The Synoptic Gospels are actually Apocryphal

If it is agreed that the Fourth Gospel is of primary validity; then the other three "Synoptic" Gospels (Mathhew, Mark, and Luke) should be categorized as Apocryphal scriptures - which is, indeed, the way I think of them. 

The Synoptics are also Apocryphal in the sense that they are later, non-eye-witness, collected and compiled accounts of Jesus's life and teachings. 

Added to which; Luke, and Matthew - especially, seem to be written with a distinct added-theme relating to the prophesied Messiah - to such an extent that Jesus is deemed to have failed in his ministry to such an extent that he must needs return (at some point) to complete his work of salvation (i.e. the Second Coming). 

So; the Fourth Gospel should really be regarded as the only "canonical" source about Jesus; and the other Books of the New Testament are Apocryphal to various degrees - Mark, probably the least apocryphal, and Revelation/ Apocalypse the most.  

We all have some spiritual power - and it can help, for a while - but that is all...

Watching the series "AD" (which has way too much explicit torture and violence, the inclusion of which is a sign of unrepented spiritual malaise on the part of its makers) I realize how much people crave spiritual power; and regard spiritual power as a validation. 

This is analogous to the craving for technological power; both as a way to control and exploit nature (this-world) for benefit; and (we hope) to defend ourselves against the problems and sufferings of this-world. 

It seems that the era of the Apostles (depicted in Acts, especially) was one in which spiritual power was evident, and was taken as proof of Jesus's divinity; and was regarded as presaging the salvation of this-world - en route to making this world into Heaven. 

Hence the - false - idea of the Second Coming of Jesus (at first believed to be imminent, later to be delayed), a necessary to finish the work he (as the prophesied Jewish Messiah) had left incomplete.  

If there was a high level of spiritual power among the followers of Jesus in the years after His ascension; then we should recall there is always spiritual power in everyone; even nowadays, to some degree - and what SP there is, is still deployed as purported proof of various (often opposed) religions or spiritualties; and used for attaining personal (and group) benefit and/or guidance. 

That is: we each - to some extent, and temporarily (because entropy and death are inevitable) - have ability to avert some of the bad things in life, and a make good things happen - some ability to imporve our everyday lives by deployment of spiritual powers. 

For instance, even conservative evangelicals and other denominations, who pretend to be anti-magic, deploy petitionary prayer to shape their lives and churches - and to some extent it works.  

An ability to shape our current lives, for our own reasons, and by spiritual means; should be regarded as just a fact of life; and then evaluated for what it really is, and means; and also for what it does not mean or imply. 

Since the spiritual is real, and we are spiritual (as well as physical) beings, and have agency; it is to be expected that we have spiritual abilities to influence life in accordance with our will - just as we have some physical abilities to influence life. 

Yes we do - but let us not be over-impressed by such abilities. 

They can sometimes do something; but never very much or for very long, or consistently - at least not on the positive side. 

Spiritual powers - like physical powers, like technologies - are much more apt to destruction than to make any positive difference to the fundamental and eternal nature of this mortal Life. 

Spiritual power can be good, can be used for good; as can personal qualities such as intelligence, strength, beauty... 

But spiritual powers do not defeat evil, nor extinguish entropy: they do not make an ultimate difference. 

The important (vital?) insight that "inevitable" does Not mean Good

One of the deepest and (it seems to me) most important insights from Jesus, is that what is inevitable in this mortal life, is not for that reason Good.

Many things in this life may be unavoidable - including our own natures, work, and taxes, but also many others - and therefore we should make the best of them; but these same things may nonetheless be evils, or indeed sins.

My impression is that few people are prepared to acknowledge this reality; and instead they tend to assume that that which is unavoidable, or that which has always been an aspect of life throughout known history - are therefore either positively Good, or else neutral. 

Yet this point seems to be fundamental to Christianity (at least, as I understand Christianity); because if it were otherwise, then there would be no necessity for salvation, and Jesus would be optional at best.   

Or, to say the same thing in an opposite way: Jesus is necessary and our hope lies in salvation exactly because much that is universal, pervasive, inescapable in our own (or any other) mortal life is fundamentally wrong and/or adverse.

In a word, mortal life does not, cannot, and never shall, suffice. 

And this is why salvation (with resurrection into Heaven coming after this mortal life) is the only true hope. 

This divine creation - the primary creation of this mortal life, world, universe - is not good enough. 

The opportunity to follow Jesus is needed if we want better; and the Second Creation of Heaven is our only genuine possibility of attaining that better life and world. 

It was to fix the inadequacy of this mortal life, that Jesus offered resurrection

Jesus's job was to fix the inadequate nature, the insufficiency, of this mortal life on earth. 

This was achieved such that the purpose of resurrected eternal life in Heaven is for there to be a real and accessible state and place, where the intractable and incurable problems (that currently wreck any possibility of a good life) are permanently eliminated.  

If this mortal life was sufficient, or even if mortal life was perfectible; then there would be little benefit in offering the chance of Resurrection after death - because it would obviously be better to have all the good stuff and fix the problems of this world without first needing to die. 

"Christianity" is therefore for those who realize that the core problems of this world and mortal life - i.e. entropy/ death and evil - cannot be solved inside this life and world - because they are of the nature of this creation. 

Because the core problems are insoluble within this creation; our only possible and real hope is for a second creation; for our-selves to look forward to a "second" life, in a world without death and without evil.

And such a world, as a matter of reality, can only exist on the other side of mortal death. 

So; Resurrection is not about "jam tomorrow" or "pie in the sky" - it is not a wish-fulfilment daydream...

Because the truly wishful daydreams are radical politics and utopian schemes - like socialism and "transhumanism" - ideologies that pretend to offer a future that solves the core problems of life... 

Ideologies that pretend to make possible a situation where Mankind (here and now, or soon) will have fulfilment and satisfaction, and escape from fear and suffering - where mortal life will suffice. 

Those who believe such claims are real and possible, are never interested by Jesus's offer of Resurrection into Heaven that is located on the other side of death.  

Also wishful are those religions (including Christianity, in many times and places) that promise a "millennium"... 

That promise their adherents Heaven on Earth, perfected Man, a world purged of evil and death; a second coming, an earthly-saviour - such promises are also in this wishful category. 

Yet, if such things really were possible; there would have been no need for Jesus, and what he offered would be redundant. 

After all; a chance of post-mortal Resurrection to post-mortal Heaven would be a shabby second best to Heaven on Earth accessible without dying.  

The commonly-expressed idea of Resurrection and Heaven as a reward for a Good Life is grossly to under-sell what is on offer. 

This is to downgrade Resurrection and Heaven to a delayed "earthly paradise"... a world and life that is quantitatively better than, but not qualitatively different from, what we already now have.

If quantitative improvement of this mortal life ASAP is that which is most strongly desired; then Resurrection and Heaven are of merely subordinate interest.    

Even worse is to explain Resurrection in terms of the double-negative theology of Resurrection and Heaven as an escape from the default of eternal torment in Hell! 

This bizarrely posits a God who purposively creates a mortal life so-often dominated by evil and entropy, and always terminated by death; after which everlasting pain and misery is the default destination of all...

And then the same God devises Resurrection and Heaven which constitute a delayed and selective escape route from horrors of His own devising. 

If such a creator-God existed, He is not the same Good God as known and described by Jesus. 

