Excerpts
Searching for the truth about a subject is a sacred passion at the heart of science, history, journalism, the legal system, education and psychotherapy. It is an innate desire that may be as deep as any other.
1.2.a. The Human Predicament
Jesus supposedly said that by living his teachings, we would know the truth, and it would set us free (Jn 8:31–32). While testifying to the truth’s incomparable value, he conveyed that most of us are not free. He implied we are trapped. Blocked. Imprisoned. Suffering.
Siddhārtha Gautama also made this point when he declared the first of four noble truths to be that life is suffering. But just like the Christ, the Buddha saw a way out of this condition. Both masters taught that living in harmony with the truth is how we attain liberation, inner peace and salvation.
It all sounds simple enough, but we immediately face another predicament. We must determine exactly whose version of truth about God and the essence of life, if any, is to be believed and followed.
While commonality exists between Buddhism, Christianity and the other major religions, they differ substantially on the details. In fact, their differences are often at the root of their origins.
For instance, Jesus conflicted with the teachings of his native Judaism, and the violent end to their debate spawned a new religion. Although Islam acknowledged the prophets of its Western predecessors, it claimed to be the last and fullest measure of divine truth.
On the Eastern side of the religious slate, Buddhism was born out of Siddhārtha’s break from the tenets of Hinduism. And just as the Western religions have their divergent branches, so it is with Hinduism and Buddhism. For instance, when Buddhism crossed paths with the Confucianism and Taoism of ancient China, Zen Buddhism was born. In sum, humanity has a slew of renderings as to what is really going on in the universe.
1.2.b. A World of Philosophers
“Religion” typically refers to a system of beliefs involving the supernatural. Yet the juggernaut of science should also be considered a religion, for it steadfastly embraces a null belief about the supernatural. But to prevent a debate about semantics from sidetracking the issue, let us instead use the term “worldview paradigm.”
A paradigm is the mental foundation from which we perceive information and think about problems. The deeply ingrained beliefs that comprise a paradigm are almost invariably assumptions and far removed from conscious attention. A worldview paradigm, then, is how we conceptualize life and the universe. A worldview paradigm is our map of reality, and its root assumptions are rarely scrutinized.
Scientists typically have a worldview paradigm that is built on the tenets of positivism and materialism. From the positivism lens, a map of reality can only include that which can be undeniably proven or objectively verified. From the materialism lens, the universe consists of only the stuff of matter and the void in between. As this worldview sees it, there is nothing beyond the four dimensions of space and time, and the experience of consciousness is the exclusive product of the electromagnetic and biochemical processes of the body and brain.
So what is really going on in the universe? Whether you want to be one or not, you are a philosopher. You cannot help but to have your own worldview paradigm. While countless people from ancient and modern times have proclaimed their experiences, insights and theories, only you can decide what you will believe. Like it or not, you must answer life’s most perplexing questions for yourself.
Your choice is whether you do so consciously or unconsciously. Most people opt for the latter by sticking with what they were taught by their culture of origin. So do you choose to let where you were born dictate your answers to the most vital questions of our existence? Do you choose to mindlessly buy into somebody else’s answers?
1.2.c. Avoiding Pain
This may seem like a meaningless intellectual exercise, but nothing could be more mistaken. When you are suffering or lost, a better map will help you navigate out of trouble and on to your desired destination. As psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, MD, explains, an essential element of mental health is a dedication to reality—to the truth—at all costs.1
On a collective level, our beliefs have fostered the choices that have created our dire situation. The maps that led us into this desolation are incapable of leading us out.
However, most people are afraid to challenge foundational beliefs and build a more accurate map of reality. After all, those beliefs were instilled with cultural traditions and are intertwined with daunting emotions that will get triggered by such change. As Peck notes, “The process of making revisions, particularly major revisions, is painful, sometimes excruciatingly painful. And herein lies the major source of many of the ills of mankind.”2
Meanwhile, seeing God and life in a new light is to break out of an illusion. This means also enduring the pain of disillusionment, which is usually accompanied by the isolation of believing differently than one’s family and the mainstream of society. Although the situation has been changing, it has meant embarking upon a road less traveled. It is not for the faint of heart.
1.2.d. Metaphors of the Metaphysical
Before continuing, some spiritual terms need to be clarified as we get a glimpse of where we are heading. In its broadest and truest sense, the spiritual realm includes unfathomable dimensions that transcend the physical universe. It is home to nonphysical (discarnate) entities that all have free will. On one end of the spectrum are demons whose choices are purely negative. On the other are angels and ascended masters who continually serve God’s will.
For simplicity’s sake, though, the book only uses “spiritual realm” to refer to God and the highest spiritual beings of light and love. As will be evident when the apocalyptic prophecies are revealed, the spiritual realm has infinite intelligence and the ability to foretell the future.
