A Message From The Lord, "You Still Aren't Listening..."

 This message was given to me tonight from the Lord. It wouldn't let me go. Believe me or don't. Here it is:

“You still aren’t listening. You harvest what you plant. If you plant apple seeds, will they grow a banana tree? If you plant carrot seeds, will they produce a rose bush? Again and again, I’ve told you how you are to live, what is the best way to live, and you refuse to do it. I told you explicitly to love your neighbor as yourself. I told you explicitly to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and to not return evil for evil, because I will be the one to repay. You did not listen. If you planted cruelty, why do you expect mercy to grow? If you planted greed, why do you expect to harvest generosity? Rotten trees can’t produce healthy fruit, and healthy trees don’t produce rotten fruit. That’s not a moral lesson, it’s a fact of nature. Why did you expect good, healthy fruit from a rotten, diseased tree? Did I do that to you? No, you planted it there yourself and kept telling yourselves that it would give you superior fruit any day now. A rotten tree! You have let these things grow unchecked and now they are coming ripe and you don’t understand why you are getting the fruit you are! Did I do this? No, of course not! Why would I give you diseased fruit? Why would any good parent give their children rotten food? No, you did this yourself, and now you must satisfy yourself with its rot. I told you what to plant and how, and you did not listen. But now, please listen, I’m begging you. Do justice for the poor, the outcast, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner. Love one another and be merciful to the person you don’t know. Don’t return harm for harm, but give back compassion, love, and mercy to those who abuse you. Only then will you be acting like My children. I’m begging you, turn around before anything worse happens. It won’t be Me doing it, but it will be the harvest that you yourselves planted, and it will be terrible. If you plant hatred, you will harvest suffering to your own destruction. Doesn’t even your own history teach you this? Even if you don’t see it, your children and your grandchildren will, and you will bring it upon them. Not because I wish it, but because you planted it. Uproot these rotten crops and plant healthy ones that will preserve you and yours. Love, don’t judge, forgive, be fair to one another. I’m begging you. Listen to Me this time.”

Jesus Christ is No Myth

 Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua m'N'zareth was born on or around May 1st, 0006 C.E. during the governorship of Quirinius over Syria, the reign of Caesar Augustus over the Roman Empire, and most likely the last days of the rule of Herod Archelaus. He was born during the census of Quirinius in 6 CE when the Kingdom of Judea was divided by the empire into Iudaea, Samaria, Galilaia, the Decapolis, and the coastal cities with Caesarea as the local seat of imperial power. He was crucified on April 3rd, 0033 CE.

     From the DNA testing on the blood samples taken from His burial cloth, he shared a common ancestry with the modern Druze population that live near present day Nazareth in Israel through his mother. His blood type was AB. From an analysis of the image on that shroud, he was 5'8" tall give or take.

     Most importantly, he existed in history. While there are many stories and many assumptions about Him, the fact remains that He was and remains a real person who lived in the early first century. He was really born. He really taught, and He really left an impact on everyone who heard and knew Him.

     The man Himself was no myth, and HIs disciples passed down His teachings both orally and in writing, teaching others to follow His Way of living. We know this from both their writings and the writings their own students left behind. 

     It is this Jesus, the very real, very historical human being that I choose to follow, chasing Him down as best I can to separate Him from all other versions of myth, legend, and outright fabrication. It is this Jesus who rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees, the political and religious leaders who had previously driven Judea into a civil war. It is this Jesus who ate with outcasts, taught voluntary poverty, detachment, and love for all others no matter who they were. It is this Jesus who prayed for His disciples to be one with Himself, the God and Father, and each other, and taught them how to live in that union. It is this Jesus whose coin covered eyes watch us hauntingly from the photographic negative of His burial shroud.

     Sometimes, I think that many Christians forget He is no myth. Sometimes I think they like their own version of Jesus, whatever that may be, instead of the photographic and DNA evidence of the man whose image was burned into the very tips of the fibers of His burial shroud by the intense, split-second flash of coherent light emanating from His corpse as it vanished from its folds on April 5th, 33 CE. I think they prefer the comfort of being able to control the narrative of their version of Jesus better than the narrative of the Man with genetic ties to ancient Nazareth whose face and image stares at us still two thousand years later.

