have to contradict and die to everything you know. see, because up to that point the disciples thought jesus was going to be this violently political saviour, and so jesus is saying if you want to continue here, you should give up everything you have come with thus far. it is less about a command. like for example, the hebrew word for commandment, means something you 'want' to do. the hebrew word for sacrifice means to draw close to god. i share this because our ideas of commandments sound like something you have to do, yet, the Jewish idea was something that we could choose to be a part of which lines up with the verses about God seeking our heart.
Also, based on the last comment, do you see anything more in the cross than a metaphor? Was there anything accomplished in the act, or did it merely point to some other reality?
Now we just put up brown and orange stuff and look forward to eating turkey.
Unfortunately, the cross is an accurate symbol to a church that is largely living as if Jesus was still hanging out it.
I feel like there is way more focus on death then life- in the story of redemption coming from Jesus and in our own lives.
I don't know, it's like we mourn over Jesus' death, when He said "It is better that I go away, so I can send you the helper."
We have the resurrection power of God in us. That's amazing. I guess there is no symbol for that.
http://brookegale.com/?p=456
We see it as part of redemption, victory, love, reconciliation, and so on. During the first few centuries (even after Christianity became the state religion, I would guess), the cross would be like wearing a sign that said, "I am a sexual predator" (tasteless and shocking, which is the point) today. There is a reason that Paul said the cross is foolishness and a stumbling block.
The ichthus (or, "the fish") was used as a "gang sign" (I know, tasteless and shocking, again) to show others that someone from someplace else was a Christian. Wheat sheaves were also used for the same reason.
I guess, part of the question is, what is the purpose of the symbol? To show what our faith is (though Karen rightfully pointed out that there are plenty that wear it as an accessory, not a statement)? To get people to ask (which Andy pointed out, isn't going to happen anymore)?
Okay, it's official: we need a new "gang sign." :)
Even the "Jesus fish" (i.e. icthus) has become trendy and passe. If we were to reinvent a Christian symbol that adequately communicates our faith and wouldn't be something we would have to apologize for, what would it be? What would be as offensive as the cross this day-in-age? I've heard the "electric chair", but I'd like to consider what else would not only communicate what Jesus' death and resurrection means this day-in-age to us, but how we could symbolically (and successfully) communicate it.
Or is that not the point? Is the point of the cross (in the context of the early church) to incite, offend, and provoke? Of course, I understand the theological implications of the cross and believe that Christ's atoning death was necessary to pay for our sin. However, like the author, I'm concerned about what it communicates this day in age, and if it may be a "stumbling block" of another sort.
By the way, saw that I accidentally gave props to Ian for writing the article instead of George. (*Sheepish Grin*) Sorry. Let me clarify: George: good article. Ian (and the rest of you all): great comments and discussion.
Probably anything we come up with could be misinterpreted, misused, and ignored. I think that's just part of the sinful condition--we take good things and make them bad. Not perfectly bad, but we do it enough to cause many on this site consternation.
What if our symbol was lifelong commitment to Christ in daily life? Putting others above ourselves and serving their needs? Living modestly in a culture consumed by overconsumption and sexiness? Being faithful to our spouses and serving on PTAs and coaching Little League and feeding homeless and treating even our enemies with the utmost dignity and respect?
It doesn't matter what symbol we make up if we don't get serious about forsaking our sin and selfishness, being unwilling to love Christ and obey the Scriptures, and trusting God to pull us up out of the pit day-by-day. Non-Christians aren't confused by our symbols, they are confused when our life doesn't match the symbol we represent. We could wear toilet seats around our neck and it would make more of an impression than a cross or a tomb that is mixed with a life devoid of the fruit of the Spirit.
I stopped wearing symbols a while ago. I want my life to be a living symbol of the love of Christ and the fellowship of the saints.
Double amen!
For instance:
What if we started wearing pictures of bombs and said, "Jesus loves terrorists"?
Of course, even that wouldn't be something "new" (see the Adopt a Terrorist Website: http://www.atfp.org/).
Still fun to consider, though.