“Metaphysical” refers to a transcendent reality that is beyond our ability to perceive with our five senses. It is the mysterious essence and foundation of our physical universe.
“Metaphysical dynamics” are the laws and intangible structures that impact our lives, society and history. The most well-known metaphysical laws are the law of attraction (like attracts like) and the law of karma (you reap what you sow). A metaphysical structure is to the law of attraction what a heavy object is to the law of gravity. It is a habituated pattern of beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and emotions that shapes our choices, all of which are the input to the metaphysical laws that render our fate.
By the way, the most common metaphysical structure is the ego, which is a conglomeration of many intertwined patterns. It is not a tangible structure that can be registered by a scientific instrument, but it surely exists. Because the ego is such a powerful driver of our individual and collective choices, understanding these dynamics is important.
Communicating about metaphysical dynamics is greatly enhanced and simplified by using metaphors. As for the nature of the human condition and our spiritual evolution, there is no greater metaphor than that of light and darkness. As Jesus supposedly said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). He was obviously not referring to a world without electricity and light bulbs. Rather, he used the metaphor to reflect our metaphysical situation.
On one end of the spectrum of good and evil is the metaphysical darkness, which refers to a world that lives in fear, deception and unawareness and is ignorant about greater spiritual truths. The metaphysical light (or “the Light”) refers to the opposite polarities and the divine intention for humanity. It refers to a world that lives amid love, honesty and great awareness and knows the truth (has wisdom) about God, ourselves and life.
Although Jesus came to illuminate the way out of the metaphysical darkness, his teachings were distorted and convoluted by it. The world thus remained lost in it. That long-standing situation is rapidly changing, though, as a profound spiritual process is impacting an unprecedented number of people.
The metaphor used to depict the presence or absence of this inner growth is of being awake or asleep. It refers to human consciousness, but not in a physiological sense, such as being unconscious while you sleep at night or are under anesthesia. Rather, it refers to consciousness in a metaphysical sense and whether you truly see the Light or are still lost in the darkness.
If you are metaphysically asleep, you are still driven by unconscious fear, deceived by unenlightened teachings, unaware of your metaphysical situation and ignorant about greater spiritual truths. To wake up is to start seeing what you have been missing.
The nature of consciousness is mysterious. You will not know you were metaphysically sleepwalking until you awaken. You will not get it until you get it, and when you finally get it, you will wonder how you could have ever been so lost. It is like awakening from a hazy dream that you thought was real.
Coming to know the truth about God, ourselves and life is to see it all in a new light. When you awaken, the narrow gate will appear and the path of growth will become clear as the journey home begins in earnest.
In the apocalyptic prophecies, the spiritual realm communicated in metaphors about the metaphysical dynamics our world was and would be experiencing. It long ago depicted the bastions of the darkness that would be arresting our development while foretelling the era of the great awakening. Believe it or not, that time is now.
____________________
1 M. Peck (1978), The Road Less Traveled, p. 44, p. 289.
2 Ibid., p. 45.
As defined by a scientific encyclopedia, “Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension.” Furthermore, “such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma.”1
In other words, scientism is the marriage of pure science to the worldview paradigm of positivism and materialism (§1.2.b.), and it has devolved into ideological imperialism. As the marriage has shackled pure science to a dominant and abusive husband who is set in his ways, we should demand a divorce.
Science is being practiced by far too many men and women who are entrenched in a theoretical view of reality that is mistakenly embraced as an undeniable fact. They are thus blinded by their discipline’s assumptions, and it has kept us from attaining a far better comprehension of the universe. To better understand this pervasive problem, we need to take a few steps back and refresh our memory as to what we really know.
2.3.a. The Arbitrary Starting Point
Should a suspected criminal be deemed innocent until proven guilty, guilty until proven innocent or somewhere in between? Trials begin from the starting point of presumed innocence, thereby placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution. The point is the truth-seeking process has to start from somewhere, and that place is an arbitrary choice that reflects the values of those who established the system.
As for the ultimate question about God and a spiritual realm, science began with presumed nonexistence. Until enough evidence convinces the skeptics otherwise, God and a spiritual realm do not exist. Yet science could have begun from the opposite starting point until enough evidence could convince the believers otherwise.
In starting where it did, science deemed the lesser of two evils was being oblivious to God and a spiritual realm than falling for a mass delusion. Given the brutal history of religion, the value choice is completely understandable.
Scientism has been constructing its map of reality upon an arbitrary assumption. Far too many scientists, however, are oblivious to the situation. Especially when it comes to medicine and psychology, they have been building theories as if they are founded upon the bedrock of undeniable fact. Their construction, though, is actually occurring over the landfill of a long-forgotten presumption.
Atheists will often claim their core belief (God does not exist) is very scientific. Their assertion is patently false, as atheism is a religious dogma of the opposite kind. The only acceptable answers from science are either agnostic (the jury is still undecided) or in favor of a spiritual realm as attested by the evidence (summarized later).
