Christian Blog

What Would Jesus Eat? : The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer

2011-07-31T18:40:00.000-07:00

What Would Jesus Eat? : The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer
by Don Colbert ca uk de fr jp

Hardcover: 256 pages
Publisher: Nelson Books (March 5, 2002)
ISBN: 0785265678

In What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer, Don Colbert, M.D. makes a compelling case for Christians to use the blueprint of this appetizing spin on traditional faith-based diet books to develop a healthier lifestyle using foods available today. "If you truly want to follow Jesus in every area of your life, you cannot ignore your eating habits," postulates Colbert. He examines America's alarming addiction to fast food, explores Old Testament Jewish dietary laws, and takes a comprehensive look at foods mentioned in the Bible, from herbs to bread to meat. To this information Colbert adds a healthy serving of Scripture references, mixes in a few anecdotes, and finishes the book with an easy-to-follow weekly eating guide. Colbert also tackles the subject of drinking red wine as part of a healthy lifestyle, something often ignored in Christian-based health books. Readers looking for spiritual reasons to make dietary changes will discover excellent justification here to take the plunge. --Cindy Crosby

Product Description:

The Christian market is flooded with diet and exercise programs, each claiming to be "God's way" to healthy living. While some of them are based on biblical principles, and some have even proven effective for weight loss, there is not one program leading the pack daring to answer the question What Would Jesus Do? Or better yet, What Would Jesus Eat?

This comprehensive eating plan examines Scripture and reveals what we know Jesus ate and what we can confidently infer He ate. Using current medical research, What Would Jesus Eat? demonstrates why the diet Jesus followed is ideal for twenty-first century living as well. Readers will:

Understand why foods forbidden in the Old Testament dietary laws are unhealthy for us.
Learn how to follow Jesus' eating model with foods that are available today
Realize the health benefits of the food Jesus ate and the health risks of the food He avoided.
The second half of the book equips the reader with tools to effectively follow the plan -- recipes, nutritional information, and practical advice.

For those desiring to safely lose weight and for those seeking a healthier, Bible-based eating program, the only question to ask is, What Would Jesus Eat?

http://ramsss.com/christian

The Lost Religion of Jesus

2011-07-27T21:40:00.000-07:00

The Lost Religion of Jesus:
Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity
http://ramsss.com/christian

Jesus’ preaching was first and foremost about simple living and nonviolence; he never intended to create a new religion separate from Judaism. Moreover, Jesus’ radical Jewish ethics, not a new theology, distinguished the followers of Jesus from other Jews.

It was the earliest followers of Jesus, the Jewish Christians, who understood Jesus better than any of the gentile Christian groups, which are the spiritual ancestors of modern Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches. In this detailed and accessible study, Keith Akers uncovers the history of Jewish Christianity from its origins in the Essenes and John the Baptist, through Jesus, until its disappearance into Islamic mysticism sometime in the seventh or eighth century.

Akers argues that only by really understanding this mysterious and much misunderstood strand of early Christianity can we get to the heart of the radical message of Jesus of Nazareth.

“Other scholars have explored this field and several significant studies have been published, but none of them has the impact this one has....Akers presents nothing less than an entire recasting of Christian origins, as well as a whole new conception of Christianity.”—Walter Wink

Dr. Walter Wink is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York

Dr. Tom Regan:

"Keith Akers has written an important, timely book that sets the historic record straight."

-- Dr. Tom Regan is Professor of Philosophy and Department Head, Department of Philosophy and Religion, North Carolina State University

John Robbins:

"How has the Christian tradition so often lost contact with his message of simple living and nonviolence? In this scholarly historical work, Keith Akers seeks to rediscover the Jesus who said: ‘Nobility is no more than humble service to the Creator and kindness to all creatures.’"

--John Robbins is author of Diet for a New America and Reclaiming Our Health

Victoria Moran:

"From a new and unique vantage point, Akers gives us a life-affirming, faith-affirming look at one of history’s most misunderstood figures."

--Victoria Moran is the author of Shelter for the Spirit and Creating a Charmed Life

Ingrid Newkirk:

"A riveting read. I challenge you to read this book. You will be changed forever."

--Ingrid Newkirk is chairperson of the national animal-rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Lewis Regenstein:

"Whatever your religion, you will find this book to be of compelling interest . . . It could change forever our understanding of the true religion and teachings of Jesus."

--Lewis Regenstein is author of Replenish the Earth (Crossroad, 1991) and director of the Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature in Atlanta, Georgia

Dr. Dan Dombrowski:

"His work deserves serious attention. The case for pacifism and, interestingly, the case for vegetarianism on the basis of Jesus’ nonviolence are much stronger than most suspect."

Dr. Daniel Dombrowski is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Seattle and author of Christian Pacifism and The Philosophy of Vegetarianism

Dr. Wayne Rollins:

"The Lost Religion of Jesus brings to the stage of current biblical discussion a detailed portrait of a little known moment in the early Church that should not be forgotten." Wayne Rollins is Adjunct Professor of Scripture, Hartford Seminary, Hartford, CT

Howard Lyman:

"I found it to be outstanding. This piece of work is long overdue."

Howard Lyman is an ex-cattle rancher and the author of Mad Cowboy.

Riane Eisler:
The Lost Religion of Jesus is a groundbreaking, timely, and important book. It can help us shift the current dialogue about Christian fundamentalism to the fundamentals of what Jesus really taught. Based on ignored writings by and about the Jewish followers of Jesus, Keith Akers has put together compelling evidence that the core teachings of Jesus C caring, compassion, simple living, and nonviolence against both humans and animals C remained at the core of the early Jewish communities that saw Jesus as he saw himself, as a Jewish prophet. Akers also documents how these Jewish communities were later deemed heretic by the "orthodox" Church, as it built a new religious hierarchy that eventually allied itself with the despotic Roman Emperor Constantine. He challenges us to re-examine the theology that Paul and other gentile Christians superimposed on the original teachings of Jesus, showing how this distortion of Jesus and his message led to the oppression and bloodshed that has historically been committed in the name of Christianity. He also shows the urgent relevance of Jesus's real teachings to the social and environmental crises of our time.

Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, Sacred Pleasure, and Tomorrow's Children

Jim Catano
Originally posted on Vegsource.com
Review of The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, by Keith Akers

New York, Lantern Books, 2000
Paperback $20, 260 pages

Review by Jim Catano

We vegetarians usually rank "above average" in the mellowness category. However, if you ever want to see our good will disappear in a hurry, just ask the question, "Was Jesus a vegetarian?" It always seems to generate opposing and passionately held responses ranging from, "The Bible says that Jesus ate fish and lamb, so he obviously was NOT vegetarian," to, "An understanding of the intent and meaning of the original biblical language shows that Jesus WAS vegetarian."

A typical scenario for one of these debates has participants pulling out copies of the Bible to develop their arguments. Keith Akers, in his book The Lost Religion of Jesus goes one step further, and for this we owe him a big "thank you." Akers not only analyzes the biblical texts but also diligently compares information found in several of the earliest non-Biblical Christian writings and from the non-Christian witnesses of early Christianity. What results is an eye-opening study for anyone with a spiritual or academic interest in what Jesus of Nazareth stood and ultimately died for.

Those who have studied Christian history know that divisions among the faithful occurred fairly early. Councils like the one held at Nicaea in 325 document attempts to re-standardize Christian doctrine and unite disparate communities of believers. Breakups like the Great Schism of 1054 that divided the Roman and Eastern rites remind us that these attempts often failed. This book illustrates that the first splitting of Christians into factions occurred even earlier than most people realize. In fact, the author suggests that it started during the time of the New Testament narratives and among the apostles themselves. One premise that may rankle conservative Christians is that Paul was the first and most important modifier of the faith that Jesus lived and taught.

The book is subtitled Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. Akers carefully details from ancient documents that the Jerusalem-based apostles taught a somewhat different Gospel than the one Paul modified so the Christian message would be more appealing to the Greek and Roman audiences to which he preached. Bitter debates occurred between Paul and Jesus' appointed leaders Peter, James, and John. Remnants of those controversies are still quite visible in today's New Testament. Akers contends, however, that Paul's faction eventually "won the debate" and ultimately got to write and pass down the records thereby having the last word, so to speak.

The following excerpt is a summary of the events of that period. Rather than coming from a Paul-influenced New Testament view, however, it’s history as it may have appeared to the "Jewish" Christians in Jerusalem who ultimately faded into the recesses of history.

Jesus, inspired by a group of Nasaraeans who are vegetarian and attack animal sacrifice, is baptized by John the Baptist. He proclaims a Jewish gospel based on a radical interpretation of the universal law of God a gospel based on simple living, pacifism, and vegetarianism. He goes to Jerusalem where he protests against the animal sacrifice business in the temple. He is brutally crucified by the Romans as a trouble-maker at the instigation of the priests in the temple.

His followers come together at the Pentecost and, after powerful revelations, declare that Jesus has appeared to them. The priests in the temple still violently oppose Jesus’ followers, arrest the apostles, try to kill James the brother of Jesus, and kill at least one other prominent follower (Stephen). They are checked by the more moderate Pharisees. The sect survives and grows.

The Jesus movement gains adherents and a new twist with Paul. Paul, on the basis of his own visions and independently of the other followers of Jesus, preaches adherence to a Jesus who is more than a prophet--a Jesus who does not merely proclaim the law but actually replaces it. Controversy is introduced to the early church. Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus disagree over the Jewish law and over various food issues (eating meat, eating food offered to idols). Prominent members of the followers of Jesus, including his brother James and all of the apostles, are vegetarian; but the question of whether vegetarianism is required is sharply disputed by Paul (Romans 14). Many of the followers of Jesus are "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20), but Paul denies that this is necessary at all. The disputes grow and divisions deepen.

The author meticulously points out that the "law" promoted by Jesus and the Jerusalem Christians is not the same detailed, ritualistic, rabbinic code promoted by Jesus' antagonists--the temple priests, Pharisees and Sadducees--and which has evolved to form the basis of the various expressions of Judaism today. Instead, this Christian/Jewish law is a simple, literal interpretation of the Ten Commandments including a strong emphasis on non-worldly living and eschewing all violence toward humans or animals.

Akers provides ample historical detail to show how the persecution of Christianity proved unsurviveable in Jerusalem but not in Rome and why Pauline Christianity was able to eventually become the official state religion of the Roman Empire in less than 300 years. Basically, this occurred because the church embraced a few of the empire's values, such as a tolerance of personal materialism, an acceptance of patriotically based violence, and eating the standard diet of the culture which included meat.

The faults I found in this book were an occasional poorly developed argument and some incompleteness in the indexing and footnoting. These defects, however, are more than offset by a clear, consistent presentation of facts gathered from an impressive array of ancient authors including Flavius Josephus, Epiphanius, Clement, Jerome, Origen and others as well as citationsof the views of several modern scholars of early Christianity. Akers’ logic and writing style seem "borderline academic," but his development is very easy to follow resulting in a very pleasant read.

For someone who wants to be equipped the next time the discussion turns to, "Was Jesus a vegetarian?" this book provides substantive answers. Let's hope, however, that they will be more than just "bullets for battle." Remember, we veggies want to maintain our mellow image. So, please be nice, everyone.

Jim Catano (JimCatano@Worldnet.ATT.net)

Earthkeeping News Review, January 2001

The Lost Religion of Jesus
Simply Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity
by Keith Akers

Akers, an independent scholar, examines the history of Jewish Christianity, and the implications for understanding the historical Jesus. Early followers of Jesus opposed temple sacrifice, and believed in communal living, compassion for animals, simplicity, and nonviolence. The Gentile church drove out Jewish Christianity, and some core values in Jesus' teachings that are important now in challenging our free enterprise society.

Justina Walls
Vegetarian Living
Book Review

The Lost Religion of Jesus — Author: Keith Akers

Keith Akers established himself as a serious author when he wrote A Vegetarian Sourcebook: The Nutrition, Ecology, and Ethics of a Natural Foods Diet. His second book is as informative and persuasive as his first, yet in a very different field. The Lost Religion of Jesus (subtitled Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity), presents a view of the world of Jesus and his teachings that is greatly different from what is taught as modern Christianity — and is convincingly more accurate.

If you have ever questioned the consistency of modern Christian teachings (regardless of your personal beliefs), this will be a fascinating book for you to read. If you've wondered how Jesus could teach a "turn the other cheek" philosophy, yet millions have been slaughtered throughout history based upon the supposed "rightness" of Christianity, this is a book that you will want to read. If you are either a serious or armchair historian, you need to read this book.

Akers begins by exploring who the Jewish Christians were — not the modern day Jews who have converted to modern day Christianity, but the Jews who actually knew and followed Jesus and his teachings at the time that Jesus was alive. His research covers many writings on Jesus and the customs and culture of both the time and place where he lived and taught. Through this, we learn that what truly distinguished Jesus and his followers from other Jews at that time were his teachings of simple living and nonviolence — not, as is generally taught, a new theology. Akers explores modern assumptions about both Judaism and Christianity in his examination of this subject.

Of particular interest to those committed to nonviolence in all forms is Akers' exploration into Jesus' teachings around nonviolence toward all beings. He delves into the meaning of "sacrifice", from the perspectives of religion, politics, and local custom. He explores the famous stories of Jesus and sheds new light on these often told stories. For example, we view the story of Jesus overturning the moneychangers' tables in the temple in a very different light — Jesus was primarily driving out "those who sold and bought". What was "sold and bought" in the temple? Animals — for "sacrifice," and for supporting the meat eating habits of the temple priests. Akers reminds us that the temple in Jesus' time was not what we think of when we hear the word "temple", but in fact was a crude slaughterhouse — a ghastly, but truthful, image.

This is not a book for those looking for a "light" read. It is thought provoking and the ideas presented require serious consideration. It expands the reader's view of both historical and modern Judaism and Christianity — and reminds us all of the importance of history recorded accurately.

After reading this book, one cannot help but draw the conclusion that if those proclaiming to be followers of Jesus today were truly following his teachings, modern Christianity would look very different. Christians would live very simply, and would be pacifists in all aspects - including recognizing and honoring that all life is from the same source, and is therefore to be cherished. For the animals, it finally would be peace on earth.

Justina L. Walls
(Vegetarian Living, May / June 2001)

Northeast Oklahoma Animal Helpers
Book Reviews

The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity by Keith Akers

Lantern Books
$20.00

This book is important reading for those who would like a deeper understanding of how early Christianity was influenced by politics and pragmatics to become the religion we see today. By using historical documents, and examining those sects which would seem to be most closely aligned with Jesus, by geography, time and prior beliefs (that is, those "Jewish Christian" groups that lived in the area where Jesus lived that existed shortly after his death), Akers makes a convincing argument for a Jesus that espoused not just a belief system, but a lifestyle of simplicity, nonviolence and vegetarianism. For instance, Akers makes the argument that baptism was instituted as an expiation of sins, in direct contrast to those Jews who practiced animal sacrifice, because of ethical concerns over the treatment of animals. Akers traces a path whereby a religion is scapegoated by its primary audience (the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus) and in order to expand is forced to adapt its message to an empire (the Romans) that relies on bloodshed and violence to maintain itself. In the end, a religion that began by promoting a lifestyle of simplicity and compassion ends up being no more than a belief in the divinity of its founder. This book is recommended reading for anyone who wants to better understand the interaction between Christianity and vegetarianism, and to understand why a religion that prides itself on compassion often seems so averse to expanding that circle of compassion.

Elaine Johnson
Animal Rights Hawaii
What does the religion of Jesus have to do with vegetarianism and animal rights? Everything, according to Keith Akers, well known author of "A Vegetarian Sourcebook: The Nutrition, Ecology, and Ethics of a Natural Foods Diet." He has, in his current book, asserted that true Christianity, based on the original Christian church and teachings of Jesus, is significantly different from what Christian churches preach today. He brings us through the history of early Christianity, pointing out that Jesus was, in fact, Jew, and that his teachings closely followed Jewish doctrine. He shows through a myriad of references that the early Christian church was rife with discord, largely due to the many factions of the church, especially Jewish Christians, and Christians who had disavowed Judaism in favor of other versions of Christianity. Akers shows that Jesus preached and practiced pacifism, nonviolence, simple living, vegetarianism, and kindness to animals, in opposition to other factions which practiced animal sacrifice and ate meat.

Akers asserts that the teachings of Jesus are in direct opposition to much of what current Christianity preaches, including acquisitiveness and prosperity. He contends that the single most appropriate manner in which once can live today the life prescribed by Jesus, of simple living and nonviolence is through vegetarianism, since "There is nothing in our current economy that causes more human and animal suffering or wastes more natural resources than the routine consumption of meat."

This gutsy, well-documented book, which takes on the status quo of the history of religion, is a must read if you find yourself entangled in dialogs concerning animal rights and vegetarianism as they pertain to religion and the Bible.

(for Animal Rights Hawaii)

Jennifer L. Horn
Vegetarian Society of Richmond newsletter
The Lost Religion of Jesus by author Keith Akers

Lantern Books, A Division of Booklight, Inc.; New York; 2000.

A "MUST-READ"!! Vegetarians, animal-lovers, theologians and all thoughtful people will find this book’s well-documented and well-reasoned contention exciting, and very believable: that Jesus’ was a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and that, in accordance with his lifestyle and teaching of pacifism, simple living, and vegetarianism, Jesus vehemently opposed the animal sacrifices which were mandatory and routine in the Temple in Jerusalem. It was this opposition to animal sacrifice, culminating in his angry outburst in the Temple during Passover week, that precipitated in his crucifixion one week later.

Traditional Sunday School teaching leaves one with the impression that Jesus’ angry outburst and expulsion of animals and money changers from the Temple was simply because Jesus wanted to rid the Temple of the hypocrisy of dishonest money-changing existing in a holy place. But there was more to the incident than that! Many people would have been unhappy with dishonest moneychangers in a temple area. That was not sufficient reason to so enrage Temple authorities that they sought Jesus’ death, and also, later, the death of Jesus’ followers .

What so threatened the priests was that the animal sacrifice business was a means of supporting the priests economically. They derived much of their support from the meat on the altar: people were required to tithe 10% of their animal herds for animal sacrifice "for religious reasons" and many sacrifices resulted in some or all of the meat going to the priests. Jesus taught that the animal sacrifice business was a fraud.........God never required animal sacrifice! Jesus’ words were "I came to abolish sacrifices, and unless you cease sacrificing, my anger will not cease from you!" It was this act, and it’s interpretation as a threat to public order, that led immediately to Jesus’ crucifixion.

Evidence for these assertions is related in Akers’ book, as are explanations of the historical context of Jesus’ life and culture, and of how this crucial message of Jesus’ was eventually lost to the Church. A "MUST-READ" for everyone !!

- reviewer: Jennifer L. Horn (3/16/01)
(Vegetarian Society of Richmond)

Bill Boerst
Vegetarian Society of Chautauqua-Allegheny
Vegetarian Roots in Ancient Religion
The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. Keith Akers. Lantern Books, 2000, 260 pp. ISBN 1-930051-26-3.

Have you heard the saying "Jesus was a vegetarian"? That may not be far from the truth. In his book The Lost Religion of Jesus, Keith Akers undertook a massive and detailed investigation into the beginnings of Christianity. He found substantial evidence that the early Christian message wasbased on three tenets — pacifism, simple living, and last but not least vegetarianism.

This book is not an emotional testament to the power of Christ. Rather, it is an in-depth look at the beliefs and ways of Jewish Christians in the early days of the church, prior to the fourth century A. D. Akers’ sources are not just the Old and New Testaments. He also uses Jewish Christian writings from that time period, namely The Clementine Homilies, The Recognitions of Clement, and Epiphanius’ Panarion. The author uncovers a fascinating history of commitment by a small number of Jews to the teachings of Jesus. He also develops his compelling interpretation of religious texts that clashes with many conventional versions.

Divided into three parts, the text leads us through evidence that reveals the Jewish Christian message and how it got lost in history. Part I, "The Mother of All Schisms," emphasizes various divisions in the early church. Akers questions the practice of relying on just the Old and New Testaments as sources because their messages are ofte3n contradictory. Iinstead, he recommends a careful study of church history, including the most prominent group of Jewish Christians, the Ebionites. He underscores myths of history: that all Jews rejected Jesus or that Jewish Christianity is an impossibility. In fact, he maintains that " . . . it was Jewish Christian Ebionites, and not the gentile Christians, who most faithfully preserved the traditioins handed down to them by Jesus."