So, even before we decide whether we personally desire Resurrection and Heaven; and even before we decide whether Resurrection and Heaven are believable...

We first need to know our present situation, what R&H mean in context of our present situation, what R&H are for: and what they do. 

Unfortunately, the clarity and simplicity of what Jesus did and made possible; is by-now grossly obfuscated by millennia of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, disinformation - and deliberate lies. 

The only viable answer would seem to be for each creatively and actively to work it out for himself - from intuitive-experiential knowing; as it were from "first principles'. With the assurance that God and Jesus Christ will with certainty have made this possible for all Men... Possible if not now, or during mortal life, then for-sure post-mortally.  

Proof of resurrection?

Many Christians (and the official doctrine of many churches) assert that resurrection does not come soon after death on an individual basis; but is delayed - perhaps waiting until some version of a judgment day, when resurrection happens "communally", for everyone all at once - albeit individuals are "judged" individually. 

However...

The Fourth Gospel does not include a "second coming" or "day of judgment"; and its narrative is consistent with resurrection happening as an individual process, and happening soon after each person's death - with its examples of Lazarus and Jesus himself, both resurrected within days. 

Jesus also seems to describe rapid individual resurrection - for example, as I understand the following two passages: 

4: 31 - In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 

I understand this to be Jesus talking (poetically, metaphorically as we regard it) of how he is finishing the work of "him that sent me" - meaning both that this work was incomplete, and that Jesus has - here and now, not at some future point - finished it. 

Everything has been done, everything is ready.

No need for delays. 

5: 21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ... 

I understand this to be stating that those who believe and follow Jesus will have everlasting life - i.e. resurrection - and will pass from death into life, will pass through death into resurrection. 

No delay. 

Further, that this benefit also applies to those who died before the advent of Jesus. 

"Christianity" ought to be much clearer on this subject; and more focused upon the promise of resurrected eternal life; and that this shall come to each to wants it and follows Jesus, and "soon" after death. 

No delay, no waiting for indefinite periods until a day of judgment. 

This also means that there are many of the dead who have resurrected already. 

And therefore, in principle, these living resurrected people are a potential source of direct personal evidence for the reality of resurrection, available to living people now.    

In other words; we are not necessarily dependent, ultimately, on second-hand sources such as theology, scripture, or the teaching of religious authorities. 

Because there is a possible "proof" of the truth of Jesus's promise - a proof that might be accessed by many people, here-and-now.

This assuming that there can be contact between individual living mortal Men such as you and me; and at least one or more of those who have died and been resurrected. 

So Western Civilization is ending for sure. But is this part of a predictable historical cycle or pendulum swing, with recovery inevitable?

There is some kind of a consensus - especially among Christians - that Western Civilization is ending, and that this multi-stage collapse is substantially self-inflicted - partly suicidal due to hedonic materialism and cowardice of the unreligious-aspiritual masses; and partly the outcome of deliberate contrivance among the Western/ Globalist leadership class. 

Where opinions differ, is related to what happens afterwards. 

Many people apparently have the assumption that human history is either cyclical, or like a pendulum; and that Western Civilization is therefore destined to dwindle but (sooner or later) recover and be "reborn". 

And such people take hope from this - or at least they claim to.  

This cyclical/ pendulum assumption is popular even among Christians, which I find quite strange - given that pretty much everything that the New Testament says about human history states explicitly that it is destined to be linear, unidirectional, ending with the End Times. 

Some of the New Testament links the End Times with a "second coming", a return of Jesus Christ;  although the premier authority, and earliest secondhand, Gospels sources do not describe a second coming of Jesus.

I mean the Gospel called "John", which is an eyewitness account from a beloved disciple and (Chapters 1-20) was composed shortly after the events described; ; and "Mark" which is the first recorded of the second-hand, post-ascension Gospels). 

However, whether or not the End Times are also regarded as a Second Coming; the point is that for the New Testament the path of human history is linear. 

Linear and not repetitive. 

The Christian conception of history is therefore not primarily cyclical, nor a matter of pendulum swings - and if apparent recurrences do occur, then these can only be approximate; because they are  subordinate to an overall and basic linearity. 

And this, of course, fits with the pattern of human history as it appears spontaneously to the simple observer. 

My conclusion is that when (not if) Western Civilization begins to collapse quickly and undeniably; there will be no coherent "Christian" reason to expect that Western Civilization will ever re-develop. 

But even if there was, I find it very hard to believe that people who take consolation and derive hope from cyclical/ pendulum theories of history are being sincere! 

I mean: I find it hard to believe that they really do derive genuine consolation and real hope from their assumption that - although we shall collapse soon; nonetheless some future, unknown and unrelated, persons shall experience a return of something-like Western Civ.  

This is so feeble and remote an expectation that I strongly suspect it serves merely as an excuse for here-and-now mental laziness and cowardice; for current dishonesty and evasiveness. 

Anyway; that's how the stuff about cycles and pendulum swings strikes me; as yet another instance of clutching at fake straws. 

An auspicious Candlemass?

Yesterday could be considered Candlemass (nowadays equated with the Celtic cross-quarter day of Imbolc - coming about halfway between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox); which is a festival of burgeoning light (here, about an extra hour and a half per day, since the depths). 

Symbolised by harbingers of spring, if not spring itself - such as Hazel catkins and the Snowdrop flower - who first put-in an appearance a couple of weeks ago, but is now making its presence felt (at least in the city; it will not begin to peak in the countryside for a couple more weeks). 

It happened to be a rare day of mostly-clear skies; very welcome after a few weeks of cloud-cover and sharp showers. 

It was also the second full moon since the Solstice - and in the late evening she was almost dazzling, and cast a tremendous silver light. 

Nearby was Jupiter which is currently exceptionally vivid: as bright as I have ever seen him, blazing almost as brightly as Venus usually does. 

Candlemass is also associated with Ireland (and Glastonbury's) premier woman Saint: Brigid; who is regarded by many as having absorbed the character of a Celtic goddess of the same name. 

My "chore" for the day was a bit of a clear-out; which included sorting through a mass of photographs taken in my twenties and before I got married - which was a mostly pleasant and nostalgic activity; being reminded of my former self, family, old friends, girlfriends (linking, perhaps - implicitly, with the Brigid theme), places, events...

And a phase of my young adult development during which I was taking (and printing for myself) pretentious soi disant artsy monochrome pix; accurately reflecting my own self-aggrandizing self-consciousness and underlying alienation.

But I was in a broadly forgiving mood; and my present nature therefore (graciously) forgave the rather obvious conceit and self-dramatizing qualities of my earlier personhood.   

Altogether the day generated a diffuse sense of positive expectation: as if it were an auspicious day in a quasi-astrological sense... 

Although, if so; I am unclear and sceptical about how such things might operate in this world and in real life.    

Pantheist, Monotheist, and Jesus-centred Christians

It seems to me that the religion of Christianity - as expressed in the major churches (variously, since very early in church history); was formed from people who wanted several different and mutually incompatible things. 

There were "pantheists" who believed in one deity which was everything - so it was vital that the deity was itself everything, or else had-created everything from nothing. 

They were focused on the inevitability of change and death ("entropy") which they saw in all material things; and therefore recognized the ultimate and ineradicable insufficiency of incarnate mortal life on this earth. 

They also believed that consciousness was a false separation from the reality of universal deity, hence a curse. 

