“We Don’t Know What Jesus Taught!”

“Any record of the teachings of Jesus or the disciples were not kept at that time. All we know is what was written and recorded at least seventy years later”.

Is that a valid argument? of course it is. Jesus himself didn’t seem intent on having scribes follow him around and recording every word, and the disciples didn’t seem to care about laying down specific rules and regulations to pass to fuure generations.
All conclusions about what Jesus or his disciples taught would be based on human reasoning, speculation, and logic.

But if that’s the case, then anybody can derive the truth from reason and logic, and we do not need revelations from special teachers. It should be available, without doubt, to anybody who chooses to look into it.

But it’s not.

Therefore, we enter into a kind of double trap. We have no way of knowing exactly what Jesus or his discples actually taught, and we can’t put the truth together by reason or logic. Te logical result of this dual trap is thousands of different interpreations of what actally was taught.

Does this prove the New Testament is wrong? No, it actually proves the New Testament is correct! We can see this easily established by teachings which are attributed to Jesus, as in Matthew 24, for example. When Jesus’ disciples came and asked “When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”(Matt.24:3)

If you notice, the very things Jesus said would come to pass are exactly the type of things that logically occur if there is no way of determining the true prescriptive content of Jesus’ teaching.

Verse 4: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many’ “.

If any number of people are looking to true answers to questions, but can’t locate that truth, you will see a confusion of interpretations coming from all directions, seeking as many avenues as possible to determine that truth. Evolution, for example, had many would be discoverers, until Darwin provided what looked like the most obvious answer. The theory of relativity had been proposed by a number of physicists who were very close, until Einstein developed the most plausible.

If we look at it scientifically, therefore, Jesus was merely predicting a process that had to occur if no one really knew the truth of the matter. Based on the importance of the question, competitors would emerge and propose their own theories of what is the actual truth of Jesus and the disciples. If a few of those theories were successful, socially and economically, they would tend to be copied by others who wished to share in that success. In time, christianity would discard theories that had no social or reproductive value, and absorb those ideas which produced social, reproductive, and economic value.

In short, christianity would follow the same processes of evolutionary adaptation as any system, and that process would gradually be accepted as a standard of truth for any proposed christian teacher.

In spite of all that, however, we are plagued with the same issue as the original: we don’t know what Jesus and his dicsiples actually taught, so we assume that his doctrines and ideas had to be at least parallel to those doctrines that have emerged over time.

Christianity, therefore, tends to discard the “content” of its message in favor of the “process”, which is to get as many as possible to believe the “truth”, even if we can’t clearly define what the truth is.

Yet this very process can lead us to deception! Jesus had warned us to “take heed that no man deceive you”!

How do we know that the basic “message’ of christianity, to get people “saved”, is not actually a lie? If we have no standard of truth, we really can’t know for sure, can we?

What IS the truth? If we can’t understand any prescriptive content of what Jesus taught, and if we assume that we must get people “saved” by some process, we are caught in the process of preaching an empty and useless doctrine that has no earthly purpose, except, of course, to make a lot of ministers and TV personalities rich.

it is most interesting that christianity, which remains the enemy of evolution, survives by the very tautology that drives evolution: that which survives, survives. Every species of successful adaptation adopts those processes that ensures survival, and christianiy is no exception. Stripped of evidence, christianity declares ‘faith”. Stripped of all possibility of prescriptive truth, salvation for the sake of salvation becomes the only prescription, with the demand that more and more people support the “work”, financially and prayerfully.

Yet the very things we claim as the foundations of christian doctrine are the very things Jesus told us NOT to do!

While Jesus logically showed the results of confusion, christians embrace that same confusion as the foundation of their truth. While Jesus taught scientifically verifiable reslts, christianity claims anti-scientific ideas as their proof!

Matthew 24:11: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” For the second time Jesus showed the logical result of confusion, and clearly defined it as deception!

While christianity proclaims exactly he opposite of what Jesus taught as truth, every single one of them proclaims they are the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14:

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”.

Which gospel of the kingdom? One true gospel, or many confusing and deceptive gospels? it really doesn’t say, does it? yet we assume that Jesus was referring to one specific, true gospel. yet the scripture leading in to that verse says that many false prophets will arise to deceive many. The scripture after that says there will be an “abomination of desolation ” to occur.

