Re: Theos-World Jerry- Fundamentalist misrepresentations of the Bible
Mar 24, 2006 12:32 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
I'm brand newly attending the Theosophical Society of Wheaton, and
am therefore still evaluating the organization. Did you find that
there was friction there somewhere between you?
My relationship with the Wheaton based TS is a bit complicated. I have
been a member of that Organization since 1963 and have outlived almost
all of the leading lights at the time. I think most of them recognize
me for what I am: the loyal opposition who deeply cares that the
Theosophical Movement and advocates that they hold to the ideals of its
founders. They know that I am well read in the literature and understand
the Besant-Leadbeater teachings as well as they, and the Blavatsky
teachings better than most of them. They also know that I understand
how the TS works from a political point of view, and know the history of
the TS, the history of its various splits, and the history of those
other organizations too. Nevertheless, I have from the beginning,
consistently refused to join the ES, LCC or Co-Masonry, which are
necessities for those who want to rise through the political ranks. Yet
I have a pretty comprehensive collection of Blavatskian and
post-Blavatsky ES documents here and know all of their ES "secrets"
which others have taken years and years to have been given in return for
their loyalty to the leadership. So, for that minority in the TS who
know what is going on and are unhappy with the way things are, I
represent an unsung breath of fresh air--one who will give voice to
things that others dare not speak. On the other hand, there are others
who have been very careful that I not come into a position where I would
have any power within the political structure lest I might actually do
something to effect changes. I hope this makes sense to you.
I'm not aware of any other source than the Bible to find clues about
the historical Jesus. There are a few pseudopigraphal texts to be
sure, but they only reveal so much.
That is precisely the problem. The Church did a thorough job of
destroying its own early history. The only writings we have are Paul's
and even with them, some of the writings are not his, and the others
have been shown to have been edited and interpolated.
This may be true concerning the Gentile churches that Paul had
fashioned, but the practices of the early Jewish Church under Peter
and James were much closer to Jesus' original vision and teachings.
The two systems had very different forms. The early Jewish Church
was much more communal in it's living style, for example, whereas
Paul's Gentile churches were much more like corporate entities. I
suggest that there is a vast differentiation between the two.
The problem is that the "systems" of James and Peter are no longer
extant. Yes, we have in the canonized text some epistles attributed to
Peter and James, but they had been long ago theologized into the
Catholic tradition. The Christianity we know today was mostly
formulated between the 4th and 6th centuries.
My trance-fasting
was labeled gnostic by the Christian fundamentalists. And therefore
evil.
Of course I know nothing about what you are doing without an extensive
interview. But I need to say one thing, whether it applies to your
situation or not: In practices, particularly those which involve
"trancing" in the classical sense of the word, there is a real danger of
opening doors which cannot again be shut. In the development of
visionary powers, one must be in complete control at every step and at
every moment. If that is not the case, then the method is not safe and
can, and probably will, cause permanent harm.
Best
Jerry
Vincent wrote:
Jerry-
You wrote:
"Well, it looks like you also grew up in a divided household. I
think it is pretty natural for people in our situations to become
more weary about what we are told. It is sort of a survival
mechanism. How else does one live among family members with
conflicting world views, except to either before loyal to one or to
step away and work it our for one's self?"
I fully agree. That makes perfect sense, and I can see how that
would make me question alot of things, now that you mention it.
"Love those euphemisms. I wasn't two years in the Theosophical
Society when people began to call me "outspoken." What they really
meant was one who was disturbing to their tranquility."
The Christian fundamentalist church has declared me to be 'candid'.
I'm brand newly attending the Theosophical Society of Wheaton, and
am therefore still evaluating the organization. Did you find that
there was friction there somewhere between you?
"Yes, I left that part out. I was about 16 when that started."
Same here, but maybe about 14 for my metaphysical experiences.
"The nearest Unitarian Church is about a 1/2 hour away from us too.
But we found that to be the best place to find kindred souls."
I've visited a few services at the Unitarian Church, and really
loved it. I guess that's not too far to drive.
"I agree. But I would add that centuries of cultural norms that have
translated into theological traditions have been distorting biblical
interpretation since almost the beginning."
Most certainly.
"You wouldn't likely hear it in an Evangelical setting, but it is a
prevailing view in biblical scholarship."