     No matter what anyone says about Him, no matter how they might try and obfuscate, corrupt, twist, or invent Him all over again, or just pretend He never existed at all because they're so angry at "Christians;" no matter any of this, He is no myth. He is not a myth or a legend which belongs to Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, or any other religious sect. He wasn't European, He wasn't African, he wasn't whatever you want Him to be. He was an almost 28 year old, Syriac and Greek speaking Middle Eastern man with ancestry near Nazareth and culturally first century Judean who walked the length and breadth of first century Roman Judea, Galilee, Samaria, the Decapolis, and the Coastline for almost three years teaching and demonstrating love, compassion, and how a human being is supposed to live, who was arrested by his own religious and political leaders and railroaded into being crucified by the governing authority under threat of riots. His birth was no myth. His death was no myth. And, as His burial shroud remains empty to this day and only one event could have caused the three dimensional image of His corpse to have imprinted on it, His resurrection was no myth either. A person may scream and cry and shout about it all they want. These facts remain true.

     And because He is no myth, He is the Man whom I will strive to emulate, mimic, and be like. He is the Man that I have taken oaths to. Not someone's interpretation of Him, not someone's version of Him, the historical Man Himself.

     Because He is no myth.

No Good Father Would Choose To Condemn His Children To Endless Torment

As a parent, a father, could you choose between your children to send one to heaven and the other to hell? This was the question asked in the movie, "The Shack," based on the book of the same name and starring Sam Worthington of Avatar fame who plays Mack. The movie is essentially an extended near death encounter with all three members of the Trinity in a weekend getaway to a cabin in the mountains. This happens after Mack's daughter has been kidnapped and murdered while on a camping trip with him and his other two children. He is understandably angry, in pain, and blames God. He wants to confront the murderer who has not been caught and end him right there. 

     During this time he also encounters Sophia, or Wisdom, and she makes him choose. He must choose to send one to heaven and the other to hell. Horrified at the choice, he chooses himself instead. If someone had to go to hell, it would be him. Wisdom's point, and what was reinforced over and over again during his encounter was that God does not choose to send any of His children to hell. That even the ones who cause the most pain are still His children, and they themselves do so because pain was caused to them. This point is driven home when God tells Mack about the man who murdered his daughter, “he’s my son, too.” He would no more choose for any of His children to go to hell than any good father would choose that. Is a human being more loving and more compassionate than God? No, of course not. He is just because He is love. He is right because He is love. He is Holy because He is love.

     Showing Mack first that his daughter is well and with Him, God asks this man to forgive her murderer. To let go of the pain and anger that is destroying him inside. It’s not about the murderer. It’s about Mack. God's goal is for Mack to find peace and healing, and in the end, he does.

     But the question, especially as a father myself, could I make that choice? Honestly, among my three kids, my wife, and everyone I love, I would make the same choice that Sam Worthington's character did. I can't see any good husband, father, or friend do any differently. We may be pained, we may be hurt, we may even get angry at the stupid things we see them doing, but we're not going to send them to a permanent torture forever.

     If we wouldn’t, then neither would God. 

     Mack himself has blood on his own hands. It's revealed in the movie early on that he poisoned the liquor with strychnine which his father, an alcoholic, drank after beating Mack's mother and himself viciously. Mack himself killed his own father to save himself and his mother. And part of Mack's healing had to do with letting go of that anger, pain, and guilt. Rather than condemning Mack for his own patricide, God was more concerned about healing and restoring him.

     This rings true with God's justice. It is never about the retribution, but always about the restoration. He's not willing that ANY should be destroyed, but that all should come to a change of heart and be restored no matter what they've done. That process of restoration might be rough, it might take time, but the goal is always restoration and redemption. For everyone. What God sets out to accomplish gets accomplished. Period.

      It should also be noted that the person causing the most suffering in Mack's life at the beginning wasn't his daughter's murderer, though certainly that contributed. It was Mack himself. Mack himself was in a kind of hell of suffering brought on by his own anger, pain, and guilt. It was God who did not want him to stay there and took measures to rescue him from it. As He often does. We just don't always see it, being blinded by our own pain and anger and fear.