Would there be an “abomination of desolation ” following the recognition of truth, or would it be more likely to occur after a doctrine of confusion and falsehood? I have never heard anyone consider that question. All of them claim to be the gospel of Matthew 24:14, but none have proven that they are a true gospel!

And what is the result if this claim by all these people?
Verse16: “Then let him which be in Judea flee in to the mountain”.
Verse 21: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time…”

So if all the major christian religions are preaching truh, and if millions of people are correctly following that truth, why would the result be tribulation and destruction?

That simply makes no sense! What DOES make sense is that a doctrine of confusion and falsehood will lead so many into a tailspin of despair that no one can ever arrive at truth, leading to death and destruction.

Verse 22: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved(alive), but for the elect’s sake, those days shall be shortened”.

Elect? Who? How do we know who they are How do we prove this? of all the confusing doctrines of christianity, what is the truth?

I am about to tell you that truth. You will not believe it, but it is the only possible logical truth to believe, precisely consisent with the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24. I wll tell you now that not one of the 38,000 versions of christianity even remotely teach it!

So what is this remarkable truth that has so eluded the whole world? And how can I hope to prove something that other religions can’t prove?

The answer to that is the most simple logic possible, and because it is so simple, no “true believer’ will ever believe it! Jesus himself plainly gave us that answer, and all I have to do is simply quote his statement, which everybody claims to believe, yet all reject the one statement that would set them free!

If 38,000 versions of christianity all argue over truth, what is this simple truth that Jesus plainly taught?

Matthew 24:23: “Then, if any man shall say unto you, ‘Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

Nothing could be simpler. nothing could be plainer, yet it the one thing Jesus told us that even the most dedicated believer refuses to believe! They won’t believe it because they are convinced it can’t be that simple!

Jesus said you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to doctrines of men who proclaim “works” that you must perform for them. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to a perpetual search for a truth that you can never prove, but must accept on faith in the teachings of a man. Yet people would rather enslave themselves to ideas of men, doctrines without proof, rather than simply accept the simple idea that they are free from ALL such doctrines, here and now, if they simply choose to be free! It is the one simle and truthful answer that is counterintuitive to human logic!

So, if there is an “elect” who will not be deceived, how can they NOT be deceived? Matthew 24:25 says they CANNOT be deceived! it is not possible!

Why? The simple logic of Matthew 24:23. One cannot be deceived by any person if one does not follow or believe any person!

The most dedicated and devout of christians will not believe this. They can’t believe it, because they are convinced by their leaders that works MUST be performed, people MUST be saved, christianity MUST grow to reach all the world. Yet JesusĀ  said that! After this “witness’ is preached, all hell breaks loose!

That is the logical culmination of confusion, not the preaching of truth! The “elect” of which Jesus taught cannot be deceived because they will simply refuse to get involved in the confusion. They will choose the only logical teaching that separates them from the world. They will choose individual freedom, yet the false teachers will proclaim liberty.

2 Peter 2:19: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”!

Any doctrine, of church or state, that preaches “works” without proof, sacrifice without understanding, is a doctrine of enslavement. It will result in an end of destruction that will embrace the whole world. The solution is not to “join in”, but to “come out, and be ye a separate people”, the true art of revolution!

Why We Will Never Get to “God”

“(Narcissus) is from the Greek word narcosis, or numbness.”__McLuhan, “Understanding Media”

Technology, points out McLuhan, is an extension of our physical bodies, and also acts as a form of “autoamputation”(see my last essay). Once we extend that part of our bides by technology, however, it demands a new equilibrium among our other senses.

McLuhan writes:

“The concept of ‘idol’ for the Hebrew Psalmist is much like that of Narcissus for the Greek mythmaker. And the Psalmist insists that the beholding of idols, or the use of technology, conforms men to them. ‘They that make them shall be like unto them’ “.

Technology, the creation of “models’ in reality, create extensions of ourselves into that reality.

In the emergent electric technologies, the principle of numbness also comes into play. McLuhan writes:

“We have to numb our central nervous system when it is extended and exposed, or we will die. Thus the age of anxiety and of electric media is also the age of the unconscious and of apathy. But it is strikingly the age consciousness of the unconscious…With our central nervous systems strategically numbed, the tasks of conscious awareness and order are transferred to the physical life of man, so that for the first time he has become aware of technology as as extension of his physical body….In the electric age we wear all mankind as our skin”.