Okay.
"Yes, the biblical and theological Jesus. But, as one looks more
closely to find the historical Jesus in the scriptures, the picture
get more and more blurry."
I'm not aware of any other source than the Bible to find clues about
the historical Jesus. There are a few pseudopigraphal texts to be
sure, but they only reveal so much.
"They might not be clear on their meaning. I remember once a couple
of Jehovah Witnesses came to the door and said something about their
belief that sounded like a Gnostic doctrine. I said, "you sound
like you are Gnostics." One of the ladies said, "Oh no, were not
agnostics.""
I was labeled as a gnostic, because I periodically engage in fasting
like they did in the Bible. Even though I consider myself to be
agnostic. I told them that I practice trance as well. The
word 'trance' is used twice in the book of Acts in the NASB. Once
referring to Peter and once referring to Paul. My trance-fasting
was labeled gnostic by the Christian fundamentalists. And therefore
evil.
"It looks to me that Paul has much more to do with defining
Christianity than Jesus."
This may be true concerning the Gentile churches that Paul had
fashioned, but the practices of the early Jewish Church under Peter
and James were much closer to Jesus' original vision and teachings.
The two systems had very different forms. The early Jewish Church
was much more communal in it's living style, for example, whereas
Paul's Gentile churches were much more like corporate entities. I
suggest that there is a vast differentiation between the two.
"Then the Bible becomes a launching point for the development of a
personal mysticism. There are a lot of mystics in Church history who
have done just that. Presently I'm more interested in engaging the
scriptures from an historical/cultural perspective. For instance,
how the first century Greeks and Romans understood the Gospel of
Mark; where Clement of Alexandria got his ideas etc."
I believe that both are vital for a more complete understanding of
the biblical records. The historical and the mystical really need
to go together.
"I would be very careful about the literal interpretation of the
text. Aside from the normal problems of translating from an ancient
language like Greek into a modern language like English, the
scriptures are full of cultural allusions which are completely
missed by the modern reader."
Again, I shoot for a middleground here, embracing both the literal
and metaphorical interpretive methods.
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...>
wrote:
Dear Vince,
Well, it looks like you also grew up in a divided household. I
think it
is pretty natural for people in our situations to become more
weary
about what we are told. It is sort of a survival mechanism. How
else
does one live among family members with conflicting world views,
except
to either before loyal to one or to step away and work it our for
one's
self?
Nonetheless, my questions caused me to be
labeled as a thinker.
Love those euphemisms. I wasn't two years in the Theosophical
Society
when people began to call me "outspoken." What they really meant
was
one who was disturbing to their tranquility.
Years later I began
having metaphysical experiences
Yes, I left that part out. I was about 16 when that started.
I only discovered the
existence of unitarian churches this last year, but they are all
a
half hour away from me.
The nearest Unitarian Church is about a 1/2 hour away from us
too. But
we found that to be the best place to find kindred souls.
I believe that shortcomings in present-day cultural norms distort
biblical interpretation quite a bit.
I agree. But I would add that centuries of cultural norms that
have
translated into theological traditions have been distorting
biblical
interpretation since almost the beginning.
1. The Gospels were not written to be historical accounts of
Jesus' life. Rather, they are evangelical tracts written for the
purpose of gaining converts and to answer the objections of
critics
of the early Christians."
Okay, I never heard that one before.
You wouldn't likely hear it in an Evangelical setting, but it is a
prevailing view in biblical scholarship.
"2. One must therefore, make a distinction between the historical
Jesus, the Jesus represented in the Gospels, and the theological
Jesus."
I just tend to differentiate between the Jesus of the Bible and
the
Jesus of Christian fundamentalists. They don't seem quite the
same.
Yes, the biblical and theological Jesus. But, as one looks more
closely
to find the historical Jesus in the scriptures, the picture get
more and
more blurry.
Okay, I follow. Government definitely got heavily involved.
Very
political.
Indeed.
I got labeled as a gnostic too by the fundamentalist church
through
formal excommunication. The funny thing though was that I was
actually agnostic when the church declared me to be gnostic. Go
figure.
They might not be clear on their meaning. I remember once a
couple of
Jehovah Witnesses came to the door and said something about their
belief
that sounded like a Gnostic doctrine. I said, "you sound like you
are
Gnostics." One of the ladies said, "Oh no, were not agnostics."