In Part II, "The Message of the True Prophet," Akers describes the Ebionites’ struggle to follow Jesus’s message. An important part was the golden rule from the Old Testament, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Jewish Christians were communal, sharing all material possessions with each other. The Ebionite view was that Jesus arrived as a prophet to restore the law of Moses. However, this group was not necessarily in favor of every aspect of Moses’s law. For example, they objected to animal sacrifice. Akers insists that later insertions into Acts make it appear as if Jesus wanted obedience to every aspect of the law, which was not the case. Jewish Christians distinguished between the law and the Scriptures. They saw many scriptural passages as either allegorical or erroneous. They felt God had revealed truth in the law at the outset, but people had forgotten and falsified it over the years.

The last section, "The Disintegration of the Jesus Movement," traces the splintering and disappearance of Jewish Christianity. Akers contrasts Paul’s view with the Ebionite view, citing three main differences — attitude toward the law, Paul’s claim to be an apostle, and the validity of ethical vegetarianism. In the process, he discusses Stephen’s martyrdom and the attempt to take James’s life. Prior to the year 70 A. D., Jewish Christianity had been the center of Christian activity; after 70, the group was "decimated by war, seriously and effectively persecuted by its opponents, and isolated politically — not a part of either Judaism or Christianity."

For the vegetarian who wants to bolster convictions with philosophical or religious reasoning, this book is recommended. For the person — vegetarian or not — who seriously questions present-day militarism, conspicuous consumption, and cruelty to animals, it sheds light on one possible solution which hails from antiquity.

(Vegetarian Society of Chautauqua-Allegheny)

Louise R. Quigley
MARVelous Times, April 2001, p. 4
DIALOG / BOOK REVIEW

The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, by Keith Akers (New York: Lantern Books, 2000)

The premise of Keith Akers’ The Lost Religion of Jesus is that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish leader of fellow Jews during his life, preached not a negation or replacement of Jewish law and practice but a radical furthering of its spirit, especially in the directions of what we would call voluntary simplicity as well as total nonviolence – the latter necessarily including vegetarianism and a rejection of the Temple cult of animal sacrifice. Akers also posits that Jesus promoted baptism / immersion in water as an alternative to animal sacrifice for ritual purification, and suggests that it was in fact Jesus’ antagonism to Temple sacrifice which brought him into head-to-head conflict with the priestly (Sadducee) leaders, antagonizing and threatening them to the point where they sought his crucifixion.

Akers’ book then follows how Paul’s theology and mission to the Gentiles distorted Jesus’ original message while challenging the original disciples’ practice; and he explains how these differences, along with the early Church’s need to respond to the popularity of some of Paul’s doctrines and also with the chances of history, created a split between the followers of Jesus’ original teachings versus those practitioners of early Christianity who finally became that faith’s dominant voice. And he traces how, in the course of this evolution of what became Christianity as we know it, the pacifistic and voluntary-simplicity teachings became marginalized while the vegetarian facet of Jesus’ message was completely lost.

Akers’ book is thoroughly grounded in the modern scholarly/critical view of Judeo-Christian scriptures, which sees these documents as composed and gathered together over centuries by many people who may have each been inspired and well-intentioned but who were human beings acting within their own political and cultural milieus and agendas. In this understanding it is possible to consider that, with the best of intentions on its authors’ parts, the Bible could contain some verses that represent older and closer-to-origin traditions while other passages could be later interpolations backwards of what some authors thought should have been there. Clearly, therefore, this book will not appeal to fundamentalists. This reviewer, however, as a scholar with some expertise in this area, found Akers’ understanding of Jewish history, scripture, and tradition, as well as his knowledge of early Church history, to be impeccable, broad, and precise. The book was easy to read, the arguments easy to follow, and I found it fascinating and worthwhile. For non-fundamentalists it may provide persuasive arguments that true Christians should consider vegetarianism a primary goal or even obligation.

If you can’t find this book in bookstores, you can probably special-order it from them, or inquire from the author, Keith Akers, P. O. Box 61273, Denver, CO 80206.

Louise R. Quigley, MARVelous Times, April 2001, p. 4. (Newsletter of the "Milwaukee Area Resources for Vegetarianism.")

Lew Regenstein
The Jewish Georgian
THE TEACHINGS OF RABBI JESUS
We don’t plug too many books about Jesus in this column, but a new and provocative book on the subject deserves our attention. It is The Lost Religion of Jesus (Lantern Books) by highly respected author Keith Akers, who argues with great persuasiveness that "Jesus’ preaching was first and foremost about simple living and pacifism; he never intended to create a new religion separate from Judaism."

Akers points out that "Jesus lived and died a Jew; most of those who heard his message were Jewish; the initial leadership of the church was Jewish . . . When the larger gentile Christian church drove out Jewish Christianity . . . it also lost the core of Jesus’ teachings." In other words, Jesus’ early followers remained Jewish and rejected the teachings of the apostle Paul, which form the basis of Christianity.

We got a bum rap for killing Jesus – even the Christian Bible makes it clear the Romans did it. But because of 2,000 years of persecution, often in the name of Jesus, Jews don’t pay much attention to this courageous and very popular leader, with a huge Jewish following, who should be considered not the Messiah but a perhaps great Jewish teacher. Maybe someday, with writings such as Keith Akers’, we can put Jesus in his proper historical perspective.

Indeed, we get the impression from this fascinating and well-documented book that, if Jesus were alive today, he might be trying, along with so many of us, to get extra high holiday tickets to The Temple.

Lew Regenstein
The Jewish Georgian, January-February 2001, p. 4, in "What’s Happening."

Jesus’ Lost Religion
by Will Tuttle
I have great news for everyone who feels, deep down, that Jesus must have been Vegan, and that his original message has been tampered with and suppressed over the centuries. Keith Akers has written a provocative book, The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity that convincingly demonstrates that the original teachings of Jesus reflected a profound commitment to showing mercy and respect to both animals and humans. Drawing entirely on the earliest written source materials by and about the early followers of Jesus, who were Jewish people known as Ebionites, Akers painstakingly and carefully builds his case. His understated writing style and careful scholarship contrast starkly with the radical nature of the conclusions which are inescapable: that Jesus and his earliest followers were ethical vegetarians committed above all to nonviolence and the spiritual harmony of simple living.

Akers shows that the reason the early church was so plagued by schisms was that Paul and others wanted to take the church in a direction almost completely opposite from what Jesus' teachings actually were. Paul in particular was antagonistic toward the Veganism that was a core tenet of Jesus' teaching and Akers skillfully explains many passages in Acts, such as conflicts between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, in the light of the earliest writings attributed to Clement, Epiphanius, Tertullian, and Origen, that point decisively to the fact that Jesus, James, and Peter were ethical vegetarians, whereas Paul, Barnabus, and others were not.

Through a detailed historical analysis, Akers shows just how Paul's non-vegetarian movement was able, often through brutal means, to eventually eclipse the original thrust of Jesus' teachings regarding nonviolence and why the original Christians, the Ebionites, were unable to survive.

Then, as now, Veganism's divisive nature is apparent. We owe Keith Akers a big thank you for his meticulous research, which has such profound ramifications. If you'd like more confidence in your Vegan WWJD, read this book and tell your ministers and friends as well. The lost religion of Jesus, though never completely lost, has been rediscovered. Hallelujah!

The Reverend Will Tuttle is a pianist, composer, recording artist and Zen priest.

This was Will Tuttle’s regular column, "Food For Lovers: Experiencing the Spiritual Aspects of Vegetarianism," published in VegNews, September 2001, page 26.

Leena Isac
VegNews
The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity

By Keith Akers
Booklight / Lantern Books, New York, NY
2000, 260 pages, $20 (paper)

review by Leena Isac
Rochester Vegetarian Society

Like many ethical vegetarians, I have felt that Christianity does not "care" about values like compassion, nonviolence, and environmentalism. I explored other religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, searching for one that had compassion at its core instead of dogma and rigid belief systems. So, like many, I have held onto a loose belief in God, and a deep spiritual interconnectedness between all sentient beings, feeling uncomfortable calling myself a Christian. Over time, the Christian church has not been a leader in tolerance, simple living, and nonviolence. Keith Akers believes that this is a distortion of what Jesus actually taught. Akers’ new book, The Lost Religion of Jesus, uncovers a whole new definition of Christianity, a religion that he believes is completely misunderstood.

The focus of Akers’ work is on the original followers of Jesus, the Jewish Christians. He shows that from the time of Jesus’ life until roughly 400 years later, the Jewish followers of Jesus understood and practiced true Christianity. Due to many different events, these people and their beliefs died out, leaving only distorted versions of Jesus’ teachings. Akers shows that the revelation given by Jesus was an uncompromising ethical demand, not some mythological belief system. To the Jewish Christians, it was Jesus’ ethics of simple living and nonviolence, rather than a new theology, which distinguished him and his followers from other Jews. They believed that his teachings were about simple living, pacifism, and vegetarianism, and that he never intended to create a new religion separate from Judaism. Modern Christianity has misunderstood the message of Jesus. Akers writes:

When the larger gentile Christian church drove out Jewish Christianity . . . it also lost the core of Jesus’ teachings. The values of simple living and nonviolence became increasingly marginalized in a church that came to accept the very materialism and violence against which Jesus had protested.

Akers argues that Jesus preached against animal sacrifice. It was his objection to killing animals in God’s name that caused him to create the scene in the temple that eventually led to his crucifixion. Akers documents the many religious writings he uses as references. He makes a convincing case that the teachings of Paul, which are largely the basis of the current Christian religion, are in error with Jesus’ original message. For example, Akers points out that orthodox Christianity is preoccupied with guilt and sin, but that "original sin" had no place in the teachings of Jesus. Teachings of Jesus that were inconvenient were discarded, such as the emphasis on pacifism. Roman soldiers were baptized in the new religion, ensuring the status of the military in Christianity. This was one of the many changes in the Roman Empire made in Christianity because of its political interest in maintaining a strong, united church.

The moral teachings of Jewish Christianity, which included a firm emphasis on the necessity for a simple lifestyle and the objection to bloodshed of either animals or humans, are just as uncomfortable and awkward for us to follow today. Christianity focuses on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that we’re absolved of our sins if we simply "believe." Instead of urging us to adhere to an ethical lifestyle, it takes the much easier path of demanding that we profess to have certain beliefs. The Nicene Creed, for example, has not ethical content at all, but it just a succession of theological statements regarding the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection. There is no mention of the need to live simply and nonviolently, and to completely change one’s life. Akers says the message of Jesus "has been eliminated. Modern Christianity has given us a Messiah without a cause."

I highly recommend this book to anyone who cares about compassion, nonviolence, and simple living and thus feels disconnected from Christianity. Akers helps us see that being a Christian means we should change our lives to be in keeping with God’s will. He points out that this would involve, among other things, environmentalism, non-consumerism, and vegetarianism. Some might argue that Akers is using scripture to further a "liberal agenda," but I would urge everyone to read this well researched book before turning away from what could be a spirituality that would truly "save" us all.

Leena Isac is a member of the Rochester Area Vegetarian Society and the owner of Leena’s Garden Specialty Baking (www.leenasgarden.com). She is the mother of eight-month-old Meena, who was born with a Vegan Revolution bumper sticker on her bum.

VegNews, November / December 2001, pages 28, 31.

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, December 2001:
The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living & Nonviolence In Early Christianity, by Keith Akers. Lantern Books (1 Union Square W., #201, New York, NY 10003), 2001. 260 pages, paperback. $20.00.

Denver vegetarian advocate Keith Akers, best known for compiling A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), earned his B.A. in philosophy 30 years ago at Vanderbilt University. He turned to computer programming to make a living, but never forgot his philosophical interests. Decades of meticulous study later, Akers has joined the growing legion of historians and theologians who are coming to believe that the real focal issue of Jesus' life and death was opposition to animal sacrifice--and, by extension, to all meat-eating, since animal sacrifice was practiced in Judaism as a means of sanctifying the consumption of any flesh. According to Genesis, God explicitly excluded meat from the human diet at the time of Creation. Only through the invention of animal sacrifice, purporting to "share" meat with God at God's alleged own request, could the Hebrews rationalize transgressing their oldest commandment.

Others have made the same argument, but Akers' examination of the evidence is unusually free of sectarian bias, since-- unlike most Biblical scholars--he is not aligned with any one religion. Akers seeks the truth of Biblical history by painstakingly finding and removing corrupted bits to resolve each system conflict. Comparing the Biblical accounts of Jesus clearing the temple, Akers notes that, "There are several groups whom Jesus directs his anger against, and the moneychangers are nowhere at the top of the list. In Luke they are not even mentioned. Rather," Akers reminds, "it is the 'dealers in cattle, sheep, and pigeons,' 'those who sold,' or 'all who sold and bought' who are his primary targets. In John, he speaks only to the dealers in pigeons, and in Luke he speaks only to 'those who sold.' The primary practical effect of the cleaning of the temple was in John to empty the temple of the animals who were to be sacrificed, or in the synoptic gospels, to drive out those who were taking them to be killed or were selling them. We must remember," Akers emphasizes, "that the temple was more like a butcher shop than like a modern-day church or synagogue. 'Cleansing the temple' was an act of animal liberation.

"The conventional interpretation of Jesus' motivation," Akers writes, "is that the moneychangers and dealers in animals were overcharging Jews who had come to the temple to make a sacrifice...Nowhere else in the New Testament is there any suggestion that profiteering by animal dealers was a problem." Jesus did not visit the temple as a consumer advocate, Akers believes. Rather, "Jesus did something that struck at the core of temple practice. The priests wanted Jesus killed, and even after Jesus was dead, they wanted to destroy his followers. Was all this effort simply to safeguard some dishonest moneychangers? It is much more plausible that Jesus objected to the practice of animal sacrifice itself...It was this act, and its interpretation as a threat to public order, that led immediately to his crucifixion," Akers argues.

Objecting to animal sacrifice, Akers explains, was consistent with the interpretation of Judaism that Jesus otherwise advanced, following a line of Biblical prophets including Ezekial and Isaiah. Opposition to animal sacrifice, moreover, was a growing trend within Judaism at the time, possibly though not necessarily as result of increasing commerce with India, where many Jews fled less than a century later after the Diaspora.

Apocryphal stories and some scholarly investigators long have postulated that Jesus spent part of his youth in India, and that the Golden Rule was a recast form of ahimsa. Akers, however, believes from examination of Jesus' words about animals that he did not need to go so far to be immersed in similar teachings: they were already current in his time and place. Akers cites passages indicating that, "The principle of compassion for animals is a presupposition of all of Jesus' references to animals...Jesus in the gospels does not argue the question of whether we should be compassionate to animals; rather, he assumes it from the outset."

As Akers portrays Jesus, he was not well-traveled and worldly. Having possibly grown up away from animal sacrifice, he suffered a profound shock upon encountering it in the temple. He responded in outraged naivete, and was in effect sacrificed himself because of his apparent innocence of the force of the institution he challenged.

Akers argues that bits of Gospel such as accounts of the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the Last Supper, which seem to show Jesus condoning flesh consumption, were corrupted by the Paulists who took Christianity away from Judaism. Key evidence is that the Jerusalem church first led by James (who claimed to be Jesus' brother) kept vegetarianism as a central tenet for all of the 300-odd years that it existed.

Akers argues, based on a confluence of geography and teachings about animals, that remnants of the teachings of the Jerusalem church were incorporated into the Sufi branch of Islam, which much later originated where the last branch of the Jerusalem church had settled after fleeing Jerusalem. "Jesus is not an unknown figure in Islam," Akers acknowledges, "but the Sufis express an extraordinary interest in Jesus and have sayings of Jesus and stories about Jesus found nowhere in Christianity. Especially interesting and significant is the treatment of Jesus by al-Ghazali, an 11th century Islamic mystic who is widely credited with making Sufism respectable within Islam."

The Jesus described by al-Ghazali "lives in extreme poverty, disdains violence, loves animals, and is vegetarian," Akers summarizes. "It is clear that al-Ghazali is drawing on a tradition rather than creating a tradition because some of the same stories that al-Ghazali relates are also related by others both before and after him, and also because al-Ghazali himself is not a vegetarian and clearly has no axe to grind. Thus, these stories came from a pre-existing tradtion that describes Jesus as a vegetarian," which Akers illustrates with examples from al-Ghazali.

Vegetarian saints, poets, and teachers, including women, have been prominent among the Sufis from the beginning of the tradition. Akers briefly reviews their examples, and explains how the pro-animal descendants of the Jerusalem church could have found a place in Islam after suffering violent rejection by both Judaism and mainstream Christianity --largely due to their vegetarian teachings.

"Notwithstanding the approval of meat consumption and animal sacrifice in Islam," Akers writes, "animals have a status in the Qur'an unequaled in the New Testament. According to the Qur'an, animals are manifestations of God's divine will, signs or clues for the believers provided by God. The animals in fact all praise and worship Allah. The beasts pay attention to God and the birds in flight praise him as well. Allah has given the earth not just for human domination, but for all his creatures. "Animals have souls [in Islam] just like humans, for we read, 'There is not an animal in the earth, nor a creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you...Unto their Lord they will be gathered.' "Indeed," Akers concludes, "it would appear that [in Islam] animals can be saved on the Day of Judgment."

Akers hopes that as growing numbers of Christians become vegetarian, they will return to the religion of Jesus, which he argues was the practice of ahimsa, whether Jesus knew the term or not, and is the oldest and purest theme common to every religion based upon ethical teaching.

--Merritt Clifton

ANIMAL PEOPLE
PO Box 960
Clinton WA 98236
www.animalpeoplenews.org

To order this book:
From the author -- get an autographed copy, postpaid!
Send a check for $20 (U. S. funds) or $30 (Canadian), payable to Keith Akers to this address: Vegetarian Press, Dept. AG, P. O. Box 61273, Denver, Colorado 80206, U. S. A. All orders are postpaid.

For orders outside of the U. S. A.: Canadian orders will be shipped air mail, all others will be shipped by surface, or include an extra $10 U. S. for shipping anywhere else by air mail. If you don't want the book autographed, send it to Dept. ZZ instead of Dept. AG.

Denver, Colorado residents: Add 7.2% sales tax. Colorado residents outside of Denver: add 3.5% sales tax.

From the publisher:
Go to Lantern Books web site at www.lanternbooks.com.

Jesus’ preaching was first and foremost about simple living, pacifism, and vegetarianism; he never intended to create a new religion separate from Judaism. Moreover, Jesus’ radical Jewish ethics, rather than a new theology, distinguished him and his followers from other Jews.

Keith Akers California Speaking Schedule

Keith Akers is the author of A Vegetarian Sourcebook: The Nutrition, Ecology, and Ethics of a Natural Foods Diet. He lives in Denver, Colorado.

Jesus And Reincarnation

2011-07-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

Jesus And Reincarnation
BY JAGANNATHA TIRTHA
http://ramsss.com/christian

EDITORIAL, Aug 15 (VNN) — The Old Testament ends with the directly spoken words of God: "Behold! I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5). Here, God Almighty, speaking for Himself, is saying that the soul of Elijah is coming again to Earth. This directly implies that Elijah's soul will reincarnate as someone new.

Several centuries later, in Luke, an angel appears in front of Zechariah, the Father of John the Baptist, and announces: "...and he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, and shall turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just: and make ready a people prepared for the Lord." So God Himself, as well as the angel sent of the Lord, predicted the birth of John, formerly Elijah. This is also confirmed by much other Scripture, as we shall see. To understand the travels of the soul, all we have to do is think about it without prejudice. In John's case scenario, there are two distinct bodies in time and space, with one and the same individual soul. This directly refers to the process of transmigration of the soul, that is, reincarnation of the individual spiritual being.

