Do we get spiritual guidance from God, or the Holy Ghost (= Jesus Christ)?

My contention is that Christian daily spiritual guidance comes - by intent, according to divine plan - from the Holy Ghost, rather than from God the Father.

I'm not sure whether this matters very much; but I think we can see, throughout the Fourth Gospel, that Jesus's intent was that our external spiritual guidance in life was to be from the Holy Ghost. 

Which means, I believe, guidance from Jesus Christ himself; since the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ, resurrected and ascended.  

Of course it is never sufficient to 'quote scripture' since this leaves open the question of how we should read The Bible; and my understanding of the primacy of the Fourth Gospel is unusual among Christians. 

But I think we can make a reasonable case that the plan for guidance of Christians towards salvation would be by Christ himself; since he is the one who enables our salvation. 

And also because Christ is fully divine, hence a creator with full creative powers - hence able to shape the circumstances of our lives to benefit our salvation (and also theosis). 

This conflicts with the usual Christian practice of praying to The Father - that is to the primary creator; which seems to be modelled on what Jesus himself did, and what he is reported as instructing for his followers in the Matthew and Luke Gospels. 

This, then, is a situation in which the prior assumptions before reading the Gospels comes into play: the Fourth Gospel telling us, in effect, to pray to (and/or commune with) the Holy Ghost (which is Jesus Christ); while other sources say we should pray to The Father. 

So - should we pray to The Father; or to The Holy Ghost/ The Son? Are we to model ourselves on Jesus's personal practice, or instead to do what Jesus told us to do? 

Because I regard the Fourth Gospel as primary, I think we know what Jesus wanted.

But either way the decision goes; we should seriously practice inward and intuitive discernment, and seek confirmation of our understanding.  

I doubt if this is crucial - and we could, of course, pray to both Father and Son/ Holy Ghost. But it may be that praying to the intended divine person - i.e. by seeking spiritual guidance from Jesus as the Holy Ghost - may, in some way, be more effective than the alternatives.  

What about the Filioque? - The (changing) nature of understanding the Holy Ghost

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; 

From the Nicene Creed, In Latin and the Book of Common Prayer translation

The Latin word Filioque was added to the description of the origin of the Holy Ghost in the Nicene Creed by theologians of the Latin speaking, Rome-based, Western division of the pre-Great-Schism Catholic Church - which is now the Roman Catholic Church.

The Filioque is regarded as one of the major causes of the Great Schism (happening gradually around the year 1000AD) between Western Catholicism, based in Rome and led by the Pope who appointed Archbishops of all nations; and Eastern Catholicism, which was then based in Constantinople and led (largely independently) by the Patriarchs of each nation - with that of Constantinople being senior. 

These divisions now continue as the Western Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox* divisions of Catholicism. 

[*Eastern Orthodoxy having also a large, administratively separate, subdivision of the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian etc) - which broke off much earlier in relation to the Monophysite controversy.] 

The reason why adding the Filioque was such a decisively divisive issue has several aspects; some of which may not be understandable to modern Men. 

Perhaps most fundamental was that the Eastern church believed that authoritative church decisions ought to be permanent; and therefore the Nicene Creed should never be changed. While the Western church believed that the truth was something that emerged over time - and that, for example, theology might discover incompleteness or errors in liturgy, creeds, scripture etc. that ought to be corrected. 

But there also seems to have been a difference between West and East over what was the true nature of the relationship within the Holy Trinity; in particular, between the Holy Ghost on the one hand, and the Father and Son on the other hand. 

And this difference - in turn - reflected upon the role of the individual Man in Christian life. 

The original Nicene understanding and formulation was that the Holy Ghost derived only from the Father - and therefore had no reference to Jesus Christ. This fits with the idea that the Christian life was a thing of God, not of Man, and that individual Men had little role in determining the Christian life, but ought primarily to obey the church. 

But it was more than 'obedience'. Orthodox Christianity (with its Father-derived Holy Ghost) is more communal, less individual. Orthodoxy has very little official role for any specific Man - whether by theological study, personal revelation, or through creativity - to make any fundamental or significant effect on the church as a whole. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is perhaps envisaged as upon the church as-a-whole; not on individual Men. 

With the addition of the Filioque; the Western church can be seen as creating a larger and essential role for individual Men - because the Holy Ghost now derived from the incarnated Man Jesus Christ, as well as from the immaterial Father. 

This could be seen in terms of a balance between individual Men and the Church; such that both were required for the Christian life. 

In general terms - the church was seen as an harmonious unity of individuals; but individual Men could and sometimes should have a decisive effect on the church as-a-whole. 

Perhaps this is most obvious in the person of that individual Man who is the Pope of Rome; who has had a special place in the church, as having personal (albeit conceptualized as divinely inspired) authority and capacity to make significant changes - that are regarded as clarifications of original and eternal truth. 

But many other individual Men, such as Thomas Aquinas, most notably, have made decisive contributions and wrought church-wide changes. 

The Protestants have continued this trend, with a greater role for the individual (e.g. Martin Luther) - but rooted in the same conception of the Holy Ghost deriving from both Father and Son - divinity and Man. 

My own understanding of the Holy Ghost can, from this narrative, be seen as continuing this historical trend, by advocating a pure Filioque. That is, I believe that the Holy Ghost is not only derived-from Jesus Christ - but actually is the ascended Jesus Christ. 

This seems to me quite clearly stated in the Fourth Gospel (usually called the Book of John) - which I regarded as by far the primary and most authoritative source we have on Jesus's teachings and life.

Also in-line with this narrative direction is that I believe that individual men are now primary in the Christian life; and not "the church" (not any church). 

In other words; primary authority and discernment lies in the hearts of individual Men, each for himself; and the churches role is now secondary, and inessential. 

Thus the direction of change through the past 2000 years would be (something like) at first regarding the church as primary and essential and Man's duty to obey (proceeding from the Father); then moving-through the intermediate stage when both church and Man are required (proceeding from the Father and the Son); and arriving at my current understanding that the Holy Ghost 'proceeds from', or rather actually-is, the spiritual manifestation-of, The Son, Jesus Christ - a Man*.

*Note: I suppose I should perhaps add, for anyone unfamiliar with this blog; that I regard Jesus as fully-divine - as well as a Man. 

The Dyadic Holy Ghost

Since I regard God the Creator as dyadic, our Heavenly Parents, Father and Mother (actual, and presumably eternally incarnate, persons)...

And since I regard Jesus Christ's marriage to Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene) as a vital and transformative aspect of His work of the Second Creation...

Then it seems to follow - and has a intuitive rightness - that the Holy Ghost is also dyadic, and a consequence of the eternal commitment of Jesus and Mary in love (their "celestial marriage"). 

I think this is necessary because ultimate creativity comes from the eternal dyadic love of our Heavenly Parents (that is, the concept of creation includes (and/or arises from) love, as it includes freedom and agency - as distinguishable but inseparable aspects).  

Thus the Holy Ghost is both guide and teacher, and comforter; and it may be that these aspects reflect Jesus Christ the man and Mary Magdalene the woman; after their death, resurrection and ascension. 

In other words (bearing in mind these are emphases, not separate domains), the main theme of Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost is to contribute discernment and purpose in a long-term, strategic way; while Mary contributes immediate help, here and now, in a tactical way. 

Jesus shows us the path, Mary keeps us upon it. 