"5. The members of these other Christian communities considered
themselves to be just as Christian as those belonging to the sect
adopted by the Emperors."
I'm sure they did. Jesus probably fell in the same boat.
It looks to me that Paul has much more to do with defining
Christianity
than Jesus.
"7. Because of 4 and 6, our knowledge of the earliest history of
the Christian movement is fragmentary, biased in favor of the
early
Roman church, and much is left to conjecture and theological
manipulation."
Perhaps some form of metaphysical revelation will have to suffice
then. I interpret the Bible metaphysically for the most part,
although simultaneously aware of what the literal text says.
Then the Bible becomes a launching point for the development of a
personal mysticism. There are a lot of mystics in Church history
who
have done just that. Presently I'm more interested in engaging
the
scriptures from an historical/cultural perspective. For instance,
how
the first century Greeks and Romans understood the Gospel of Mark;
where
Clement of Alexandria got his ideas etc.
I would be very careful about the literal interpretation of the
text.
Aside from the normal problems of translating from an ancient
language
like Greek into a modern language like English, the scriptures are
full
of cultural allusions which are completely missed by the modern
reader.
Best
Jerry
Vincent wrote:
Jerry-
You wrote:
"Dear Vince,
Yes, I agree that we are in a similar boat, but got there in
very
different ways. The three topics that my parents never discussed
in
front of the children were religion, politics and race. So, I
never
really discovered these things until I was about twelve--and
then,
on my own. They then became subjects of primary interest. Since
I
had no religious instruction from home, lived in a Jewish
neighborhood, and attended a public school where everyone was
Jewish, I just half assumed that I was a Jew, like everyone else."
Hhmm, okay. Interesting. My mother has characteristically been
privately religious (believes in God, but doesn't read the Bible
or
attend church), whereas my father has been more anti-religious
(can't stand Christians or the Bible). But then the religious
institutions were quick to educate me in their religious agenda,
just so long as I'd be sincere, believing with the heart prior to
thinking with the mind. Nonetheless, my questions caused me to
be
labeled as a thinker.
"As I entered my teens, I discovered the beatniks at Venice
beach,
and used to hang around them. My mother became alarmed and
decided
that I must be becoming a "juvenile delinquent" and began to take
me
to a very conservative Lutheran Church. That was my first formal
contact with Christianity. I found the services and sermons
curious. Lots of mysticism about an invisible god, a ressurected
man, and promise of an afterlife if I believed the right things."
That's actually a little bit ironic. My mom took my brother and
I
to a Lutheran Church when my brother was becoming
a 'delinquent'.
(I was too young at the time for delinquency.) Years later I
began
having metaphysical experiences (without drug usage), so I
started
attending church on my own to learn about the supernatural. Of
course, they eventually told me that my metaphysical experiences
were bad, and that I needed to repent of them.
"The problem was that I didn't feel like I was damned. I
understood about right and wrong actions, but this idea of "sin"
was
strange. Why should Eve's eating of an apple have anything to do
with me? After all, it was she who screwed up, not me. Soon we
began going to classes to learn about the religion. The notion of
original sin remain illogical. I couldn't buy it."
Now me, I felt damned. I noticed alot of crime transpiring in
the
world around me, although I was one to keep my nose clean. But
alot
of people in my youth were outright criminally violent. So I got
the sin part down pretty well. Nowadays though, I feel quite a
bit
different about sin concepts and where they originate from, but I
was just a preteen then.
"The Pastor spent most of his time talking about why
Catholicism
is in error and how awful the Jew were. One night the Pastor
told
us that God is only now beginning to forgive the Jews for killing
Jesus. That was the first time I ever heard such a thing and the
remark deeply disturbed me. All of my friends were Jews and I
didn't
find them awful at all. The implication I got in the Pastor's
remark, was that God must have been pleased with Hitler's
attempted
extermination of the Jews."
That sounds a little bit like one of the comments that a former
pastor of mine made about desiring to nuke the middle-east, to
exterminate the races that Moses and Joshua missed during their
Old
Testament genocide campaigns. Except he wanted the United States
to
carry it out, so Israel could get back the majority of the middle-
east territory like God had promised them in the Old Testament.