But, God Himself and the angel sent by the Lord were not the only ones alluding to this spiritual phenomena. With regard to the specific questions of his disciples concerning John, Jesus was glorifying the divine qualities of John, ending with: "And if you will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." (Matthew 11:14). Then in his own way of saying, "If you have a brain, then just try to understand it," Jesus declares, "He who hath an ear, let him hear, let him hear." Similarly, the disciples later asked him, "Then why do the Scribes say that Elijah must first come?" Jesus replied: "Elijah is to come, and he is to restore all things: But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:10-13). This is the same basic testimony that is found in Mark 9:11-13. A very similar Scriptural evidence is Luke 1:17, another reference to the angel of the Lord. Also, Luke 7:26-27 corroborates Jesus's testimony that John was formerly Elijah, as the words are almost identical to Malachi 4:5, and the reference cannot possibly be taken any other way. Conclusively, John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. Jesus, by his using these words in this very simple and lucid manner, could not have meant anything else. He was not speaking in allegory or parables in these instances. Jesus was speaking directly concerning reincarnation.

In this way we can clearly understand that Jesus Christ taught the doctrine of reincarnation, also known as transmigration of the soul. "NO!" My Christian friends protest. But did not Jesus also cast the demonic spirits called 'Legion' that inhabited the body of a tormented man into the bodies of swine? And did not this forced embodiment drive the swine crazy, and then prompt them to jump off the cliffs into the sea? Does this also not mean that spiritual beings can and do inhabit all creatures, such as the pigs in question? Was this not a form of punishment for those miscreant spirits who had challenged Jesus's authority? Do we also not understand that there are pigs around us dressed as human beings? We all know people like this.

And, did not Jesus also imply reincarnation when he asked his disciples: "Who do you say I am?" (Mark 8:27) Some of his disciples answered "John the Baptist," others said "Elijah," and still others said "perhaps one of the Prophets." By asking this question, Jesus was asking his disciples to consider who he had formerly been in previous lives. Some contemporary authorities speculate that Jesus may have previously been Ramanujacarya, Lord Brahma, the Prophet Elisha, Prahlada, Haridas, and/or Melchisedec. Regardless of the speculations concerning who Jesus may or may not have formerly been, it is clear that Jesus asked these questions in a non-argumentative, Socratic fashion in order to stimulate the intellectual acuity of his disciples to think about the topic of reincarnation. Otherwise, there is no purpose or logical reason for Jesus asking such a question, specifically in this particular manner. The teacher wants the students to think about such concepts and to figure things out, based upon Scriptural evidence, by mulling things over and arriving at logical conclusions. "Who by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature?" By bringing up these topics once in a while, Jesus would at least stimulate his intellectually gifted disciples to think about the body as the shell only, as completely distinct from the soul, the real, eternal 'self'. Jesus was encouraging us to use our brains, our God given intelligence.

Based upon his words in the Holy Bible, it is a conclusive fact that Jesus Christ taught reincarnation. Unfortunately, at the Second Council of Constantinople in about 530 AD., the assembled Priests forever banned the doctrine of reincarnation as heretical, even though it was a widely understood aspect of both Judaic and Christian theology up to that time, implying also that it had permeated the Catholic Church, and was of such significant, widespread, and ingrained belief that the Catholic Clergy had to deal with it by pronouncing it 'heretical'. The fact that the Catholic priesthood did not understand the doctrine of transmigration of the soul, how it worked as a part of an All Merciful God's design to eventually liberate all souls, is a testament to the level of spiritual awareness of the day. Over the centuries, many were tortured, mutilated and killed for observing such different blasphemous ideas, deemed "heretical" by the 'Church". Today, the topic of reincarnation cannot even be brought up at a Sunday service in a Baptist, Catholic or Protestant church, although Jesus clearly taught the doctrine.

Both the Talmud and the Kabbala of the Jews, as well as Jesus's own words referenced 'transmigration of the soul' as part of a natural and very obvious spiritual understanding. The idea was that God, in His Own Heart, was unlimitedly kind hearted, and gave the individual soul chance after chance, life after life to improve his sense of devotion, the ultimate goal of all religion. As Jesus states, "The pure in heart shall see God." How then can one see God unless his motives are pure, and his devotion constant and unalloyed? As perfect devotion usually does not become manifest in one lifetime, the Supreme Lord, in his wisdom and kindness gave the soul the opportunity to gradually progress. This life was the result of one's past life's 'karma', or good and evil deeds. "As you sow, so shall you reap." (Jesus) Your future life was the result of this life's pious and impious activities as well. "Behold! I am coming and my reward is with me, to award each according to his works." (again, Jesus) You could immediately attain salvation by becoming perfect in devotion, in conduction with God's grace. "We are saved by grace, not works." But works are taken into account, just as an employer gives promotion based upon dedication, hard work, and results. "And I will give unto every one of your according to your works." (Rev. 2:23) Jesus taught the law of 'karma', action and reaction, cause and effect, and that works and devotion would be taken into account at one's time of 'judgment'. As action and reaction is a law of the physical sciences, it is also an unseen law of the metaphysical sciences as well. Because reincarnation of souls is spiritual law, there is no contradiction between that doctrine and Christianity today. Contemporary Christianity simply has to grow and mature. The 10 % tithe is not enough. One cannot buy the Kingdom of God with 10 % of money or 10 % mentality. It is time for Christians to become enlightened activists and devotional participants instead of mere silent observers, watching the world go to Hell from the sidelines.

If Jesus did teach this doctrine, then where did he learn it? Many authorities and scholars have researched that Jesus traveled to India to find the truth. It is a Biblical fact that there are 18 missing years from the life of Jesus Christ as taught within the Holy Bible, from the time he was 12 to the time he was 30 and undertook his missionary activities. According to some of these historical investigators, at this time, he was getting his own higher education with the Vaishnava Brahmin priests in Jagannatha Puri, India. There, in Puri, Jesus studied all the Vedas, the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Bhagavad Gita, and the processes of mystic yoga which teach the healing arts, levitation, etc. There is also much physical evidence to suggest that Jesus retired to India after the crucifixion.

If we want to follow the path of Jesus Christ, we have to abandon our prejudice and take advantage of the ancient Vedic culture. In India, and now around the globe, the topmost authoritative book in the world on the science of the 'transmigration of the soul' is the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, as originally spoken by Lord Krishna, and meticulously translated into English by His Divine Grace, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. "Who is this Krishna person anyway?", we might reasonably ask. This can be easily answered by anyone who is observant. If one understands linguistics in even a very basic way, one can immediately see the resemblance of the names, KRISHNA and CHRISTOS (CHRIST). There is a very logical reason for this. In Sanskrit, "Krishna" is a name for God, the same Supreme Lord of the Bible, to which Jesus referred as 'God the Father'. "Christ" in the English, has it's derivative in the Greek "Christos", which is further derived from the Sanskrit "Krishna". KRISHNA OR CHRIST, the name is the same. In Jagannatha Puri, as a teenage apprentice, Jesus studied the Bhagavad Gita and all the Vedas with the Brahmins there in the tradition of Vaishnavism. In this way, Jesus learned the complete science of the 'transmigration of the soul' from learned Brahmins.

It may then be asked then, "Why didn't Jesus teach this?" Well, apparently from Scriptural reference, Jesus DID teach reincarnation. But, down through the centuries, pure transcendental knowledge as presented by Jesus Christ, was changed, perverted, misunderstood, omitted, or simply brushed aside. As far as many details of higher knowledge, Jesus states, "There is more that I can tell you but you cannot bear to hear it at this time." This is a clear indication by Jesus himself that upon his return, there will be much more to learn. Logic dictates that God and the Kingdom of God are unlimited. Therefore, we will be learning newer and newer aspects of the Absolute Truth forever. We should not think that we know everything about God, spiritual matters, or the kingdom of God. Otherwise, how will Jesus be able to teach us anything when he returns for his church?

So, when Jesus Christ refers to John the Baptist as being the reincarnation of the Biblical prophet Elijah, we should not be very much surprised. Jesus was an enlightened human being, and not just a believer of some faith, like the average Christian, Jew, or Hindu. Jesus was not a lay person, but was situated in perfect knowledge of all things, such as the identity of God, the spiritual world which lays beyond the purview of our limited senses, and all spiritual phenomena like reincarnation. Being from the spiritual world, his overview was not limited to the material knowledge available. His vision was literally 'beyond the clouds'. That is why Jesus is called the spiritual master and why we are called the servant of the spiritual master. We have only our Earthly sense perceptions to guide us, until we fine tune our spiritual perception. Unfortunately, 2,000 years ago, Jesus was mistaken to be an ordinary human being by average citizens like ourselves, because he performed many ordinary human dealings in addition to his 'miracles'. For example, he worked as an ordinary carpenter, banging hammer on nails, etc. Most people perceived Jesus Christ in an indifferent manner, or sometimes in a negative way due to his extremism and outrageous sayings. The people of the day largely ignored him because by external appearances, this Jesus appeared just like an ordinary human being. I often speculate that this may again be one of the many problems that Jesus might face upon his return... the predictability of the masses to relegate Jesus to a common man. Concerning this point, Jesus commanded us to "Watch!" This command by Jesus to watch implies that Jesus's coming would be powerful, but not immediately recognizable, not obvious. Regardless how Jesus makes his appearance again in human society, it is more than obvious that he will have new things to teach us about everything pertaining to spiritual matters.

All this speculation aside, there are other relevant reference materials pertaining to Jesus's travels in India. One interesting book, if not completely in line with the Vedic conclusions of the Vaishnava disciplic succession, is called "Jesus Lived In India", by Holger Kersten. This book makes for interesting reading, historically researching Jesus's travels away from the Mediterranean area, both before and after the crucifixion. There are also other literatures describing Jesus's travels there. According to the Acquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, supposedly documented from the akashic records (permanent records on a type of spiritual audio tape in the ether), Jesus lived in Puri with the Vaishnava Brahmins. There is also Nicolas Notovitch's writings concerning Jesus's Travels in Tibet. The last two books document well Jesus's travels in both India and Tibet, but have their limitations, aside from not coming to the implied Vedic conclusions as Jesus learned them, Narayano paro vyaktat. "Lord Narayana Krishna is a priori to the cosmic manifestation." Nevertheless, Jesus's presence in India is a conclusive fact based upon these and other documentations. If one travels to the many different places of Jesus's pilgrimages to India, he will find many monuments commemorating Jesus's appearance there as St. Issa, or Yus Asef. Apparently, Jesus was a learned scholar, as well as a traveler, healer, mystic yogi, and enlightened spiritual master.

Sometimes, my Christian friends strongly object to my ideas, which I have only chronicled, based upon my own 25 years of Scriptural digging and the research of others. That Jesus taught the doctrine of reincarnation within the Holy pages of the Holy Bible is obvious. As Jesus put it, "Having ears, they hear not. Having eyes, they see not." In spite of the obvious, most Christians today reject the science of the soul's travels in this world as 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist', instead of factual spiritual law. This is quite odd really, because the science of reincarnation permeated early Christianity for hundreds of years. I recommend that instead of rejecting the concept of reincarnation, it would better suit intelligent, truth seeking Christians and all individuals everywhere to investigate Jesus's own words in more depth. What we want is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is also worthwhile to investigate the most authoritative literature on the subject, the Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Why should one use only this particular translation? As Jesus himself studied with the Vaishnavas, and taught the Vaishnava conclusion, that God is ultimately a Person, the Supreme Person, the best copy of the "Bhagavad Gita" available today which provides the most clear and concise information on the subject of pure devotion is the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is". The conclusions of this translation verify that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Person, God the Father, and not just a mythological folk hero or 'Hindu' god. Most other non-Vaishnava copies of the Bhagavad Gita fall into many pitfalls of spiritual misunderstanding. Generally, they come to erroneous, impersonalistic conclusions, usually relegating Lord Krishna to some imaginary figure on some imaginary battlefield. Sometimes the impersonalists relegate Lord Krishna's position to that of an avatar of Vishnu, an expansion of the white light, or a mythological hero created in the minds of common villagers. But just as a sincere Christian knows that Jesus was the Son of God, a real person, with form, intelligence, real feelings and emotions and his own unique spiritual personality, we can also conclude by investigating the Vaishnava literatures that Lord Krishna is a factual person, the person to whom Jesus attributed his own strength, power, knowledge and mystic opulence. It is therefore beneficial to us to accept only those views that are non-envious of either the position of Jesus Christ, the Son of God or Lord Krishna, God the Father. The old saying goes... "Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects." The envious, impersonalistic or atheistic conclusions of non-advocates should be scrutenizingly avoided. We must utilize our intelligence, which God has given us, to try to understand the more than obvious similarities between Christ and Krishna. Why would Jesus have studied Krishna consciousness with the Brahmins at Puri if there was nothing to be learned there? Out of the thousands of different philosophical branches of the original Vedic culture that Jesus had access to in India, he specifically chose the path of Vaishnavism as truthfully representative of the final authority concerning Absolute Knowledge. In addition, how can any rational human being overlook the obvious etymological similarity in the names "Krishna" and "Christ"?

Why throw the baby out with the bath water, rejecting the logical and reasonable science of the transmigration of the soul because of preconceived ideas, Westernized traditional church doctrines, or personal prejudice? If Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, and our neighbors happen to be Jews, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, and Buddhists, we would only be helping ourselves by understanding the way others think about God in their own way. It is only to our own advantage to study other religions and the many different ways others perceive the Supreme Being. Like university professors, we can study other scriptures and religions with the view of finding corollaries as well as differences. Because God is ONE, the underlying similarities of all religions outweigh the differences in doctrines and protocols. Studying the religions of others helps us become better, more enlightened Christians. We can truly 'Love one another' better by understanding how others think, and giving up our personal feelings of hatred and animosity on account of religious differences. Enthusiasm without knowledge is simply fanaticism. And, knowledge without passion is dry speculation. A perfect Christian will have both the enthusiastic passion of his convictions tempered by the sword of knowledge and wisdom. Jesus commanded his real followers to "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretend Christians cannot love others who are different than themselves. In this regard, Jesus teaches, "If you love only your own kind, then what is the profit? For do not the sinners and common folk do the same?" In this manner, Jesus was encouraging us to grow to spiritual maturity by embracing and accepting others who are different than ourselves. Christians who are sincere and honest with themselves will recognize their own personal prejudices along these lines, and do whatever necessary to uproot their inner misgivings of others, whom Jesus commanded them to love. We would all be surprised that the internals of all religions are the same. God and service to God is the central, underlying theme. The externals prevent us from considering others as our brothers and sisters, who all have God as our common Creator. Jesus taught this truth. If we are real Christians we will embrace others in love, regardless their personal spiritual convictions. If we are spiritual frauds, then we will discard others, falsely thinking ourselves superior in some way, against Jesus Christ's orders.

If the history books are true, and Jesus studied in several Krishna temples, then why not try to understand these higher levels of spiritual understanding called Krishna consciousness? Jesus himself stated: "There is more that I could tell you, but you cannot bear to hear it at this time." This is a clear indication that when Jesus comes again, he will further enlighten us as to the mysterious identity of God the Father, the nature of the spiritual world, and the higher, invisible, and more subtle principles governing spiritual life in general. We may protest that we already know God and are sufficiently educated in spiritual matters, but Jesus does not teach this. Jesus states, "None hath seen the Father, except the Son." He also states: "I have spoken these things in parables and cryptic meanings, but the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures, but shall tell you plainly of the Father." (John 16:25)

This is a clear indication that at the present time, we are not in full knowledge, and that when Jesus comes again, he will enlighten us as to the nature of all pure, infallible knowledge coming from the Absolute Kingdom of God, where God is the Absolute Highest Truth, One without a second, the Mystery Person we know only as God Almighty. Both my research and intuition tells me that Jesus will reveal Lord Krishna to be that Supreme Person, the Supreme Personality of the Godhead. Time will tell. Along with the eventual revelation by Jesus of this Mystery Person known as the Supreme Lord, many of the mysteries of Heaven and Hell and much detailed spiritual phenomena such as reincarnation will be revealed. Jesus told us he would return, and his returning implies all this and more, much much more. We have a lot to look foreword to.

History of Vegetarianism - Jesus and the early Christians

2011-07-24T21:45:00.000-07:00

History of Vegetarianism
Jesus and the early Christians Was Christ a Vegetarian?
http://ramsss.com/christian

Was Christ a Vegetarian?
by Ted Altar

The following arguments are to be found, for the most part, in Keith Akers' very useful, A Vegetarian Sourcebook, 1989. Another sourcebook I would also highly recommend for its scholarship is Lewis Regenstein's Replenish the Earth: The History of Organized Religion's Treatment of Animals and Nature--Including the Bible's Message of Conservation and Kindness Toward Animals, 1991.

"I require mercy, not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13 & 12:7)

This is a significant message when we remember that in the context in which this was said meat eating was commonly considered part of these sacrifices. Sacrificial offerings often entailed meat consumption and a strict reading of Leviticus 17: implies that, indeed, all meat consumption necessitated a sacrifice. Also, the noted confrontation of Jesus in the Temple suggests that he was not at all pleased by the desecration of the Temple by the money changers AND by "those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons" (John 2:14-15) since these animals were being sold for sacrifice before being eaten.

No Unequivocal Biblical Reference to Christ Eating or Buying Meat

Consider the verse where it is said that Jesus' disciples "were gone away unto the city to buy meat" (John 4:8). This translation from the King James version has been misunderstood as meaning literally "meat". In fact, the Greek word for "meat" from which the James translation based its choice for this word, simply meant nutrition in the generic sense. Hence, the Revised Standard Version now simply translates this same passage as "his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food".

Regenstein notes that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat and "if the Last Supper was a Passover meal -- as many believe -- there is, interestingly, no mention of the traditional lamb dish".

Did Christ at Least Eat Fish? (e.g., Luke 24:43)

Note that on the two occasions where he is said to have eaten fish, these were after his death and resurrection. Also, we should maybe keep in mind that fish was a well known mystical symbol among these early Christians. The Greek word for fish (Ichthys) was used as an acronym whose initials in Greek stood for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior". Given how the early Christians employed the term, there is therefore good historical evidence for the argument that all of the "fish stories" that managed to get into the gospels were intended to be taken symbolically rather than literally.

Biblical Breaks and Contradictions

We should not forget that the Bible is not complete and its many inconsistencies require thoughtful interpretation. For instance, we have the contradiction between Genesis 1:29-30 with Genesis 9:2-3. Some scholars interpret the first prescription for vegetarianism as the preferred diet, and suggest that it was only after God became grievously disappointed with human sin and flooded the earth did the second provision become permitted, and not without qualification (and maybe only as an expedient for the situation). To take another example, the New Testament makes repeated attacks on meat offered to pagan idols (Acts 15:20; Revelation 2:14), but Paul gives assurances that eating such flesh is all right if no one is offended (Corinthians 10:14-33). Paul, then, would seem to be contradicting Christ.

Examples of Early Christians

Not a few Christian scholars have concluded vegetarianism to be the more consistent ethic with respect to the spirit of Christ's teachings. For example, we have the Ebionites, Athanasius, and Arius. Of the early church fathers we have Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Heronymus, Boniface, St. Jerome, and John Chrysostom. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". One of the earliest Christian documents is the `Clementine Homiles', a second-century work purportedly based on the teachings of St. Peter. Homily XII states, "The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in it a man becomes a fellow eater with devils". Many of the monasteries both in ancient times to the present practiced vegetarianism. For instance, Basilius the Great's order, Boniface's order, Trappists monks, etc. Also, we have the examples provided by the stories around some saints like Hubertus, Aegidius and Francis of Assisi.

Indirect Historical Evidence

Knowledge about how the Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. The Essenes were Jews who were remarkably similar to the early Christians as evinced in their deemphasis upon property and wealth, their communalism and in their rejection of animal sacrifices. The first Christians were known as the Nazoreans (not to be confused with Nazarenes), and the Ebionites were a direct offshoot from them. All three groups were vegetarian which is suggestive of the central role such a practice once played in Early Christianity.

Paul's need to constantly deal with these vegetarians is also evidence of how prevalent they were and not a few fellow Christians, it would seem, took issue with Paul. Paul, if he is consistent with his words, would have been vegetarian (Corinthians 8:13), notwithstanding his opposition to the Ebionites. According to Clement of Alexandria, Matthew was a vegetarian. Clementine `Homiles' and `Recognitions' claim that Peter was also a vegetarian. Both Hegisuppus and Augustin testify that the first head of the church in Jerusalem after the death of Christ, namely Christ's brother James the Just, was a vegetarian and raised as one! If Jesus's parents raised James as vegetarian then it would be likely that Jesus was also so raised.