If a pure scientist was asked about a patient who had reported seeing ghosts, her opinion would include the caveat that science is uncertain about their existence. But far too many psychiatrists and other clinicians have been indoctrinated by the priests of scientism and are confident that all such visions are hallucinations. This hubris is toxic when mixed with external power, which is clearly the case with the medical establishment.
The issue of an arbitrary starting point would not matter much if scientific minds were receptive to all empirical data and able to revise their maps of reality. No matter where they started, they would align with the most coherent integration of the data and thus arrive on the correct side of the great divide. Trouble is, scientists are just as prone to being blinded by their paradigm as everybody else.
2.3.b. The Blinding Power of a Paradigm
William James (1842–1910) was a highly regarded philosopher and psychologist. He was a founding member of the American Society for Psychical Research, which was formed in 1885 to mirror its predecessor in England. Its mission was to apply unbiased, exact and unimpassioned inquiry into topics such as telepathy, hypnotism and spirit mediums.
By rigorously testing the amazing spirit medium Leonore Piper (summarized later), the Harvard professor and numerous colleagues gathered undeniable evidence supporting the supernatural. But James encountered a stubborn problem amid the broader scientific community. Although “paradigm” was decades away from gaining its popular significance, he explained its power in an 1890 essay:
If there is anything which human history demonstrates, it is the extreme slowness with which the ordinary academic and critical mind acknowledges facts to exist which present themselves as wild facts with no stall or pigeon-hole, or as facts which threaten to break up the accepted system.2
In a landmark book published in 1962, physicist and scholar Thomas Kuhn imbued “paradigm” with its now widely accepted meaning and explained its formative role in the history of science. He delivered numerous examples of how quantum leaps were made because of a paradigm shift—the ability to see the same things but in a radically new way. These revolutions were usually sparked by “men so young or so new” to their field that their practice had “committed them less deeply than most of their contemporaries to the world view and rules determined by the old paradigm.”3
These scientific breakthroughs were not accepted in the short term, for paradigms are notorious for preventing experts from accepting a different understanding. In each instance, the old vanguard vehemently opposed the new theoretical framework. As physicist Max Planck (1858–1947) reflected, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”4
The blinding power of a paradigm is especially active when contradictory data is first surfacing and beckoning for the prevailing mindset to be reworked. As James observed, avoidance and denial are the predominant responses.
Kuhn also noted the rigorous defense of prevailing beliefs. Most scientists, he pointed out, are almost exclusively dedicated to the practice of “normal science” that assumes their “community knows what the world is like.” A significant part of their institution’s success depends on the active defense of this assumption, even if it exacts a heavy price. Normal science regularly suppresses anomalous findings because such data threatens its core assumptions and commitments.5
A modern example will enrich the point. The University of Virginia’s Ian Stevenson, MD, gathered extensive empirical data for four decades about reincarnation. He asked a skeptical journalist who was scrutinizing his work, “Why do mainstream scientists refuse to accept the evidence we have for reincarnation?”6
The answer, of course, is his evidence contradicts their paradigm. As one of his critics admits, “The problem lies less in the quality of data Stevenson adduces to prove his point, than in the body of knowledge and theory which must be abandoned or radically modified in order to accept it.”7
Most scientists have been unable to integrate such evidence because they are unwilling to consider a paradigm shift. They are far more comfortable staying within a framework of arbitrary assumptions that has led them to arrogantly believe, as Kuhn wrote, they know “what the world is like.” That is where, in the words of Stevenson’s critic, “the problem lies.”
2.3.c. Case Study: The Deleterious Ego
The blinding power of a paradigm is usually fueled by emotional pipelines that emanate from personal investments in the outcome. In other words, the truth is being sought by people with identities, careers and paychecks at stake. A case study shows how the ego can derail the scientific process.
Perhaps no other man’s theories have impacted as many lives in Western society as those of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). Shocking the genteel culture of the European elite, he posited the human psyche is structured around a tortured attempt to navigate societal life while satiating strong drives for sex and aggression.
Carl Jung (1875–1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist who first met Freud in 1907, and the men formed an immediate professional and personal bond. Jung was two decades younger and realized he had much to learn from Freud, while Freud recognized Jung’s potential and eventually acknowledged him to be the heir apparent of the psychoanalytic movement. Their friendship fractured in 1913, though, after Jung published theoretical ideas that strongly challenged Freud’s.
During their first meeting, Jung observed something deeply troubling about Freud and his core theory. As Jung recalled in his memoirs, “There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree.”8 In a 1910 meeting, Jung received another startling insight into Freud’s professional stance:
I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me, “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. This is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma out of it, an unshakable bulwark.” He said that to me with great emotion, in the tone of a father saying, “And promise me this one thing, my dear son: that you will go to church every Sunday.”9
Jung knew he could not maintain a professional relationship with a mentor and colleague who had such an attitude. As he saw it, “A scientific truth was a hypothesis which might be adequate for the moment but was not to be preserved as an article of faith for all time.”10
He withheld his own theoretical ideas for a while as he continued to learn. Facing his deepest fears, he finally published them. As expected because of Freud’s attitude, their once-vibrant friendship came to an acrimonious end.