More pro-Jew than anti-Jew, but into USA-originated nuclear
genocide
just the same.
"So, other than the unfortunate encounter with the Lutheran
Pastor, I entered a study of Christianity with pretty much of a
clean slate, and began by reading, on my own, the New English
Bible
of the NT, which had just been published for the first time.
There
I was delighted to discover that the three wise men were
called "astrologers." That delighted me because I had recently
discovered that my aunt practiced astrology professionally, but
out
of respect for my mother's wishes, never mentioned it to me. So,
from the beginning, my investigation into Christianity had no
theological guidance, which left me to my own resources to make
of
it what I could."
I noticed the part about the three 'magi' (mages, magicians)
too.
The Bible is actually very metaphysical.
"When the Nag Hammadi codices were published in translation
around
1970, I raced to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore and bought a copy. I
then
began reading more scholarly commentaries on Christianity,
Christian
and Gnostic texts, beginning with Elaine Pagel's writings. While
all of this was happening, I attended churches and talked
casually
to ministers of various denominations. When we moved to Northern
California, my wife and I began attending the Unitarian
Universalist
Church where a member with mainline Christian beliefs is not to
be
found."
When I accumulated volumes containing a total of about 300
different
pseudopigraphal texts, I was strictly told that I was straying
into
heretical texts by fundamentalist Christians. I only discovered
the
existence of unitarian churches this last year, but they are all
a
half hour away from me. I'm surrounded by Christian
fundamentalist
megachurches where the pastoral salaries often exceed $100
grand. A
congregation of 5000 people is just too small nowadays in my area.
"So, like you I discovered that the Bible is misrepresented by
a
strange theological structure, but took a very different route to
end up in the same place. When we started the Origins of
Christianity class two years ago, I discovered that there were a
lot
of barriers to communication. Theological conditioning from years
of
church going was to blame. One of them is as you mentioned: The
Gospels read very differently from the theological
interpretations.
One member or out group who was raised in a conservative
Christian
home discovered this when we began studying Judaism and
investigating the Hebrew scriptures."
I believe that shortcomings in present-day cultural norms distort
biblical interpretation quite a bit.
"Some other barriers that met with considerable resistance were:
1. The Gospels were not written to be historical accounts of
Jesus' life. Rather, they are evangelical tracts written for the
purpose of gaining converts and to answer the objections of
critics
of the early Christians."
Okay, I never heard that one before.
"2. One must therefore, make a distinction between the
historical
Jesus, the Jesus represented in the Gospels, and the theological
Jesus."
I just tend to differentiate between the Jesus of the Bible and
the
Jesus of Christian fundamentalists. They don't seem quite the
same.
"3. There were, in the beginning dozens of Christian
communities
with very divergent beliefs. Many of them had Gospels and
religious
writings of their own. Most of these writings were destroyed
after
Christianity was declared the only legal religion of the empire.
That is, the variety of Christianity adopted by the Emperor of
Rome."
Okay, I follow. Government definitely got heavily involved.
Very
political.
"4. Since these other Christian communities, later
called "gnostics," were outlawed and their writings destroyed, we
know little about them except through a few meager texts that
survived, and through the criticisms of the canonical church
fathers."
I got labeled as a gnostic too by the fundamentalist church
through
formal excommunication. The funny thing though was that I was
actually agnostic when the church declared me to be gnostic. Go
figure.
"5. The members of these other Christian communities considered
themselves to be just as Christian as those belonging to the sect
adopted by the Emperors."
I'm sure they did. Jesus probably fell in the same boat.
"6. Critical works of Christianity written by philosophers and
other learned people were systematically destroyed. All that
survives are the reconstructed writings of Porphyry, Celsus, and
the
preserved orations of the apostate Emperor Julian."
I'm not famiiar with those.
"7. Because of 4 and 6, our knowledge of the earliest history
of
the Christian movement is fragmentary, biased in favor of the
early
Roman church, and much is left to conjecture and theological
manipulation."
Perhaps some form of metaphysical revelation will have to suffice
then. I interpret the Bible metaphysically for the most part,
although simultaneously aware of what the literal text says.