I agree that the issue of "which symbol" shouldn't really be a big one, and it's more about our lives. As long as we're talking about theology, though, and as long as we continue to put a symbol on buildings and books that transcends language barriers, a couple thoughts:
Paul did say that the (message of the) cross was foolishness, but the rest of that verse reads, "... to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Secondly, I think it's because the cross was an offensive symbol of death that it makes a powerful symbol. Many have said that it's not really a conversation-starter anymore, and that's true, but I don't think it's period-meaning is a strike against it as "the symbol" of our faith.
Finally, I don't think I agree that the cross wasn't the point. Yes, the empty tomb is a better symbol of hope, grace, etc., but ultimately that's not why Jesus came. It was part of it, but Jesus came to defeat sin and death once and for all, and that happened on the cross.
The debt that we could never pay was nailed to the cross. The perfect blood sacrifice was paid on the cross. The Christ bore the sin of the world and the Father poured out His wrath on the cross. The story doesn't end there, that's true, but the resurrection wasn't the point.
Really, the resurrection only happened because Jesus was sinless. "The consequence of sin is death ..." and Jesus didn't sin, so death couldn't hold Him. The resurrection was the proof - and natural consequence - of His purity, and that his payment on the cross was final. But even the resurrection points back to the cross.
Thanks for the thoughts. I have a couple of questions:
(1) You said this -- The story doesn't end there, that's true, but the resurrection wasn't the point.
Are you sure? How do you know? It seems as if your assurance has led to a confidence that seems to be based upon a reality that you might have been present during the events. See, sometimes we assert our assurance as if we know all that went on in the minds of those that followed Jesus or Jesus himself, yet we weren't there. Just curious.
(2) How does the resurrection point us back to the cross?
If you can clear that up, because the way I hear it is this: death leads to life?? (i can see the metaphor; but physically how can this be so?)
Thanks!
Jesus continually talked about his death. There were times, of course, where he spoke of his resurrection as well, but by and large, he understood his ministry to be one of death and atonement. A "ransom for many" as he put it.
That is why just beforehand he has a meal with his disciples where he breaks bread calling it his body and drinks wine calling it his blood - this was his gift to them, and by extension, to the rest of us as well.
Even more, his death on the cross as the lamb of God was incredibly symbolic for the Jews who, up to that point, offered sacrifices on a regular basis. It was the shedding of blood, time and time again, that cleansed their sin, not the subsequent raising of the sacrifice. Isn't it interesting that this, in fact, was a symbol of hope to them?
The whole of Biblical witness says that the cross was the point - and it was only through that cross that we are able to be redeemed today. It is only because of the cross that there is a resurrection. It is only through death that our sins can be washed away. It is only through the blood of Christ that we can be cleansed.
If we are going to turn our attention more to the resurrection it wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily, but it would certainly go against the witness of the New Testament. Far and away, it is the death of Christ that the New Testament authors focus on...the resurrection is just the icing on the cake.
Which is why, after having enjoyed the conversation here, I must conclude that the cross is a perfectly good symbol for Christians and, in fact, the most appropriate!
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor. 15:14)
Christ came to die in our place, so the Bible says. More importantly, it is our following him into death that we are then given life...because of his life.
But, foolish as it may seem, God turned the world on its head, he scorned Satan, through the very tool that Satan was hoping would make him the victor.
It is not our symbols that need reformed, it is our theology.
thanks for the thoughts. would only ask one question, is the symbol we choose, whatever it may be, is the point of the symbol to make us feel good about ourselves or to make a point, not that they need to be mutually exclusive at all. but, for example, if we follow that thought pattern, we could easily come to the conclusion that jesus' death was done so we could feel better about ourselves. or his resurrection, and as important as that is, and i am sure he even would want us to experience that, depending on your view of why he died, the feel good factor if focused on too much might reduce the power of the symbol. thoughts?
1 - In John 10 Jesus said He came that we would have life more abundantly and immediately talks about giving His life for His sheep. I'm fairly confident in my statement because of study and teaching, not - obviously - because I was there. My confidence in scripture is pretty sound, though.