Jung advocated that an understanding of libido (life force energy) should not be limited to just sexual desires. Instead, he saw this energetic drive in other channels such as artistic expression, intellectual achievement and individuation (personal growth). Although modern psychology has overwhelmingly sided with Jung, the point is not about who was more correct at the time. Rather, it is about openness to alternative theories and allowing empirical data to guide the process.
One would hope this case is atypical. It seems only logical the better theory will eventually prevail, so why fight the process? Yet who among us is not emotionally attached to an outcome when an identity, career or paycheck is on the line?
In modern times, the egoic and emotional impact is summarized by a scientist who has written about thousands of psi experiments, which explore psychological phenomena that cannot be explained by ordinary biological mechanisms. Dean Radin, PhD, describes how the scientific community has responded to them:
The difficulty of getting scientists to attempt to replicate, or even pay attention to, psi experiments is related to what Thomas Gold of Cornell University has called the “herd effect.” This is the tendency for scientists (or any people, for that matter) to cluster together in groups where only certain ideas or techniques are acceptable. A scientific herd forms for essentially the same reason that sheep form a herd—to protect individuals. It is very risky for one’s career to stand apart from the herd, given the rapidly diminishing likelihood that one can continue to practice science outside the herd.11
Alex Tsakiris has interviewed hundreds of scientific experts for his podcasts and encountered a more insidious pathology in their community. He has witnessed denial, illogical conclusions and sometimes shameless deception from many of the well-credentialed defenders of scientism who have appeared on his show. As he noted after one such encounter, “I came away with a new understanding of how far some otherwise rational people will go to protect their worldview.”12
Referring to the “careless disregard for the facts” and “misrepresentation” or “lying” he had experienced, he reflects, “It’s stunning but it would be more stunning if it hasn’t happened over and over and over again on this show. We have countless examples.” He adds, “It has to do with the bias, the worldview. It clouds their vision and they—just like the fanatical fundamentalist religious folks they so despise—can’t get past the obvious problems in their logic. It’s the same situation repeated over and over again.”13
____________________
1 M. Ryder (2005), in Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Vol. 4, p. 1735.
2 W. James (1983), Essays in Psychology, p. 249.
3 T. Kuhn (1962/1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 144.
4 Ibid., p. 151.
5 Ibid., p. 5.
6 T. Shroder (1999), Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives, p. 14.
7 Ibid., p. 146.
8 C. Jung (1961/1989), Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Revised Ed., p. 150.
9 Ibid., p. 150.
10 Ibid., p. 151.
11 D. Radin (1997), The Conscious Universe, pp. 44–5.
12 A. Tsakiris (2014), Why Science Is Wrong…About Almost Everything, p. 103.
13 Ibid., p. 104.
The traditional Western religions claim to be the ultimate source of truth. Determining if the favored one really knows best, though, is ultimately a matter of faith.
3.2.a. Blind Faith vs. Knowing the Truth
Faith implies the existence of some doubt, for otherwise it would be a case of full knowing. After all, we do not say, “I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.” We know it will.
By not examining the doubts that separate faith from full knowing, we make it a blind faith. Moreover, blind faith and fear are intertwined because if there was no fear about what an examination might reveal, we would never accept the resolution of such a vital matter on blind faith. To the contrary, we would carefully explore the doubt. Therefore, blind faith represses doubt and is cemented by fear.
To move beyond the stagnating triangle of blind faith, repressed doubt and fear, we must commit to knowing the truth at all costs. An unbridled search for truth eventually resolves all doubt and results in full knowing, which is a spiritual state far superior to faith.
Carl Jung exemplified this path. The son of a Protestant minister, he dismissed all such dogma to pursue the truth as an empiricist of objective and subjective evidence. Two years before he died, he was asked if he believed in God. He replied, “Difficult to answer (pause); I don’t need to believe, I know.”1
However, this is not the path of the traditional Western religions. They deify and demand blind faith in the Tanakh (Jewish scriptures), Bible or Quran.
3.2.b. Frozen in Belief
Gross errors occur when premature conclusions are locked down as doubt is repressed and contradictory data is ignored. On the other hand, healthy minds are open and inquisitive. For example, a hiker in the mountains gets a glimpse of a black animal and warns her companions, “There’s a black bear on the other side of the meadow.” With further examination, though, she modifies her assessment. “Never mind. It’s just another hiker’s dog, a black Lab.”
The traditional Western religions are the antithesis of open and inquisitive. Indoctrinated with the views of their trailblazing forefathers, they are convinced they still see a bear despite the green collar and shiny tags.