     The Shack may be a fictionalized account of an NDE, but it gives us a profound question leading to a more profound truth.

God Became Man So That Man Might Become God

 The Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity misses the point of the Incarnation entirely. It was never just about Jesus being God and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It was never even about Jesus receiving the same worship as the Father, something which He never asked for or demanded. The only being who asked for worship in the New Testament was Satan when he was tempting Jesus. 

     The point of the incarnation was always found in John 17 where Jesus prayed to the Father, ""Not for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word,

21 "that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 "The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 "I in them, and you in me, that they may be made whole into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me. "  

     It was never about just Jesus Christ Himself being God as the Logos, one with the Father, but it was always about each and every one of us being one with another because we are also one with Him as He is one with the Father. It was never only about the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit, but about the Father, the Logos, the Spirit, and each one of us, all one with each other and with and through Him. 

      Being the Logos of God incarnate, Jesus taught us how to also activate that piece of His logos within each one of us so that we too could also be like Him, Logos incarnated into flesh, and ultimately God made flesh like Him in total submission to and cooperation with the God and Father like Him. Jesus Christ's mission was to be the firstborn among many siblings. His mission was to make Himself not unique, but one of many. The first of many to be sure, but one of many nonetheless. By focusing on the "mystery of the Trinity" we completely miss the greater mystery and purpose which is written all over the New Testament, that, as so many Church Fathers repeated throughout the centuries, "God became Man, so that man might become God."

The Wise Men Who Visited Jesus as a Baby Were Buddhist Monks Looking for Maitreya

      Who really were the Magi spoken of in the Gospel of Matthew? Were they really Zoroastrian priests from Babylon as it so commonly taught?

     About two years after Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, and there is no legitimate reason to assume other than the Scriptural account of the location of His birth, His mother, adopted father and He were visited by a group of men identified in the Gospel of St. Matthew only as “magoi” in the Greek who had come from the east. The text says that they had followed a star looking for the birth of a newborn “King of the Judeans”, and that they had initially gone to King Herod’s palace looking for Him, only having been directed to Bethlehem after Herod had consulted with scribes and priests to determine where the Jewish “Maschiach” (Anointed One, Grk. “Christos”) would be born.

     While Christian tradition has given us a particular image of who these men were, there is nothing in Matthew’s text to support that image other than the term “magoi”, often rendered “magi” or the more vague and slightly euphemistic “wise men”. There is no account of the number of these travelers to support that there were only three. The word “magos” (the singular form) in Greek refers principally to a class of Zoroastrian priests, practitioners of astrology, centered in the area of Persia. For this reason, it also refers more generally to someone as a “wizard”, “sorceror”, or a practitioner of the magical arts. Another example of the word used in the New Testament is in the Acts of the Apostles referring to “Simon the Magos” in Samaria. It appears clear that Simon was neither Persian in origin nor a Zoroastrian priest.

     The Magi were regarded with extreme renown in their own homeland as scholars, magicians, astrologers, and priests. They were some of the most educated of their people and heavily involved in politics. But in all of the reading I have done on the subject, I have not once encountered a single extra-Biblical account of Zoroastrian Magi traveling outside of their homeland, much less for two years along the caravan routes across the Middle East, to honor newborn royalty they didn’t exactly know where to find (if anyone has such evidence, I would be happy to look at it).

     Furthermore, the trip on foot across the land trade routes between a location in ancient Persian territory (such as Babylon, for example and mentioned often in sermons implying a connection with the prophet Daniel) only runs about 1200 miles, give or take. Figuring 20 miles a day on foot with a caravan, the trip would take approximately two to three months, not one to two years as is implicated by the Biblical text. For this reason, the idea that these were literal Zoroastrian Magi doesn’t fit the description. In order to fit the time frames involved we must go farther east than ancient 1st century Persia.

     In fact, there is a religious group also practiced with astrology that perhaps does fit the scant identifiers given. It is a little discussed fact among Christian theologians and pastors that Buddhism, having been established by Gautama Siddharta around 500 B.C.E., not only existed but flourished during this period in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, and India. More than this, there is evidence that they regularly sent missionaries west as far as Egypt and are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria in the third century. 