These pantheists yearned most for escape from this incarnate, earthly, mortal life and the curse of consciousness; and their hope was to become pure spirit, and exist in a "timeless" state of impersonal bliss. 

There is no essential role for Jesus Christ in this tradition. 

Jesus is either dissolved back-into the unity of deity; or else regarded as a teacher, helper, advocate or some other such...  

(A job that is no doubt admirable, but secondary and dispensable.)  

This pantheistic strand got rolled-up into orthodox/ mainstream Christianity, especially from the pre-existing Neo-Platonists and mystery religions. In its purest form this led to the Christian Gnostics; but it is found in all the main Christian churches today - most of all in the monasticism of the Catholic churches, and least of all in Mormonism - but is present in all to some degree. 

The other main strand of the religion of Christianity was monotheism; which was mainly from the ancient Hebrews, and the Old Testament. 

This emphasizes a supreme and jealous personal God as the only deity; but its focus was on Man's behaviour and happiness in this earthly mortal life. 

The monotheistic concern was with evil rather than with "entropy". Its concern was with forming "God's people" as a group. 

The monotheistic focus was on morality, on the conduct of life - which was conceptualized as a comprehensive and mandatory Law; with many rules - dictating that which is virtuous; prohibiting that which is evil. 

Morality in this-life dictated the after-life; and the major focus of the after-life was Hell rather than Heaven. 

Hell was the default state of eternal torment - while Heaven was both uncertain and vague, and mostly co-opted from the pantheistic tradition. 

In other words, the monotheistic Heaven (in so far as it is thought about at all) is only superficially distinguishable from the depersonalized state of a pure spirit, dwelling in timeless bliss; thus we get the mental-pictures of de-individualized ranks of Heavenly choirs engaged in perpetual cycles of worship, praise, and celebration of the one God.  

Since there must be only one God; the role of Jesus in this monotheistic scheme is very confused, and indeed incoherent. In practice therefore; Jesus is seen as a Messiah whose fundamental task is to abolish evil on earth. 

This means that - for monotheists; the concept of entropy is subsumed within the concept of evil.

The monotheistic strand of Christianity is found wherever law, rule, and authority are primary; and in such situations Christian churches become structurally all-but indistinguishable from other monotheisms - Jewish or Islamic.   

The task of Messiah is to transform earth into Heaven, to immortalize this mortal lie - and purge it of all evil. 

Since this has not happened; Jesus's mortal life was seen as a failure - and he must therefore return in a Second Coming; in a role indistinguishable from that of the one God; to finish the work of Messiah. 

Traditional, orthodox, mainstream Christian churches are composed of various and oscillating admixtures of Pantheism and Monotheism - varying between times, places, and persons. 

Jesus-centred Christians only really exist as individual persons, or small groups - because they (we) are not church-rooted. 

This kind of Christianity is (potentially) described pretty fully in the Fourth Gospel ("John") - when this Book is regarded as autonomous from, and primary among, all scriptures. 

The focus is post-mortal and incarnated - on resurrected eternal life in Heaven; and Jesus is seen as having made this possible - which is a divine act of creation.

Therefore Jesus is fully a God; therefore a God later than, and in addition to, God the primary creator (therefore monotheism is not true).  

For Jesus-centred Christians; Jesus was absolutely essential for those who desire salvation. 

Before Jesus there was no salvation; and without Jesus salvation would not have been possible. 

Jesus-centred Christianity is personal and inter-personal. 

Jesus was and is a person. Men are individual persons in mortal life. Jesus and Men stay persons after resurrection and in Heaven. 

Love is between persons - not abstract, not "unconditional". 

Consciousness is retained after resurrection. Individual natures and purposes are retained after resurrection.  

For Jesus-centred Christians; without Jesus, there would not be any resurrected eternal life, Heaven would not exist; and it is only by following Jesus that Men can make the choice of resurrection into everlasting life in Heaven. 

Note added: In summary; Pantheists and Monotheists fitted-Jesus-into pre-existing religious structures; suitable for church-based religions - a process that inevitably had the effect of leaving Jesus structurally-inessential, if not redundant (despite whatever protestations). [Of course; I presume that many Christians have been ignorant of, ignored, or pushed hard against the official theology and doctrines - and lived what was de facto a Jesus-centred Christianity - which needed no church, and need not be known to anyone else.] If, instead of insisting upon Pantheism or Monotheism; we start with Jesus and what he said and did (according to the most authoritative source) - we get a Christianity with a very different structure and emphasis. 

Reading mainstream Christian theology nowadays, I am amazed I converted!

I have just been reading an exposition of mainstream Christian theology - the theology common to Western and Eastern Catholics and the major Protestant denominations; and I am struck by how it nowadays strikes me as utterly unsatisfactory - being over-inclusive; and consequently incoherent, and evasive. 

It would really have repelled me from becoming a Christian, had I realized that I was signing-up to commit-to believe in such stuff.

From my current understanding, the deep problem seems to be at least twofold:

One is recurrently trying to fit Christianity into oneness philosophy - which leads to a recurrent compulsion to talk of unity as our aspiration and ultimate goal; and thereby to dissolve away individuality, freedom, evil, and indeed Time.  

The other is trying to make Christianity into a this-worldly religion, suitable for incorporation in a church, a method for improving human behaviour, and to serve as the basis for a nation. 

Part of this was making Christianity into an historical religion, provided with an arc either of spiritual decline or spiritual progress. And a this-worldly end-point - including a "second coming" of Jesus. 

   

By trying to provide for too much, Christian theology ends-up making itself into a species of abstract nonsense. 

Whereas Jesus's teaching (as seen in the IV Gospel) is actually very simple and clear; but it is next-worldly. 

The reality of Jesus's "religion" was neither about making better-people nor a better-world - either immediately or in the long term - so the fact that this evidently did not happen, and shows no sign of happening, is not a refutation.  

Jesus offered individual people the chance to follow him to resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

It is by resurrection (by being born again) that better people are made, and it is post-mortal Heaven that is the better world - the world which Jesus actually promised. 

So really, the Christianity of Jesus Christ was next-worldly, and its societal effects on this world, are derivative from the individual consequences of personal confidence in Jesus's promises about the next world.

 

But, unsurprisingly, most people want palliation and happiness now, they demand that their religion promises a better mortal life, an improved society and civilization, they want justice on earth far more than the promise of Heaven. 

And (apparently) from soon after Jesus ascended; the theologians and philosophers have made valiant attempts to construct a "Christianity" that provides what various people, at various times, have demanded of a this-worldly religion. 

By passing itself off as this-worldly when it actually is not; and by trying to satisfy people's demands for a better mortal life and a more congenial social situation - official Christianity became bloated, distorted, and non-sensical. 

Which is a terrible shame indeed, because all this is a significant obstacle to the intellectually honest. 

I was only able to become a Christian by persuading myself that I was not thereby committed to believing everything that people officially told me - any more than in my life as a scientist and academic I was bound to believe everything written in textbooks, or indeed everything said or written by even the best in the field.

Eventually, I did find the truth in Christianity, and only in Christianity; but the real truth is of a different kind - than the this-worldly promises which I - like most people - were seeking and hoping for...

Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to live a better life in a better world; but we need to be clear that at best this can only be a temporary and local palliation of the fundamental human condition. 

The lesson of Jesus Christ is that we really can have what our hearts most desire; but only on the other side of death, and only in Heaven but not on Earth.  