2 - Like this: Jesus rose from the dead. How/why? Because He died without sin, and according to the word of God, death has no power over someone who is without sin. So how did this sinless man die in the first place? Cross.
Jesus only rose on the third day because He was sinless. The resurrection proved that He was the spotless sacrifice required of the law - which, again, points us back to the cross.
You said - "So are we saying that the cross is the point? Are we saying it the story ends there?" Yes, and then No. I don't think the "point" and the "end" have to be the same thing. Most stories don't end at the climax.
Jeff,
1 Cor 15:14 is talking about the same thing. Our faith in Christ is that we are free from our sin because our sin was atoned for. The only way the sin can be atoned for is by a perfect sacrifice. Even OT temple sacrifices had to be without spot or blemish. How much more the sacrifice for the sins of the world?
Paul wrote that passage to the Corinthians because some were preaching that there is no resurrection from the dead in the last day (v. 12). He was using Jesus' resurrection to prove that there is, because no one would deny that Christ was raise from the dead. Because - as he says - if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then He wasn't sinless, and if he wasn't sinless then His sacrifice wasn't enough, and if His sacrifice wasn't enough, then our faith in Him is useless.
so if i can clarify you are saying that your confidence is set in pages that talk about the divine rather than the divine itself?
see, i think its dangerous to depend on scholarship, diplomas,verse, degrees and pastoral sermons to give us all the facts we need. i just wrote a blog on this. because if we do, then when god decides to work outside of this, then he becomes a conundrum to human logic.
for example, jesus' resurrection wasn't logical. by human standards he shouldn't have come back to life. but he did. he defied logic. and i think when we use scripture to defend a theology, it by nature (unintentionally) will confine the diving being we put our faith in. i guess, i am just not in place to do that. because when i do that, i end up describing a god on human terms who isn't human. and so i have to let mystery to be mystery. a good book about all this is a book by a mystic called "cloud of unknowing". i am less concerned about doctrine and more concerned about mystery, because it allows god to be himself without all of my limited thoughts on him. not to say this discussion is useless, but again because words are limiting it is limited and so having said all that. i don't think there is a right or wrong symbol or if god may even care to be honest, but it is about being the message, being a living symbol rather than if there is a right or wrong symbol...thanks for the thoughts.
Thanks for the kind response. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though. My confidence is the written word of God, without question. I know there are some who doubt that every scripture is divinely inspired, but I'm not prepared to attempt to sift through such a heavy consequence.
I don't think that God works outside of His Word. Jesus's resurrection wasn't logical, but it was in scripture (Isa 25:8, Ps16:10, 30:3) specifically about Jesus and in general regarding the last day. I believe He works outside the natural, but not outside of His word.
I appreciate keeping an open heart before God, but pray we all do it with caution at the same time. I've personally witnessed too many good, well-intentioned believers drawn away into distraction and deceit because they were more interested in supernatural occurrences than God's truth.
Jeff,
If I'm guilty of eisigesis, by all means correct me. That's always what I've thought that passage referenced. What do you think Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 15:12-17?
how have you come these presuppositions of 'God's truth', and how would you systematically verify your empirical views on how you have you come to the full understanding of God's truth, when even at certain times within scripture, jesus demonstrates his full humanity in that he doesn't know 'every move' of god...
i think mystery is the key to proper understanding. if we leave something as big as god to a set of doctrines, dogmas or subjective truths, then we become victim to a small god confined by a human mind.
thanks for the convo.
I can't remember who said it, but we need both mystery and clarity and Scripture has both.
That is, there are points when it is clear, no room to budge, his-way-or-the-highway type of stuff. On such things, we need to take the same stance and be clear. It is one thing to be open-minded and allow God to work outside of Scripture and it is quite another to pretend like there are some things that He has not spoken on or ways in which he has not revealed himself.
On the other hand, there are also things in Scripture that aren't very clear and when that is the case, we need to rest assured that though God is mysterious he can be trusted and we need not provide explanation on his behalf.