Of course this cannot (even in principle!) be proved from the Gospels; yet the account of Mary in the Fourth Gospel strikes me as compatible by what I have just said - and from other traditions in Christianity. 

By my understanding, Mary Magdalene makes five appearances in the The Fourth Gospel: 1, implicitly in Jesus's Marriage at Cana (a passage that seems clearly tampered-with, including by deletions), in the resurrection of Lazarus (Mary's brother), the episode of the ointment on Jesus's feet in Bethany, at the foot of the cross and after Jesus's resurrection. 

Mary's concerns in the latter four episodes are very immediate, supportive, "caring" - and indeed it seems possible that Mary had a role in the resurrection of Jesus in a way analogous to John the Baptist's role in the divine but mortal transformation of the pre-baptism Jesus into Jesus Christ*. 

I get this from the hints contained in the reported conversation between the resurrected Jesus, and Mary, when she was the first to meet Jesus after his death, thus.

John 20: 14... she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

It strikes me that Jesus may here be talking of their future eternal union - to include the spiritual emanation of the Holy Ghost, available to all who follow Jesus - to happen (only) after Mary's death and resurrection. 

In very general terms - to include Mary Magdalene/ of Bethany in the Holy Ghost is a further development and explication of the deadly rejection of the feminine that afflicted Christianity from early-on (and which I blame of the monotheist philosophers who captures and continue to torment Christin theology!)

The progressively increasing emphasis on Mary the mother of Jesus in Catholic practice, I take to be a theologically-distorted - but nonetheless spiritually very valuable - manifestation of the reality of Heavenly Mother, and the wife of Jesus Christ. 

The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is mainly called-upon for aid and comfort in the difficulties of everyday living, fits with my understanding of the role of the divine feminine in general, and Mary Magdalene in her marriage-into the Holy Ghost specifically.   

Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, rediscovered the Christian feminine in God; but the CJCLDS have since neglected and suppressed this aspect of Joseph's revelation - and have chosen not to develop it, while never denying it. 

I am strongly of the view that an explicit inclusion of Heavenly Mother in the fundamental concept of God; and probably too a personal womanly aspect of the Holy Ghost; has (belatedly) become an all-but essential quest or project - for us, here and now. 

This is not something Christians can get off-the-peg or from any external source; but something each needs to work-through for himself - by the usual external and internal means of spiritual guidance. 

*Note added: This is easily (negatively or positively) misinterpreted in terms of divided stereotypical sex roles. I mean much more and almost the opposite; which is that the dyad of a man and woman eternally co-committed in love, can do something that neither can do alone - or, at least, one person can do less, and less well. That is something like a harmony of strategic purposive wisdom with immediate help. By analogy (very approximate) it is a bit like the benefit of being loved and looked-after by two people, a man and a woman, each with distinctive perspectives and capacities, eternally combined in love; who completely share divine purposes and method. This would be better than any conceivable single person, with only a single perspective and vision. That this is two persons creates and sustains a dynamic and growing aspect to the situation - whereas a single person would tend towards inertia and stasis. That this is two persons, rather than more than two, should be seen as an extra gift and potentiality added to the situation of single person - rather than a limitation.   

To receive the guidance and comfort of the Holy Ghost - you need to be a Christian (i.e. committed follower of Jesus Christ)

My understanding of the nature of the Holy Ghost - drawn from the Fourth Gospel primarily - is that he is the spirit of the ascended Jesus Christ. 

The Holy Ghost can potentially be accessed by anybody, anywhere, at any time - and will provide us with the divine guidance and comfort of Jesus Christ... But

That is to say potentially. 

In practice the Holy Ghost is only 'accessible' to Christians; because, to understand and respond appropriately to guidance and comfort, entails that we know the identity and motivations of the source of communication. 

When a non-Christian accesses the Holy Ghost, seeks and receives a communication; then the guidance and comfort is Not acknowledged to be from our Saviour - but from some-one or some-thing else. 

How a person does regard that source of communications would, presumably, vary. He might regard the communication as the voice of his conscience, memories of some earthly authority (parents, mentor, guru?), or coming from some other God or gods (like Socrates' daemon - who seems to have been an emanation of Apollo). 

Yet, if we assume that the Holy Ghost really is from Jesus Christ; then to assume that HG guidance and comfort actually come from something else is a mistake. 

Having mistaken the identity; we are then bound to misunderstand the communications: to misunderstand the authority and purpose of the communications. 

For Christians; the guidance and comfort of Jesus Christ is 'designed' for our salvation; that is, so that we personally may follow Jesus to resurrected life in Heaven. 

That purpose - and not something else - is what such guidance and comfort is for. 

Because if we mistake the provenance of the guidance and comfort, then we will evaluate it wrongly. 

For example, we might suppose it was designed to make us happier here and now, or be more successful in earthly life, or that it was supposed to gratify our desires and ambitions. 

However, knowing that the Holy Ghost speaks for Jesus, we also know that the timescale of His communications stretches across eternity; and the source will therefore understand our specific present situation in this mortal earthly life in a Heavenly context - in terms of divine plans, meanings and purposes. 

What Pentecost means to me

If Easter is about the end, or goal, of everlasting life; then Pentecost is about the primary means to that end - in that sense, today is probably the second-most-important Christian celebration. 

Thus, Pentecost refers to the coming of the Holy Ghost after the ascension of Jesus Christ. As I have explained elsewhere, my understanding is that the Holy Ghost is our direct contact with the ascended Jesus. 

And in the Fourth Gospel the main purposes of this contact with the Holy Ghost are knowledge ("he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you");  and 'comfort' (joy and encouragement) - such that the Holy Ghost's synonym is The Comforter. 

Jesus addressed these remarks to his disciples only; but I assume they now apply to all Christians. At the time of Jesus's address, the disciples were the only Christians, the only ones who believed and loved Jesus, knew what he promised, and would seek out contact with Jesus's spirit. But since then, knowledge and comfort by contact with the Holy Ghost is for anyone who seeks it in that same loving spirit. 

What about knowledge of "all things"? At the very least, this refers to all things necessary to salvation and theosis (e.g. whatever is necessary to discernment, repentance, and to learn life's spiritual lessons). But it may means "all" in a more extensive sense - of all that we need to know and would benefit us; and that we are capable of knowing. 

To me, this emphasizes that the constraint on our capacity to benefit from the Holy Ghost is mainly that we seek him in faith and with trust, for the right reasons, asking the right questions - and then we will receive both comfort and knowledge. 

The difficulty is, of course (as anyone who has tried will know) disentangling our thinking from the distraction and distortions of external interference, and from the short-termist and self-gratifying desires of our mortal selves. 

In other words; the guidance and comfort of the Holy Ghost is designed and intended to assist our passage through this mortal life and aiming at resurrected, Heavenly life eternal. 

Therefore, when the Holy Ghost is sought for other purposes - he will probably not be available, and is not likely to be helpful!

We can see that our access to guidance and comfort from the Holy Ghost has an only-indirect relationship to whether we regard ourselves as A Christian or are members of a self-identified Christian Church; and are instead essentially more to do with our purposes in life. 

Any person, in principle - of any place or time, religion or spirituality - can and will be able to know from the Holy Ghost directly, whatever he needs to know about Jesus Christ, Heaven, and the purpose of his own life. And this regardless of availability of Scripture, priests, or any other form of infrastructure. 

The Holy Ghost is therefore what makes Christianity potentially universal and independent of society, civilization and (ultimately) of all personal circumstances. 