  

Is following Christ truly a case of "Myth made fact" - Is Christianity, indeed, "a myth" at all?

CS Lewis's conversion, as is pretty well known, had much to do with an idea he got (mostly) from JRR Tolkien that in Christianity Myth became Fact. In other words; that various of the myths of the ancient world came true in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

This is one reason why Lewis regarded Christianity as the completion of paganism (as well as of Judaism) - because in essence it took much of paganism and transformed it by the addition of specifically Christian values - in particular "Faith, Hope, and Charity".

I was greatly influenced by this idea in my own conversion to Christianity; but have now come to regard the "Christian myth" as a misleading distortion of what Jesus actually did and taught. 

My interpretation nowadays is that Christianity is in its essence about the possibility of following Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven - and that this was something new under the sun: an unique possibility; that was (at its core) neither foreshadowed nor foreseen among the ancient religions: neither among Jews nor among Pagans.  

I agree with Lewis that Christianity can be and actually was (especially in the earliest years of Jesus's ministry and the early period after his ascension) an add-on, easily adopted by Jews and Roman or Greek pagans alike...

But I think the reason for this was not because Christianity was aligned with Jewish expectations of the Messiah, nor that it was a completion of Greco-Roman Paganism - but simply because Christianity was a new idea about what happened after death. 

At least initially, therefore, a new Christian convert could (and apparently did) continue to practise his previous this-worldly religion; but with the additional expectation of resurrected eternal life after death...

Instead of (for instance) dying in expectation of the underworld ghost-life of Sheol or Hades, or returning by some version of reincarnation. 

Of course, Christianity as it became, developed and accreted very large and complex mythic elements - for example about Jesus's miraculous conception and early life, and expectation of his second coming. 

So Christianity-as-is has mythical aspects with all sorts of derivations and similarities to other mythic religions. 

But I believe that this was not the case originally, as Jesus lived and taught. 

And presumably this was a major reason why people found it so very difficult to understand what Jesus was actually telling then - i.e. they could not (or would not) discard their existing myths, such as The Messiah. 

And either rejected Jesus for failing to embody the prior myth, or adapted the prior myth to fit Jesus - or else adapted what Jesus did to fit the prior myth (as with the Second Coming, notion) 

I don't know if others agree; but in the IV Gospel I see Jesus trying to tell people something very simple and clear - which they repeatedly fail to comprehend; and this, in part, because they are caught-up in already-existing religious assumptions including myths. 

After Jesus's ascension, things could have (should have, perhaps) gone in the direction of the Christian after-death expectation being added-onto various existing religions - and then modifying their content in a kind of retrospective way (as the expectation of resurrected Heavenly life worked upon the pre-existing religion).

However, this did not happen; and instead Christianity became so elaborated by mythic elements that its clear and simple essence was swamped; but also the confident expectation of being able to choose resurrection was inverted - into the necessity to submit to the judgment of God/Christ-as-King to be-fearfully-hoping to be chosen as worthy of inclusion in Heaven. 

Only in recent generations has it become conceptually and consciously possible to understand that Christianity does not need to be regarded as a true myth; but instead Jesus's work can be recognized as a cosmic transformation, a new post-mortal possibility: a Second Creation -- accessible to those who commit to following Jesus, into and beyond the transformation of resurrection.

The success of Jesus? This world or the next? (Counter-productive Christian evangelism)

It seems to me that much Christian evangelism is counter-productive - putting people off becoming a Christian, rather than encouraging them; because of the Christian having a mistaken understanding of what Jesus did; and also because the Christian is incoherent about whether Jesus succeeded in his mission, or not. 

Many or most Christians seem to have the idea that Jesus made this a better world. That the life of Jesus was therefore an inflexion-point in history - Before Jesus, bad; after Jesus... getting better. 

Such Christians (and they seem to have been a large majority, at least among writers) seem to believe that after Jesus, life started started improving - especially for Christians. 

They assume Jesus made this world a better place. 

This kind of Christian usually believes that Jesus's core mission was to set up a church; and the church's mission was to make this a better world - and that this was actually done. 

Such Christians look at history and believe that the Christian societies were better than the others. They look at modern life and perceive to their satisfaction that the Christians are the best people - that conversion to Christianity improves people, that the Christian church is a force for good in the world. 

The first problem with this conceptualization of what Jesus did, is that there are plenty of people who disagree that the life of Jesus was an inflexion point after which the world began to get better - they just don't see this; they perceive many and terrible exceptions to it.

Some people would say that Jesus made no significant difference to the world - that the world carried on much as before. Some would say that the difference Jesus made was sometimes good, sometimes bad. And same with the Christian church/ churches - a mixed picture. 

There are plenty of people who don't see the founding of Christian churches as a net positive achievement, and who do no agree that any particular Christian church has been a force for good in the world.

In a nutshell - many people feel it is just wrong to claim that the life of Jesus made the world a better place; or that the Christian church has been and is a force for good in improving human life.   

They conclude that - if making a better world including better human lives is what Christianity is about, and the "evidence" for this is the history of the world and the nature of human society today; then Christianity cannot be true; and indeed might well be a force for harm. 

A further confusion is the Second Coming of Christ. 

Many Christians don't seem to realize what a weird and unconvincing idea this is! 

It means that Jesus's life was actually a failure, or else at best a very partial success; because the Second Coming predicts that despite Jesus, and the church he is supposed to have founded; this life will either stay bad, or get so bad, that Jesus will need to come again and "finish the job". 

("Finishing the job" means, pretty much, that Jesus (second time around) will make this life and world so much better that it is perfectly satisfying in every way.)

The need to finish the job; means either that Jesus did not wholly succeed - or that he actually failed. 

This idea is strange enough in itself to many people; I mean, why on earth would not the divine Jesus do everything that needed to be done in his first coming? Why would it be a good thing to delay the necessary by some indefinite (and now very long) period?

And then there is the problem of why the Second Coming has been delayed for two millennia? 

If life on earth can be made perfect, and if doing this really was Jesus's work and achievement - then surely it ought to be made perfect ASAP - rather than being delayed, and delayed? 

The many, various, and often complex explanations for the delay in the Second Coming are very seldom convincing; such that those who conclude that this was the way things work in Christianity, almost always become impatient for the Second Coming - or believe it to be imminent. 

So far many generations have so far been disappointed in this hope or expectation. 

 

The point I have been working towards is that the above are misunderstandings of what Jesus came to do, and what he did, and the nature of his success. 

Jesus did not come to make this world a better place, neither did Jesus come to found a church that would make this world a better place. 

So whether the world was made better or worse by the life of Jesus, or by Christian churches, is not relevant. 

That's not what Jesus was about. 

Jesus came to make possible, eternal resurrected life in Heaven: he came, in other words, to offer a new possibility of life everlasting to all Men - which we call "salvation". 

 And Jesus succeeded completely this aim, his real aim. 

...Which also means that the Church is not (and never has been) essential to the success of Jesus: a church may be helpful or unhelpful for a partiucar person in attaining salvation. 

But Jesus ensured that Men's achievement of salvation was possible (although not equally easy, because Men differ) for all Men, in every situation; in all religions and churches (or no religion nor church).  

I think Christians can be, and ought to be, quite clear and simple about this - for themselves, and in interacting with others... 

Jesus's life and work was not about improving this mortal life on earth. If it had been, then Jesus failed.

Jesus's life and work was about improving the next world, the world beyond death: and in this Jesus succeeded completely and first-time around. 