But...it is not altogether NOT that. There are times when Scripture is clear that we are broken and in need of fixing and it even gives us instruction on how to be fixed.
Now, how we approach that in our communities is a whole other thing to consider, but Scripture doesn't shy away from embracing either clarity or mystery.
The Bible isn't an answer book, but it is certainly a book with answers.
It is a law that we must follow to the letter, but we become Scripture only to the extent that we obey Scripture and submit ourselves to it. Is it God? No. But it is of God. It is his self-revelation that was recorded for a purpose (among other things, to guard against heresy and those who go too far to the continual revelation extreme). As such, it remains authoritative for us, I think.
If that's the case, I think that's a false assumption.
In my eyes, the idea of resurrection is an essential practicality for modern Christians. I don't think that you can say it isn't a major theme in Scripture. It is both figuratively and literally part of our faith journey. For example, look at Romans 6 -- a key chapter on being "dead to sin" (i.e. crucifixion) and ALIVE in Christ (i.e. resurrection). If resurrection were not important, why would the pastor ever raise someone from the water during their baptism? It sounds silly, but honestly, what's the point of living past your conversion, if you were merely saved to die and go to heaven? This, in my opinion, is where you can naturally take this line of thinking.
That being said, I know that you're not saying that the resurrection is unimportant, just that it is the after effect of the payment for sin on the Cross. We may be debating semantics, so I'm comfortable with moving on. I'm pleased with how civil and respectful the dialogue has gone.
I believe that each of us is picking up some important pieces of the Truth, and what I would like to offer the group is the proposition that the Resurrection (not only as a temporal event, but as a spiritual reality and parallel for Christian life) is essential for a mature believer.
Culture Making had an excerpt earlier this month that points out the importance of a symbol: http://su.pr/1hTek4
But in reality, the cross is SO much more than an icon! It is where the captain or author of our salvation was made perfect through suffering (Hebrews 2:9-10) and where he tasted death for everyone. It is where we were delivered from our sin nature, and remain DEAD to sin (Romans 6:2-11). Sin IS (present tense) condemned in the flesh, because Jesus, in the form of flesh, died though he was sinless. We cannot know the power of his resurrection unless we also have experienced His death (Philippians 3:10). Our redemption and deliverance took place in that act (Colossians 1:14).
It was God's perfect plan for Christ to die while on the cross, and to be resurrected also. We are called to enter into a living, spiritual experience of this death and resurrection. Just as we are continually living as new creations in the gift of God's life, our "Old Man" remains dead day after day, giving us release from a sinful life.
When Jesus shouted the words "It is finished" while on the cross, he was saying "The job has been completed!" or "The debt has been paid off!" as the Hebrew phrase can be used in several different contexts. With this in mind, I believe that the cross is the perfect symbol of our faith. It was the physical location that our debt was paid in full, and a continual reminder that we have died and are hidden in Christ forever.
i used to agree with this way of thinking. but the atonement for me is an invitation to do the same, and in the act of doing the same thing the jesus did, my actions or the actions of others in aggressive compassion become absolve on another like the act of the cross did fo everyone everywhere, once and for all. i now see jesus as the icon not just to be like, but what we too can do in EVERY way. and so for me the traditional view of atonement seems inadequate as it advocates a god who is so hell bent on destroying his own family all the while proclaiming we should love one another. i don't believe in that god. i do appreciate your thoughts.
In regards to scripture, you misunderstand sola scriptura and then create a narrative around it. But nobody who believes in the doctrine believes that everything about God is in the pages of scripture, or even that God is a book. The people who formulated the doctrine had an immensely high view of the transcendence of God. He wasn't small or limited, but powerful, and sovereign, and infinitely loving. And you have the burden of proving why it's not the work of a loving God to have His followers write down things about Him for future generations to benefit from.
You are obviously very influenced by the deconstructionist philosophy of the 20c. You believe it all depends on how you tell the story (narrative). You politicize and make everything a power struggle. It's all very textbook postmodernism. I don't think postmodernism is by definition bad, but when it's uncritically held it becomes just another historical philosophical movement, no different than the ones it critiques. Everything is not just a narrative. There is a real history of things, not just spin.