A day to celebrate indeed!

Why think of the Holy Ghost as Jesus?

Don Camillo seeks guidance from "the Holy Ghost" (i.e. Jesus Christ)

I have suggested that the Fourth Gospel tells us that the Holy Ghost is the ascended Jesus Christ; so whenever we talk about the Holy Ghost we are actually talking about Jesus. 

Is this helpful? very, very much so - I would say. Instead of a nebulous (because bodiless, unpersonal) spirit-being; we are offered guidance and consolation from the actual person of Jesus - which fits with John 16:7 "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Why would it be expedient for the disciples (and everyone else, presumably) if Jesus goes away (that is dies, resurrects, ascends to Heaven) if the person of Jesus - someone we might love as one individual loves another - was replaced by a nebulous ghost spirit for whom love can only be an abstraction?  

As an example, we might consider the comic but Christian character of Don Camillo; a fictional Italian priest who has two-way conversations with Jesus on a crucifix in his Church - and this Jesus is a very distinct, humorous, character (and an exemplar of tough-love).

In these stories, it seems to me that Jesus is replacing, fusing-with, and thereby rendering unnecessary, the Holy Ghost as some kind of separate aspect of deity.  

Of course any such conversation as Camillo's with Christ is not a literal communion with Jesus, since it is subject to all our limitations of understanding and motivation, as well as the inevitable ambiguities of language. 

Nonetheless, insofar as it is underpinned by direct communion; then this is exactly how Jesus can be or become a real-reality in the lives of Christians: the apprehension of a real personage with who we have present contact.   

Jesus Christ and the ongoing Second Creation - reason for a personal relationship with Jesus during this mortal life

I have been blogging recently about the idea that Jesus's "cosmic" role was the Second Creation that is Heaven - Jesus made possible resurrected eternal life, and therefore Heaven. 

But, in addition, Jesus has a role as the Good Shepherd, who will lead each of us to Heaven, if we choose to follow him from love. 

One part of this leading, is for Jesus to show the way and make possible our transformation from mortal to immortal that is resurrection. 

Another aspect is that Jesus - who is the Holy Ghost - can (if voluntarily sought) provide guidance, comfort and positive encouragement, on a moment-by-moment basis, during this mortal life on earth. 

This guidance/ comfort/ encouragement from the Holy Ghost may come via prayer - in other words, by prayers addressed to Jesus. Or it may come by any other manifestation of a loving friendship with Jesus; such as in meditation, or by directing our thoughts and attention to Jesus at any time or place or situation.   

(It's not that I regard prayers and thoughts directed at God the Primary Creator as a wrong thing to do - but it seems to me that these are not specifically Christian. A Christian should, surely, be focused on Christ? And that includes prayer, meditation, and our best kind of thinking.)  

The purpose of this mortal life can be conceptualized negatively and positively. 

Negatively, there is the matter of learning from problems and mistakes, from disease and death, repenting sins... and the like. 

But a positive and strongly-motivating life goal is essential in these adverse times; and this motivation (because of the corruption of churches, along with other institutions, to the-side-of-evil) must be something that arises-from and works-at the individual personal level. 

In the first place it seems evident (from our own set-up and the way the world now is) that this motivating-purpose is something we need to work-out for ourselves, consciously and by active choice. 

This needs to come primarily from our intuition - which means from our real and eternal self. 

But this inner source is, of course, prone to error and self-deception; and that leads to the special role of the Holy Ghost. 

I think that, in general (there are exceptions), the role of the Holy Ghost is Not to provide primary guidance: Not to "tell us what to do". 

But instead the Holy Ghost is meant to serve as a check and confirmation on what we have personally discerned and worked-out. 

As a mega-simplification (!): First we decide what we ought to do; then we consult with the Holy Ghost that we have got-it-right; that this is, indeed, what we ought to do. 

So far; we are still in the double-negative territory... 

However; the positive role of the Holy Ghost is then in the comfort and encouragement, the energizing and enthusing, deriving from "knowing" that we are indeed personally and in these exact circumstances: doing the right thing.    

Harmonizing mainstream and Mormon theology - example: The Holy Trinity

*

Although I have been reluctant to debate the heterodoxy of Mormon theology, this is not because it is intrinsically difficult to show that Mormon theology is compatible with mainstream Christian theology - it is because almost nobody is actually interested in showing this harmony.

Mainstream Christians are (almost always) concerned to show that Mormonism is heterodox and beyond the pale, while Mormons are generally happy to acknowledge fundamental differences such that restoration of the gospel can be shown to have been necessary.

Therefore both Mormons and Mainstreamers bring to the task the assumption of incommensurable theological differences - and with that assumption it is trivially easy to find incommensurable theological differences.

*

But bringing to the task, as I do, an assumption that differences are superficial and mask a deeper harmony, then it is easy to discover harmony.

The key is to recognize that Mormon theology is concrete, personal and simple - such that it can all be fully understood by the average eight year old; and armed with this principle (and with an assumption of harmony) it can be seen that when Mainstream and Mormon appear to diverge this can be seen to be superficial only.

In fact this isn't at all difficult to do! (Else I would not myself be able to do it; since I am not a deep theologian and am indeed impatient with theology.)

*

For example, Mainstream Christians say that God created everything from nothing, while Mormons say that he created form from chaos and that there never was 'nothing'.

So for Mainstream 'the void' is nothing, but for Mormons is it formless 'stuff'; matter and energy and the rest of it.

But the Mormon view simply recognizes that humans cannot think about something coming from nothing; but can imagine God as a sculpting the world from eternally existing stuff.

*

Or, the contrast between Mainstream Christians saying that after death, humans - which are not gods - are (potentially) adopted to become Sons of God, and above the angels and adopted brothers of Christ; and the Mormon belief that humans are the actual spirit children of God with Jesus as an elder (and higher) brother, who have volunteered to be clothed in bodies for mortal life to learn important lessons, then (if they pass the tests) potentially returning to live with God at a higher spiritual level and in perfected bodies after death.

The Mormon concepts can be seen as explaining how it is that we could become what Christ promised - Sons of God. If (on the Mainstream view) we are not already divine then since 'adoption' seems too weak to make us divine, because adoption would seem to leave our essential natures unchanged (in this world, adopting a boy is a matter of granting them the rights of a son but not of changing their essence).

But if we were already divine sons before coming to earth, then it is all understandable.

*

Of course, to go along with this style of explanation requires an acknowledgement of the inadequacy of Mainstream Christian theology - on the basis of 'if it ain't broke, then what is the point of fixing it'; to be sympathetic to the rise of Mormonism one has to feel that Mainstream Christianity is, at least for some people, 'broke', inadequate, ineffective.

This broken-ness seems obvious to me (as evidenced by chosen sub-fertility, to go no further with the evidence).

And one has to be unhappy with the abstractness of what purport to be mainstream 'explanations' - such as attempts to explain the Holy Trinity.

Examples of attempted explanations would include the Athanasian Creed:

And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate: and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion: to say there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible... He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.

In which case, how may anyone be saved?

(Let alone the children, who Christ assured us would be saved).

*

Of course, I am being mischievous, but I have studied many, many descriptions of the nature of the Holy Trinity from Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Conservative Evangelical theology - and I find all of them incomprehensible (if I am honest).

Yet I understand the Mormon description of The Godhead, and so would most children. From lds.org: Teachings/ Gospel Topics

...The members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22). Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation.