(No need for a Second Coming to "finish it off - it is already finished.). 

Jesus's work was done - is done.  

Now it is up-to-us, each of us; to choose or reject the possibility that Jesus has made available. 

The Celestine Prophecy and synchronicity revisited

"I've found a synchronicity!"

The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield, was a self published book of the early 1990s, that went on to become a major best seller; and contributed to the sense of millennial anticipation among "New Age" spiritual seekers. 

On the one hand, the book was much read and discussed - on the other it had a reputation of being day dreamy, wishful, vague, and ineptly-written in the cynical and materialist mainstream.  

I encountered the CP about a decade after publication, and found it a rather charming and naive book, with a pleasant kind of atmosphere about it; and which helped make a significant step towards me becoming a Christian - although that is not the book's intent. 

A few days ago, I downloaded an audiobook copy from Archive.org, and found that I still responded to its earnest and positive tone, while at the same time seeing more clearly the self-imposed limitations that derive from its being a continuation of the idealistic sixties counter-culture. 

The main positive effect of the Celestine Prophecy (and I sampled some of Redfield's follow-up books as well) was to focus my attention on the importance of synchronicity - the idea that the remarkable and positive "coincidences" of life may have meaning, and point to a purpose. 

I reasoned that if synchronicity was a real phenomenon, then events must be arranged in accordance wit some plan or intention. To my mind, this must mean not just an ordered universe, or a transcendent deity, but a personal and loving God. 

Because otherwise reality would not arrange itself around individual people, around me and my destiny. An abstractly structured universe would have no reason to care about individuals or their fate in the world.  

For synchronicity to happen, and to have significance for the future; the events of an individual life must (I thought) be somehow "arranged" and therefore have a spiritual significance. 

In a nutshell; there must be a personal creator God, who loves me (and others) as individuals, and who is continuing to create for our ultimate spiritual benefit. 

Such was my eventual benefit from reading the CP back in the middle 2000s.

But re-listening to the CP, I see that the author's intentions are different. It is not Christian, not focused on resurrected eternal life; but instead hopes for a transformation of this life on earth so as to become a kind of blissful spiritualized paradise of peace, love, harmony - without pain or suffering. 

Indeed, CP asserts that this is happening, and will happen - it will happen to us; because of the direction of history and reality. People fail to see it, because immersed in survival and the seeking of possessions, status, thrills etc. But it will happen anyway, because it must.

Related to this is the vision of synchronicities as something that also happen to us, guideposts pointing at our better future, and which it is best if we follow.  

The prophecies are presented as "insights" - which are items of knowledge that need to be grasped, internalized, lived. 

The picture is of some higher reality that communicates to our senses pieces of information that are qualitatively and positively transformative for the people, and societies, that acknowledge them. 

These are precious insights which need to be preserved, disseminated, read, pondered and internalized. That is how things are meant to happen - and that is what is resisted by the regressive forces, the materialists, the power structures, the exploiters...

The Good Life of the CP is therefore one in which we are guided through the world and our lives by synchronicities, to attain sequential insights, towards a state of enlightenment that is also contageous - in a good way. 

The insights spread from person to person, and each is permanently transformed by each insight - so there is a ratcheting positive movement (albeit this may happen quickly, or else be delayed considerably by our faults and my malign meddling).  

 

In sum - I find the Celestine Prophecy to envisage a very passive form of spiritual life. The millennial New Age will happen to us, will be imposed from externally; and synchronicities likewise. Our job is to follow - and our reward is that these are for our own good - and to make a world where people can be qualitatively more spiritual and happier. 

From here-and-now, I regard these as fallacies, because I do not believe that goodness or spirituality can be imposed from externally. People cannot be made good, the world cannot be made good - good just isn't a top-down imposable thing; it must come from individual choices, from personal freedom, fro the good in individual beings.  

I do not believe, either, that there can be a paradise on earth - because entropy and evil are part of this world. Evil cannot be cured from externally, and entropy is the primal state "within" which creation is always being made. 

I think that evil and entropy can therefore only be escaped and left-behind by a new, Second Creation, which is Heaven, which is post-mortal. 

In sum; the New Age aspect of Celestine Prophecy, and its counter-culture origins and continuation, is seen in a this-worldly (and indeed leftist) vision of the desirable future - a coming Golden Age on earth as culmination of social changes that were the basis of 1960s radicalism. 

It was written more than thirty years ago when tens of millions of people in The West believed that this not only can happen, but would happen - irresistibly. That all people were changing, were being made more spiritual.

Due to some external and universal influence - sometimes called a higher frequency of consciousness, higher vibrational level, new energy or the like (invariably, some term derived from physics - it seemed). 

And that this did not come from the personal loving creator God of Christianity; but from a purposive movement within the whole of reality - a wholly immanent, discarnate, spiritualized idea of everything as ultimately one. 

The millennium was seen as a restoration of a harmony which was actually a unity. There was to be no pain or suffering, because there was no conflict or competition, because everything was one. 

And that is what humankind, and everything on earth and everywhere else, was irresistibly and necessarily moving-towards.  

Yet it did not happen. 

That was not how the millennium went for us. That does not describe the world, now. 

But, somehow, this not-happening hasn't dented the assumptions behind the New Age. Tens of millions of people still seem to live in optimism for the paradisal Golden Age, here on earth - and in line with sixties idealism - they still see this as actually happening. 

A further thing about synchronicity. It now strikes me as ultimately false to suppose that our lives are segmented such that particular bits of them count as synchronicities. 

In truth: our life is continuous, a living process - and while our consciousness may be detached and alienated - created reality is (and always has been) a kind of loving family of relationships. 

The reason why we cannot usually understand The Meaning of a synchronicity, is because in defining it, we thereby chop it out from this process and web of meaning.

We pull out a synchronicity from life, like Little Jack Horner extracting a plum from a pie; and examine it minutely - but cannot see from that one plum the pie itself, nor who made it, nor why it was baked... 

The synchronicity thereby becomes mysterious in its meaninglessness! 

Such are my thoughts from a brief re-engagement with the Celestine Prophecy

What is "The" story of Jesus? There are actually Two stories

People talk as if there is "the" story of Jesus Christ - as told in "The Gospels"; but there isn't really one story but two stories; unless you make certain prior assumptions. 

These prior assumptions are either 

1. That all the Gospels are all telling the same story...

2. Or that Matthew, Mark, and Luke ("Luke" including Acts, by the same author and continuing the narrative) are telling "the" story; and John is a kind of optional-extra commentary or supplement to the three "Synoptics". 

But Mark does not tell a story; so can be excluded from this consideration. 

And if you do not make these assumptions but instead regard the remaining three narrative Gospels as separate entities, then there is a broad narrative common to Matthew and Luke; but John is an almost completely different story (although sharing some of the same names and approximate events - albeit with apparently different meanings). 

Luke and John present Jesus as The Messiah as miraculously born of an anointed and noble ancestry, a much prophesied and long-awaited savour of the Jewish nation. 

However Jesus did not accomplish the Messiah's promises during his mortal lifespan, and also included non-Jews in the scope of those to be saved. 

Thus, the main "take home message" of Matthew and Luke is that Jesus will in future return to save his people - here on earth; and the gospels describe the setting-up of a new priesthood based on the disciples, whose job is to preach to the nations and set up a church. 