Conclusion

Given the above points, it is reasonable to believe that vegetarianism would be consistent with, if not mandated by, the spirit of early Christianity, a spirit that advocated kindness, mercy, non-violence and showed disdain towards wealth and extravagance. Meat eating would hardly have been considered the way of the humility, non-extravagance and love for all of God's creation. Hence, the orthodox early church father, Christian Hieronymous, could not but be compelled to conclude:

The eating of animal meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have pushed the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw quails in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat.

Postscript: What Happened After Christ?
Maybe an even more important question than that of whether or not Christ was a vegetarian, was why Christianity later abandoned its vegetarian roots. Steven Rosen in his book, Food for the Spirit, 1987, argues:

The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured.

Ironic indeed that pagan Rome here would have this longstanding influence upon Christianity.
In any case, I think we can all be thankful that it is a lot easier today to be a vegetarian. The occasional rudeness and social disapproval a vegetarian must tolerate is a pretty small inconvenience in comparison to Constantine's way of dealing with vegetarians.

To cite another sad example: in southern France a group of Albigensian vegetarians (a Cartharist religious group) were put to death by hanging in 1052 because they refused to kill a chicken!

[While I'm not a Christian myself, I do find these questions interesting and even important. There is a large body of good impartial scholarship on this issue that is worth reading. Remember, many Christian groups from the time of Christ have practiced vegetarianism. The Seventh Day Adventist maybe being the most well known in the U.S. And even within other mainstream Christian groups, and even Jewish groups, there exists among them all at least some minority opinion held by respected members who would forward the merits of vegetarianism being the more consistent practice with their principles. You might also take a look at Andrew Linzey's book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals. -- Ted]

Christian Resources

Strange New Gospels

2011-07-24T21:43:00.000-07:00

Strange New Gospels
by Keith Akers
http://ramsss.com/christian

Some modern proponents of Jesus’ vegetarianism utilize alternative gospels — gospels which suggest that Jesus lived in India, taught novel health ideas, was vegetarian, and had a startlingly different theology from that given in the churches. I do not cite these gospels when discussing the historical Jesus, even though some of these gospels seemingly support my case. Why? Because these gospels are esoteric and modern gospels, created in relatively recent times. Some of them are outright frauds, claiming to be from ancient manuscripts when they are in fact not; others are what we would called "channeled" writings — writings received through a modern communication from another world.

The study of modern gospels is a fascinating topic, which illuminates by comparison the process by which ancient gospels were formulated and became accepted. These writings may in fact be divinely inspired. However, in discussing the historical Jesus with people of differing religious perspectives — who may not agree on what is "divinely inspired" — they are not helpful. They cannot convince anyone of their historical truth who does not already believe them to be "inspired."

Of all of these modern gospels, there are three which are frequently cited by exponents of a vegetarian Jesus:

The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch
The Gospel of the Holy Twelve by G. J. R. Ouseley
The Essene Gospel of Peace by Edmund Bordeaux Szekeley

Sources

In studying these books, there are several modern works which are quite helpful in the whole area of modern gospels. These are Modern Apocrypha, by Edgar J. Goodspeed (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956), and Strange Tales About Jesus, by Per Beskow (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

Another very useful book for Notovitch is The Gospel of Jesus by John Davidson (Element Books, 1995). Davidson only discusses Notovitch briefly on pages 136-139, but his discussion is illuminating because Davidson has clearly drawn a "line in the sand" regarding careless use of materials to prove convenient theories about Jesus. Davidson sets about to prove that Jesus was on the mystic path and thus was similar to many thinkers in Eastern religion. But he relies on historical material, rather than accepting the stories about Jesus going to India. I have also read the books by Notovitch, Ouseley, and Szekeley, in one or more of their various editions.

I believe that there are clear parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha, as well as between Jesus and other great spiritual thinkers. Both the Buddha and Jesus taught and practiced simple living and nonviolence. But we do not have to postulate theories about Jesus traveling to India in order to defend the similarity between Jesus and the Buddha. Truth is truth, and can be perceived by great thinkers across many cultures.

Nicolas Notovitch

Late in the nineteenth century a French explorer by the name of Nicolas Notovitch created a sensation by publishing a book called The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. In it, Notovitch describes his travels to Tibet, where after breaking his leg, he was brought to a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in which he finds an unusual manuscript. It is about a Saint Issa, and Notovitch quickly realizes that Issa is simply Jesus. In this gospel, Jesus is said to have traveled to India and studied with the wise men in that country before returning to Israel and proclaiming his message and ministry. Notovitch’s book was first published in French and created a sensation; it was then translated into English and various other European languages.

Some scholars immediately pointed out problems with the manuscript. The book appeared nowhere in catalogues of Tibetan literature. The same year that the book was published, an Englishwoman who visited Tibet and had inquired about the manuscript wrote: "Yesterday we were at the great Himis monastery . . . There is not a single word of truth in the whole story!" The next year, a professor visited the monastery and asked specifically about Notovitch, reading part of Notovitch’s book to the chief lama. "Lies, lies, lies, nothing but lies!" was the response. The lama stated that no life of Issa was known in Tibet. Confronted with this evidence, Notovitch backtracked and admitted that he had in fact never been to the monastery in question, but that he had found the story of Issa, in fragments, in untitled documents at many different locations. Obviously, however, Notovitch was discredited — if Notovitch lied about how he found the manuscript, why should we believe anything else?

The controversy faded. However, Notovitch’s book remained available in libraries, and later researchers "discovered" the book without being aware of its earlier history, or of the fact that Notovitch had been discredited. For example, Holger Kersten wrote a book entitled "Jesus Lived in India" which is largely based on Notovitch’s book. Kersten is apparently completely oblivious to the history of the controversy over Notovitch’s work. Like the internet hoax that continues to have a life of its own because people continue to circulate it even after it is disproven, this gospel continues to have a life of its own.

Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley

In the late nineteenth century, G. J. R. Ouseley published "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve." It has been reprinted at various times since then, sometimes without Ouseley’s name, and sometimes without his "Explanatory Preface." I first came across it in the 1980’s in a book titled "The Humane Gospel of Jesus." It is said to have been "preserved in one of the Monasteries of the Buddhist monks in Thibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene community." It condemns meat-eating, alcohol, animal sacrifice, and recommends vegetarianism, "daily ablutions," and community of goods.

We have here some of the same themes raised in Notovitch’s book — mostly, the hiding of the manuscript in Tibet, which at least in imagination seems to be a favorite place for ancient writers to hide manuscripts. Moreover, there apparently really was an ancient gospel called "The Gospel of the Twelve" which was mentioned by Origen. This is briefly mentioned in The Apocryphal New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1924) on page 10.

But is it really derived from an Aramaic text, found in a monastery in Tibet? After encountering Notovitch’s fraud, we should certainly be suspicious of any works claiming to have been found in Tibet. First of all, there are numerous problems with the work. It quotes from all four of the gospels and from the letters of Paul; it contains references to rituals from the later church, and to the "trinity" (a word that never occurs in the New Testament); it also contains references to such non-Biblical species as cats, rabbits, and an ape. And in fact, the real origin of the work is not hidden very far. In an early twentieth century edition published in London, an "Explanatory Preface" precedes the text. Ouseley’s name has been removed, and the Preface is signed "The Editors of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve" (though evidently a similar explanation appeared in earlier English-language versions of the book, with Ouseley’s name at the bottom). Here is part of what this Preface says:

Their "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" was communicated to the Editors, in numerous fragments at different times, by Emmanuel Swedenborg, Anna Kingsford, Edward Maitland, and a priest of the former century, giving his name as Placidus, of the Franciscan Order, afterwards a Carmelite. By them it was translated from the original, and given to the Editors in the flesh, to be supplemented in their proper places, where indicated, from the "Four Gospels" (A. V.) revised where necessary by the same.

To this explanation, the Editors cannot add, nor from it take away. By the Divine Spirit was the Gospel communicated to the four above mentioned, and by them translated, and given to the writers; not in seance rooms (where too often resort the idle, the frivolous and the curious, attracting spirits similar to themselves, rather than the good), but "in dreams and visions of the night," and by direct guidance, has God instructed them by chosen instruments; and now they give it to the world, that some may be wiser unto Salvation, while those who reject it, remain in their blindness, till they will to see.

From this passage, it is clear that no manuscript in Aramaic has ever been seen, or is claimed to have been seen, by Rev. Ouseley. Rather, it is Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and Placidus (all having died, some very recently, by the time Ouseley received this work) who received the gospel, and who simultaneously translated it into English, and then communicated this to Ouseley and his associates in some miraculous manner. So whenever and however Ouseley received it, it was already in English. Presumably, although this information is not spelled out, the fact that the manuscript is in Tibet in some monastery was also communicated to them by Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and Placidus. No one has every discovered any such manuscript, in Aramaic or any other language, in any Tibetan monastery.

However, to make things more interesting, there are several versions of this gospel which are circulating without Ouseley’s "Explanatory Preface." This has left some people are under the impression that this is a text which really was originally found in Tibet and translated from the Aramaic. In fact, in Europe there are German and Swedish editions of this work which leave the impression that Ouseley actually did discover the manuscript during a trip to Tibet in 1881. Never mind that Ouseley himself never claimed to have gone to Tibet, and in fact was fairly open about the process by which he received it, making it clear that this is in fact a "channeled" work. Annie Besant, one of the leaders of the Theosophical movement, understood the situation quite well and gave the book a rather negative review, describing its spiritualist sources and calling it "a strange book."

There can be no objection to regarding this as a sacred text. Perhaps it was received through divine inspiration, just as many Christians regard the New Testament as divinely inspired. But as historical evidence, it would not convince anyone who was not already convinced of its divine origin.

Edmund Bordeaux Szekeley

Szekeley is the most difficult case of all of these to resolve. Notovitch was quickly exposed as a fraud; Ouseley never claimed to have anything more than a "channeled" work. Neither of these quick expedients are available in Szekeley’s case.

The Essene Gospel of Peace which he published is similar in its basic themes to claims found in other modern gospels. The Essene Gospel of Peace identifies several familiar themes: vegetarianism, natural living, a theology of the Earth, and so forth. Szekeley claims to have found the manuscripts in various locations, including the Vatican Library, the Royal Archives of the Hapsburgs in Vienna, and the monastery at Monte Cassino. Szekeley identifies Hebrew, Aramaic, and Old Slavonic versions of the manuscript.

There are three problems with Szekeley’s claims. The first and most significant point is that no one has actually seen any of these manuscripts except Szekeley. The second is that there are serious inconsistencies and other problems in Szekeley’s description of the manuscripts. The third is the content of the manuscripts themselves. Taken as a whole, we can say that not only is there no evidence that the manuscripts are genuine, but that most likely Szekeley’s claims are fraudulent.

There are several different editions of the Essene Gospel of Peace. The first was published in 1937, then a second in 1977. The 1977 version is titled The Essene Gospel of Peace, Book One has a foreword in which Szekeley states that the contents of the book are only about one-third of the total he found (the next two-thirds presumably being those volumes subsequently published by him as "Book Two" and "Book Three"). He says:

"The content of this book represents only about a third of the complete manuscripts which exist in Aramaic in the archives of the Vatican and in old Slavonic in the Royal Archives of the Hapsburgs (now the property of the Austrian Government). We owe the existence of these two versions to the Nestorian priests who, under pressure of the advancing hordes of Genghis Khan, were forced to flee from the East towards the West, bearing all their ancient scriptures and ikons with them. The ancient Aramaic texts date from the third century after Christ, while the old Slavonic version is a literal translation of the former."

Szekeley claims to have found the Aramaic manuscript at some time between 1923 and 1924, and during a visit to Monte Cassino he also claims to have found Hebrew fragments corresponding with the Aramaic text. However, no one has ever seen any of the physical documents which Szekeley claims he drew the text from. Per Beskow (in Strange Tales About Jesus) says that when he asked the National Library of Vienna about the Old Slavonic text, the reply was sent that there is no such text, that a number of people have made inquiries about the text, and the general opinion was that Szekeley made it up. A similar negative answer came from the Vatican as follows: "Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter of 25th May inquiring about Edmond Bordeaux Szekeley. This author’s book is known to me and I can assert categorically that no such manuscript of an Aramaic Gospel is possessed by the Vatican Archives. Moreover, Szekeley’s name has not been found in the card index of scholars admitted to the Archives." Finally, the Monte Cassino monastery was, as is well known, destroyed by being bombed during the Second World War. Szekeley made no mention of the Hebrew fragments found at Monte Cassino until after the war.

There are also internal inconsistencies and problems in his account. For example, Szekeley claimed to have known a number of languages, but never even claimed to know Old Slavonic, and there is no evidence (aside from his own claim) that he actually knew Hebrew or Aramaic either. When the book was first published in 1937, it had the title The Gospel of Peace by the disciple John, which in the 1977 edition has been changed — without explanation — to The Essene Gospel of Peace. For the 1937 edition, Lawrence Purcell Weaver is listed as a co-editor, but in later editions he was dropped. In the 1937 edition, he states that the text published is only about one-eighth of the total; but in 1977, this has changed to one-third of the total. In the 1937 edition, the Aramaic is dated to the first century; in the 1977 edition, to the third century. There is no indication of how Szekeley knows that it was either the first century or the third century — did he use carbon dating, analysis of the manuscript style, or what? And why did Szekeley change his mind about the age of the manuscript? We are left without any clues. In fact, the 1937 preface is substantially different from the reprint of the 1937 preface in the 1977 edition in several ways, even though it is still dated "1937."

Astonishingly, Szekeley says almost nothing about the physical condition of the manuscripts in the Vatican — for example, whether it was a scroll or a codex (a bound volume similar to modern books). This seems to be a clearly contrived story: a mysterious manuscript, of no particular description, which no one except Szekeley has ever seen, which Szekeley quickly and effortlessly translated, and which the libraries at the Vatican and in Vienna deny having, is supposed to have fabulous revelations about Jesus? This can’t be taken seriously as evidence about Jesus.

But let us take Szekeley at his word. Perhaps the Vatican, and the library at Vienna, destroyed the manuscripts or are covering them up in an effort to suppress the truth, and Szekeley really saw these manuscripts, knew the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Old Slavonic languages thoroughly, and quickly produced a competent and scholarly translation. What then?

Looking at the manuscript, we see that it is obviously a hopelessly romantic, nineteenth-century idea of what Jesus should have been like, embedded in health ideas which are clearly modern. For example, Jesus is quoted as advocating enemas, complete with a graphic description of how to perform them! In fact, Jesus says that unless you perform these enemas, you cannot come into God’s presence: "No man may come before the face of God, whom the angel of water lets not pass" (p. 16). Enemas were probably practiced in ancient times, but there's no connection of them with any religious practice in any other ancient Christian writings, whether heretical or orthodox; the emphasis on colonics and enemas is a modern concern championed by naturopaths and other advocates of a natural way of life. Jesus also gives practical health advice, saying "Shun all that is too hot or too cold" (p. 58). Jesus is quoted as having said what was in Paul’s celebrated letter I Corinthians 13 — "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am nothing" (p. 23-24). Jesus advises us to obey both our Heavenly Father and our Earthly Mother, with the idea that our Earthly Mother is the physical earth — "The hardness of our bones is born of the bones of our Earthly Mother, of the rocks and of the stones" (p. 8).

All of this seems to underscore health ideas of "natural living" which were common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Even if Szekeley is telling the truth, in the absence of any other physical evidence, the conclusion would inevitably be that these are later documents. Someone who knew Aramaic, Old Slavonic, and Hebrew, wrote such documents espousing such "natural living ideas" in modern times, attributed them to Jesus, and then secreted them in libraries in the Vatican, Vienna, and Monte Cassino, and left them for Dr. Szekeley to discover later. This would still be of no particular historical value; though written in ancient languages, they would derive from (at the earliest) the nineteenth century.

Other "Channeled" Writings

There are other writings of modern gospels that make interesting claims about Jesus. The Aquarian Gospel, by "Levi," is another work claiming that Jesus lived in India. It is straightforwardly a channeled work.

John Todd Ferrier is one of the most interesting of the authors of this genre of writing. He became inspired and wrote down extensive writings which are essentially his versions of what Jesus said and did: The Master, The Logia, and others. Vegetarianism emerges as a clear theme in these writings. Ferrier left behind a group, the "Order of the Cross," which continues to promulgate his writings and his message today. Again, however, Ferrier’s writings were received, in modern times, from a divine source; there is no claim to have discovered an ancient manuscript. Interestingly, Ferrier also wrote a small book On Behalf of the Creatures in which he does discuss historical evidence, citing such writings as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Clementine Homilies; but he keeps this separate from his revelations about Jesus.

There have been some cases where early writings really do stump even the scholars. The most interesting of these is The Secret Gospel of Mark, quotations from which are found in a letter purportedly by Clement of Alexandria. This letter of Clement was found by Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University in Mar Saba monastery just a few miles southeast of Jerusalem. Smith took a photograph of it and later published work concerning it. This work has nothing to do with vegetarianism, by the way — the Secret Gospel is said to suggest that Jesus was homosexual, though that it is not clear even if the manuscript is genuine. Unfortunately, this manuscript has never again been found; when the library was inspected later, the letter had disappeared, so controversy rages over whether it is genuine or not.

In this case, there is scholarly consensus that Dr. Smith really did find such a manuscript in the Mar Saba monastery; several photographs exist. There is disagreement, however, on whether it is an ancient or a modern forgery, inserted into the library at the monastery, and left for Smith to discover. It has been pointed out, for example, that most of the excerpts from the Secret Gospel can be found (in different contexts) in the canonical gospels. There is also an index of Clement of Alexandria’s writings which gives access to his vocabulary and writing style. This controversy could probably be resolved if we had access to the original letter that Smith saw; in that case, we could examine the age of the paper, the type of ink used, and so forth. But we don’t have that, and the discussion continues. The debate seems to be slowly oscillating towards the view that it is genuine, but clearly there is still quite a bit of doubt. The ability of scholars to actually see the physical manuscript is critical to our ability to evaluate it as serious historical evidence.

If The Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery, though, it is much more sophisticated than anything which Szekeley or Notovitch were able to produce. We have an actual photograph of the original letter quoting the Secret Gospel, whereas we not only do not have photographs of anything Szekeley saw, we don’t even have the original Aramaic words, or even a physical description of the manuscript. Notovitch likewise gives us nothing in the original language — it is presented to us already "translated" into a modern language.

All of these writings are significant for our understanding of how gospels spread — though perhaps not in the way the authors intended. They all managed to create something of a sensation and have acquired a wide readership. Indeed, they all have a following even today, as we speak — people pick up these books, read them, and believe that they are the words of Jesus. What we believe is true, in the sphere of religion, must not come only from the mind, and from physical evidence, but from the heart as well. On the other hand, we must guard against confusing what comes from the heart and what comes from physical evidence.

Selected Biblical Passages of Interest to Vegetarians

2011-07-24T21:38:00.000-07:00

Selected Biblical Passages of Interest to Vegetarians
by Keith Akers

http://ramsss.com/christian

Selected biblical passages of interest to vegetarians - categorized by type All biblical quotations are from the King James Version or the American Standard Version of 1901 (public domain). I have cited passages both pro and con; the Bible does not take a consistent stand.

Supportive of vegetarianism

Original ideal and ultimate hope

Genesis 1:29-30 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so."

Numbers 11:4-34 The people in the desert are tired of manna, and so ask for meat. Quails are sent, but as soon as they eat the quails, they are struck with a deadly plague.

Isaiah 11:6-9 "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."

Daniel 1:3-16 Daniel and his friends refuse to eat from the king's table which has meat on it, but eat vegetables instead. After ten days they are found to be healthier than those who eat at the king's table.

Hosea 2:18 "And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the birds of the heavens, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the land, and will make them to lie down safely."

Revelation 4:6-7 ". . . and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, [were] four living creatures full of eyes before and behind. And the first creature [was] like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face as of a man, and the fourth creature [was] like a flying eagle."

Revelation 21:4 ". . . and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away."

Compassion to animals

Exodus 20:8-10 Animals are to abstain from work on the Sabbath as well as the humans.

Exodus 23:5 "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, thou shalt forbear to leave him, thou shalt surely release [it] with him."

Deuteronomy 22:4 "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again."