*

Or, from Articles of Faith by James E Talmage 1890 (1962 edition).

Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: 1. God the Eternal father, 2. His Son, Jesus Christ, 3. the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man... The Godhead is a type of unity in the attributes, powers, and purposes of its members... The unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. The one-ness of the Godhead... implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God.

*

While Mainstream Christians see this as clearly heterodox, indeed heretical; I see a clear and comprehensible explanation of the Holy Trinity which does the job - something that Mainstream definitions fail to do.

And 'The Job' is to enable us to have a personal relationship with God in His three persons, to understand God's character, motivations, intentions, emotions and so on - so that even a child can live in communication with God as Father, Brother, and Protector/ Comforter/ Teacher.

Faith is Trust; and we can only trust a person - not an abstraction. Thus the value, and perhaps (for some people) the necessity of the kind of concrete, personal and simple version of Mainstream theology which Mormonism provides.

*

What kind of difference to Life, is made by becoming a Christian?

Nowadays, most people are nowhere near being a Christian - because they do not even believe in 'deity', let alone a personal creator God, let alone Jesus Christ... 

So for people such as myself, becoming a Christian is part of a very big 'package' of beliefs; which amounts to such a profound reorientation that it took years to 'work through' my life, even to a moderate degree. 

Rudolf Steiner insightfully distinguished between dis-belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost - emphasizing that atheism is a literal pathology - a profound spiritual sickness. Steiner is, I am sure, absolutely correct - and this is the primary explanation for the insane and unrepentant species of inverted-evil that plagues our world now. 

Just as one example: if we do not recognize that we dwell in A Creation - therefore a universe with purpose, meaning, and personal relevance; then we will be have no core or coherence to our belief and life. We shall be adrift, and probably oscillate between hedonism-to-forget, and despair-when-we-remember. 

Steiner said that to believe in God but not Christ, was a calamity. To believe in God and Christ but not the Holy Ghost was to live disorientated and dulled in a fog of incomprehension. 

But since the time of Steiner - at least in The West, but I suspect everywhere - to believe in God, one must be a Christian; and to be a Christian one must believe in the Holy Ghost - i.e. (by my understanding) must have a lively, active, interactive, direct personal relationship with Jesus via The Holy Ghost. 

(In other words, we must now actively believe in all three of God/ Christ/ Holy Ghost - and the partial forms of the past have become impossible. This includes that Christianity is the only Possible religion for now, in The West.)

And I believe that the nature of genuinely-Christian changes to the life of a Christian convert need to begin with this kind of deeply-rooted reorientation, and well-up into the specifics of what we do. 

Arising bottom-up and from inside-out - not vice versa.  

In other words; as of 2022 - we don't become a Christian by following a rulebook or recipe, or changing our lives. 

We might - like a devout monk - spend every hour, 24/7, following a strict Rule, engaged in prayer, meditation, worship, study, confession, fasting etc. - and (as of 2022) not progress a single micrometer towards being a real Christian. 

What once was effectual, is effective no longer. 

(As is, or should be, evident from the way such persons have actively allied themselves with work on the side of Satan - the totalitarian evil rulers of This World.) 

These things may be good from some people to do from grounds of expediency, and 'psychologically' to break free from evil influences and habits...

But the Real Thing (at the level of the soul) needs to come from some combination of solid and confident faith in the hope of resurrected life eternal (i.e. the decision to follow Jesus to Heaven after mortal death)...

And the guidance of knowledge of 'what to do' which can be conceptualized as a consequence of our direct and personal relationship with the Holy Ghost. 

The Christian life has become very simple, but that simplicity constitutes its great difficulty. And the simple make take a long time to work-through the confusion, complexity, and burgeoning chaos of Life Now. 

God the creator and the Holy Ghost work from opposite directions

(Where shall we seek guidance in navigating a Christian path through this mortal life? One potentially helpful way of thinking about it might be this...)

 

If we regard Goodness as living in harmony with God's creation and creative purposes: then we are able to do this because there is divinity within each of us. In other words: we are God's sons and daughters; which I understand to mean that there is a literal (procreative, not symbolic) sense in which we have been made divine, in our souls. 

We are not fully divine (as was Jesus Christ) but we each have that potential - and to have that potential we must be (and are) partly divine. 

It is this aspect of "God-within" that enables us to want Good, and also enables us each to discern and know The Good. 

OK. So we are each a God-containing, partly-divine being - living our mortal lives in this world. 

As such; and we need to learn from our experiences in mortal life, lessons that which will be of value in resurrected eternal life (i.e. theosis); and we also need to desire and make choices such as to reach that resurrected eternal life after our biological deaths (i.e. salvation). 

How are we enabled to discover guidance in navigating through this complex world? Especially considering that we are each unique and changing, and live in unique and changing circumstances. 

Because our guidance needs to cope with unique and changing personal and life problems - then it seems clear that generic and fixed answers will be insufficient.  

Salvation and theosis must therefore be 'bespoke' - that is, 'made to measure' for each particular human soul; because 'off-the-peg' guidance (such as that provided by generic church teaching, practices, supervision etc.) cannot take into account our unique circumstances and nature. This generic guidance is always inadequate (even though it may be helpful). 

Our personal guidance is available from both directions: from outside us, and from inside. 

From outside; God is the primary creator; and continues His work of creation - and (because we are God's children) this creating extends right down to the level of each of our lives. 

Therefore, we are guided by God by means of his creative work in arranging of the circumstances of our each of lives. 

This guidance may take many and various forms, starting with our nature, abilities, circumstances of birth and parents; and including what might be termed 'luck' and 'coincidence' or 'synchronicity'. 

This guidance from God ensures that we are given the necessary opportunities and choices by which we can (from our our agency and by 'free will') attain salvation, and learn valuable lessons from mortal life. 

External guidance from God is therefore from the direction of outside - by creation acting upon our lives. This is met by the guidance of the Holy Ghost which is experienced from 'inside' us. 

Led by the Fourth Gospel (called John); I regard the Holy Ghost as our (potential) relationship with the ascended Jesus Christ. Such guidance is accessible by those who (whether explicitly, or implicitly) desire Heaven and have chosen to follow Jesus Christ - i.e. be guided by Jesus Christ. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is therefore an inner personal relationship (which is why the Fourth Gospel uses the synonym of 'comforter') that will inform us of... whatever we need to know for salvation and theosis. 

Again, it is a matter of our chosen free agency whether we follow this guidance. 

In sum: we can envisage the scheme of guidance as coming from from outside us - as God creatively-shapes the circumstances of our specific mortal life; and also from the opposite direction: from inside us - as Jesus personally-guides-us through the unique circumstances of our unique lives. 

       

Was John the Baptist Necessary? Yes; as necessary as Jesus's mother, Mary

I've written before about the person of John the Baptist, who has always puzzled me by his extreme prominence in the Fourth Gospel ('John') especially.

This prominence now seems to require a more specific explanation than that the author of the Fourth Gospel was previously JtB's disciple, and that the Baptist was a high status Holy Man and Prophet who could confirm Jesus's identity as the Messiah.

I now believe that John the Baptist was necessary to the ministry of Jesus; by which I mean that it was necessary that Jesus was baptised by John (and not somebody else) in order that Jesus could fully become the Messiah, could fully become both Man and God, could perform miracles (including raising the dead), and could have the self-knowledge to do all this in full awareness of its significance.