Since they generally fail to integrate scientific findings and personal experiences to improve their conceptions, they are similar to the fate of Lot’s wife. As the tale goes, she looked back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah behind her and was morphed into a pillar of salt (Gn 19:26). These religions are frozen in dogmatic belief because of their fixation on looking backward at their predecessors’ understandings.
Freezing core beliefs coincides with a state of self-righteousness. After all, only those who fervently believe they have the complete truth about God and the essence of life will lock down their beliefs. The opposite of self-righteousness is the healthy doubt that one’s worldview paradigm might not be entirely accurate.
Self-righteousness is essentially a state of pride. The darkness of self-righteous pride—what this book terms “egoic pride”—will be illuminated in Chapter 5. For now, observe that egoic pride represses doubt and thereby strangles truth-seeking and spiritual growth. Following doubt is the path to the Light (§1.4.).
To protect the shotgun marriage of frozen beliefs and self-righteousness, the traditional Western religions prey upon fear and do all in their power to repress doubt. The core beliefs are not to be questioned and must be accepted on blind faith. The stage 2 religious psyche is thus swimming in frozen beliefs, self-righteousness and blind faith while unconsciously brimming with repressed fear and doubt.
[Excerpt note: The book presents the four stages of spiritual growth in Chapter 1.]
3.2.c. The Unseen Blind Spots of Consciousness
Most stage 2 religious psyches are thus lacking in consciousness. Indeed, many Christians deplore the ancient Jews for being lost in frozen beliefs and rejecting Jesus, but they are unaware of being anchored in a similar boat.
Such is the nature of consciousness, and the term “unseen blind spot” is not redundant. When you do not see life clearly, you are usually not aware you do not see it clearly. But when you later perceive it more clearly, you wonder how you could have ever been so lost. The metaphor of having awakened aptly describes such a shift (§1.2.d.).
The key is knowing that while we see all kinds of evil in the world, the mask through which we see is convoluted. A lack of awareness of this beguiling dynamic—this blindness of our inner darkness—keeps us enslaved as unconscious perpetrators of the darkness. Jesus purportedly advised us about this trap:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Mt 7:3–5)
Since the plank in our eyes is that which we are not currently aware of, awakening souls pay attention to subtle clues that lead them to their blind spots. They know this way of growing in consciousness is much easier than being woken up the hard way.
3.2.d. The Bonding Fears of the Darkness
Undergirding blind faith are deep-seated fears that are spurred by the anxieties of life. Many people assuage them by committing to a religion and receiving the sanction and comforting presence of confident teachers, hallowed traditions and older generations. The beliefs and customs may seem a little odd, but these followers have the approval of a world of fellow travelers.
Being responsible for finding and living the truth can be frightening, especially when it means doing so alone. It is so much easier to surrender the task to a religion and stand with a like-minded crowd.
The religious authorities are even more entrenched in such fears because of their careers. They feed upon the prestige and power of directing the beliefs of followers who affirm their theologies and pour money into their ministries. Why would they ever want to encourage spiritual growth that would propel folks away from their institution and livelihood?
The rampant fears bond everybody in collusion against a tough-minded examination that might crumble the pillars of their union. All in all, the religious authorities and their obedient masses are immersed in the pathology of a codependent relationship.
3.2.e. Unconscious Creation, Free Will and Divine Love
Humanity has long been creating a collective nightmare. We keep living from the same beliefs and have been suffering for far too many centuries.
Religion has been the great plank in our eyes that has blindfolded us in the darkness. Its teachers are ignorant of the grand picture of universal truth and have been unwittingly deceiving billions of followers. They are all unaware of the problem, and rampant fear has chained it together in blind faith and self-righteousness. As shown in Chapters 11 and 12 and Appendix L, the arrangement has repeatedly led to catastrophic consequences.
Fortunately, this will not continue forever. Although our free will is always honored, divine love is driving our spiritual growth. This force will eventually break through and awaken us to create anew. As Jesus was quoted in response to the Pharisees he had offended, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit” (Mt 15:13–14).
The spiritual gardening has become a necessity because unaware religious leaders have led billions of unaware followers into one hell of a hole. As it transpires, bear in mind it is not a simplistic case of black and white. There is plenty of wisdom in the traditional Western religions that will be preserved. Yet like a cancer patient who needs a malignant tumor removed, the Western religious body would be in peril if its physician ignored the disease and pronounced a clean bill of health. In any case, Jesus assured us that God would eventually unearth the noxious religious plants that have squelched our spiritual growth and produced horrific results.
____________________
1 W. Clift (1982/2000), Jung and Christianity, p. 3.
Although the gospels diverge about the details of Jesus’s trial and execution, the heart of their stories is accurate about Judaism’s leaders being the initiators and drivers of his elimination. This section explains why they so desperately wanted him dead.