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@>
wrote:
Dear Vince,
Yes, I agree that we are in a similar boat, but got there in
very
different ways. The three topics that my parents never
discussed
in
front of the children were religion, politics and race. So, I
never
really discovered these things until I was about twelve--and
then,
on my
own. They then became subjects of primary interest. Since I had
no
religious instruction from home, lived in a Jewish neighborhood,
and
attended a public school where everyone was Jewish, I just half
assumed
that I was a Jew, like everyone else.
As I entered my teens, I discovered the beatniks at Venice
beach,
and
used to hang around them. My mother became alarmed and decided
that I
must be becoming a "juvenile delinquent" and began to take me to
a
very
conservative Lutheran Church. That was my first formal contact
with
Christianity. I found the services and sermons curious. Lots of
mysticism about an invisible god, a ressurected man, and promise
of an
afterlife if I believed the right things. The problem was that
I
didn't
feel like I was damned. I understood about right and wrong
actions, but
this idea of "sin" was strange. Why should Eve's eating of an
apple have
anything to do with me? After all, it was she who screwed up,
not
me.
Soon we began going to classes to learn about the religion. The
notion
of original sin remain illogical. I couldn't buy it.
The Pastor spent most of his time talking about why Catholicism
is
in
error and how awful the Jew were. One night the Pastor told us
that God
is only now beginning to forgive the Jews for killing Jesus.
That
was
the first time I ever heard such a thing and the remark deeply
disturbed
me. All of my friends were Jews and I didn't find them awful at
all. The
implication I got in the Pastor's remark, was that God must have
been
pleased with Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews.
So, other than the unfortunate encounter with the Lutheran
Pastor,
I
entered a study of Christianity with pretty much of a clean
slate,
and
began by reading, on my own, the New English Bible of the NT,
which had
just been published for the first time. There I was delighted
to
discover that the three wise men were called "astrologers."
That
delighted me because I had recently discovered that my aunt
practiced
astrology professionally, but out of respect for my mother's
wishes,
never mentioned it to me. So, from the beginning, my
investigation into
Christianity had no theological guidance, which left me to my
own
resources to make of it what I could.
When the Nag Hammadi codices were published in translation
around
1970,
I raced to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore and bought a copy. I then
began
reading more scholarly commentaries on Christianity, Christian
and
Gnostic texts, beginning with Elaine Pagel's writings. While
all
of
this was happening, I attended churches and talked casually to
ministers
of various denominations. When we moved to Northern California,
my
wife
and I began attending the Unitarian Universalist Church where a
member
with mainline Christian beliefs is not to be found.
So, like you I discovered that the Bible is misrepresented by a
strange
theological structure, but took a very different route to end up
in the
same place. When we started the Origins of Christianity class
two
years
ago, I discovered that there were a lot of barriers to
communication.
Theological conditioning from years of church going was to
blame.
One
of them is as you mentioned: The Gospels read very differently
from the
theological interpretations. One member or out group who was
raised in a
conservative Christian home discovered this when we began
studying
Judaism and investigating the Hebrew scriptures.
Some other barriers that met with considerable resistance were:
1. The Gospels were not written to be historical accounts of
Jesus'
life. Rather, they are evangelical tracts written for the
purpose
of
gaining converts and to answer the objections of critics of the
early
Christians.
2. One must therefore, make a distinction between the historical
Jesus,
the Jesus represented in the Gospels, and the theological Jesus.
3. There were, in the beginning dozens of Christian communities
with
very divergent beliefs. Many of them had Gospels and religious
writings
of their own. Most of these writings were destroyed after
Christianity
was declared the only legal religion of the empire. That is,
the
variety of Christianity adopted by the Emperor of Rome.
4. Since these other Christian communities, later
called "gnostics,"
were outlawed and their writings destroyed, we know little about
them
except through a few meager texts that survived, and through the
criticisms of the canonical church fathers.
5. The members of these other Christian communities considered
themselves to be just as Christian as those belonging to the
sect
adopted by the Emperors.
6. Critical works of Christianity written by philosophers and
other
learned people were systematically destroyed. All that survives
are the
reconstructed writings of Porphyry, Celsus, and the preserved
orations
of the apostate Emperor Julian.
7. Because of 4 and 6, our knowledge of the earliest history of
the
Christian movement is fragmentary, biased in favor of the early
Roman
church, and much is left to conjecture and theological
manipulation.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