In other words, when John describes how he knew that Jesus was the Messiah because when he baptised Jesus the divine Spirit came down upon Jesus and stayed upon him - and John had previously been told directly by God that this would be how the Messiah was known - this represents a very significant and direct intervention in reality by God the Father specifically via John.

(Plus, John the Baptist's own miraculous conception and personal history, and its prior linkage to the lineage and life of Jesus, is described in the other Gospels.)

John 1: 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

This carries the implication that in every other case when John baptised, the Spirit descended from heaven but did not abide - that the baptised person was 'touched' by the divine spirit - but not transformed by it into a qualitatively different being.

(This passage also confirms that the Holy Ghost came only with the ministry of Jesus, and that the many previous examples of divine Spirit intervening in the world - for example in the Old Testament, and before this point of the New, were distinct-from the Holy Ghost. I understand this to mean that the Holy Ghost was/is Jesus.)

This suggests to me that baptism by John was of miraculous nature for everybody - in being touched by the divine; but that this touching and abiding made a decisive transformation for Jesus. After which, Christ's miraculous ministry began.

In other words, John the Baptist's role in the incarnation of Jesus was not merely to help or assist; but was a necessary and decisive part of Jesus becoming what he became.

Now, perhaps if John had failed to do the baptism of Jesus (because John could not be compelled by God, he had to choose to do what he did, and for the right reasons), some other way would have been found - by God - by which the necessary and decisive transformation could be accomplished... This is quite possible, given God's power; just as perhaps God could have found another to bear Jesus had Mary declined.

But as it actually happened; I think we need to acknowledged that John the Baptist was as personally important as Mary - and indeed the analogy is a close one, since John's baptism was Jesus being 'born again' (as indirectly implied by the later discussion with Nicodemus).

Mary was responsible for Jesus being born as Man; John the Baptist for Jesus being born-again as Man and God - that's a measure of how important John was!

God the creator, God-within, the Holy Ghost - Three different natures of divine guidance

My current understanding is that we have three main type of divine guidance available. 

They are not, I believe, identical in nature - but they are (always and necessarily) in profound and ultimate harmony; because of their shared committment to the goals of creation as motivated by love.

Actually to gain access to these forms of divine guidance (here, now, 2020) requires that we each make conscious decisions, and are spiritually active. 

...Because, while children and Men in the past (and perhaps other cultures still) may passively and unconsciously be guided (manipulated) by the divine; in our situation we need to to be conscious and active in our choosing our path through life. 

And, as the flip-side, if we are Not conscious and active in our spiritual choices; then (here, now, 2020) our committment to the divine will decline, and we will (sooner or later) almost certainly be induced to join the side of God's enemies. 

Such are these times.  

 

1. God - the creator

I think that the guidance of God the creator comes to us mainly via ongoing creation. In other words, God influences our lives by influencing the situation we inhabit, our circumstances, our environment. 

If we want to follow God's influence, we must therefore regard our world as a creation of God, and as having meaning and purpose for us as individuals - as continually being-arranged for our ultimate (eternal) benefit, by a loving and personal God. 

 

2. Jesus Christ - the Holy Ghost

My understanding of the Fourth Gospel is that it tells us explicitly that the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the ascended Jesus; by which he is avialble to all the people of the world for 'comfort' and guidance.

For this to happen, we need to be aware of the wise and loving continual presence of the Holy Ghost; and to open our minds to him, so that the Holy Ghost's thinking will arise in the stream of our thinking.  

 

3. God - within us

We are children of God, in the literal sense of being divinely-procreated by God (our Heavenly Parents) and of the being capable of developing and growing to be like God; of like 'kind', as was Jesus Christ. 

We are therefore immature gods/ godlings/ mini-gods now, already - and contain that-within-us which is in harmony with God's creation and purposes; albeit this guidance is only intermittently and incompletely effective (since it is not fully-developed). 

God-within-us is the reality behind the concept of conscience; and we know it by intuition - by 'introspection' (looking within' to our deepest nature (below or within the social conditioning and natural instincts); and this may occur in some kinds of prayer and meditation. 

 

All forms of divine guidance will agree each with the others; but not all may be discerned, or may be incompletely or distortedly discernible - so they may superficially appear to differ. 

But if deeper and more solid knowledge of individual kinds of guidance can be attained, then the unity of 'what to do' will emerge. 

We should recall and have trust in God that we are 'never left bereft' by God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost. That is - no matter what our situation - those who ask for help (spiritually) will always be given help, and a way-out.   

(The only truly-damned by circumstances, are those who will not ask for help.)

Spiritual relationships should primarily be loving, not functional (or, Why is the Holy Ghost called "the comforter"?)

If our relationships ought to be loving; this means that thy ought Not primarily to be functional. 

Yet this is easily forgotten - plus, of course, the functional aspects of friendship and relatedness may lead to, and synergize with, the loving. Yet, for Christian ideals, the loving must be first and foremost. 

For Christians the Holy Ghost is a Being (I personally believe the Holy Ghosts is Jesus Christ, ascended) to whom we appeal for guidance, strength, help in time of need etc; yet the Holy Ghost is also called the "Comforter" in the Authorized Version of the Fourth Gospel (called "John") - especially in Chapters 14-16. 

To provide "comfort", in the modern sense of the word, sounds pretty feeble and insipid as the job of a divine Being!

Yet I now think that - properly understood - this "comfort" is, or should be, the primary aspect of our relationship with the Holy Ghost. 

I have come to understand "Comforter" as meaning the primacy of a loving relationship with the Holy Ghost; such as we might have - at the best - with a parent, sibling, child, spouse, best friend or similar. 

Such a relationship ought to be loving first and foremost; and therefore not to have its foundations built on a basis of functionality, nor of providing useful this-worldly service to each other. We ought to be visiting our parents because we love them, rather then to get a good meal, clothes washed, or for presents. No matter how sustaining and mutual such exchanges may be; they have to be secondary if they are not to be corrupt.  

After all, whatever we might do for each other in this mortal life and world is temporary and expedient, and will (unless resurrection follows) be lost at biological death -- if not (usually) before death.

I think the "Comforter" should therefore be understood as  meaning that there is a primary - and potentially eternal - comfort - encouragement from faith and hope - to be had from the basic fact of contact, and awareness of contact, between us in this mortal life, and the spirit of the Holy Ghost. 

We ought not to regard the Holy Ghost as mainly about helping us navigate through mortal life by the giving of good advice, nor even by providing us with the wherewithal to do  the right thing; these should be regarded as valuable by-products of the simple fact of our awareness of here-and-now contact with the Being that is the Hoy Ghost. 

"Comforter" can then be taken to mean the faith and hope that we might reasonably hope to derive a recognition of the reality of the Holy Ghost; that derives from experiencing contact between our conscious thinking, and the actuality of the Holy Ghost.   

Note added: I would not like to give the impression I regard love as a static state, a kind of time-less bliss or something. Love is inter-personal (including inter-Beings, Beings of all kinds). Indeed, I regard love as bound-up with divine creation, and therefore purpose and direction. This is why (as I understand it) love of God is given primacy in Christian theology - because it is by our love of God that we become part of the whole purpose of divine creation; and also part of the whole "method" of that creation - which "works" by means of the cohesion and desire that is part of networks of mutual loving. To state it very simply; our love of one another provides the cohesion of creation, and our love of God provides its direction. Neither being sufficient without the other... meaning they are inseparably linked in the choice to affirm love as the primary value; that-lovingness upon which the origin and progression of divine creation rests. 