4.3.a. Beware the Alterations and Probable Omissions
We need to bear in mind a forthcoming conclusion. As the earliest stories about Jesus were passed along, they were spun to portray him as an observant Jew.
This means there was jet-washing incongruence between the agenda of presenting him as an observant Jew and the testimony that Judaism’s leaders schemed his crucifixion. In other words, if he was really an upstanding adherent of Judaism, why did its leaders get the Romans to drive nails into his flesh?
It also means that if Jesus ever went beyond denouncing the religious authorities to clearly rebuke Judaism, this agenda would have been very prone to not passing along that data. After all, the earliest accounts were propagated by Jews to fellow Jews, and these storytellers would have abruptly lost their audiences with anything that portrayed their attested Messiah as anything less than a champion of their beloved religion.
Nevertheless, this agenda’s reconciling apologetics could not fully cleanse the stories of what really happened. Despite the alterations and probable omissions, a clear-enough picture is still discernible because far too much data made it through this jet-washing distortion.
4.3.b. The Messiah’s Revolutionary Purpose
Most Jews of the first century CE were expecting their Messiah to be a warrior-king, a Jewish version of Julius Caesar. After all, they had been ruled by a succession of foreign powers for over six centuries. Case in point: They revolted in the early second century CE with the belief their zealous leader, Simon ben Kosiba, was the Messiah.
As reported in John, the masses believed Jesus had come to lead a resurgent kingdom in Jerusalem. He knew they intended to use force to make him a king, so he withdrew to a mountain in solitude (Jn 6:14–15).
He had indeed come to save them, but they were not aware of what they needed saving from. They were making a spiritual error that humanity has made ever since. They believed salvation is to be found in an external change in worldly conditions, not in an internal change of personal conditions.
Jesus’s purpose was to awaken them to a higher understanding. To do so, though, he had to unseat their beliefs and was thus essentially pronouncing:
Friends, Jews, Gentiles, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Judaism, not to praise it.
The evil that men do lives after them.
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with Judaism.
Jesus supposedly disclosed his mission to uproot the Judaic paradigm: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots” (Mt 15:13; §3.2.e.). The Gospel of Thomas—a collection of Jesus’s sayings whose original version will later be demonstrated to be earlier and more credible than the Gospel of John—corroborates the statement. As it quotes him, “A grapevine has been planted outside of the father, but being unsound, it will be pulled up by its roots and destroyed” (GTh 40).1
Jesus was stirring up a hornets’ nest. That is because nothing is more important to religious families than the ancestral identity, culture and tradition of their religion.
He supposedly counseled against thinking that he had come to bring peace to the world. Instead, he had come with a sword to turn men against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man’s enemies would be members of his own family. Anyone who loved a father, mother, son or daughter more than him would not be worthy of him, nor would anyone who did not bear a cross to follow him (Mt 10:34–38; Lk 12:51–53, 14:26; GTh 55, 101).
Jesus thus announced he was here to do battle but not with a physical sword. Rather, he was wielding a metaphysical sword of truth to cut through religious dogma, for the path to salvation entailed breaking from one’s culture and religion. Although doing so would mean being ostracized by one’s family and community, it would open the door to spiritual truth and unity with God and humanity.
Jesus’s message was so objectionable that Judaic leaders were driven to eliminate this threat to their religion. Their problem was how to silence him without violating their law against murder. According to Mark, the Pharisees plotted with the Herodians to kill him early in his ministry (Mk 3:6; see also Mk 11:18; Mt 12:14; Lk 6:11; Jn 11:53).
According to John, the Jewish leaders and crowds wanted to kill him long before the Passion Week (Jn 5:18, 7:1, 7:19, 8:37, 8:40, 8:59). This gospel says Jesus addressed them in a heated exchange. Arguing they were not the children of Abraham or God because they were determined to kill him, he said they were the progeny of a different family: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).
4.3.c. Teaching and Living a Greater Spirituality
According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus did not directly confront Judaism until he entered Jerusalem for his final days. Until then, he primarily did so with parables and suggestive challenges. After all, he was addressing folks who were deeply ingrained in a Judaic paradigm and needed to be brought along gradually.
Nevertheless, he taught and lived a greater spirituality that conflicted with the core of Judaism. One of his themes was that the rigors of Jewish law had led people astray from living from their hearts and with an all-encompassing love for humanity. He routinely flouted the law where its indoctrinated version had gotten in the way of more divine behavior.
For instance, Jesus healed a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath, which the witnessing Pharisees held to be illegal because it was doing work on that mandated day of rest. He supposedly rebuked their interpretation: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Mt 12:11–12).