Deuteronomy 25:4 "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the grain]."

Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast."

Isaiah 66:3 "He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man."

Matthew 12:11 "And he said unto them, What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?"

Matthew 25:40 "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, [even] these least, ye did it unto me."

Luke 12:6 "Are not five sparrows sold for two pence? and not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God."

Luke 13:11-16 A woman who has been bent over for 18 years comes to Jesus and is healed on the Sabbath. The ruler of synagogue objects. "But the Lord answered him, and said, Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, [these] eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the sabbath?"

Luke 14:5-6 "And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? And they could not answer again unto these things."

God's relationship to animals

Genesis 9:9-11 "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you. Of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

Psalms 36:6 "O LORD, thou preservest man and beast."

Psalms 104:24-30 God feeds the creatures of the sea.

Psalms 145:9 "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."

Psalms 145:16 "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing."

Matthew 6:26 "Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them."

Animals are like (or superior to) humans

Proverbs 6:6-8 "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest."

Proverbs 30:24-28 "There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise: The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands; The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces."

Ecclesiastes 3:19 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. "

Isaiah 1:3 "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; [but] Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider."

Animal sacrifices

Isaiah 1:11-16 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil. . . "

Jeremiah 7:22 "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. . . "

Ezekial 20:25-26 "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD."

Hosea 6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Amos 5:21-27 "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts."

Micah 6:6-8 "Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Matthew 9:13 "But go ye and learn what [this] meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice . . . "

Matthew 12:7 "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Mark 13:2 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Acts 7:42-51 Stephen compares animal sacrifice to idolatry and condemns the temple.

Acts 15:29 "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well."

Revelation 2:14 "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."

Not supportive of vegetarianism

Genesis 4:1-16 The story of Cain and Abel, in which Abel offers an animal sacrifice which is preferred to Cain's plant sacrifice.

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Leviticus 3 ff. Many commands to offer animal sacrifices are described in Leviticus.

Matthew 8:28-32 Jesus sends some demons who have been driven out of their human hosts into a herd of pigs; the pigs go into the sea and drown.

Mark 6:34-44 The miraculous feeding of the multitude with loaves and fishes (though Jesus apparently does not eat fish himself).

Matthew 22:1-14 The parable of the wedding feast, for which oxen and fatlings are killed.

Luke 15:11-32 The parable of the prodigal son, for whom the fatted calf is killed.

Luke 24:42-43 "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." (This actually leaves ambiguous whether he ate the fish, the honeycomb, or both.)

Acts 10:9-16 Peter's vision of a sheet descending from heaven with animals on it, with a voice saying "Up, Peter, kill and eat."

Romans 14:1-2 "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."

I Corinthians 10:25 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [the meat market], eat, asking no question for conscience' sake."

Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. . . "

I Timothy 4:1-4 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils . . . Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Jesus Diet

2011-07-24T07:08:00.000-07:00

Jesus Diet
http://ramsss.com/christian

You don't have to be Christian to benefit from the Jesus
diet. After all, Jesus was not a Christian. In fact, you
don't even need to believe in God.

Please note: This article has nothing to do with several
"Jesus Diet" hits found on google.com. Some of those provide
food for thought, while others are just plain foolish.

For numerous reasons, exact knowledge about Joshua ben
Joseph, the person, is rather scarce. The New Testament was
assembled several centuries after his death, and really was
not focused on the historical person's life. In fact, I have
read excerpts from later theological texts which "prove"
that Jesus neither ate meat nor defecated, both of which
seem unlikely.

So, the best guess at what Jesus ate can be obtained from
study of Mediterranean cultures, especially the Jewish.

First Conclusion: Jesus never ate ham, not even for Easter
or Christmas. People ate pork at the risk of death from
trichinosis (a worm infestation).

Second Conclusion: Jesus did eat fish. This is documented in
the New Testament. He did not eat any sea food which lacked
fins or scales, such as clams, oysters, crabs, lobster,
octopus, eel, as these were un-clean by Jewish Kosher laws.
Likewise, he did not eat meat from pigs, horses, donkeys,
camels, vultures. He could have eaten deer meat, chicken,
duck, turkey, eggs, et cetera. Most likely, he did not eat
rabbit, squirrel, rat, or any birds of prey.

Kosher laws were originally based on good empirical
observation on what foods did or did not cause illness. They
are not the latest word on good health practices. Some of
the Kosher laws go against modern medical and common sense.
However, the concepts of "eat only what is good for you",
and "do not kill food animals with avoidable suffering" are
certainly good ones.

Third Conclusion: Jesus did not eat four legged meat every
day. The average for those times was about once a week to
once a month, even for sheep herders. Hunters in the field
probably ate more meat. This does NOT mean that Jesus was a
vegetarian, as some claim.

Fourth Conclusion: Jesus ate bread; lots and lots of bread.
And it was not "low carb", either.

Fifth Conclusion: Jesus probably ate fruits, vegetables,
grains, garbanzo beans, nuts, olives, goat cheese, salted
fish (when fresh was not available). He probably also
needed salt in his diet, ate honey, but most certainly did
not eat refined sugars.

Sixth Conclusion: Jesus was in good physical condition. Any
carpenter without power tools, any person who walks a lot,
would be in good physical condition.

Seventh Conclusion: Jesus was not a teetotaler, despite what
some branches of Christianity now claim. Miracles attributed
to him involved loaves, fishes, wine. If you don't belive in
miracles, there are several historical facts to consider.
1. For most people, refrigeration is a modern invention.
Fermentation is a natural event unless deliberately avoided,
such as by cooking, drying, pickling, and/or salting foods.
Canning was not known in biblical days. Fermentation allowed
the making of leavened bread and the preservation of grain
and fruit juices as beer and wine.

2. For most people living in early communities, drinking
water could not be counted on to be clean. Not everyone had
access to fresh spring water, or un-polluted streams.
Therefore, use of beer and diluted wine allowed alcohol to
fight microbes.

To my knowledge, Jesus did not spell out recipes for his
followers. He certainly would not have forbidden or promoted
foods that were not known in his time and area. I don't
think he knew about soy foods, caffeinated beverages, high
fructose sugar, and more.

Modern Christians, and others, do well to learn from recent
health publications on paper and on internet, using healthy
skepticism. Things which cause obesity are not healthful.
Myths which masquerade as truth (such as "low carb" fad
diets), should be evaluated and cast aside. Tobacco and
other smoking materials are to be avoided, both through
direct use and second hand smoke. Sedentary life styles
should be offset by at least moderate exercise, such as
daily walking. And nothing to excess -- except for parties.

Historical records seem to show cancers and strokes were
formerly less common than today. However, some illnesses
were not recognized, such as "colic" which probably covered
appendicitis, cancer, and food poisoning. Whereas some
people lived long in biblical times (ignore Methuselah),
life expectancy was much less than in modern countries so
that most died before some diseases could get to them.

Still, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
puts a lot of emphasis on Good Diet and at least Moderate
Exercise as keys to good health and longevity. I don't think
Jesus would argue against that.
** Diet with FACTS, not MYTHS. **

Copyright by Donald A. Miller, Ph.D.
-----------------------------
About the Author:
Dr. Donald A. Miller is author of "Easy Health Diet"
http://easyhealthdiet.com/diet.htm, "Easy Exercise All Ages"
http://easyhealthdiet.com/eeaa.htm, and numerous free
articles on health http://easyhealthdiet.com/articles/.
Seven of ten deaths are caused by preventable diseases.
** Tell a Friend, http://easyhealthdiet.com/telljack.htm
-----------------------------

The What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook

2011-07-24T05:29:00.000-07:00

The What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook
by Don Colbert ca uk de fr jp

Spiral-bound: 224 pages
Publisher: Nelson Books; Spiral edition (August 6, 2002)
ISBN: 0785265198

Based on a biblical and historical study of what Jesus ate, as well as scientific research on why these particular foods are ideal for healthy living, What Would Jesus Eat? is the ultimate program for eating well in the twenty-first century. Now, this companion cookbook helps readers to creatively and practically incorporate these foods into their own diets.

These easy-to-follow recipes are designed to help the reader prepare foods commonly eaten during the time of Christ in a way that will satisfy modern-day palates. Dishes feature fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, olive oil, and more. This unique cookbook is ideal for anyone desiring to safely lose weight or simply eat healthier.

http://easss.com/health

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

2011-07-11T21:34:00.000-07:00

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?
By Keith Akers
http://ramsss.com/christian

For many vegetarians, Jesus’ message implies compassion toward all creation. How can we justify the torture and slaughter of billions of animals each year for food? And how can we tolerate such obvious cruelty in a religion whose founder preached mercy and compassion? Yet most modern churches reject vegetarianism with hardly a thought; vegetarianism is an idea which is at best tolerated, and at worst condemned as heresy.

Was Jesus a vegetarian? This issue is too complex to be answered with just a few Bible verses. In fact, it cannot be fully answered in a short article; my book, The Lost Religion of Jesus, has a more complete answer. The New Testament takes contradictory stands on this issue, sometimes seeming to condemn and sometimes seeming to support vegetarianism. Jesus feeds bread and fish to the five thousand (Mark 6:34-44) — seeming to approve of eating fish. But Jesus also speaks of compassion toward animals (Matthew 12:10-12, Luke 12:6-7, 13:15-16) — seeming to hint at vegetarianism. The same can be said of many other views in the Bible as well; one can defend almost any point of view one wants with appropriate Bible verses. But that leaves us with the question, where does the truth lie?

I. Vegetarianism in Early Christianity

There were many vegetarians in early Christianity, both in the leadership and among ordinary Christians. Augustine, while not vegetarian himself and while vehemently arguing against the idea that Christians must be vegetarians, nevertheless states that those Christians who "abstain both from flesh and from wine" are "without number" (On the Morals of the Catholic Church 33). His "heretical" Manichean opponents were entirely vegetarian. But the Christian vegetarians to whom Augustine is referring are clearly orthodox, indicating a widespread acceptance of vegetarianism both among heretics and the orthodox.

Many leaders of the early church were vegetarian. Eusebius says that James the brother of Jesus was a vegetarian, and in fact was evidently raised as a vegetarian (Ecclesiastical History 2.23). Why would Jesus’ parents have raised James as a vegetarian, unless they were vegetarian themselves and raised Jesus as a vegetarian as well? Eusebius also states (Proof of the Gospel 3.5) that all the apostles abstained from meat and wine. Other famous early Christians who were vegetarian, based on statements made by them or about them, included Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Arnobius, Tertullian, and Jerome.

II. The Controversy Over Vegetarianism

The letters of Paul give clear evidence of a controversy over vegetarianism. Paul believes that it is not necessary to be a vegetarian in order to be a Christian.

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions. One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables," says Paul (Romans 14:1-2). Paul counsels patience between the meat-eaters and the vegetarians. But there is nothing wrong with eating meat as such — "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience" (I Corinthians 10:25).

Paul won this battle in the early church; while many Christians were vegetarian, most churches taught that it was not necessary to be vegetarian. However, some early Christians, such as the Jewish Christians, rejected Paul; they were vegetarian and thought that vegetarianism should be required of all Christians. It is these Jewish Christians who were in conflict with Paul over the vegetarian issue.

III. Who were the Jewish Christians?

For the Jewish Christians, Jesus did not come to found a new religion; his message was about simple living and nonviolence. Jesus did not overturn the Jewish law, but preached a return to the Jewish law (as he saw it) — a law which commanded simple living and nonviolence. For the Jewish Christians, Jesus was a prophet who was loyal to the law; but upon examining the Jewish law, Jesus reached radical conclusions. The Jewish Christians therefore believed in simple living, pacifism, and vegetarianism.

We know about the Jewish Christians — and among them, the Ebionites, the chief Jewish Christian group — on the basis of early church documents. The most useful of these are the Clementine Homilies, the Recognitions of Clement (two Jewish Christian writings) and the Panarion of Epiphanius (an attack on Jewish Christianity which, however, gives insight into their beliefs).

The Jewish Christians called themselves "the poor" — the term "Ebionites" is derived from a Hebrew word which means "the poor." They traced their poverty back to the primitive Christian community described in Acts 4:32-35 — a community which shares all of their possessions in common. Thus, although no one owns any private property, because the community cares for everyone "there was not a needy person among them" — just as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says "You cannot serve God and money" (Matthew 6:24).

The Jewish Christians were also pacifists. The Recognitions speaks at several points of opposition to war and killing (1.70-71, 2.36, 3.42), echoing the statements of other early Christians, both Jewish and gentile, who were opposed to war, as well as the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9), "Do not resist one who is evil" (Matthew 5:39), and "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44).

The Jewish Christians were vegetarians. They opposed meat-eating and the sacrifice of animals in the temple. There are frequent passages in both the Homilies and Recognitions which attack animal sacrifice; the Homilies state that God did not want animals killed at all (3.45), and condemns those who taste or eat meat at all (7.4, 7.8). This opposition to animal sacrifice and support of vegetarianism is one of the most distinctive features of Jewish Christianity — mentioned by Epiphanius as well as in the Homilies and Recognitions.

Why did the Jewish Christians make such an issue over animal sacrifice? We must remember that in ancient times the temple in Jerusalem was not like a modern synagogue or church — it was the place where the Jews brought animal sacrifices, and thus resembled a butcher shop or slaughterhouse more than a modern place of worship. The priests in the temple were able to keep much of the meat from the sacrificed animals and thus benefitted economically from this practice. For the Ebionites, this was a religious sanction to kill animals, which had no place in their religion. Jesus says (Matthew 9:13 and 12:7), "I require mercy, not sacrifice," a saying which the Homilies and Recognitions cite as well. The Ebionite gospel quoted Jesus as saying, "I have come to abolish the sacrifices, and if you cease not from sacrificing, my wrath will not cease from you" (Panarion 30.16.5).

One of the problems which the Jewish Christians had was that, since they remained Jewish and therefore loyal to the law, they had to explain the passages in the "Old Testament" (the Jewish scriptures) which seemed to justify war-making and animal sacrifice. They argued that these commands were not truly in the law given to Moses, but were added by scribes who came after Moses. So we see that Jewish Christianity involved vegetarianism, but a lot more as well. It was a truly radical viewpoint — which eventually became heretical both to orthodox Judaism and to orthodox Christianity.

IV. The Confrontation in the Temple

The Jewish Christians are alone in early Christianity in placing heavy emphasis on the rejection of animal sacrifice. Yet the historical Jesus was clearly opposed to animal sacrifice, as we can see from one of the key events in Jesus’ life — the last week of his life, leading up to his crucifixion. According to all of the gospels, Jesus went into the temple and disrupted the animal sacrifice business:

And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written: ‘my house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers." (Matthew 21:12-13; parallels at Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:13-17)

Who were the ones who bought and sold in the temple, and why were they selling pigeons? The animals which are being sold are sacrificial animals, and it is these dealers in animals whom Jesus is angry with. The primary practical effect of this confrontation was to disrupt the animal sacrifice business — chasing out the animals to be sacrificed, or those who were selling them to be sacrificed. "Cleansing the temple" was an act of animal liberation.

Jesus calls the temple a "den of robbers," an allusion to Jeremiah 7:11; but this passage in Jeremiah follows only after Jeremiah describes murder, adultery, and blatant idolatry (Jeremiah 7:9), and ends by denying that God ever required sacrifices, anyway (7:22). If, of course, the animal sacrifice cult was a fraud--as the Ebionites believed--then the extortion of animals from the populace on religious pretenses was indeed literal robbery and a matter considerably more serious than the figurative "robbery" involved in overcharging.

The final result was that the Romans crucified Jesus. Pilate, the Roman governor, would hardly have crucified someone just because of a Jewish theological dispute. But if someone were causing a riot or disturbance in the temple precincts, this demanded Roman action. It is much more plausible that Jesus objected to the practice of animal sacrifice itself, and that his disruption of the temple business during the volatile Passover week was the immediate and most important cause of his death. It was this act, and its interpretation as a threat to public order, that led immediately to Jesus’ crucifixion.

V. The Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus

Why should we believe that the Jewish Christians had the best understanding of Jesus? There are several reasons. First and most importantly, Jesus was a Jew. In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus nowhere indicates that he is founding a new religion. When asked what we must do to gain salvation, he replies, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). The commandments which Jesus says are the greatest are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). This is exactly how Jewish Christianity saw Jesus: as building an ethic of compassion and sharing on the basis of the Jewish law. Who would have the best understanding of Jesus? Would it not be those of his own followers who, like Jesus, considered themselves Jews?

Secondly, Jesus and the primitive church were in a conflict with the temple priests. The most certain piece of historical knowledge we have about Jesus is that he was crucified, and he was undoubtedly killed after disrupting the animal sacrifice business in the temple. Jesus wants the temple destroyed; the priests in the temple want Jesus and the Jesus movement destroyed. Even after Jesus’ death, the priests keep up the struggle, hoping to either silence or kill the apostles (Acts 4-7). Why would Jesus have risked his life for something not essential to his message?

The Jewish Christians are virtually alone among early Christians in understanding why Jesus died. Jewish Christianity describes Jesus as if this attack on the temple was part of a deliberate plan. Jesus has come to abolish the temple sacrifices (Recognitions 1.54) — thus explaining perfectly both his own motivations and the motivations of those who sought to destroy him and his movement.

Vegetarianism was abandoned because of the popularity of the letters of Paul among early Christians. The early leadership of the church (James, Peter, and John) was Jewish, but they quickly got into a divisive battle with Paul (Galatians 1-2 and Romans 14). In the second century, the teachings of Paul became increasingly popular among Christians. The Jewish Christians detested Paul, considering him an apostate. But by the second century Jewish Christians were already in the minority and eventually Paul’s letters were accepted as part of the New Testament, masking the fact that in his day Paul was a highly controversial figure. Since Paul said vegetarianism was optional, the church followed his stand on this issue. Later editors of the New Testament further distorted and confused Jesus’ views on animals.

Jesus believed in simple living and nonviolence, and felt that this was part of the law of God. Jesus was undoubtedly vegetarian, since this was the original teaching of Jewish Christianity. Jesus did not bring a new theology, but rather a radical understanding of the law. For Jesus, the law commands nonviolence; we are not to shed blood, whether the blood of humans in warfare or the blood of animals in meat consumption or animal sacrifice. Jesus risked and gave his life to disrupt the wicked and bloody animal sacrifices in the temple. But the religion of Jesus has been lost from modern Christianity.