Electricity, with its speed-of-light ubiquitousness, its all-at-once-ness, suddenly becomes an extension of our central nervous system worldwide, so that any disturbance on the other side of the world brings instant awareness and reaction to our senses. The more popular recent term is ‘Matrix”. Terms like ‘spirit” or ‘Holy Spirit” are quite convenient as terms for a process of “outering” our nervous system to embrace all humanity as electric sensation.

This, however, leads to a greater need to control our environment, since the global effects of any action rides through the “matrix” of existence like waves from a disturbance on a pool, only at near light speed. As a consequence, we seek ways to intervene and control actions at a distance, by foresight and anticipation of evil actions. The present argument concerning war with Iran is one example.

Slater points out that this need for control leads to unanticipated consequences:

“The attempt to control and master the environment thus automatically pollutes it, for it decreases that aspect of the environment that renews, refreshes, surprises, and delights us. The purpose of control is to generate predictability, but predictability is boring as well as secure, fatiguing as well as comforting. Each act of mastery replaces a bit of the environment with a mirror(narcissism), and a house of mirrors is satisfying only to very sick people.”

The need for control and anticipation creates less tolerance for those who disagree. We fear those who are different and act independently, so the new focus of warfare is “terrorism”. The very nature of electronic speed, the everywhere at once event, causes us to avoid differences in opinion, individual differences, and seek only a bowing to general agreement without distinction, i.e., “political correctness”.

This is little more than the “numbing” of consciousness itself. “All you need is love”.

However, if each technology represents a numbing of certain bodyparts, then we will seek to re-capture equilibrium with all other senses, and what better prescription to establish a ratio of the senses than by “uploading” ourselves into a computer, thereby making every part of our existence nothing more than the controlled mathematical ratio of our control?

Idolatry full circle. As Slater writes(EarthWalk):

“The circularity of all our thinking about technology suggests that we are in some way re-creating the problem in our efforts to solve it. To exercise control over the environment limits its freedom to influence us. We act on it in such a way as to make its influence a product, in part, of our own efforts–that is, we help create the stimulus to which we respond”.

Narcissus, the numbing of all extensions of self, and then extending that in a linear fashion to the rest of the world. Or as McLuhan wrote:

“…we have extended all parts of our bodies and senses by technology. We are haunted by the need for an outer consensus of technology and experience that would raise our communal lives to the level of a worldwide consensus”.

The “outering” of our physical bodies by mechanical, step-by-step, linear technology, and the further outering of our nervous system by electric technology leads to the need for understanding of consciousness itself as the next technological step forward.

But what is “consciousness”? McLuhan offers his definition:

“…rationality or consciousness is itself a ratio, or proportion among the sensuous components of experience, and is not something added to such sense experience.”

This leads us to a very interesting insight: if consciousness is a ratio of all sense experience, and there is nothing added to sense experience by consciousness, then we have an interesting parallel between consciousness and the second law of thermodynamics regarding energy. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but is simply a “ratio” of physical forms, taking energy from one area and using to organize, will result in “chaos” in those areas in which energy is borrowed.

For example, the burning of a log. The energy released by the burning of the log remains constant, but the dispersion of that energy makes it impossible ever to create that particular log ever again. The act of burning the log for heat results in “chaos” for the log itself, which will never be restored. Consciousness, as a ratio of sense experiences corresponding to the “closed system” of heat loss, is a process by which the greater organization in one are results in “chaos” in related areas.

This process of organization in one area leading to chaos in related areas is known as entropy.

Consciousness itself, as a “closed’ ratio of all sensual experiences, correlates with the process of entropy. Consciousness must be continually “outered” in exploration of all possible combinations of energy/thought. Consciousness becomes a “rational model” of all experience, and as such, must conform to the same limitations imposed on rationality itself as mathematics. Therefore, the incompleteness of Godel’s theorem will apply to consciousness as well. The model of math that Godel used was a model of self reference. Since consciousness is of necessity a ratio of the senses, and since nothing is added by this ratio, the mathematical conclusions of entropy will apply as much to consciousness as to physical reality. Consciousness, of necessity, is limited to the ratio of mathematics, and can only explore itself as an extension of mathematics. If consciousness has a “language” therefore, it can be “contained” in a computer as language, but the “map” of language is NOT the “territory” of reality.

As a functional “map” of reality, consciousness itself is limited to the same incompleteness as mathematics.

What led us to this point? Next essay.