[Note: According to the gospels, Jesus rarely violated the scriptural version of the law. As scholar Bart Ehrman points out, “What he violated was the understanding and interpretation of the law by other Jewish leaders of his day, especially the Pharisees, who had developed complex rules to be adopted in order to be sure the law was kept.”2]
The contemporary version of the law prohibited “a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” (Acts 10:28), but Jesus healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Mt 8:5–13). He also violated it by associating with the unclean prostitutes and tax collectors, befriending the despised Samaritans, sharing a drink with a Samaritan woman, and picking grain on the Sabbath. As will be seen later, he violated the scriptural law by touching a leper.
More importantly and dangerously, though, he refuted the law’s foundation as he promoted a greater spirituality. He did this in four signature areas.
The first had to do with the core belief of God requiring sacrifices to atone for sins. When the Pharisees supposedly confronted him on two different occasions for having broken the law, he did not atone for his sins with a sacrifice. Instead, he twice rebuked the law’s foundation by telling them to learn what this prophecy meant: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt 9:13, 12:7; §3.3.e.).
Secondly, Jesus rebuked the regulations about clean and unclean foods from the Torah (the first five books of the Jewish scriptures). According to Mark, he preached that nothing from the outside could make a man unclean by entering him. Instead, what came out of a man’s heart—such as evil thoughts, adultery, murder, theft and greed—was what made him unclean (Mk 7:14–23). This gospel thus declares, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19).
The third principle of the law that Jesus denounced was its eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth essence. Instead, he supposedly preached nonresistance. If slapped on the right cheek, offer up the left cheek as well. If sued for your shirt, offer your coat too (Mt 5:38–40). Forgive others of their sins, and God would forgive you too (Mt 6:14–15).
The fourth and final staple of Judaism that Jesus renounced was its conception of a vengeful God. As Paul declared, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Rom 12:19, citing Dt 32:35). However, Jesus taught his followers to emulate God by loving everybody. Countering the popular conception of loving your neighbor and hating your enemy, he preached instead to love your enemies and pray for your persecutors (Mt 5:43–45).
One of the over 600 commandments in the Torah was to forsake revenges and grudges against other Jews and instead love those neighbors as yourself (Lv 19:18). Although it did not make God’s top ten list for Moses, Jesus made it the second greatest commandment (Mt 22:34–39).
More importantly, he expanded its coverage by expecting the Jews to also love despised folks like the Romans and Samaritans. In doing so, he also invalidated the prohibition against such associations. In a mirror image of his uprooting of the kosher food laws, he inherently taught that it was not the outside-in that made a man unclean (camaraderie with a Gentile) but rather the inside-out (love or hate in a man’s heart).
Jesus’s teachings and actions that conflicted with Jewish law was the paramount issue. As scholar John Dominic Crossan explains:
Very often Christians will think what happened between Christianity and Judaism—in so far as those two religions eventually split—was that some Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah, other Jews would not, and so the big split was over the Messiahship of Jesus. That is almost totally wrong. What the split is over is the attitude towards God’s law. Can we begin to decide there are parts of God’s law that can be left aside?3
Despite the reconciling apologetics in the transmission of the Jesus stories, his revolutionary agenda could not be whitewashed. Further proof can be derived from the reaction of the Pharisees. As historian Max Dimont explains, “They were exceedingly tolerant in their religious views, totally different from the New Testament picture of them as narrow-minded bigots…Whenever two interpretations of the Torah—the Law—were possible, they always chose the more lenient view.”4
If Jesus’s preaching could have fit within the Judaic framework, the New Testament’s characterization of the Pharisees was devious propaganda. But if he had been challenging the pillars of Judaism, the gospel reports of close-minded and emotional reactions from otherwise tolerant men are par for the psychological course.
4.3.d. The Paradox of Abolishing and Fulfilling the Law
Jesus had clearly been undercutting Judaism, yet even more evidence attests to this mission. As he was quoted in a gospel that was written for a Jewish audience, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). Because the gospel stories were altered to portray him as an observant Jew and the quote does not appear in the other synoptic gospels, it was probably fabricated so that Jewish audience would not categorically reject him.
Yet even if he actually said something to that effect, it still shows he had been carving up the law. For if he had been promoting Judaism and its law instead, such a verse would be bizarre, illogical and never would have been written. But because he was challenging Judaism so severely, he may have felt the need to answer his critics. If he actually made such a statement, he would have been acknowledging the other side of the paradox of abolishing and fulfilling the law. That is, he was unseating all the religious rules so a greater spiritual system could arise.
The difference parallels stages 2 and 4 of spiritual growth (§1.4.). An existence in stage 2 is built upon rules and structure. You discipline yourself to do right because you have to, or else you will be punished. It is outside-in living as you strive to meet behavioral standards. Because such behavior is attained by compulsion, it does not feel free and gets tinged with frustration.
In stage 4, you choose the highest path because you love to, for it is an expression of your essence. It emanates from a deep transformation that has you living from divine interconnection. It is inside-out living as righteous behavior naturally arises without any contrived effort. It feels joyous and free.