Vegetarian Christian Quotations

2011-07-11T21:32:00.000-07:00

Vegetarian Christian Quotations
http://ramsss.com/christian

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Matthew 5:7

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21

Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees.
Revelation 7:3

The unnatural eating of flesh-meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its unpure feasts, through participation in which a man becomes a fellow-eater with devils. Clementine Homilies (Second Century AD)

A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds. A good deed is never lost; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love. St.Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (329-379 AD)

The saints are exceedingly loving and gentle to mankind, and even to brute beasts ... Surely we ought to show them [animals] great kindness and gentleness for many reasons, but, above all, because they are of the same origin as ourselves. St.John Chrysostom (c.347-407)

If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men. St.Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them wherever they require it. St.Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

You, who are innocent, what have you done worthy of death! (On seeing animals being killed for food) Richard of Wyche, Bishop of Chichester (1197-1253)

And if thy heart be straight with God, then every creature shall be to thee a mirror of life and a book of holy doctrine, for there is no creature so little or so vile, but that sheweth and representeth the goodness of God. Thomas A Kempis (1379-1471)

Be careful that the love of gain draw us not into any business which may weaken our love of our Heavenly Father, or bring unnecessary trouble to any of His creatures. John Woolman (1720-1772)

I tremble for my species when I reflect that God is just. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

I am to ask your Lordships, in the name of that God who gave to man his dominion over the lower world, to acknowledge and recognise that dominion to be a moral trust. Lord (Thomas) Erskine (1750-1823)

...the primitve Christians, by laying so much stress upon a future life in contradiction to this life, and placing the lower creatures out of the pale of sympathy, and thus had the foundation for this utter disregard of animals in the light of our fellow creatures. Anna Bronwell Jameson (1794-1860)

It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. Cardinal Newman (1801-1890)

...and we have so far improved upon the custom of Adam and Eve, that we generally furnish forth our feasts with a portion of some delicate calf or lamb, whose unspotted innocence entitles them to the happiness of becoming our sustenance. Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864)

For fidelity, devotion, love, many a two-legged animal is below the dog and the horse. Happy would it be for thousands of people if they could stand at last before the Judgement Seat and say "I have loved as truly and I have lived as decently as my dog." And yet we call them "only brutes"! Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887)

Without the perfect sympathy with the animals around them, no gentleman's education, no Christian education, could be of any possible use. John Ruskin (1819-1900)

Love animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled. Do not trouble their joy, don't harrass them, don't deprive them of their happiness, don't work against God's intent. Man, do not pride yourself on superiority to animals; they are without sin, and you, with your greatness, defile the earth by your apppearance on it, and leave the traces of your foulness after you - alas, it is true of almost every one of us! Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)

Love all God's creatures, the animals, the plants. Love everything to perceive the divine mystery in all. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)

He who does evil that good may come, pays a toll to the devil to let him into heaven. Hare and Charles (c. 1830)

Heaven is by favor; if it were by merit your dog would go in and you would stay out. Mark Twain (1835-1910)

The animal world being altogether external to the scheme of redemption, was regarded as beyond the range of duty, and the belief that we have any kind of obligation to its members has never been inculcated - has never, I believe, been even admitted - by Catholic theologians. W.E.H.Lecky (1838-1903)

Spain and southern Italy, in which Catholicism has most deeply implanted its roots, are even now, probably beyond all other countries in Europe, those in which inhumanity to animals is most wanton and unrebuked. W.E.H.Lecky (1838-1903)

...the atrocious doctrine that beast and birds were made solely for man's use and pleasure, and that he has no duties towards them. Wilfrid Scawen Blunt (1840-1922)

It is a deplorable fact that many Christians are so accustomed to a certain creed and dogma of their own that they will adhere to it even at the sacrifice of the great moral laws of love and mercy. E.D.Buckner MD, AM, PhD (1843-1907)

Man should regard lower animals as being in the same dependent condition as minors under his government ... For a man to torture an animal whose life God has put into his hands, is a disgrace to his species. E.D.Buckner MD, AM, PhD (1843-1907)

You think those dogs will not be in heaven! I tell you they will be there long before any of us. Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894)

The great discovery of the nineteenth century, that we are of one blood with the lower animals, has created new ethical obligations which have not yet penetrated the public conscience. The clerical profession has been lamentably remiss in preaching this obvious duty. William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)

God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was to be no death in Eden. The fruit of the trees in the garden was the food man's wants required.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists (1864)

Kindness to all God's creatures is an absolute rock-bottom necessity if peace and righteousness are to prevail. Sir Wilfred Grenfell (1865-1940)

Cruelty to animals is the degrading attitude of paganism. Cardinal Hinsley (1865-1943)

The infliction of cruelty with a clear conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

I hated the things they believe in, the things they so innocently and charmingly pretended. I hated the sanctimonious piety that let people hurt helpless creatures. I hated the prayers and the hymns - the fountains and the red images that coloured their drab music, the fountains filled with blood, the sacrifice of the lamb. Ellen Glasgow (1874-1945)

Compared with that of Taoists and Far Eastern Buddhists, the Christian attitude toward Nature has been curiously insensitive and often downright domineering and violent. Taking their cue from an unfortunate remark in Genesis, Catholic moralists have regarded animals as mere things which men do right to regard for their own ends.... Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

If we understand and feel that the greatest act of devotion and worship to God is not to harm any of His beings, we are loving God. Meher Baba (1894-1969)

To love God in the most practical way is to love our fellow beings. If we feel for others in the same way as we feel for our own dear ones, we love God. Meher Baba (1894-1969)

If we suffer in the sufferings of others and feel happy in the happiness of others, we are loving God. Meher Baba (1894-1969)

The diet of animals is vegetables and grains. Must the vegetables be animalized, must they be incorporated into the system of animals, before we get them? Must we obtain our vegetable diet by eating the flesh of dead creatures? God provided fruit in its natural state for our first parents. He gave to Adam charge over the garden, to dress it, and to care for it, saying, "To you it shall be for meat." One animal was not to destroy another animal for food." -Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists (1896)

Let our ministers and canvassers step under the banners of strict temperance. Never be ashamed to say, "No thank you; I do not eat meat. I have conscientious scruples against eating the flesh of dead animals.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1901

Flesh was never the best food; but its use is now doubly objectionable, since disease in animals is so rapidly increasing.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1902

Animals are becoming more diseased and it will not be long until animal food will be discarded by many besides Seventh-day Adventists. Foods that are healthful and life sustaining are to be prepared, so that men and women will not need to eat meat.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1902

Vegetables, fruits, and grains should compose our diet. Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating of flesh is unnatural. We are to return to God's original purpose in the creation of man.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1903

The moral evils of a flesh diet are not less marked than are the physical ills. Flesh food is injurious to health, and whatever affects the body has a corresponding effect on the mind and the soul. Think of the cruelty to animals meat-eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard those creatures of God!
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1905

Animals are often transported long distances and subjected to great suffering in reaching a market. Taken from the green pastures and traveling for weary miles over the hot, dusty roads, or crowded into filthy cars, feverish and exhausted, often for many hours deprived of food and water, the poor creatures are driven to their death, that human beings may feast on the carcasses.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1905

It is a mistake to suppose that muscular strength depends on the use of animal food. The needs of the system can be better supplied, and more vigorous health can be enjoyed, without its use. The grains, with fruits, nuts, and vegetables, contain all the nutritive properties necessary to make good blood. These elements are not so well or so fully supplied by a flesh diet. Had the use of flesh been essential to health and strength, animal food would have been included in the diet appointed man in the beginning.
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1905

Those who eat flesh are but eating grains and vegetables at second hand; for the animal receives from these things the nutrition that produces growth. The life that was in the grains and the vegetables passes into the eater. We receive it by eating the flesh of the animal. How much better to get it direct by eating the food that God provided for our use!
- Ellen White, co-founder Seventh Day Adventists, 1905

I write in sorrow [on vivisection]: as far as I can tell, no voice has been heard from the Church about this evil. The matter is forgotten for another year. It should not be. It is one of the most appalling blots on our plentifully blotted civilisation. Rev Geoffrey Mather (1910- )

It is man who has fallen, not the beasts: that is the message even for the irreligious, and to some extent salvation can be measured by his very treatment of them. Roy Fuller (1912- )

Let the law of kindness show no limits. Show a loving consideration for all God's creatures. General Advices (1928) (Quakers)

We shall respect that of God in all creation. We shall live in loving harmony with the earth. Humankind shall be a joyful gardener of the world given us by God, and shall use its fruits wisely and moderately. Quakers (1979)

Tofu Jesus

2011-07-11T17:06:00.000-07:00

Tofu Jesus
http://ramsss.com/christian

Many Christians have received the Gospel as encouraging vegetarianism. Several early Christian groups, including the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elchasaites, Ossaeans, Cathars, and the Bogomils, encouraged vegetarianism. Since then, the Trappist, Benedictine, and Carthusian orders have advocated vegetarianism, as have Seventh-day Adventists. In the 19th century, members of the Bible Christian sect established the first vegetarian groups in England and the U.S.

Vegetarian Christians have included Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, John Wesley (Methodism’s founder), Ellen G. White (a Seventh-day Adventists founder), Salvation Army co-founders William and Catherine Booth, Leo Tolstoy, and Albert Schweitzer.

What would Jesus eat?

2011-07-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

What would Jesus eat?
Some vegetarian Christians say meat wouldn’t be on the menu
http://ramsss.com/christian

By MAUREEN HAYDEN
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

According to the Bible, when Jesus found himself surrounded by 5,000 followers eager to hear his divine message but hungry for some earthly food, he turned five little loaves and two scrawny fish into a banquet for the masses.

But some Christian scholars think if he were alive today, he might rethink the menu.

In books, on Web sites and in scholarly research, they’ve created a new acronym for Christians questioning how to live their faith. It’s WWJE: What Would Jesus Eat? It’s a spinoff of the widespread term WWJD: What Would Jesus Do?

Citing a range of Scripture passages, from a Genesis account of the diet of Eden to the apostle Paul’s admonition to treat the body as a temple, Christian vegetarians claim that if Jesus were alive today, he’d be a vegetarian.

“Jesus taught a ministry of love and compassion,” said Stephen Webb, author of “Good Eating (The Christian Practice of Everyday Life)” (Brazos Press, 2001). “It was love and compassion for all of God’s creation.”

Webb is an associate professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Ind., and the co-chairperson of the international Christian Vegetarian Association (www.christianveg.com).

He describes himself as an “evangelical theologian” whose vegetarian lifestyle is biblically based. He argues that the Eucharistic celebration itself may be one of the most powerful symbols of a divine diet: a vegetarian meal that harks back to the meatless Garden of Eden and looks forward to the Revelation promise of the lion and the lamb coexisting in peace.

It’s a theology, he admits, that departs from the mainstream Christian view of the animal kingdom, where a glazed ham is the Easter bounty and a baked turkey is the centerpiece of the Thanksgiving meal.

"It's rarely on the radar screen of traditional Christianity," Webb said. "It's a topic almost too hot to handle. Any minister who would preach it would risk coming off as 'holier than thou' to his congregation. It's easier to say we should not engage in adultery. People will still do it, but at least they don't do it so openly."

The leaders of the Christian Vegetarian Association come from a variety of Protestant and Catholic denominations.

There is a wave of books on the market that encourage Christians to go meatless and all launch their arguments beginning with Genesis 1:29. In that verse, God presents Adam and Eve with the menu of paradise: "I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth ... they shall be yours for food."

In the Genesis story, God also creates the animals and gives Adam "dominion" over them, but Christian vegetarians would argue that God created animals as Adam's companions and helpers, not as his supper.

"I read the passages to mean that all God's creation is sacred," Webb said. "All creation is made to glorify and magnify God."

What Jesus ate 2,000 years ago is a subject of debate among Christian vegetarians. Some argue that Biblical passages describing Jesus eating and multiplying fish have been incorrectly translated through the centuries, with fish incorrectly imposed for fruit.

Webb, though, would concede that Jesus likely ate fish with his disciples, as described in Luke 24:43, but he'd argue that if Jesus found himself in a modern-day context of factory farming, environmental pollution from animal waste and rampant cancer and heart disease, he'd turn to a vegetarian diet.

"In some parts of the world, humans need to eat meat to survive," Webb said, "but not in America. We eat meat to satisfy our taste."

To abstain from meat, Webb said, is an act of Christian self-sacrifice, part of a long tradition of abstinence and fasting in the name of faith.

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake: French science magazine

2011-07-04T04:25:00.000-07:00

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake: French science magazine
Tue Jun 21
http://ramsss.com/christian

PARIS (AFP) - A French magazine said it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fake.

"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science et Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.

The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.

In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.

Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science et Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief -- a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background -- of a Christ-like face.

A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.

Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.

Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.

The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.

The experiments, said Science et Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.

For one thing, the Shroud's defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.

In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.

For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.

The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.

To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.

He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ.

He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours -- the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again -- but this time, there was not a single mark on it.

"It's obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," Science et Vie report drily.

The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

Reincarnation And The Bible

2011-07-04T04:12:00.000-07:00

Reincarnation And The Bible
By J J Dewey ONE LIFE OR MANY?

http://ramsss.com/christian

During my childhood I did not go to any particular church and my parents did not try to influence me toward any particular religion or philosophy. Therefore, as I look back I see that my earliest thoughts on life were those of a little child forming his most natural conclusions.

One of those natural ideas I formulated was that if God is indeed good as everyone had said then he must give us all the chances we need to gain all the experience we want and to live full abundant lives. I thought of how much I looked forward to growing up and making my mark on the world, then of how terrible it would be if some accident took my life. I thought that surely God would provide some way for me to come back and have the opportunity to fulfill my hopes and dreams.

One day a visiting neighbor was telling my mother about a book she had read entitled: The Search For Bridie Murphy and she explained the theory of how we are born again and again into this earth life. I was immediately attracted to this idea for it blended in with my natural thoughts and I continued to believe it until I became active in a conservative church about the age of thirteen.

Around this period I mentioned my belief in reincarnation to one of the brethren. He seemed shocked and said: "You've got it all wrong. Reincarnation is the doctrine of the devil. We only live one life, then we are resurrected to die no more."

I asked him if there was anything in the scriptures about having only one life.

At that point he turned to Hebrews 9:27 and read: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

I then looked at the verse and read it several times. Sure enough. The Bible did seem to say that we live only once. There fore, there could be no reincarnation. I was very disappointed. It seemed unfair that many people are cut off and unable to enjoy the full fruits of mortality.

On the other hand, I was told by the brethren that the next world was better than this one and it was really a blessing to die early to escape trials and tribulations. This idea did not help, however, for I looked forward to whatever trials this life may have to offer and, furthermore, I noticed that my fellow church members did not look forward to ending their life either. None seemed anxious to enter that better "other world"; instead, I heard comments such as: "I hope Jesus doesn't come till I am older and I get a chance to do a few things. "I hope I live until I can raise my family." Often they would express an interest in living until they are a certain ripe old age.

Nevertheless, I reluctantly accepted the idea of the one life "because the Bible said so" and held to it faithfully for about fourteen years. But during this period I did not feel satisfied with the answers I had to the questions of: Where did I come from? Why am I here? and Where am I going? The church had pat answers, but they left many unanswered questions they called mysteries that were not important to our salvation.

The unfairness of orthodox doctrine is what bothered me most. What about people who die with dreams unfulfilled? What about babies that die with no chance of participating in mortality? What about those who are killed before accomplishing their heart's desire?

The mindless answer that God would take care of things just left me vacant and helped to keep my mind open to greater light and truth.

It was my study of regression, however, that caused me to seriously consider reincarnation again. It has long been known that a person can be guided back to any time in his past and relive it as if it were occurring all over again. This can be done through hypnosis or by merely directing the mind to return.

I did many experiments with regression and watched with fascination as people returned to their early childhood, even the day they were born to recall events verified by older family members. I was often tempted to take individuals back beyond the date they were born, but for a long time I almost felt it was sacrilege,. I also found myself being somewhat fearful and apprehensive of what I may find.

Nevertheless, one can only suppress curiosity so long and eventually I did take someone back before birth.

The first person I regressed to a previous life was a young lady. I was quite surprised at the ease and familiarity with which she went back. She recalled a life over one hundred years ago in the North east of England and began speaking in an English accent recounting events from that life. Anyone listening would have been amazed at the accent coming from one who had never been to England in this life. However, I was particularly startled because I had spent several years in Britain and most of it in the area she described.

Anyone who travels England becomes acutely aware that most of England does not speak the "Queen's English", but there are numerous dialects. There can be a noticeable accent change in a distance of fifty miles. However, there is a marked difference between the way the people in the North and South of England speak. I believe it is a greater difference than the accent change between the North and South of the United States.

What amazed me is that this young lady said she had lived in the northeastern part of England and her accent exactly duplicated the dialect in that area. We must take into consideration that the Northeast British accent is much more difficult to imitate than the Queen's English which is usually used by movie stars.

In America one rarely hears a North British accent over the media and I was 99% sure that the female involved had never even once heard a North Englander speak - at least in this life.

Another time I was attending a church party and decided to liven it up somewhat. I told the group that I could take people back to any point in their lives, even the day of birth, and have them re call it. People seemed interested in this and the first volunteer was a newly married lady whose husband was out shopping for some snacks for us.

I not only took her back to her youth, but before the entire non believing crowd I took her back into three past lives. In two of them she knew her current husband. One life was back in prehistoric times when they had no names and the other was in the days of the Roman Empire. She said she was married to a Roman senator named Marcus Aurelius who was later killed in a battle.

The details she gave certainly awed everyone there, but the best was still to come. When her husband came home everyone insisted that I take him back also. He was a good subject and regressed to prehistoric times and described the same surroundings that his wife had. But then, amazingly, he went back to the days of the Roman Empire and said his name was Marcus Aurelius, a Roman senator who was killed in Battle.

Everyone was so stunned at this that they began to doubt their belief in the church and I found myself being the one to reassure their beliefs and not to let this bother them for I still felt that there must be some logical explanation besides reincarnation. Even this and other amazing regressions did not make me cast aside my church's doctrine in the one mortal life.

I will not make the effort here to recall how, time after time, I was presented with evidence that there is more than one mortal life, but each time I refused to believe it until I was hit with an explosive piece of personal evidence that had no other explanation than reincarnation. I found myself face to face with reality. I had to either deny the logical process completely and doubt my own ability to come to a truthful conclusion, or open my mind and sincerely ask myself if I could have been wrong.

Since that time many years ago, I have learned that there are many proofs of reincarnation in the scriptures and that passage that made me doubt my natural beliefs when I was a child has a very rational explanation.

Let us again quote: Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment."

The "once to die" sounds like an absolute statement not open to debate until we realize that it is boldly contradicted by the Bible itself: "They (the dead) were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast (to suffer a second death) into the lake of fire." Rev 20:12-15

The book of Revelations has quotes from John, an angel, and Jesus Christ, all using the phrase "second death" so we know there has to be one. Thus it is quite obvious that if Paul were writing the truth he did not literally mean "once to die" except perhaps once per lifetime, or that there is one general mortality passed upon all mankind.

There are other scriptures that are quite deceiving if they are read with a black and white state of mind: A pertinent one was made by Paul again. He said: "I die daily." I Cor 15:31 He also said: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience...It is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Cor 14:34-35 Paul also advised the saints to remain single as he was (I Cor 7:7) and if they were married to not have sex (I Cor 7:29).

Jesus told us to cut off our right hand if it offends us (Matt 5:30) and talked about making oneself a eunuch (literally a castrated person) for the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 19:12)

If we do not read difficult passages like these in their correct context and with some knowledge of the customs and beliefs of that ancient era we may reject the whole Bible as being the work of madmen.

Let us examine the verse that precedes the "once to die" scripture: "But now once in the end of the world hath he (Christ) appeared to put away sin by sacrifice of himself." Heb 9:26

If we read this verse laterally we are led to believe that Jesus appeared only once at the end of the world to sacrifice himself. Two thousand years has passed since then so those who thought Paul was talking about the real "end of the world" were wrong. Also, Jesus did not appear once but appeared many times to many people.

To interpret this scripture accurately one has to read it in its correct context as well as examine the Greek from which it was translated.

In examining the Greek we find that the word "world" is a mistranslation. It comes from the word AION. The modern English word "eon" is derived from this and it means "an age". Thus we see that Jesus came once at not the end of the world, but the end of the age. We realize that his "one" coming refers to his general life (with all his numerous appearances counted as one) at the end of one age and the beginning of a new one.

Here we see that Hebrews 9:26 cannot be interpreted in a black and white literal manner. How about the next verse? Does it mean what it seems to mean? Are we really appointed only "once to die" or is there more meaning here below the surface? Are there many deaths within the one death as there were many "comings" within the one general first coming of Christ? Is it talking about physical death or spiritual death? If it is talking about spiritual death, then that would leave open the possibility of more than one physical death.

In examining this scripture there are three words that are generally overlooked: "men", "but", and "judgment". We'll quote this scripture one more time emphasizing these: 'And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Men comes from the Greek ANTHROPOS which in this context indicates the human race as a whole.

The word "but" here is quite interesting. It comes from the Greek ALLA which literally means contrariwise. In other words, it indicates that the information that is forthcoming may contradict that which has just been said.

That would mean that "after this the judgment" may have an opposite meaning to "it is appointed unto men once to die". It would indicate an exception as in the sentence: "I rise every morning at 8:00 A.M., except when the alarm doesn't go off."

"After this the judgment" does not sound like it contradicts or has an opposite meaning to "once to die" so let us look closer to see what the original language says. Judgment comes from the Greek word KRISIS. This is one of the most misunderstood words in the entire Bible. Translators don't quite seem to know how to handle it and seem to render it according to their bias rather than the actual meaning. In the King James version they have rendered it: accusation, condemnation, damnation, and judgment. These words all have diverse meanings, but none of them are an exact translation.

The modern English word "crisis" (which is derived from the Greek KRISIS) is a more accurate rendering than the Bible translations. The actual Greek word implies a decision that brings correction. If it is used in connection with the word "judgment" the idea of a corrective judgment should be implied.