In regards to the comment just before your last, you make some pretty startling comments. What you say goes against what most Christians have believed for a few millenia. If you are correct, and everyone else is wrong, the unstated assumption is that the Spirir has not been revealing truth to all those people, and that you get it right. Of course, if you want to create a narrative that they were all just power hungry people creating institutions to consolidate their influence at the expense of others, you really aren't saying anything novel (that's just the effects of sin), and you are saying it almost verbatim from Nietzsche. In addition, it calls into question the goodness of God, who let's so many of His children uniformly believe error and not reveal Himself honestly. It also is extremely disrespectful of millions of believers who have struggled to be faithful to God by making them power-hungry tyrants.
It probably wouldn't do much to tell you that some of your views have been considered harmful to the life of the church and it's members (in the body of Christ sense, not the institutional sense), since you would probably consider it just another expression of a power issue. That's the problem with creating narratives, you can write them so that any detraction serves to reinforce the story. It also is dangerous because it makes it difficult to change course.
i would say that narrative isn't a spin. it is something that we all (humankind) have been a part of since the inception of time. narrative is bigger than history, there are those within metanarratives (mostly the 'winners') that have sought to rewrite a critique of history through their lenses only. some of those authors have been followers of Jesus, unfortunately.
here's the danger in this conversation, there is an underlying assertion that there is one right way to view the movement of jesus and the understanding within it (some use the word theology here; i however, think we need a new word). if we assume that there is only one right view of Christianity than we deny the very ethos and spirit that we so ardently promote in our words. we also then would be a people who promote duality -- the theory of this belongs there and that goes over here (simplified); and if we do, then we strip the message of jesus down to a car-manual that can fix this and maybe heal that. and if we think there is one right way of doing thing, then we are not that far off from those who in history thought the same way. it is interesting how jesus didn't choose one follower, but twelve, VERY different ones, who saw and interpreted things VERY differently. Jesus wasn't afraid of how they would read the situation. We read scripture as if Jesus nipped all the 'wrong' thinking in the bud, whenever he tended to do so, it was against the religious systems of the day who advocated that there is only one way to see things, that there is only way to interpret things. which then creates a theological ecosystem that depends upon diametrics as its oxygen. intersubjectivity is this theory within psychoanalysis that says sometimes to discover the very thing you are looking for, you might have to deny it. let it go. and i wonder if the jesus of dogma, doctrine, scriptural interpretation, subjective worldview is different from the jesus that really lived and breathed? and if it was, then maybe some of his message is too. I am committed to finding that Jesus which can be found (not primarily) post-scripture, post-church.
i am not comfortable with the labels, because it advocates duality. and so to either say I follow this or that or believe in this or that, again encourages enlightenment thinking, which unfortunately, a lot of the theology that was formed was formed by the Englightenment era (not all of it; but most of it was re-shifted then) -- and so I do advocate mystery. Because as some ancient monks thought, God can only be found there.
Christians (especially in the States, self included) have been living such weak and wimpy and defeated Christian lives that we have undermined the symbols and our faith itself.
We have also fallen prey to consumerism, commercialization and capitalism (I have to admit that I can't believe that I am actually making this particular argument)that has allowed the cross to become a generic shape to be sold on shirts and ties.
As much as I made a point earlier (comment 47) about needing an icon or symbol, I wonder if perhaps we ought not to have a symbol. I'm wondering if Paul's focus on the cross was not because it was the entirety of his focus, but because the sheer audacity and offensiveness of it was a successful evangelizing tool.
Jesus’ Demise – According to Brian!
‘The spear that ended the short life of Jesus threw universal consciousness totally out of balance, and you now have seventeen years in which to try and rectify this imbalance.’ Startling news to this effect was just one of the radical concepts pertaining to my strange psychic initiation into the Egyptian Mystery School of Cheops in 1980, during which over a mentally-crucifying and presaged four-day-and-night period without sleep, and under pain of extinction without redemption for myself and humanity if I failed to cope with the initiation process, I was acquainted with the sole purpose of the universe and man’s place in it, and tasked to disseminate the glad tidings without getting persecuted in the process – Just like Jesus before me!