Although Jesus preached against and subverted the law, he may have wanted to prevent his message from being misinterpreted as a license to wreak havoc. After all, he was raising the spiritual bar to not only behave in an upstanding way on the outside but also cleanse the impure thoughts and energies on the inside. In any case, what he supposedly said next is extremely problematic:
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:18–20)
This passage creates a flaming contradiction, for Jesus declared radical changes to the Torah and taught others they could break its food restrictions. He even broke it himself by touching a leper. He also routinely broke its derivative laws that were meant to ensure it would not be broken. Therefore, either the passage is grossly erroneous, or Jesus was the world’s greatest hypocrite.
4.3.e. Shining the Light on the Judaic Darkness
After Jesus had entered Jerusalem and knew he was living his last days, he spoke more directly against the existing order. In the Parable of the Tenants, the owner of a vineyard (God) sent one servant (prophet) after another to the vineyard for some of his fruit. But the tenants (the Jews) kept beating up the owner’s servants and sending them away empty-handed. So the owner sent his son (Jesus), whom the tenants killed with the mistaken belief they would get the son’s inheritance. The owner would respond, Jesus ominously warned in the parable’s climax, by killing those tenants and giving his vineyard to others (Mk 12:1–12).
He also supposedly unleashed a stinging rebuke of the Pharisees and other teachers of the law. Repeatedly calling them hypocrites and blind guides, his point was that their arrogance, ignorance and obsessive legalism were shutting their followers out from the kingdom of heaven (Mt 23:1–39).
As is now abundantly clear, Jesus was uprooting the misguided tenets of Judaism. The signature event of his revolutionary ministry was the confrontation at the temple. Having already challenged the theological basis of the animal sacrifices, he signed his death warrant by acting out his detestation with this part of the religion.
Because of the gospels’ reconciling apologetics, they portray him as an observant Jew who was trying to purify the temple and its holy ritual of slaughtering animals. They imply he was only offended by the marketplace activity around the temple (Mk 11:15–18).
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the animal sellers and money changers were a necessary and legally valid part of temple operations to assist thousands of visiting Jews who had to offer sacrifices and pay the temple tax in acceptable coinage.
When we scrub off the apologetic distortions, a congruent picture of Jesus’s ministry remains crystal clear. He was not trying to purify the temple cult as a pious Jew. Rather, he rejected its bloody practice as a paradigm-breaking spiritual warrior. As Crossan explains, “Jesus does not cleanse or purify the Temple. He symbolically destroys the Temple by attacking its fiscal, sacrificial, and cultic necessities.”5
Because Jesus rocked the Judaic apple cart so violently, its leaders did all they could to eliminate the threat. He entered Jerusalem on a Sunday and was dead by that Friday.
Jesus did not go to the cross because it was God’s plan to slaughter an innocent lamb to atone for our sins. If that was really the case, he would have done two things. First, he would have lived as an innocent lamb that was pure as the driven snow. By never once violating or speaking against any aspect of the law, he would have remained sinless so the sacrifice would be effective. Second, he would have preached that to enter heaven, we had to prayerfully accept his atoning sacrifice.
According to the synoptic gospels, however, neither of these things ever happened. Rather, Jesus went to the cross because he had challenged the dogma of a mighty institution and threatened its existence. Instead of considering the possibility it might be wrong about the whole God thing, the institution destroyed the man who had been shining the light upon its darkness.
4.3.f. The Corroboration of Stephen
As further proof of Jesus’s revolutionary mission, consider the story of a disciple named Stephen and his trial before the Sanhedrin (Judaism’s highest judicial council). Witnesses accused him of perpetually speaking against the law and the temple and saying that Jesus would destroy it and change their customs (Acts 6:8–14).
The Book of Acts calls them false witnesses, but their testimony was true. Jesus had preached against the Torah, repeatedly broken the prevailing laws, and tried to change their customs. According to Matthew, two witnesses testified that Jesus had said he could destroy the temple yet rebuild it in just three days (Mt 26:61). He did not deny the charge. Per the Gospel of Thomas, he said, “I shall [destroy this] house, and no one will be able to build it” (GTh 71).6 Stephen had simply quoted his master.
As for Stephen’s trial, the high priest asked him if the charges were true. He replied by delivering an extensive speech about Jewish history that concluded with the building of the temple as a place for God to live. He then abruptly shifted gears into a stinging rebuke of those beliefs. Stephen said that God does not live in any kind of house made by men and then quoted God via an ancient prophet that his throne is heaven, and the earth is but his footstool. After insulting the Sanhedrin for having killed yet another messenger of God (the Messiah), Stephen was immediately stoned to death (Acts 7:1–8:1, citing Is 66:1–2).
Jesus must have taught about a spiritual life without a temple. Otherwise, why in the world would Stephen have ever made such a proclamation that would surely result in his execution?