So, Matthew and Luke describe a Jesus emerging from the Ancient Hebrew religion and people; a future based in the Second Coming and some kind of Heaven-on-Earth; and the centrality of a new, single, and (intentionally) universal church.   

Whereas the Gospel called John describes Jesus only from age thirty to thirty-three; and in relation to his baptism and recognition as Messiah by John the Baptist. 

But this "Messiah" is one who brings the possibility of eternal resurrected life in Heaven, after death, and for all those who follow him. 

In essence, John's Gospel is as simple as that.

Differences from Matthew-Luke include that in the Gospel called John; Jesus completed his task - therefore there is neither need nor mention of a Second Coming. 

And the promised Heaven comes after our death, not on earth. 

And there is no setting up of an institutional church or organized priesthood - these are apparently not required. 

To my mind, comparing Matthew-Luke with John, these are significantly different stories; so there is no "the" Christian story - but at least two, and these two are different.  

Conclusion...

We need to choose. 

We might potentially reject both stories - and devise/discover another story (as did Rudolf Steiner, for instance); or reject both stories and choose to believe none of the Gospels. Which latter is, of course, what most people in the world have done. But I shall not further consider these possible options here.

But if we believe that the Gospels in some way contain the true story of Jesus Christ, then...

Either: 1. There are two - essentially incompatible - stories of Jesus in the Gospels; and we should acknowledge this, and either make a choice between them. 

This is my choice: to believe that "John" the Fourth Gospel story tells the true story of Jesus Christ.  

Or: 2. We essentially consign the Gospel called John to secondary and subordinate status - to be interpreted in light of the Synoptic Gospels (and other parts of the Bible, especially perhaps the Epistles).

This has been the choice of the Christian churches throughout history: i.e. that Matthew-Luke-Acts (supplemented by Paul) tell the true story of Jesus Christ - and John gets interpreted so as to fit-in, as required. 

 

The current orgy of virtual Schadenfreude

The current online orgy of virtual Schadenfreude - triggered by media reports of the activities of the new US Presidential administration - is a dismaying spectacle in many ways, from my Christian perspective.

"Schadenfreude" describes the (spiteful) emotion of gratification at the (real or imagined) sufferings of others - typically of one's enemies. "Real or imagined" is relevant, since the current sufferings are substantially imagined, being learned-of via news-media reports and governmental/ bureaucratic announcements. 

That is why I inserted the word "virtual" - because the information on the sufferings is substantially indirect, secondhand, and obtained via mass/social media and from State sources. 

At least two things should be said about this online delight. 

The first is to clarify that reports of sufferings will almost certainly be misleading. 

The second, and more important, that the reported activities being celebrated are almost-wholly negative and destructive in nature - therefore not driven by any explicit and conscious, positive Christian motivation.

I have been deeply suspicious of claims of destruction of the managerial bureaucracy, since I had inside experience of such events about thirty years ago, within the UK National Health Service. 

The government of that era claimed to be determined to "cut red tape", including severely reducing the particular layer of bureaucracy within-which I was working. 

Official announcements from the specific layer of NHS bureaucracy also claimed (and complained) that it was being reduced severely. About 150 jobs were supposedly to be cut from a single office complex where I worked - and official returns to this effects were submitted. 

The news media duly reported the 150 jobs cut. 

Yet those on the inside knew that this was a kind of theatre for public consumption. 

In reality, hardly any jobs were cut - and these were almost exclusively among those who wanted to leave anyway and were grateful for severance pay. 

Nearly all of the 150 sacked/ let-go were redeployed within the larger organization; and/or rehired into almost the same jobs, shortly after the big announcement of cuts. 

The message is that, when you hear or read about job-cuts, layoffs, closures etc; all this kind of stuff may quite easily be faked - but faked in a way that is not detectable without detailed inside knowledge. 

The deeper problem with this current celebrations of destruction, is that of the underlying motivation. (Because the difference between virtue and sin, between good and evil, is essentially that of motivation - rather than specific action). 

A motivation for destruction as such, is anti-divine-creation, hence an evil motivation - and therefore leads to more and greater evil. 

And this applies pretty much for anything that might be destroyed - almost regardless of how useless or evil it is. 

An historical comparison could be the Dissolution of the Monasteries that happened in England under the rule of Henry the Eighth. 

The Roman Catholic Church itself, and its religious orders in particular - monasteries, friaries, priories, nunneries - owned a vast and still increasing proportion of the national wealth (from memory, something between a third and a half of the land). 

Church abuses were rife and widely experienced by the English population; there was a good deal of exploitation, luxury, self-indulgence, and political activity; and apparently much less (although certainly still a significant amount!) of asceticism, scholarship, piety, charity, and virtue. 

Therefore, there was no shortage of those among the English who celebrated (even when they did not personally benefit from) the truly colossal appropriation, violence and destruction that followed. 

My impression is that there was a good deal of tacit, if not active, public support for the Dissolution - as well as senior political, and a large segment of religious, leadership involvement. 

A great deal, therefore, of Schadenfreude was evident in the Dissolution. 

For instance; when the last major Abbey, in Glastonbury, was closed and demolished, and the greatest monastic library in England was destroyed; and its Abbot and two other senior clerics were publicly hung on top of Glastonbury Tor - it seems that the local population were pleased to observe their ex-landlords get "what was coming to them". 

Yet the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a national catastrophe, especially for the middle and poorer classes, from which it took England generations to recover - if indeed it ever did recover. More than a century of terribly destructive religious wars and exterminations were initiated. For many decades, there were almost no schools or hospitals, and no organized provision for relief of the poor.  

My simple point is that when goals are negative and destruction is the primary aim - and when this is unacknowledged, un-repented; spiritual disaster will surely ensue. Because this is, in effect, a celebration and endorsement of evil. 

No amount of negative action ever amounts to a positive strategy - and almost all current self-styled positive motivations are merely double-negative simulations. Or else, like Western "nationalism" as of 2025; almost wholly wishful, conjectural - hence in practice very secondary to other motives, and far too feeble to be effectual. 

With respect to the native populations of Western nations in 2025; any motivation that is truly good, positive, virtuous; absolutely needs to be consciously chosen and a grass-roots/ bottom-up phenomenon. 

Because, however differently things were in the past, good cannot now be done covertly nor in a top-down fashion. 

So that all fantasies of covert positive top-down agendas among the ruling elites are impossible, as well as unreal.   

  

In sum - the current orgy of online Schadenfreude may concern much that is merely virtual; and by its celebration of negative and destructive motivations, is very likely (from a Christian point of view) to prove multi-valently corrupting of those who engage in it. 

(As, indeed, seems to be the case.) 

Antichrist phenomena - an Eastern Orthodox perspective from Metropolitan Agafangel

Who will be the Antichrist? - by Metropolitan Agafangel (25th January 2025)

The Antichrist will be accepted first by those who are waiting for him - under one form or another and for one reason or another. There are many such people who are waiting, but they all wait differently... 

The question is where, in what way, does the Antichrist appear before gaining power over the whole world? ...

For atheists, the Antichrist may be a leader capable of bringing order to the whole world. He can begin his activity as the president of any country or, even, a superpower (say, the United States), he can begin with any high position —at least, even with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of China (the general secretaries of the CPSU still dream of world domination, in the USSR, Stalin was an exemplary predecessor of the Antichrist, although he didn't succeed in taking over the whole world, he did get a "sixth of the earth"). 