     One region and group in particular that seems to fit is that of Ghandara around what is now Kabul in Afghanistan. This region was conquered by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C.E. and later would become a part of the Indo-Greek kingdoms of the period. It also became a major center for the practice of Indo-Greek Buddhism, patronized by the rulers of the period, Menander I and his successors. One interesting note about Ghandaran Buddhism is its focus on the boddhisatva Maitreya (this is the Sanskrit form; in the Buddha’s native Pali it is “Metteya”), the prophesied successor to Gautama Siddharta (the Buddha), from approximately 30-375 B.C.E.

     About Maitreya, it is written that the Buddha said before he died:

And the Blessed One replied: “I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.”

Ananda said: “How shall we know him?”

The Blessed One said: “He will be known as Metteya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'”

(The Gospel of Buddha XCVII:12-15)

     It is a well established fact that to this day, Tibetan Buddhists will search far afield for reincarnations of previous teachers known as “lamas”. One of the more sensational occurrences of this is that depicted in the film “Little Buddha” which was based on the true story of a group of Tibetan monks who believed they had found the reincarnation of a great lama in a boy from Washington state in the United States.

     It makes more sense to me, based on the scant details given, that these “magoi” described in the Gospel of St. Matthew were in fact Buddhist monks from either Ghandara or somewhere farther east where Buddhism was thriving. There would have had to be a reason why from the time the star was seen to the time they arrived in Jerusalem was two years give or take. If the “wise men” had come from traditionally Buddhist regions east of Persia, that would explain the much greater length of travel time than was necessary to travel from Persia. 

     If this is true, then why would Buddhist monks make this kind of an arduous journey? They were actively looking for the coming of the man they believed to be the Buddha’s successor (and it appears that at least after 30 C.E., the Buddhists in Ghandara believed they had found him). When the star appeared, probably after much debate, they set out to follow it from “the east”. 

     Not being aware of local Judean, much less Roman, politics, and assuming that the new boddhisatva would be born a prince (which would be a reasonable assumption since Siddharta was born a prince), they traveled first to King Herod’s palace assuming that the new prince would be his son. They would not have known Herod the Great’s reputation. 

     When inquiring about the new born prince, it is possible that they might have included in their explanation the Pali form of the name, “Metteya.” An interesting point about Greek orthography and pronunciation is that the “tt” and the “ss” can be, at times, interchangeable depending on the regional dialect of Greek. It is possible they might have explained in Greek that they were looking for the new born “Metteya” and those hearing understood them to be saying “messias”, the Hellenized form of Aramaic, “meschiach” (“anointed one”, Heb. “maschiach”, Grk. “Christos”) which comes into English as “messiah”. This would explain why Herod and those with him inquired as to where the “Christ” (Grk. “Christos”, Aram. “meschiach”) would be born upon the monk’s announcement they had come to honor a newborn king.

     I imagine their conversation happened along these lines:

Monks: “We have come to do homage to the newborn king of the Judeans.”

Herod: “Sorry, friend. There is no newborn prince in my house.”

Confused, the Monks reply: “We have seen his star far to the east. The Lord Metteya has been born here, we are certain of it.”

Herod, now beginning to shake a little: “Did you just say Messiah’s been born?”

Monks, not understanding the difference: “Yes.”

     I imagine also that Mariam, being one of the few remaining living witnesses to their presence and St. Matthew’s probable source, called them simply “magoi from the east” because, in reality, she may have had little real idea who they actually were or what land they had come from not having been educated in such things being a first century woman either still in puberty or barely out of it. It is easy for me to entertain the idea that a group of Greek speaking Buddhist monks with heavy accents, educated in astrology and with their journey possibly backed by an Indo-Greek king, traveling together might have been described by such a woman as “magoi”. That they may have been looking for a newborn Buddha might be suggested by the three gifts they presented as well. Today, Tibetan monks searching for their reincarnated lamas frequently bring a series of personal objects belonging to the deceased lama along with similar objects not having belonged to them in order to test whether or not the child in question is who they think they are. In this case, they were looking, not for a reincarnation, but for the birth of a new Buddha, and so brought gifts that might indicate the path in life the child would take should he choose them.