Centrality of the Holy Ghost (i.e. Jesus)

We are born as children of God, thus have within-us that which is divine.

As such we can recognise, we can know the Holy Ghost - which is divine.

Indeed, the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ himself, which he sent after his ascension; as is expedient for us because the Holy Ghost is universal; available to all Men.

To believe in Jesus is the same as to trust, have faith in, and to love the Holy Ghost. (And vice versa.)


This, everyone and anyone can do - no matter what their personal circumstances.

Because all have a divine self, and all have access to the Holy Ghost.

And this is to be 'A Christian'. A real Christian.


(Even if when you have never heard of Christ; even if/ when Jesus is misidentified or misunderstood explicitly...)


Because what Men say, what Men teach is contingent and cannot be 'controlled' (even if God wished to control it).

What is needed must - in contrast - be certain, universal, immune to Men's wishes or abilities, and the uncertainties of circumstances.

What is needed must not depend upon prior knowledge.

And what is needed must be sufficient (even if it is not optimal).


Obviously so: Jesus loves us and is the creator and sustainer of this world; and he would surely not have left us with anything less?

Living Jesus, historical Jesus (or, Romantic Christianity in a nutshell)

It is a distinctive aspect of Christianity (as I understand it) that Jesus was an historical person, who changed the world - such that things were qualitatively different after Jesus than before. 

Being located in history, Christianity is a religion that has a time-line. For Christians, time is quite naturally understood as sequential - before Christ; his life and death, and what came after. 

This is why I find fundamentally wrong the long-standing, classical and mainstream theology, desire to make Christianity into a quasi-Platonic spirituality, rooted-in a God conceived to exist in timeless/ out-of-time eternity.  

However necessarily historical, Christianity is also about the living and future Jesus Christ. This is expressed in many ways - but the essential point is that Jesus is alive and active in this world; and can be felt by those who follow him as a daily, hourly, influence, guidance, inspiration.  

The historical and living Jesus have mostly been combined by practices like Holy Communion (whether as re-enactment or as memorial), reading the Gospels, reflecting on the life and teachings of Jesus, and by iconography and symbolism. 

But all these share the primarily backward-looking perspective: the living Jesus is experienced by first attending to the historical Jesus. Whatever the subsequence experience, this is to regard Jesus at one remove, the present seen through the past. 

And therefore all these share the disadvantage of requiring assertions about the past, which have by 2021 become extremely clouded by a vast accretion of rival interpretations - whether theological, traditional, scholarly, or whatever...

My conviction is that from here and now we need to strive for a contact with the living Jesus Christ that is primarily direct, and therefore independent of the historical evidence and theories. 

Having established such primary, direct, living contact; it can (and for most people will) be strengthened and enriched secondarily with whatever is found valuable - and this is where scriptures, churches, and the vast mass of practices, symbolism and art through the ages may come-in. 

But some will probably find that many or most of these referents of the historical Jesus are unhelpful or counterproductive; and certainly a primary focus on the historical Jesus can be very off-putting to the prospective convert, for whatever reason - anything from personal or aesthetic preferences to socio-political prejudices; or simply from the confusing and disorientating morass of controversy that surrounds every statement. 

The search for Jesus Christ has thereby, I feel convinced, become an unprecedently personal and experiential matter. As such, there is always the danger that Jesus will simply be invented to support pre-existent socio-political assumptions. 

Yet nowadays this is less of a problem than ever before; since the evil of the mainstream, official and dominant socio-political assumptions is so extreme and separate from that Good which we know by inner intuition of our divine selves and from direct contact with Jesus Christ (by the Holy Ghost); that confusion and conflation by a sincere, truth-seeking and virtuous spirit is ever less likely, with each passing month. 

Also, the kind of person who wants a Jesus to fit and sustain the assumptions of this modern world is not likely to want Jesus very much; except as an expedient pseudo-belief to support a job or position: that is, as a religious leader. And we observe that Christian leaders (as with leaders of other religions) are almost all exactly thus corrupted. 

But for someone seeking Jesus for himself or herself and who will not profit by it in terms of salary or status; there is a greater chance of knowing the truth of Jesus primarily by inner and direct intuition than ever before. 

Note added: the above can serve as a brief encapsulation of what I mean by Romantic Christianity. 

The invisible world, in which we swim

If we are to try to 'remember to self-remember' - that is, to come awake from our usual semi-consciousness into the awareness of the present: Me! Here! Now! - then (to be genuinely valuable) this needs to be continued on to a consciousness of our situation in the world.

In different words: self-remembering can (and I think should) continue into an awareness of the invisible world that surrounds us. 

This can be imagined in three 'layers' - pagan, theistic and Christian. I see these as increasing levels, each built upon what went before so.

So we can (very swiftly, in a matter of seconds I mean) transform our awareness through the pagan, theistic and Christian by becoming aware of these in turn - finishing with Jesus Christ.

Something like:

1. Awareness of nature, in the form of nature spirits

The first step is recovering that 'animistic' awareness that all is alive and sentient, that the world is a world-of-Beings.

So there are nature spirits around us, constituting both anything that is alive (plant or animal) and also the supposedly-not-alive - sky, clouds, stars, water; and including the artefacts made by men. I don't mean 'imagining' that some specific 'thing' (like a chair, house, or computer) is a disrete nature spirit - but having the awareness of being surrounded by living and conscious beings. (These may be benign or hostile - happy Beings or in despair.)

Wherever we are; Everything is a Being or part-of a Being - and as such is aware of us, and in-communication to some degree - even if only very simply and slowly so. 


2. Awareness of God's creation

Moving swiftly to this level; we might remember (or notice) that we live in God's creation; that this is a creation in which we live.

That there is purpose to everything, meaning to everything. That all the Beings around us (and our-selves) are part of this divine creation. And that divine creation is accomplished by God who is our loving parent/s, who regards us each as a beloved child.

We are not 'lost in space' - we are instead 'at home in the universe'!

This comes-through as a sense somewhat-like being held safely in the arms of an invisible, benign and loving person that surrounds us; a sense that all is ultimately well, if we choose it so ("...all manner of things shall be well"). 


3.  The presence of Jesus

And then we may move on to become aware of the actual presence of Jesus Christ (that is, the Holy Ghost*), here-and-now, in the room with us; and in direct contact with our hearts and minds - present in the thoughts of our real and true selves.

Jesus as someone we can ask (if our questions are validly framed), and who will answer truthfully and relevantly.

(If, that is, answering is expedient to us... Remembering that the default in mortal life is that we ought to work think out for our-selves, by trial and error if necessary: that being the best way to learn. So, inexpedient questions are not answered: and that is the answer.)

*By my understanding of the Fourth Gospel; we have been told (and intuitive experience confirms it for me) that the Holy Ghost is the person of Jesus, present in this mortal world, as spirit.
 

It might be asserted (often is asserted) that Christians could-and-should go straight to an awareness of Jesus - should in particular ignore or shun the pagan awareness. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this idea - except that it misses-out most of this mortal world, making for a thin and demotivating understanding of reality; and also (for people like myself) it just doesn't work very well.

What I am suggesting can be regarded as a rapid recapitulation of the historical development of Christianity - from pagan, through Jewish monotheism, to Jesus Christ. It can also be taken to represent a development that - in the past - will have been followed by many Christians as they grow-up and mature.