Thus, the first period of the appearance of the Antichrist will be his coming to power in some significant and known field—political, social, or religious. Having ascended to one of the peaks of diverse earthly power and, according to legend, having participated in the construction of the Jerusalem temple, the second period of the Antichrist's activity will begin — this outstanding, talented, charming and intelligent man will begin to expand his power and unite in himself the key powers of authority, that is, to seize power over the entire world and in all areas... 

Ideally, the Antichrist will unite in himself the expectations of the coming of "someone great" for all peoples and religions. This is how Satan will be allowed to act...

The Antichrist will come when a type of the Soviet-communist system will be established throughout the earth — defined as democracy, but in reality — dictatorship and total slavery — physical, electronic and spiritual. 

This new order will be led by the finally united secret world government, referred to as the Scriptures as the "gates of hell," which, led by the Antichrist, will fight the Church of Christ (Mt. 16.18) — that is, the last remnant of genuine faith on earth. 

I first learned something of the idea of the Antichrist from Fr Seraphim Rose, at the time when I was strongly engaged with Eastern Orthodoxy. 

While I have moved a long way from the assumptions of Orthodoxy, and I nowadays regard the Antichrist actuality in a "soft and flexible" sense rather than literally; I continue, nonetheless, to be impressed by many of the distinctive insights and emphases - and there seems to be a powerful general truth about their idea of the Antichrist, which has very general applicability. 

One take-home message of this line of thinking for me; is the relative unimportance and potentially lethally-misleading quality of a spiritual evaluation based upon actions; and therefore, by contrast, a renewed belief in the vital importance of basing ultimate and crucial evaluations upon my discernment of underlying intentions, motivations, and spiritual affiliations. 

(Not, therefore, evaluations taken second-hand from external authorities - unless these pass an honest test of intuitive examination.) 

Given Man's innate craving for this-worldly flourishing; we are all-too-eager to seek and find a this-worldly saviour (whether personal, institutional, ideological/ theological - or whatever); and we are all-too-willing selectively to grasp at the straws of particular actions - and not-notice, ignore, or suppress our awareness of those dissonant qualities that reveal an anti-Christian underlying spiritual commitment.

In some Orthodox theology; it has been prophesied, and I fully expect this to be accurate, that it shall in practice prove impossible to convince most people that the various Antichrists (whether persons, institutions, strategies, policies or whatever) - that somewhat-closely simulate some Christian attributes; and actually a guise of demons enlisted in the Satanic anti-Christian project. 

And if all these Antichrists were (more or less) rolled-up into the single figure of a global Antichrist (which I personally do not anticipate will happen) - i.e. Satan wrapped in a cloak stolen from Christ - then the same will apply: the Antichrist would be accepted as some kind of representative of Christ, if not a returned Jesus himself. 

Although the Kingdom of Christ is Not Of This World, but lies beyond death - all too many people (including too many Christians) so much crave an earthly saviour, that they are most of the way to being fooled even before the Antichrists begin their deceptive works.      

 

Has the world become better or worse since the time of Jesus?

Has the world become better or worse since the time of Jesus? The question is worth raising because people have believed and said both. 

Some people assume that Jesus made the world better, and that things were improved by the life, death, resurrection of Jesus. 

They assume especially that Christian societies are better than not-Christian societies - so that the conversion of more people, the Roman Empire, and many nations, to the Christian religion; led to an improvement within those societies - and consequently (probably) the world. 

Other people (apparently especially in Medieval times) regarded the time of Jesus Christ as the source of once for all revelation, and an unique spiritual impulse; so that the further away in time the world went from the ascension of Jesus, the more the world declined - the worse the world became... 

Until eventually the world would become so evil that this would lead to the end times, and the second coming, judgment day etc.

   

It seems that there is no objective way of resolving such questions, because there are no agreed criteria for quantifying and summating the goodness of the world; such that we could measure and compare whether the world at one time is overall better or worse than another.

When goodness was equated with obedience to a particular church, then it seemed possible to measure - in the sense that the size and power of that church, and the devoutness of its members, was in principle quantifiable. 

But such an equation now seems untrue. It is recognized that churches may be wealthy and populous while becoming increasingly corrupted; and that devout people who obey their churches rules, may well be un-Christian, or anti-Christian in their motivation. 

More deeply; there is the matter of whether the work of Jesus Christ - what he did, how he changed the cosmos - had anything directly to do with the spiritual state of large numbers of people in the world...

We could ask whether the work of Jesus is not about The World as such, and only very partially about material and measurable things; but is instead primarily about spiritual matters, and the post-mortal fate of persons. 

If Jesus's work is primarily individual, spiritual, and about resurrection; then any effect on the world at large will be secondary to the implications-of, and a long and complicated way downstream-from, various individuals choices to follow Jesus. 

Perhaps the proper question is to ask whether Jesus's work was - in its essence - of this world, or Not of this world? 

  

What was the divine plan of giving Jesus a claim to be King of the Jews?

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that by descent - either or both from his Father and/or Mother - Jesus had a claim to be the King of the Jews. Yet Jesus stated clearly by his deeds, as well as his words to Pilate that "my kingdom is not of this world, that he was not willing to press his claim, nor to be involved in attempting to restore the earthly kingdom. 

If so, we might ask why it was that Jesus incarnated to parents that gave him a claim to earthy kingship, yet Jesus refused to press that claim - why the one, if not the other? 

What, in other words, was the divine plan? 

It seems reasonable to speculate. And further, if we can make a plausible guess at that plan - did, or did not, the divine plan work-out as God hoped and intended it would?  

Perhaps the intent was that Jesus would be born as a potential earthly king, in order that he would have a claim to be the Messiah awaited by the Jews, which would gain Jesus a much larger and more attentive "audience" than would otherwise have been the case. 

But maybe the divine plan was always that Jesus would re-direct this-worldly and political expectations of a Messianic and Kingly nature, into his message of his new gift of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

The divine plan being that Jesus would be able to argue that although he could be a King of this earth and Messiah to his people - he had a much greater and everlasting gift to offer the Jews and indeed the world. 

Instead of merely a temporary (because mortal) ideal Kingdom; Jesus would save the Jews from the miserable prospect of Sheol, and the Romans from their miserable pagan after-existence; and show the way to a new and better Life. 

If so, it seems that the plan failed. 

Well, as Burns wrote: The best laid schemes o' mice an' men - and presumably God - Gang aft agley. 

Most of the Jews wanted their King and Messiah ASAP - or nothing; and very few people (not even all of the disciples) understood or believed-in what Jesus offered. 

Men are free agents, and plans don't usually work-out as expected. 

Even Jesus's closest followers after his ascension, seemed to want an imminent, then delayed, second coming - with the "promise" of earthly fulfilment of their desire for an ideal mortal Kingdom - more than they wanted resurrection after their present lives.

And things still haven't changed, yet. 

A Harry Potter Retrospective

Although the unprecedented "Pottermania" that gripped the Western world until approximately a decade ago has now receded; the opinion I formed of the Harry Potter series some 15 years ago as being a work of genius has by now survived multiple (six?) complete re-readings - plus further dippings-in. 

I find my appetite for the Harry Potter books undiminished, and get more from every time I encounter them. 

I was late to the series, having sampled and discarded the "Philosopher''s Stone" and a couple of earlier books. 