The Problem Isn't the Minimum Wage

 The problem isn't the minimum wage. The problem is a cost of living mismanaged by those people who control the resources in order to benefit themselves and not all of society. A microcosm example of this can be found in the worship songs found in churches. 

     During the nineties and oughties in particular (and still today), most worship songs that were not written prior to the late twentieth century had to be licensed every year from the corporations who controlled their copyrights. This could be hundreds of dollars per year for maybe ten to fifteen songs. The churches could not legally perform the songs during a service without paying the licencing fees to the corporations. If they wanted to keep using those songs, they had to keep paying the license fees. Over time, in order to increase their revenue streams, these corporations increased the fees, sometimes as much as 2 or 3 times what they originally had been. For smaller churches, this could mean they couldn't afford a youth pastor, or the money they might have used for some charitable works had to go towards paying those fees. "How Great is Our God" by Christ Tomlin made millions for its controlling company just so these churches could sing a familiar praise song, a familiar liturgy if you will, every Sunday. It has only been lately when this stranglehold has started to be broken by churches returning to the ancient hymnals, writing the worship songs themselves, or using songs which are made available freely to everyone; all things which send the controlling corporations into panic and lawsuit mode.

     When the resources needed to live are gatekept by a very few whose only motivation is profit for themselves, this is when real scarcity occurs. On a world like ours, in a country like the United States, there really shouldn't be any scarcity of either food, housing, or the basic necessities of life. Almost all scarcity of the things needed for living is artificially manufactured in nature by human beings hoarding those resources in order to make themselves more powerful and others powerless.

     This is not what or how we were created to be on a world teeming with anything and everything we as human beings actually need to live. Tribes in the rainforests and grassplains know this truth all too well. Their egalitarian societies function on everyone working for the benefit of the whole clan, village, or tribe. In many such societies, hoarding resources is seen as evil or even a sickness. Consider that. Consider that's the way we should be seeing it, and not something to aspire to.

Judgment on the American Church is Already Underway

 Some folks aren't going to like what I have to say here (not that this is new). I've been watching a lot of videos on why so many churches and Christian organizations are collapsing, and why so many of the younger generations are leaving the churches and not coming back. Most of these are done using AI to scour all parts of the internet for all information and statistics on a subject and then asking the AI to deliver an unbiased, no fluff interpretation of the data. 

     The results are pretty clear. What it boils down to is that, as I said several years ago, the younger generations are calling B.S. They've got immediate access to statistics, science articles, and personal testimonies at their fingertips. They can read the Bible, and most have read it very well, for themselves and compare it to the behavior they see from pastors and the older congregants, and they want no part of the massive contradiction they're seeing. 

     One of the biggest factors is the merging of right wing politics with institutional religion, and MAGA, and it's contradiction of Jesus' actual teachings. That's not speculation. That's what they're saying. They see the leader of the MAGA movement, Donald Trump, and his behavior and can't understand how their pastors and Sunday School teachers idolize this man, even calling him an "American Messiah." But the numbers don't lie. 

     Churches are closing their doors for lack of people and funding. Church attendance has been cut by a third if not a half across the US, and those who remain are my generation (GenX) or older. The generations who were supposed to carry it onwards have, almost with one voice, said "no." The movement and the man to whom many Christians and churches looked to be the savior of American Christianity is becoming one of the main causes of its gutting. As church members die off, if things continue, there will be no one to replace them.

     And the kick of it is, many if not most of those who leave and don't return to any church still believe in God. They still believe in and want to follow Jesus Christ. They still read their Bibles, and many know them thoroughly from what I've seen. They've taken responsibility for their own spiritual development and formation. Even those who adopt the "spiritual but not religious" moniker are often among these. Many of those who would now fall under the "New Age" label have nothing but praise for Jesus Christ and His teachings, and call themselves followers of Jesus. They haven't rejected Jesus. They've rejected the hypocrisy of the institutions who claim to represent Him.

     I've written about and even done a video sermon on a judgment coming to the American Church. I think it was about three years ago now, give or take. What I didn't know then was that it was already underway and is gaining speed and we're actually watching it in real time if we're paying it any attention.

     As Paul wrote, "You reap what you sow." And the American Church is reaping the harvest it's been sowing for decades.