Without further elucidation, since full details for anyone interested are to be found in my quartet ‘On the Square plus One’, I will just concentrate on how all this affects the tragic demise of Jesus and the false legacy this has given to the world for the past two thousand years. At the start of my initiation, a forlorn entity, pleading from the psychic wilderness, and purporting to be Jesus, stated that he was being held in karmic limbo and wouldn’t be released unless I satisfied the stringent terms of what was about to be my own imminent initiation; and, believe me, stringent they were. Suffice it to say, though, in the end I feel I succeeded in the task, and now Jesus has another chance, like me and anyone else, of progressing life-after-life towards conscious perfection, fully understanding he is not and never was the sole agent to eternal life. Everlasting life, via reincarnation or rebirth, is the modus operandi of the cosmic plan for all, not the specious one concocted by the Church just to satiate the Old and New Testament heaven-and-hell scenario of a vindictive Judaic Jehovah. And, after extensive research since my initiation, I’m sure there was no need for Jesus to have committed himself to be murdered on the + cross, when he’d already been Christed on an X cross at the Egyptian Mystery School of Cheops and initiated to believe, like me, that death is simply an illusion. This was his terrible mistake, and Constantine in adopting Judaic-influenced Christianity as the Roman religion after his two visions of the Greek X and P, failed to recognize the profound significance of these two symbols, and allowed the + cross of death sign to prevail, as it sadly still does today, over that of the X cross sign of everlasting life.
So, it would seem, believe it or not, I was psychically Christed into the Egyptian Mystery School of Cheops in 1980 for two very good reasons: To help out a brother-initiate in dire straits: And to impart, once again, fundamental spiritual wisdom and reassurance of life-everlasting to all those who by self-experience within the sanctum of their own existence are desirous of heeding the message.
Brian
Cosmos Coconut Club
Sri Lanka
Websites: www.vigiltrust.co.uk and www.cosmosclub.blogspot.com refer.
His resurrection provides hope for us, post-sin, but only those who accept that He paid the price for their sin will experience resurrection. In other words, Christ's part in our eternal salvation ended at the cross. Our part is to accept His love and sacrifice with thanksgiving.
The cross is a symbol that reminds us of the tremendous sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf, and a call to live a life worthy of such sacrifice. No other symbol could possibly hold such power.
what if the early church got the symbol wrong?
i think its important we remember that we are dealing
with humans who were telling others about their journey
with god.
Since Scripture tells us what it means to be Christlike, how do we know which parts to follow? I don't say this in the pedantic "all or nothing" sense, but in that I take loving and exhibiting the love of God very seriously, it could be that I am neglecting some serious duty not found in the Scriptures which would please God, or doing something found in there extremely displeasing to God (as some might say denying the legitimacy of consensual homosexual relationships, say). If we judge them by the cultural norms of our day (what, right or wrong, I hear when someone says "what it means for today"), then have we functionally made our present norms normative?
For me it's not just a question of "what is true?", but "how do I live the truth?"
if anything, postmodernism levels the playing field, it removes the need to have a subordinate hierarchy and allows space for all (inclusive) people to join in on the conversation, even the one's society/the church have kindly left out (exclusive). which i see jesus dealing a lot with the idea of exclusion, especially in the healing of people which had holistic implications.
i would there is no normative. i would what is normative is what the masses may think are normative. social anthropology talks about tribalism and how people are assimilate (rites of passage) into their culture, and if they don't fit the mold, they are either outcasts or kicked out of the tribe or maybe even killed. this is the danger of homogenizing truth.
i am all for homogeneity in justice and human rights. i think we need more of that and less theological discussions. i think we need more people, christians or not, fighting against injustice and righting wrongs and healing broken people however and whenever, to me, that's more important than who's postmodern and who's not, know what i mean?
Add Your comments:
Use this form only to comment on the article that you just read.
If you have a question, please click here to use the Contact form instead. Thanks!