I kept falling at the fence of The Dursleys - especially in the first book, where this part of the plot takes up many slow and tedious chapters before Harry eventually enters the Wizarding World. 

It therefore does not surprise me that this book was rejected so often before finding a publisher - if the editors were anything like me, they will not have got through the early section to reach the good stuff later.  

Those parts of the books featuring the Dursley family continue to strike me as mostly unsuccessful, and written at a much lower level than the rest. 

The Dursley characters are cartoonishly unbelievable, when they are not figures of oppressively heavy-handed juvenile satire. 

Furthermore, the way that Harry (who is believable, and with whom we empathize) is physically and psychologically tormented by the Dursleys in the first and other early books; is so appalling that it is either viscerally horrific and overwhelms the other elements of the story, or else we are compelled to adopt a superficial and appropriately cartoonish level of engagement in our reading (which is what most people seem to be doing). 

Thus it was not until 2009 that I actually read the Potter books; although I had watched the movies as they came out, with no great depth of appreciation - except for "The Prisoner of Askeban"; which is (in retrospect) unsurprising, since the movies had been almost completely filleted of profundity. 

Then in 2009 I read the second-to-last book "The Half-Blood Prince" before launching into the crowning glory and triumphant vindication that is "Deathly Hallows". 

After which I went back and read all the earlier five books, albeit probably not in order of publication.

And "I was hooked".  

Harry Potter has since, over a span of fifteen years proved to be robustly enjoyable across a wide range; from its large cast of memorable (indeed archetypal) characterizations; its abundant and delightful humour (surely this is an under-rated facet - these books are very funny in parts); the richness of invention, excitement, and adventure; the very impressive plotting (mastery of the full range of techniques of an expert murder mystery writer was evident); and most importantly these books spiritual depth and edification across the series. 

The accomplishment of such a long coming-of-age time-frame, for several major child characters as well as Harry, makes these books unique in my experience.   

While I have no idea how the Harry Potter book-series will fare in future; in terms of mass marketing and cultural significance; for me they have easily passed the test of repaying repeated engagements over a long time span.

Why is Heaven postponed?

Why is Heaven postponed? Why should we be made to wait? Why can't we have Heaven now - whether here on earth, or elsewhere? Why are we compelled to go through all this mucking about in mortal life? 

This is, and perhaps always has been, the most powerful question for those who believe in a Good God. And it is a killer question for those who believe in an Omni-God. If God really is all powerful and also really is Good - then why must we wait, when we could have it now? 

Self-identified Christians are afflicted as strongly as anyone else. In the time of Jesus it seems that most people Did not Want what He offered. They instead wanted Jesus to be the Messiah. 

In other words they wanted a better mortal life now, more than they wanted resurrected everlasting life. 

Or else they did not really believe Jesus's promise of eternal joy beyond death. 

Or maybe they demanded both: paradise on earth now (or ASAP), and after death then eternal resurrected life in Heaven? 

The killer question for Christianity is: Why can't people have what they most want? 

The official compromise answer was that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, but Heaven on Earth must wait until after his second coming... 

But this compromise doesn't work at all well. The killer question still stands: Why must we wait, if Jesus is God, and God is omnipotent? 

Why - if He really is omnipotent - didn't Jesus finish his work in the first coming? 

Why - if He is really Good - does Jesus allow, indeed actually cause (because as Omni-God He is omnipotent, and created absolutely everything) even the very worst the sufferings of mortal life? Why do this when (apparently) He could give us Heaven Now? 

And if a wholly-Good God allows/ actively-causes all the nasty stuff He does in this mortal life; then is this really a definition of a Good God that we would really want for ourselves? 

How could we have faith in and trust and love such a God; a God with such incomprehensible and apparently evil understandings of Good? 

It has the same for most Christians for the past two thousand years and continuing; what these "Christians" really want is a better world now, rather than Heaven later. 

For example; they want their church to become powerful enough to impose a better world now; indeed many Christians believe that one-or-another Christian church did indeed impose a better world in some times and places - and regard this as a primary justification for Christianity.

But if then, why not now?   

Or, such church-Christians believe that Christians are better people now, than not-Christians. (Or - at least - they believe their affiliated church's kind of Christians are better people.) 

They believe this despite that better-people-now wasn't what Jesus promised - any more than he promised a better-world-now. 

Because of its implicit determination to put this world first, in a context of asserting an Omni-God; historical Christianity really has painted itself into a corner; and from here it is clear that messing around with incomprehensibly complex abstractions does not convince people anymore - if ever it really did convince, rather than compel obedience.

There are two answers. The first is to be clear that Jesus's Kingdom is, as he repeatedly said in many ways, Not Of This World. Jesus promised us eternal resurrected life after death in Heaven - and if that is not what you want above all; then maybe you aren't really a Christian? 

Secondly; we need to to explain why Heaven must be after death and resurrection, and cannot be Now - in this mortal earthly life. 

(This entails (inter alia) that the (un-Biblical) Omni-God assertion must be dropped; and God clearly conceptualized as The Prime Creator who worked and continues to work creation with already-existent Beings in an already-existing universe - a universe that already contained evil.)

To answer the question of why we must wait for Heaven, we need some such concept as the Second Creation (if not exactly that) to explain clearly and simply how it is that (as Jesus often explained - and as is obvious to observation!) this mortal life cannot become Heaven; and that is why God the Prime Creator was not sufficient; and that is why Jesus was necessary - and therefore why it is only on the other side of death that evil can be left-behind, and we can enter Heaven.  

(...Only after which can we understand the real purpose of this mortal life - which is, to learn spiritually in preparation for Heaven; and the constraints of evil and entropy within-which God's creative power operates on earth and in mortality.)

NOTE ADDED 23rd March 2024

For those unfamiliar with this blog, I should clarify my reiterated view that - in broad terms - I believe that people "get what they want" after death. In the sense that they will subjectively-experience (or be-aware-of) something like what they want and ask-for (or "believe in") in terms of reincarnation or paradise (of the various types), life as a kind of ghost (Sheol, Hades, ghosts on earth etc.), Nirvana, extinction. The exception is when people are affiliated to demons and desire things evil - in which case they are delivered to the demons with whom they have chosen to affiliate - but this is also "getting what they want", even though they will not like what they get.  

Jesus Christ and the Second Creation - already fully-available, utterly simple; but next-worldly

I'm beginning to think that a proper understanding of the Second Creation, made by the work of Jesus Christ, may be the key to what we most need to understand. 

There has, at least since the Apostle Paul, been a variety of more-or-less complex ideas related to a Second Creation made possible by Jesus; but my sense is that these were all - more or less - this-worldly. All tried to express the Second Creation in terms of possibilities (or duties) for Christians here on earth, in this mortal life. 

There was (for example) the promise or hope that after Jesus' resurrection, "from now" all Christians could participate in the Second Creation in some real sense. That potentially human society and the world itself might be transformed into a Heaven on Earth - either incrementally (via the City of God), or at the Second Coming. 

But what I am suggesting about the reality of the Second Creation is neither complex nor this-worldly; but utterly simple, and next-worldly. 

What I am saying is that the Second Creation is already (and from the time of Jesus) fully-in-existence, that it comes after death and resurrection, and that it is Heaven. 

In different words: Jesus made Heaven, and Heaven is the Second Creation; and all who desire it may follow Jesus to the Second Creation.

But -- this can only happen after death, because Heaven is the realm of the resurrected: the immortally re-incarnated.