And it represents the track of some ex-atheist adult converts to Christianity - such as CS Lewis and myself: beginning with a love of pagan myth and legend, passing through a philosophical theism, finally into an awareness of the essential role of the person of Jesus.

At any rate, this is something that might be tried, practised a few times, and evaluated as to its effect (good or ill - because anything which is strong enough medicine to do good to one Man, may harm another) - by those who seek more depth and breadth in their lives; by those who seek the friendship and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Did the abstraction of representation of the Holy Trinity cause (partly) the decline of Christianity

*

For Christianity (but not for other religions, or not necessarily) it seems that there may be a need for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be understood, depicted, discussed mostly in a concrete, personalized and simple fashion.

There are have been, at times, personalized depictions of God the Father - as an old man with a beard, most often (I think) but my impression is that since the mid-19th century this have dwindled and disappeared.

At the same time, the understanding and belief in God the Father has dwindled.

*

The Holy Ghost was seldom (I think) depicted as a man (but maybe as a dove) - however, His name has been changed from Ghost to Spirit - which is again a reduction in concreteness.

It is easy enough to believe in the reality of a ghost - but a spirit is imprecise and too vague to inspire love and worship.

*

The exception is Jesus Christ - who has continued to be depicted as a man - concretely (indeed, often enough depicted as only a man) - consequently (it seems to me) the strongest spirituality in the modern world relates very specifically to Jesus Christ and is hardly able even to discuss the Father or the Holy Ghost - and such discussions have a hollow and unconvincing ring to them - don't you think?

It seems only Jesus is really real to the modern Christian.

This is the secret of the relative success of evangelical denominations - the concrete reality of Jesus and therefore of a Jesus-focused Christianity; but focused almost exclusively and therefore - in practice - incomplete.

*

And for Catholics there is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Much of her special power (in the Catholic denominations) comes (I believe) from the fact that she can be readily and un-forcedly understood and pictured and depicted as a sanctified human.

*

My point is that humans are as they are - which is focused on other humans at a very deep psychological level; on personal relationships; and this means that abstractions are not really-real to us (or, only to a very few) - and when the abstractions refer to God, and concrete representations are regarded as either wicked or dumb, then God becomes unreal - necessarily so.

*

Humans simply cannot, as a general rule, regard abstractions as real; cannot believe in abstractions - and, when we try to, we become confused and weakened by abstractions.

**


NOTE ADDED: In relation to abstraction and God, the disagreement between Christians - a 'disagreement' which amounts to a total inversion of assumptions hence perspective - is between those who regard God as too important to be abstract, and those who regard God as too important to be concrete. 

'Reverse engineering' tells us that God does not want modern Men to be (anything approximating to) remote-controlled puppets

It was different in the past; but it should be obvious and uncontroversial that God no longer desires Men to be His obedient servants - His ideal is not that Men ought to be functioning as puppets under remote-control from divine sources. 

This is made explicit in a long section of the Fourth Gospel (Verses 13-15); when Jesus tells the disciples that he wants them to be friends, not servants. 

However; until the modern era, Men were not able to function with such individual agency; they lived in much more communal spirituality - their individuality was to a degree but significantly (albeit lessening through time) inseparable from group experience. 

Therefore, the ideal Christian life was (for many centuries) essentially a communal, group-ish life. Although individual salvation was the goal, this was necessarily attainable only via transformation of the community life in which each individual was (to a significant degree) immersed - this especially through the institution of 'the church'.   

The many centuries of the Catholic era were characterized by a cooperation of church and state that aimed at an ideal where life was externally-prescribed, down to the smallest detail: a series of interlocking, ritual, mostly-communal, activities; each with particular spiritual functions. 

This applied before the Great Schism, and - in different ways - in both Eastern and Western Catholic societies - up to the end of the Middle Ages in the West, and only terminating at 1917 in the East. 

After the Middle Ages, the Protestant era put forward the Bible as a comprehensive instruction manual for life; that (properly understood) covered every eventuality.

Both Catholic and Protestant held an ideal (sometimes explicit, mostly implicit) of the ideal Christian as being someone who was continually aware of the divine will - in communion with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost - or other Holy persons. 

This to be achieved variously (according to denomination) by participation in rituals, performance of spiritual tasks, prayer, meditation, use of icons, reading and memorizing of scripture - and by other means.

In a nutshell; the ancient Christian was exhorted always to be thinking about God. 

The ideal Christian could crudely be caricatured as a remote-controlled puppet; where the individual's will is, voluntarily and by choice, replaced by the divine will.

Now, clearly that is Not the case nowadays, and has become (apparently) impossible for most people, most of the time. 

Yet I think it is fair to say that the Christian churches have continued to recommend this as the ideal way of life for Christians. As I say, the specific practices by which this should be achieved varies considerably, but there continual encouragement for Protestants to study and learn from scripture, for Roman Catholics more frequently to attend Mass and pray the Rosary, for Mormons to become more 'active' in church activities etc.  

The official ideal has remained much the same - but the actuality of conditions for Christians has declined greatly. 

For example the Roman Catholic ideal has gone from 24/7 immersion in the Christian life of the whole society - 365 days per year; via participation in daily Mass and several prescribed prayers, down to weekly Mass, down to the churches being locked for months during 2020.

This change demonstrates the development of Man's consciousness from the group-immersed and passive-responsive; to the modern individualism which requires frequent, chosen and sustained actions  from each person. 

As of 2022; there is no nation in the world that can provide the communal, total, and immersive Christian life that was normal (and essential) in the pre-modern world. That is no longer an option (except in a few, scattered and small, sub-groups; such as the Amish).

Even where it is possible to follow the external prescriptions; as with intensive Bible reading and individual prayer in Evangelicals - the effectiveness of these recommended activities in terms of establishing a guiding connection with God's will, is clearly very diminished. Nowadays few Scripturally-focused Christians experience the kind of unworldly, transformative and long-sustained external-guidance (leading to indomitable courage rooted in zealous faith) that was common and distinctive among the early Protestants. 

 

Such facts of modern life, in context that God is the creator and loves each of us with an individual concern, invite a 'reverse engineering' inference. 

Since modern Man is so poorly adapted to live the life of an externally-driven, remote-control puppet - under direct divine influence; this implies that God does not want us to behave that way. 

To put the matter differently, if God wanted us to live in continuous awareness-of, and in obedience-to, his divine will; then God would have made us (i.e. 'engineered' us) very differently from how modern Men are actually made. 

If we consider the human condition of 2022 in such a fashion; I think we can conclude that the baseline state of our modern life is that (most of the time, in most situations) God wants us to work-out for our-selves what we ought to be doing; and motivate ourselves to do it.

Or; God does Not want us to be living in continuous communion-with, awareness-of, and obedience-to the divine. 

(Whether that divine be understood as God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or any of God's Saints.)  

Such a statement seems shocking. Yet the fact is that God is always everywhere in His creation - so if God wanted us to be always aware of Him - He would have made it so. 

The Holy Ghost is always available for our guidance and comfort; but it seems clear that Jesus does not want us always to be consulting the Holy Ghost for advice, nor always seeking comfort.  

The spiritual set-up; seems to be that we ought to work-things-out for ourselves as The Norm; but divine guidance, inspiration, effective Grace etc... all are available when needed; for instance; when we have our-selves reached the wrong answer, failed to find an answer, or have made the wrong choices. 

If I consider our condition; I conclude that we are meant to proceed on the basis of true metaphysical assumptions - e.g. that God is real, personal and loving; that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, following whom we may attain resurrection and eternal life - etc.