Another mistranslation in this verse is the phrase "to die". It is more correctly rendered "to be dying". Let us now take into consideration these corrections and render the verse as close as possible to the Greek: "And as it is reserved for mankind once tr. be dying, but on the other hand, after this [after the state of dying is over we have] the judgment [or KRISIS the decision to correct the state of death].

The verse could be describing either a spiritual death, physical death or both.

The word KRISlS is used in another very interesting scripture:

"The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (KRISIS)." John 5:28-29

Notice here that John tells us that there are two resurrections: (1) The resurrection of life, and (2) the resurrection of damnation or KRISIS.

"Damnation" is an incorrect word for translators to use. The second resurrection should more appropriately be called "the resurrection of correction" or "the resurrection which forces correct decisions".

The word "resurrection" comes from the Greek ANASTASIS which literally means "to stand up again" or "to come to life again". The word does not imply that the new life will always be an immortal one as indicated by the following scripture: "Women received their dead raised to life again (from the same Greek word ANASTASIS): and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." (ANASTASIS) Heb. 11:35.

The reference "women received their dead raised to life again" refers to miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha where the dead were revived to a mortal existence. Here the word ANASTASIS refers to something other than an immortal life.

Here is another interesting scripture spoken by the Christ years before his resurrection: "The Son can do nothing of him self, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise...For as the Father RAISETH UP THE DEAD, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." John 5:19h21

Here we are plainly told that the dead were raised to life again by the power of the Father BEFORE the resurrection of Jesus.

On the other hand Paul said that Jesus was "THE FIRST that should raise from the dead." Acts 26:23.

This seems like a paradox. On one hand we are told that there were resurrections before Jesus and that both the Father and the Son raised up any of the dead that they wished. On the other hand it is written that Jesus was the first to raise from the dead. How is this to be explained?

It is quite simple. There are two resurrections. Jesus was the first to attain to the resurrection of life. But the second type of resurrection, the resurrection of KRISIS or correction has been occurring since the beginning.

The resurrection of KRISIS or correction can refer to one being revived to mortal life in the same body as Lazareth was, or it could refer to being "born again" in a new body with a new life experience giving us an opportunity to "correct" our imperfections.

Jesus was not the first to attain the resurrection of KRISIS, but he was the first to gain the resurrection of life.

It was the resurrection of life that Paul spoke of when he said that it was something he had to attain: "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after." Phil 3:11-12.

Paul indicates that we must be "perfect" to "attain" this resurrection. He can only be referring to the resurrection of life for Jesus said that all the evil ones go to "the resurrection of correction" while they who have done good attain the "better resurrection".

This makes sense doesn't it? We are sent again and again to the resurrection of correction to live life after life on the earth and then when we have corrected our errors and become without sin as was Jesus we "attain" unto the resurrection of "life" and "this mortal must put on immortality". I Cor 15:53.

How do we avoid the resurrection of correction? The Lord tells us: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation (from KRISIS, the resurrection of correction): but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

The scriptures plainly tell us that by hearing, believing, and doing the words of God so that we are perfected leads to escaping the resurrection of Krisis and "attaining" the resurrection of life.

With this knowledge in mind we can place still another interpretation on Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die (in this present age), on the other hand after this comes the resurrection of correction" (where we will be born and die again in a future age.)

WHATSOEVER A MAN SOWETH

Paul tells us plainly that all will not attain the resurrection of life. He said "the wages of sin is death". When we sin we need correction so we are sent to the resurrection of KRISIS where we are again in mortal bodies subjected to death. Paul further said: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God (sin), him shall God DESTROY; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." I Cor 3:16-17.

Those who continue to sin and suffer the resurrection of KRISIS are reborn and live a mortal existence where their temple of God (their body) dies or is destroyed. Interestingly "destroy" comes from the Greek PHTHIO which means "to waste, spoil, or decay". That certainly describes the mortality we experience in the resurrection of KRISIS.

It is only fitting that Paul said that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death." I Cor 15:26. This is because we are born again and again into the resurrection of KRISIS until we have corrected all of our mistakes. The very last correction we make is when we overcome death and "put on immortality".

Jesus admonished us to follow in his footsteps: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, and am sat down with the Father in his throne." Rev. 3:21 If we are to overcome as did Jesus then we must obey the injunction: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48 I do not know of even one person who has attained perfection and overcome all things as did Jesus. Consequently, the only way the scriptures can be fulfilled is for one to be physically born again until he can live a life without sin just as Jesus did. Those in the kingdom of man must literally be "born again" to enter the kingdom of God.

When that happens the promise will be fulfilled where Jesus said: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and HE SHALL GO NO MORE OUT." Rev. 3:12 We will have to "go no more out" of one physical body into another- one when we have overcome all things.

Until that time Jesus tells us that "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, (of physical bodies), and find pasture." John 10:9.

After we go in and out and find pasture the time will come when: "he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I GIVE POWER OVER THE NATIONS: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: EVEN AS I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER." Rev. 2:26-27

These scriptures we have quoted make it very clear that there are two resurrections. We enter the resurrection of KRISIS each time we fall short of the glory of Christ. When this happens God causes our bodies to be destroyed. He asks us to "overcome" "even as I overcame". Obviously we cannot overcome AS he did unless we will eventually live a perfect life as he did on the Earth.

Jesus said that we will do "greater works" than he did. John 14:12. To this day I know of no one who has done greater works than Jesus, but when the time comes that some of us are living our last life to "attain" the resurrection of life, then will the world see these greater works. At that time we will come to the "knowledge of the Son of God, UNTO A PERFECT MAN, unto the-measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph 4:13. When one becomes "a perfect man" he then receives "power over the nations" as promised.

Reincarnation is merely the result of the law of cause and effect as pointed out by Paul: 'if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that SHALL HE ALSO REAP. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh REAP CORRUPTION (the resurrection of KRISIS or rebirth in mortality); but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap LIFE EVERLASTING" (or the resurrection of life).. Gal 6:3-6.

Again we have here a vivid description of the two resurrections. The word "corruption" here comes from the Greek PHTHORA which is derived from PHTHEIRO the word that is used when Paul said that God shall "destroy" the defiled temples. PHTHORA indicates a state of "decay". Thus Paul is simply telling us over and over again that if our mind is centered on carnal things we will return not to some state of immortality, but will "reap corruption" or decay.

Paul even goes so far as to warn us to not be deceived for God is not mocked on this matter. He further says that "flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God; neither doeth corruption (obviously referred to here as flesh and blood) inherit incorruption." I Cor 15:50.

Here the "corruption" that we reap is, identified as "flesh and blood". This is only logical since all flesh and blood is proceeding toward death and decay. After all Paul said that the corruption would be reaped "of the flesh".

Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that simply means that if we fall short of it we will be "born again" in this state of "corruption" or flesh and blood. Flesh and blood is the resurrection of KRISIS and we must come back again and a gain and inherit this corruption until we have "corrected" all of our mistakes and attain the resurrection of life or "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph 4:13

Jesus was subtly referring to the resurrection of KRISIS when he said: "Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Matt 5:26

No orthodox Christian has ever answered this question: If we reap according to how we have sowed and if we "of the flesh reap corruption" and we die before we have reaped all that is due us, then how can we reap "of the flesh" with no flesh? How can we reap corruption if there is no corruption?

The only answer is reincarnation. We must return to mortality if we are to reap corruption in the flesh. Is there another way to fulfill the scripture without mocking God? Verily no.

The principle of reaping as we sow is repeated many times in the Bible. Jesus said: "ALL they that take the sword shall PERISH with the sword." Matt 26:52. Now it is obvious that many people in history have slain with the sword, yet died a peaceful death. Why then did Jesus use the word "all"? Why did he say these words to Peter in an effort to get him to put away his sword and cease his attack on the angry mob? Obviously, if Peter went forth and killed with the sword then he would have to reap what he sowed and come back (even if it was a future life) and reap destruction by a sword or some similar destructive weapon.

This is confirmed in the thirteenth chapter of Revelations where we are told about the Anti-Christ who will slay all those who will not worship his image and will have power over the Saints. Here the saints are told why they must suffer: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword MUST be killed with the sword. HERE IS THE PATIENCE AND THE FAITH OF THE SAINTS." Rev 13:10

In other words, the reason the patience and the faith of the saints is tested so is because of mistakes they made in past lives. In previous lives they killed with the sword as Peter wanted to do. They also lead others into captivity even as did Paul before his conversion. Thus when the saints are persecuted they are often reaping what they have sowed in previous lives. This answers the eternal question as to why some of the best people must suffer so. They are paying off debts from a past era when they were not so good. When one becomes a disciple of Christ he must pay the "utter most farthing", for Jesus said: "Everyone shall be salted with fire." Mark 9:49

This principle was further emphasized by the Lord's own mouth to Noah: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: for in the image of God made he man." Gen 9:5-6

Of course, there have been many who have shed blood who have not reaped what they have sowed. But remember "God will not be mocked" and let the person escape the punishment he has decreed. He will be reborn and "of the flesh" reap his just reward with interest.

~ The principle of rebirth also helps us to understand the dialog that God had with Cain: [God said to Cain:] "A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth... [And Cain said:] I shall be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Gen 4:12-14

Notice here that Cain expects to be slain more than once. Also study the Lord's response: "And the Lord said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him SEVENFOLD. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." Gen 4:15

There are several things that do not make sense here without re incarnation. First, Cain was told he would be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth, but instead the scripture tells us that he settled in the land of Nod and built a city named Enoch. (See Gen 4:16-17) It sounds as if Cain was fairly settled in that life. One would have to stretch the imagination to call him a fugitive and vagabond in the earth so how could the decree of God be fulfilled? Reincarnation is a possible answer. It's quite probable that Cain has been reborn a number of times and has been a vagabond in the earth more than once.

Cain also made the interesting statement: "Everyone, that findeth me shall slay me." indicating he expected to be slain more than once. But the scriptures give no indication that Cain died other than a natural death in that life.

Finally we are told that whoever kills Cain will have vengeance taken on him "sevenfold". The question arises: How do you take seven fold vengeance on murder? If a killer is put to death then the vengeance is merely onefold; yet, short of torture, that is the worst punishment that can be inflicted. Taking this into consideration how else can the Lord take vengeance "sevenfold" on murder unless the man gives his life seven times?

In other words, if a man kills Cain, or possibly one of his descendants, thinking he deserves it then he would have to forfeit his life in seven different lifetimes to pay for the deed. That seems like a stiff punishment, but we probably do not know the whole story here.

We are told that a terrible reaping will be given out to those who change the revelations of God: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book (the book of Revelations), If any man shall add unto these things, God shall ADD unto him THE PLAGUES that are written in this book. Rev. 22:18

Now for an interesting question... Why did John warn those in the first century that if they added extra words to his book that they would suffer the plagues, which plagues would not come upon the earth for another two thousand years? How could a scribe living in the first century (who commits the sin of adding words to John's book) suffer the plagues unless he were here reborn thousands of years later?

The plagues from the book of Revelation include such things as men dying of waters that are polluted, men being killed by the symbolic beast, men being scorched by the heat of the sun. people receiving sores over their bodies and numerous others.

How could a person from the first century possibly receive these physical plagues unless he is here, born again in a physical body???

We also find that those who have shed the blood of saints and the prophets in past ages will come back and suffer the plagues: "And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and upon the fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. FOR THEY HAVE SHED THE BLOOD OF SAINTS AND PROPHETS, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy." Rev. 16:4-6

It seems only fair that those who have shed the blood of the prophets through the ages will have to come back and reap the harvest of their deeds by drinking blood in a future lifetime.

PROOF THAT MAN EXISTED BEFORE BIRTH

The orthodox Christian believes that man began at birth, but after that point in time he will live on endlessly never dying again. In other words, before birth for every person there is a total blank. He was nothing. He did not exist.

To begin with this is a mathematical impossibility. If a line has a beginning and no end then it extends in to infinity. Every mathematics class teaches that one half of infinity is still infinity. In other words, if a thing has no end mathematically it has to have no beginning. Nothing exists in nature which has no end unless it had no beginning. Anything in nature that has a beginning can be proven to have an end.

A ring provides a good example of this principle. It is circular and has no beginning and no ending point. On the other hand, if one puts a slit in it one will have both a beginning and an end. Nevertheless, it is impossible to cut or mold the ring in such a fashion as to produce an object with a beginning but no end. Such a form does not exist anywhere because one half of infinity is still infinity.

Those who believe in reincarnation recognize the fact that the body of form we live in has both a beginning and an end, but there is within us an intelligent part of God that is one with God and never had a beginning or end. Paul talks about this and calls it "eternal" which would mean without beginning or end: "The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, (our Spirits) an house not made with hands, ETERNAL in the heavens." II Cor 4:18; 5:1.

Here we are clearly told that if the body were dissolved we will yet have an "eternal" house to live in, or that eternal part of ourselves we call the Spirit. If it is eternal as Paul says then it existed before birth for that which is everlasting has neither beginning or end.

Paul tells us that this eternal part of us is connected with the Heavens. No wonder Jesus told us that "The kingdom of God is within".

Paul mentions again this spirit: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, "whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether OUT OF THE BODY, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven." II Cor 12:2.

Paul's out of body experience isreally not that unusual for now that mankind has ceased burning out-of-the-ordinary persons at the stake people are talking more-about their spiritual experiences. Many who have experienced the near death state have re ported actually leaving their bodies in the spirit and returning with an accurate memory of all the conversations of the doctors and nurses.

Some who have gone through this report that their spirit body is connected to their physical by a silver cord of great elasticity. Many believe that death occurs when this silver cord is severed. Interestingly, the Bible makes reference to this: "Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall RETURN unto God who gave it." ECCL. 12:6-7

Evidently Solomon had knowledge of the silver cord which connects the spirit and body as well as the golden bowl which is a golden etheric life energy (invisible to the untrained eye) which ceases or is "broken" also at death. The broken pitcher and wheel describe a cessation of bodily functions.

Next we are told that at death the spirit "returns" to God. One may object here and say that if there is reincarnation then why doesn't the spirit go to a new body. The objector forgets that there is always a resting space between lives and during this interim period the spirit returns to God.

The word "return" here is a powerful proof for a premortal existence. If all that which is us began at birth how can we return to God? If orthodox Christian thought is true all we could return to would be nothingness. We can only return to God if we came from God and we can only come from the presence of God if we had some form of existence with him before birth.

The scriptures reveal that the Lord knew numerous people before they were born. Concerning Jacob and Esau he said: "The Elder shall serve the younger." Gen 25:23 Eve said of Cain: "I have gotten a man FROM the Lord." Gen 4:1 Another good example comes from Jeremiah: "Then came the word of the Lord unto me saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jer 1:4-5

Concerning himself Isaiah said: "The Lord called me from (can be translated 'before') the womb; and from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." Isa 49:1

Of John the Baptist it is written: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." John 1:6

Evidently The Lord knew Paul before his birth for he said: "He (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." This was spoken before Paul began his work.Paul also wrote that God "set me apart from (or before) birth and called me through his grace." Gal 1:15 New English.We are told that the saints are written in "the book of life from the foundation of the world." Rev. 17:8

In addition we are supposed to be "In hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised BEFORE the world began." Titus 1:2 How did God promise eternal life to us before the world began if we were not there? It would be silly for God to make promises to nothingness.

The scriptures seem to make it crystal clear that people existed, were called, ordained, and had promises made to them before they were born. It makes it amazing to see the objections that come forth. The objector says that Jeremiah and others were not in existence before they were born, but they were in God's mind like an architect has a building in his mind. Therefore, they feel it was like God "sanctified", "ordained", "knew", and "promised" to a blueprint. The argument sounds very weak to anyone who thinks about it. One doesn't have to "Wrest" the scriptures when he merely accepts them the way they read.

The Bible gives us powerful evidence that Job was with God before he was born. In chapter 38 God is reprimanding Job for questioning his wisdom and sovereignty and reminds him of works and events which he is supposed to already be aware of. He tells Job that he will demand an answer of him evidently aware that Job should know the answer to the following: "Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding...When the morning stars sang together, and all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?" Job 38:4~6.

Who are the "sons of God"? The scriptures give a clear answer. John the beloved said: "WE are the sons of God..." I John 3:2

It is only fitting that we should be called the "sons of God" for he is called the Father of our spirits in Heb 12:9 Paul also said: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that WE are the children of God." Rom. 8:16

Since Job was one of the sons of God and "ALL the sons of God shouted for joy" at the foundation of the earth then Job had to be there shouting for joy with them. Evidently, the sons of God (which included you and me) were rejoicing over the planet that was prepared for us to inhabit.

Who are the "morning stars (that) sang together"? They were the lightbringers and the prophets to the people of earth with the Christ being at the head. Jesus said: "I AM ... the bright and morning star." Rev 22:16 Others will be given the morning star and evidently become morning stars them selves in a future round. (See Rev. 2:28)

The writer of Proverbs gives us a definite confirmation that the sons of men were present at the foundation of the world. The voice speaking in the eighth chapter of Proverbs is identified as wisdom and understanding. In other words, the wisdom and understanding of God has always been in existence and Solomon writes of it as if it were an entity: "Doth not wisdom cry? and under standing put forth her voice?"

After explaining some of the attributes of wisdom the writer emphasizes how long wisdom has been around and how eternal she is: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: When he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: When he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of HIS EARTH; and my delights were WITH THE SONS OF MEN. " Prov 8:1,22-31.

This scripture makes it clear that when God promised us "eternal life...before the world began" (Titus 1.2) that he was not merely speaking to blueprints, but the "sons of men" were with him in "the habitable part of HIS EARTH." Evidently, we dwelt on another earth in another time where the wisdom of God was manifested. Here the Bible clearly tells us that the sons of men are very ancient beings.

Orthodox people will not like the above interpretation, but they can produce no argument against it. It must be frustrating for them to even read it.

This Proverbs scripture, however, helps us understand numerous scriptures from the New Testament. For instance, Paul said: "For whom he did fore know he did predestinate." Peter said that the Saints were "elect according to the foreknowledge of God." Evidently God gained this "foreknowledge" of us "in the habitable part of his (God's) earth".

Another powerful witness that we have had a pre-mortal existence comes from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. This is a famous chapter on the faith of the prophets (the Morning Stars) on the promises of God. One of the most interesting promises God has made concerns the heavenly city of the New Jerusalem. In describing this city John said he "saw the holy city of the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband ( Jesus Christ). And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the TABERNACLE OF GOD is with men, and he shall dwell with them...And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21:2-3,14

It's quite possible that the new Jerusalem is presently located "in the habitable part of his (God's) earth." The author of Hebrews tells the saints who presently dwell there' "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." Heb. 12:22-24

From these verses we have quoted we find that the inhabitants of the heavenly city Sion (Zion) or the new Jerusalem are: (1) God (2) The twelve apostles (3) Jesus (4) Angels (5) The general assembly (6) The church of the firstborn (7) The spirits of just men made perfect.

The question naturally arises as to how long the city of the New Jerusalem has been in existence and how long the various types of inhabitants have been there.

Since the New Jerusalem in heaven is the habitation of God one would assume it is very ancient. One thing we know for sure is that it is older than Abraham for the scripture says: "He (Abraham) looked for a city which hath foundations (the twelve apostles of the Lamb), whose builder and maker is God." Heb. 11:10.

Since Abraham was aware of the foundations of the city and the foundations had in them the "names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" it is natural to assume that the twelve apostles lived in the city from the days of Abraham or earlier.

The writer of Hebrews tells us concretely that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Noah, Enoch, and Able all lived in the Heavenly New Jerusalem before they were born: "These (those just named) all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were STRANGERS AND PILGRIMS ON THE EARTH. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country ('country' is from the Greek PATRIS which literally means FATHERLAND and figuratively means: Heavenly Home) And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. (If they were looking for any country on the earth they would have had no trouble finding and returning to it). But now they desire a better country, THAT IS AN HEAVENLY: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them A CITY." (The New Jerusalem) Heb. 11:13-16.

This interesting scripture deserves a closer examination. First, the prophets are called "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." This is significant because both words imply that they originated somewhere else besides the earth.

"Strangers" comes from the Greek XENOS and means "foreigner" or "alien". "Pilgrim" comes from PAREPIDEMOS and literally means "resident foreigner".