These (and other) assumptions provide the correct framework for our Christian life. 

Then within this we ought-to be working-out how to live for ourselves, and how to live Christianly as best we can. 

And therefore we should Not always be seeking to be told what to do from external sources; should Not be attempting to be in constant communion with God, Not be trying to make ourselves a divinely-controlled automaton, Nor striving to suppress our-selves and fill our minds with God's thoughts, Nor even attempting to pray constantly. 

Therefore, our life task as modern Christians (i.e. as Romantic Christians) is different from that of earlier centuries and levels of development. 

That task is now to take individual and active responsibility for our Christian convictions and actions - to strengthen, not displace, our real self and its thinking.  

Note: It was substantially the work of William Arkle - especially A Geography of Consciousness, Letter from a Father, and the Essays in The Great Gift - that enabled me to attain a clear grasp of our ideal relationship with God: that is to say, the relationship that God ideally wants from each of us, and to enable which he made creation as-it-is. 

Resolving apparent inconsistencies/ omissions in the fourth Gospel

Long-term readers of this blog will know that I am trying to understand Christianity using only the fourth Gospel, as if it was my only source; because I regard it as qualitatively the most authoritative scripture.

On that basis I have come to regard the author (the disciple who 'Jesus loved') of the gospel as the resurrected Lazarus (and that Lazarus was resurrected, not just brought back to life); that Lazarus's sister Mary (of Bethany) was married to Jesus in Cana (in an 'ordinary' Jewish ceremony) when the first miracle was performed, and that there was a further mystical marriage at the time of the anointing of Jesus's feet with Spikenard on Mary's hair, and that this Mary is the same person as Mary Magdalene ('both' Mary's treating Jesus with loving but respectful familiarity, and 'both' engaging in physical contact appropriate only to a wife)...


Anyway; this is the background for trying to interpret an anomalous verse John 2: 4 - when Jesus says to his mother "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is yet to come."

To me, there is something clearly wrong with this verse - certainly it does Not mean any kind of rejection of Jesus's mother, since she accompanies Jesus (and his brothers) to Capernum in verse 12. The verse might be garbled, or interposed - but my guess is that - since Jesus is the 'bridegroom' of the marriage feast, it may refer to Jesus's new allegiance to his wife.


And this may answer another puzzle about the fourth Gospel: why did Jesus's ministry start when it did? The answer seems to be that Jesus's ministry began when he was baptised by John the Baptist, and JtB recognised Jesus as the Christ, as the divine Spirit descended upon him and stayed - causing Jesus's new self-awareness as Son of God (to become Son of Man, at his ascension), and his new powers.

But why did Jesus get baptised by JtB? Well, the author doesn't say that Jesus and John are cousins  (that is in another gospel) - which seems like a strange omission, since the author of the fourth gospel - Lazarus - was a disciple first of John then of Jesus. So, if they were cousins, then he would know!

However, I think we can assume that it was Lazarus who brought his future brother-in-law Jesus to be baptised by his then-Master John the Baptist, just two days before the wedding. Perhaps (as in my own extended family) terms like 'sister' (referring to John's and Jesus's mothers), did not necessarily mean sharing the same parents - and perhaps the real link was the marriage-link between Lazarus's and Jesus's families, and that was underpinned by some childhood relation between the mothers of Jesus and Lazarus... (The beloved disciple is asked, by Jesus on the cross, to look-after Jesus's mother.)

Thus it was Lazarus who was responsible for the timing of  Jesus's ministry; and Lazarus was present at his sister's wedding to Jesus in Cana two days later when Jesus's new status as the Messiah became explicit with the first miracle - in which water to wine is both literal and deeply symbolic (the symbolism - which is itself literal - being multiply expressed in other parts of the fourth Gospel).


The second omission is more obvious and important than the garbled comment of Jesus to his mother; and it is the dispute among the Jewish leaders about whether Jesus could be the Messiah given that he had not been born in Bethlehem.

John 7: 41-3 - Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where Davis was? So there was a division among the people because of him.

Having raised this as an important issue, the author of the fourth Gospel does not resolve it for us. Of course, we are told in Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem... But we are not told this in the fourth Gospel, where the issue is left 'up in the air' and (so far as I can see) never resolved for the reader.

This could be some omission from the Gospel, something that was lost - a statement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; because it seems strange that, if Jesus was indeed born in Bethelehem, the dispute reported in the fourth Gospel was not simply settled.

Or, if nothing was lost; and since I regard the fourth Gospel as more authoritative than any of the Synoptics (or Epistles); perhaps this really was one way in which Jesus did not fulfil all the prophecies - but one which was later patched-up by oral history and legend...

After all, the fourth Gospel provides in abundance all the evidence necessary to prove that Jesus really was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah... There is, in particular, the testimony of John the Baptist (the most authoritative witness of that time and place); the miracles - especially the raising of Lazarus; and of course Jesus's resurrection, ascension, and his sending of the Holy Ghost.

What is baptism in the Fourth Gospel? Divine transformation

What happened at the baptism of Jesus?

(The relevant text from the Fourth Gospel is below.)

John the Baptist was baptising many people. From John's perspective, it is implied that at each baptism he saw the Spirit descend and then depart. But when John baptised Jesus, the spirit remained.

This presumably means that all who were baptised by John were briefly touched by divinity but Jesus was transformed and became divine.

So, from John's perspective, it would seem that baptising was primarily a means of detecting, and 'making' the Messiah - the Lamb of God.

What about the people who were being baptised - first by John, then by the disciples - but not by Jesus himself; after the Messiah had been discovered? (Referenced later in the Fourth Gospel.) Presumably these baptisms were done in order to have people touched by the Spirit. Perhaps this induced a - temporary - change of heart (repentance) that could be built-upon.

The Gospel of Luke - 3:3 (presumably) quotes someone who remembered that John had been "preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins".  What does this mean, if true?

My guess is that those baptised by John were temporarily cleansed of all sin, were turned towards God - so that they could commune with the divine Spirit. When this happened to Jesus, he realised who he was, became fully divine, began his ministry. 

But Jesus did not baptise with water - but 'baptised' with the Holy Ghost. And we know (from later in the Fourth Gospel) that the Holy Ghost came only after Jesus had ascended. This seems to be using 'baptise' metaphorically (as we would term it, although at that time and place such a metaphor was literal as well as symbolic) - it is a reference to what Jesus would ultimately achieve by enabling all Men who 'followed' him to become resurrected, divine, and attain life everlasting.

Thus baptism seems to be a matter of being touched by divinity; either temporarily, or else as a permanent process - to become oneself divine.

In other words (at least when performed by John or the disciples); baptism was a temporary divine transformation; analogous to the permanent divine transformation that is resurrection to eternal life. 


Note: By 'transformation' to divine I mean the term literally; since we and Jesus are siblings, and the actual children of God, we have the nature and possibility to become divine in the same way (to a subordinate degree, since we dwell in God's creation) as God the creator. It is therefore a 'process' somewhat resembling the metamorphic transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. It follows that there is more than one god in addition to the creator, including - potentially - as many gods as there are Men. (Although in practice some Men - perhaps most Men - reject the gift of Christ to his followers; that of resurrection to eternal life: to god status.)


John 1: [19] And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? [20] And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. [22] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. [24] And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. [25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? [26] John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [28] These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [30] This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [31] And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. [32] And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [33] And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. [34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!