No matter which translation one uses a previous existence is indicated here. For instance if a man were a stranger in New York it means he had an existence and residence in another city before he arrived there.

The prophets are "strangers" on the earth; therefore, they lived somewhere else before they lived here.

If a man is a foreigner or an alien in the United States then he had to have a true citizenship in another country before he arrived here.

Therefore, if the prophets are foreigners or aliens on the earth, then their true citizenship belongs to another country that they originated from before they were born.

The pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock did not originate in America but came from a distant land. They had a pre-America existence.

The prophets are called "Pilgrims on the earth" meaning that they had a "pre-mortal" existence. A pilgrim is a traveler who comes from somewhere else.

The next verse makes it crystal clear that the choice of these words was no accident. We'll quote it using the more accurate translation of "fatherland" instead of "country": "For they that say such things (that they are strangers and pilgrims) declare plainly that they SEEK A FATHERLAND." Verse 14

It's amazing that this scripture is not universally accepted as proving that the prophets lived before they were born for the writer says that it is "declare(d) plainly" that those who say they are strangers and pilgrims on the earth are seeking a Fatherland, or an origination point that they could have only lived in before they were born.

The next verse puts a seal on this point: "And truly, if they had been mindful of that country (fatherland) from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." verse 15.

In other words, if their originating country was on the earth they could have returned to it while in the flesh. They were in an unfortunate position in that they were citizens of a Father land that was not on the earth, and that they could only return to after they died.

The next verse elaborates this: "But now they desire a better country, that is an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a city." (the New Jerusalem) Verse 16.

The prophets all sought the day when the heavens and the earth would come together and their Fatherland, the New Jerusalem, would descend on the earth so the tabernacle of God would be with men, and the prophets would no longer be strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

John talks of those whose names are "written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." Rev 17:8 Most probably these would be those who lived in the heavenly New Jerusalem since that time. Those who are true citizens of the city would have their names recorded there. This record could very well be the book of life, since the inhabitants thereof are living life most abundantly.

THE PROPHETS LIVED MORE THAN ONE LIFE

The Bible gives numerous indications that the holy men-of the scriptures have lived before. The Lord actually revealed to David two of his previous lives. He wrote: "This he ordained in JOSEPH for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I HEARD A LANGUAGE THAT I UNDERSTOOD NOT. I (the Lord) removed his shoulder from the burden: his hands were delivered from the pots. Thou callest in trouble, and I delivered thee; and answered thee in the secret place of thunder: I PROVED THEE AT THE WATERS OF MERIBAH." Psalms 81:5-7

David here gives us the startling revelation that as Joseph in Egypt he heard a language he didn't understand. Read the scripture carefully and see that when David said "I heard" he was referring the strange language that Joseph heard when he was taken captive in Egypt.

The Lord also told David that he was proved (or tested) at the "waters of Meribah". This is a flashback to his life as Moses where he smote the rock at the place he named Meribah and brought forth water for Israel to drink, but at that time Moses failed the test and did not give glory to the Lord; thus he was not allowed to enter into the promised land. (See Exodus 17:5-7)

Seeing then that the Lord was aware of David's valiant lives as Moses and Joseph he called David "a. man after his own heart" (I Sam 13:14) when he was but a lad. We can also see why "Moses took the bones of Joseph with him" (Ex 13:19) when he left Egypt, for Moses was once Joseph. In a strange way Moses was taking the bones of Joseph with him by merely taking himself out of Egypt. It was quite fitting for this entity to deliver Israel, for it was because of him that Israel moved into Egypt in the first place.

The prophet Daniel was promised a life at the end of the age: "And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end...But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Daniel 12:9~13. The New English version gives a clearer rendering of that last verse: "But go your way to the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of the age."

The scriptures also give a prophesy about the coming of Elijah the prophet to do a great work on the earth: "Behold, I will send you ELIJAH THE PROPHET before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:5-6

Here we have a clear prophecy that Elijah the prophet will come back before the Lord comes. When the Bible speaks of the "fathers" it is usually referring to the prophets and patriarchs of Israel. Thus his work will be connected with turning the hearts of the children (humanity today) to the teaching of the fathers (the prophets). If the teachings of the prophets are not planted in the hearts of this generation then the earth will be smitten with a curse.

Now if Elijah is to make an appearance before "the great and dreadful day of the Lord", commonly called the second coming, does it not make sense that he would also precede the first coming of Christ?

The disciples were curious about this possibility so they asked the Lord: "Why then do our teachers say that Elijah must come first? He replied, Yes Elijah WILL COME and set everything right. But I tell you that ELIJAH HAS ALREADY COME, and they failed to recognize him, and worked their will upon him; and in the same way the Son of Man is to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that HE MEANT JOHN THE BAPTIST." Matt. 17:10-13 New English

Notice how definite the statement made by Jesus is here. Even so, orthodox interpreters refuse to accept it. They say that John was not Elijah reborn but was merely like Elijah. They quote Luke to support their case: "And he (John) shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." Luke 1:17 (Remember that Elias is Greek for Elijah)

This was spoken by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, and objectors tell us that this proves that John was just similar to Elijah. On the other hand, if John was Elijah reborn it would certainly explain why he could go forth "in the spirit (with Elijah's spirit) and power of Elias". This scripture does not in any way void the words of Jesus.

Another objection is that both Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. If Elijah was later John why didn't the apostles recognize him as such?

It's quite possible they did recognize Elijah as John. There's not enough information to tell for sure, but a few verses later as Jesus was talking about Elijah it is written: "Then the disciples understood that he spake to them of John the Baptist." Matt. 17:13 (read all of verses 1-13)

This appearance was shortly after John was killed and we have no way of knowing whether he appeared in the form of Elijah or John, but it could have been either for an advanced entity can appear in any of his bodies. This was demonstrated by Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Mark says that "He appeared in another form unto two of them (disciples), as they walked and went into the country." Mark 16:12 When Jesus was in this other form we are told they could not recognize him. See Luke 24:13-31

Those who do not think that John is Elijah quote one more scripture. The Jews sent priests and Levites to John to find who John was: "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." John 1:21

Here we have an interesting contradiction. Jesus said definitely that John the Baptist was Elijah and John says he is not. Jesus said that he was the prophet to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi (Matt. 11:9-10) and John said he was not. What is the explanation.?

First, we must realize that the words of Jesus are reliable above all other men so let us accept them as true. Why did John contradict them?

The answer is quite simple. As John the Baptist he had lost all memory of his life as Elijah. It is quite possible that he was not aware of who he was in the past. It is also possible that he did not know that he was the prophet that Malachi predicted. He was probably looking upon himself as merely a man who was seeking to teach the truth.

On the other hand, even if John suspected his true identity the priests and Levites would be the last ones he would want to tell who he was. The Jews kept pestering Jesus to identify him self as the Christ, and this he didn't do until he was ready to die. John knew that if he identified himself as either Elijah or a great prophet then the Jews would try and put him to death for blasphemy. Even if John knew or suspected he was Elijah in a past life he was technically telling the truth because in that life his name was John, not Elijah.

Whatever the case John had to keep his identity from the Jews until his mission was finished.

We will close this train of thought with a second powerful statement from Jesus: "...Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John...A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before my face, which shall prepare thy way before thee (This is a quote from Malachi near the prophesy of Elijah) Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven (Christ) is greater than he...For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, THIS IS ELIAS, which was for to come." Matt. 11:7,9-11,13-14

This is really a poor translation evidently because of bias against reincarnation. The Concordant version says it most accurately: "And if you are willing to receive HIM, HE IS ELIJAH..."

Now we can see why Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest prophet. He was aware of his past lives. He was possibly other great prophets besides Elijah.

It seems at this point that one would have to go out on a limb to claim that John was not Elijah, but merely one like Elijah. For one thing his mission was quite different from the historical Elijah and most importantly Malachi says that Elijah, THE PROPHET (Malachi 4:5) shall return, not Elijah the personality.

Accordingly, we may look for the appearance of Elijah again in this age to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. Rest assured though that his name will not be Elijah in this life, but it will be the entity that was Elijah and John the Baptist nevertheless.

Paul tells us that he lived a past life where he was not under the law of Moses: "FOR I WAS ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:9

Here Paul could only be speaking of a previous life because in his life as Paul he was born under the law of Moses. So when was the time that he "was alive without the law"? He could have only been referring to previous lives when he was not subjected to the law of Moses. "When the commandment came" refers to the period of Moses. When he was born on earth after this period "sin revived" and he suffered spiritual death.

The scriptures make it clear that John the Revelator will have numerous incarnations. Peter, wondering about the future of this man said: "And what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said NOT unto him, he shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" John 21:21-23

It sounds as if disciples have been misinterpreting the words of Jesus from the beginning. Some believe that John was translated so he would not suffer death, but John's own book declares that Jesus did not promise him that he would not die, but indicated that it was his will that John tarry till he come. If then John did not have the promise of deathlessness the only way he could tarry here on the earth until the Lord comes is by a series of lives.

Indeed he will have to be born again to fulfill the prophesy that is written of him: "And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, THOU MUST PROPHESY AGAIN BEFORE MANY PEOPLES, AND NATIONS, AND TONGUES, AND KINGS." Rev. 10:10-11

Have we heard any announcement over the news lately that John the Revelator has prophesied to kings and is appearing in many different lands speaking in numerous languages??? No, we have not, nor will we for when he comes he will not be known as John the Revelator, but will be in a different body having a new name.

Jesus gave us an interesting indication as to what was in store for his disciples. He said: "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, and sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but HE SHALL RECEIVE AN HUNDREDFOLD IN THIS TIME, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the WORLD TO COME eternal life. And many that are first shall be last and the last first." Mark 10:29-31

Here Jesus talks about two time periods or ages. The first he calls "in this time" or the period of our mortal existence. The second he calls "the world to come". In the world to come we receive "eternal life", but in this age or period of normal earth life if we accept the gospel we will receive "an hundred fold" of houses, at least a hundred brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred mothers, a hundred children, and a hundred different lands or places where we will live. This prophecy cannot be liter ally fulfilled without reincarnation. On the other hand, Jesus knew that "in this time" or period of human existence we go through more than a hundred lifetimes. Thus he realized his words would be accurate.

Up to the time that Paul wrote the letter to Timothy we see that Jesus Christ was the only man that possessed immortality, or deathlessness: "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he will shew, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; WHO ONLY HATH IMMORTALITY, dwelling in a light which no man can approach unto." I Tim 6:14-16.

Even though we have an indication that others came out of their graves at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt 27:52-53) we see that only Jesus had obtained the resurrection of-life or "put on immortality". Before we can achieve the same immortality we have to overcome all things as Jesus did.

We are told that "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." I Cor 3:13. Paul had the hope "that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Col 1:28. Paul spoke of God "WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I Tim 2:4

I believe that God has power to carry out his "will" and the scriptures say that he "WILL have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Every man will be tried in the fire, and Paul has the hope that "every man" will be perfect. These scriptures cannot be fulfilled if every person is merely given one shot at life, but if men are born over and over until they fulfill the commandment to "overcome" exactly as Jesus did (Rev 3:21) then these passages can be literally fulfilled.

INTERESTING SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE

The great Solomon wrote: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing." Pro. 25:2 Imagine. God actually conceals things from us so when his secrets are revealed it will add to his glory. Jesus said: "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Luke 12:2 Isaiah prophesied: "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Isaiah 11:9 Daniel said that at the time of the end "knowledge shall be increased." Dan. 12:4.

What are some of the things that God has concealed from us? What are the things "which have been kept secret from the foundations of the world"? Matt 13:35

Obviously one of the doctrines kept secret is the law of re birth. Many of the prophets did not openly teach it because they felt the people would misuse the knowledge. Many people will not try hard in the present if they think they will get a second chance in the future. The emotionally polarized person will tend to feel that it is no big deal to waste a lifetime if he has another one coming down the road. However, the mentally polarized person will use common sense and will not want to waste a month let alone a lifetime. Thus the Spirit of God has waited until the race of man is more mental, as it is approaching now, before it caused the doctrine to permeate our consciousness. Most of the prophets, initiates, and wise men of the past, however, have been aware of it, but have used constraint in speaking of it.

There were many things that even Jesus could not speak to his most trusted followers: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye CANNOT bear them now." John 16:12

In other words, Jesus knew many things that would be hard for them to accept. If he would have told them some of the secrets he knew they probably would have thought their master was mad and turned against him.

As it was he revealed more than the Jews could accept and they fought against him. Even so this treatise will be difficult for many people to accept and they will refuse to believe it even though the truth stares them in the face. We must mentally force ourselves to remain open and "rejoiceth in the truth; Heareth all things, believeth ALL things, hopeth all things..." I Cor 13:6-7

If we become as a little child and are open to believing all things then we will avoid becoming modern day Pharisees and scribes who fight against truth. Isaiah declared: "Wo unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet. and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20 Many Christians have formed the non scriptural opinion that reincarnation is evil, but why is this when the doctrine is interspersed throughout the Bible? And why do they call it evil when it is such a good and holy doctrine?

Why do they call it "good" if their child fails the first grade and he gets a chance to repeat it so he can honorably go on to the second, yet call it "evil" to consider the thought that if someone fails in one of his lifetimes then God will give him a chance to correct his errors in the "resurrection of correction"? Let us be more consistent than the Jews in the days of Jesus.

Jesus certainly attracted a lot of attention when he began his work and many people were speculating as to who he was. There were many who actually considered that he may have been one of the prophets born again. Jesus asked his disciples: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Matt 16:13-14

Notice here that Jesus did not refute this belief in rein carnation, but merely accepted Peter's answer that he was the Christ.

The apostles evidently believed in reincarnation at the time that they were current disciples of Jesus: "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:1-2

We see here that the disciples thought that the man who was born blind may have had to suffer so because of a previous sin. In other words, they thought he may have committed sins in a previous lifetime that led to his present condition. Jesus pointed out that the man was a special case. He was not born blind because of sin, but so that the works of God should be manifest. In other words, the man came with a mission to glorify the works of Christ by the great miracle to his eyes. Jesus did not, however, say anything to indicate that the disciples belief in a sin before birth was not a possibility.

Many people attribute unusual questions such as these to the ignorance of the apostles. They believed that Jesus just picked up a handful of uneducated derelicts and his teachings were all the education they received. This is not correct. John the Baptist was their first teacher and Jesus called John the greatest prophet in history, partly because he did such a good job in preparing and teaching the disciples. If the disciples believed in reincarnation (which they undoubtedly did) then they had to first learn it from John.

In the Apocrypha we are warned that the way we live in one life can affect our bodies in a future life: "Woe to you, ungodly men, who have forsaken the law of the Most High Lord. AND IF YOU BE BORN, (indicating born in a future life) you shall be born in malediction, and if ye die, in malediction shall be your portion." Ecclesiasticus 4:11-12 Another example: "And I was a witty child and had received a good soul, and where as I was more good (in a previous life), I came to a body undefiled." Wisdom 8:19-20

No wonder David wrote: "Guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me." Psalms 51:7 Knox Version In other words, we have original sin because of previous lives. "All these things God may do to a man, again and yet again, bringing him BACK FROM THE PIT (death) to enjoy the full light of life." Job 33:29-30 New English

No wonder Jesus told a man who had been sick for thirty eight years to "sin no more lest a worse thing come upon thee." (See John 5:1-9) If it was any worse than suffering for thirty eight years he would have to pay the debt in a future life. This also illustrates that sin can result in the punishment of a physical affliction as the apostles believed.

The doctrine of reincarnation teaches us that when we commit any act either good or evil then we must receive a payment for that deed either later in the present life or in a future one. This reward i5 called Karma. If we are said to have "good karma" it is indicated that we have paid off most of our bad debts and can now collect on our good ones. If we have "bad karma" then we have debts coming due that we have to pay for. Jesus confirmed this doctrine when he said "he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt 16:27

John also wrote the words of an angel: "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord...their works do FOLLOW them." Rev 14:13

Again he said: "They (the dead) were judged every man ac cording to their works." Rev 20:13

If the dead are judged according to their works and their works follow them then the doctrine of karma coincides perfectly with the Bible. There are some works that could only follow us if there were future lives on the earth awaiting. Either killing or saving physical lives would fit in this category.

One may naturally wonder about the fate of those who crucified our Lord. What is their destiny? How could they possibly pay for their sin? What punishment could be fitting enough to recompense such an evil deed?

This is one of the most interesting thoughts of the entire range of the scriptures and amazingly the question is answered with startling clarity.

First, we know they will be forgiven because Jesus requested it. On the cross he said: "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

Later Peter was preaching to these Jews and said: "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just...and killed the Prince of life... Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, WHEN THE TIMES OF REFRESHING SHALL COME FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. And he shall send Jesus Christ (speaking of the second coming), which before was preached unto you. whom the heaven must receive (hold - Greek) until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:14-15,19-21

We are told that the heavens must hold Jesus until all things are restored that was spoken of by the prophets. Reincarnation is one of those things for many of the teachings about the doctrine of rebirth were taken out of the church in the days of Constantine.

Peter told those who crucified the Lord to repent but told them that they would not receive forgiveness in this life, but in the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord or at the time of the second coming. Why do they have to wait until then? Because no one can repent unless they realize they are wrong and the Bible goes on to tell us that these murderers will not realize they are wrong until they see their Lord again.

They certainly did not believe the first time he told them who he was: "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter SHALL YE SEE the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matt 26:63-64

No wonder Peter promised forgiveness at the second coming because those who put him to death will see him coming in the clouds.

John the Revelator makes this point clear beyond dispute: "Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM (The Jews in 34 AD): and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." Rev 1:17

At the second coming they will finally be able to be for given because they will realize they made a great mistake: "They (The Jews of 34 AD who will be reborn for the second coming) shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." Zech 12:10

There is perhaps no punishment greater than coming face to face with a great error and having to accept the truth whether you want to or not. When Jesus comes again the ancient Jews reborn will definitely recognize him for who he is. They will also see their blindness in their current lives, but it is also quite possible that their memory of their past lives in the days of Jesus will return to them so they can feel the enormity of their shame. After two thousand years they will realize they killed their Savior.

Jesus spoke further of this: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the Children of the kingdom (the Jews 34 AD) shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 8: 11-12

When the reincarnated Jews (and they may not be Jews in this life) face their rude awakening they will weep and gnash their teeth in despair and disgust with themselves and may not feel worthy or ready for the teachings of Christ for sometime. Forgiveness is promised them at the second coming, but apparently they have to go through some anguish (and who knows what else) first.

Our prayer should be that we will not be caught in the same predicament as the ancient Jews where the blind were following the blind and refused to examine any doctrine that was not approved by authorities. Let us be open as a little child and be pre pared to "believe ALL things" so when the Christ does come again we will not be caught without our wedding garment.

Jesus taught a very important principle: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For EVERY ONE that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, HOW MUCH MORE shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matt 7:7-11

Indeed. We know how to give good gifts to our children, and whenever they ask for any good thing no matter how bad they have previously been, we will go out of our way to give it to them. We would not consider saying to our children: "I will forgive you for a certain time period, and then no more for all eternity."

Hypocrites! They think they are more righteous than God, that they will go to greater extremes to save their children than God will for us. NO NO NO!!! The opposite is true. God knows how to give better gifts than we do and when we ask for a good thing he is committed to give it to us. He has put no time limit on it. He did not say ask only until you die but merely ASK. Period. If we ask during this life, the space between lives, or in the next life, then he is our committed Father waiting with love to respond and has devised a plan where we can all receive a second chance because a father (that is a loving Father) will ALWAYS give his children a second chance, and a third, and a forth...etc.

One should feel good about contemplating the doctrine of reincarnation, especially when thinking of all those who died in ignorance of the gospel, many who may be good friends, loved ones, or family. It is scriptural to believe the following: If we wish our loved ones could achieve salvation, then God wishes something better and has complete power to carry out his will. "God having provided something better for us, that they (the dead) WITHOUT US should not be made perfect." Heb 11:40

The dead and the living have a karma that is intertwined and we must both work together in the flesh again to correct all of our problems and the problems of the planet. We shall all rise again and work together and be perfected until the "last enemy" of death is destroyed and we achieve immortality or the resurrection of eternal life.

© By JJ Dewey All Rights Reserved

http://www.jjwritings.com/books/reincarnation_and_the_bible/index.html