Why Being Saved Can't Be About "Positional Justification"

     How can salvation be only or even primarily about being forgiven or going to heaven if a person still sins after they are "saved?" As it is taught, the person who has been "saved" is "born again" or "born from above." In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he had to be born again, or more specifically, born from the Spirit if he wanted to see the kingdom of God. But the Scriptures are exceptionally clear that what is born of God doesn't sin. Doesn't it then follow, as many have secretly and not so secretly come to the same conclusion, that if one "sins" they aren't born of God, but of the devil, as 1 John 3 explicitly states? And if they are born of the devil, they can't be "saved," right?

     They're taught instead that their "righteousness" in Christ is positional. It's a facade that God sees rather than the truth of their everyday experience. It's like a glamour spell from fantasy stories that magicians cast to hide their true appearance. But this is the only way that their everyday experience can be reconciled with their theology of forgiveness only or primarily, or as they put it, justification. They only need to look like Christ in order to fool God into letting them into heaven.

     Really? Does anyone realize the serious amount of theological gymnastics that is needed to reconcile the modern Evangelical doctrine of justification with what the Scriptures actually teach? Is it any wonder sincere people are confused when Jesus explicitly ties forgiveness to forgiving others yourself? Or why John says explicitly that the one born of God doesn't sin, when they clearly still do? It is like the old model of the geocentric universe that, in order to make the calculations work (and they frequently still didn't) with the observations, they had to keep added complicated epicycles to the model when all they had to do was change the model to a heliocentric one, and then everything fell into place naturally, and the calculations worked.

     When the justification-centric model keeps requiring more contortions to make it line up with Scripture and observations, it's time to change the model. And the model which lines up more accurately with Scripture and observation is a "Sanctification" centric model that assumes a letting go for everything except of course for a deliberate refusal to turn around and come to Him. The only person who can let go of such a refusal is the person committing it.

      Yeshua responded to them, "Amen amen I tell you that every single person who functions with the malfunction is a slave of the malfunction. And the slave doesn't live in the house forever, the son lives in the house forever. If then the son should free you, you will actually be free." - John 8:34-36, my own translation this morning
      Paul says the same thing that to whom you offer yourself a slave to obey, you are that one's slave. And John reiterates and doubles down on this in his first letter where he says, "Every single person making their home in Him doesn't malfunction; every single person who malfunctions hasn't seen Him or known Him. Children, don't let anyone lead you astray. The one functioning with the state of right being is right, just like That One is right; the person functioning with the malfunction is from the devil, because the devil malfunctioned from the start. The Son of God manifested for this reason, so that He would undo the works of the devil. Every single person who has been born from God doesn't function with the malfunction, because His sperm makes its home within him, and he isn't capable of malfunctioning, because he has been born from God." - 1 John 3:6-9, my own translation this morning.
      So clearly, if someone is "born of God" they can't malfunction. If they are "sinning," that is, malfunctioning, they are a slave to the malfunction because they've offered themselves as a slave to it. So let me ask you this, how does this really jive with the teaching that our "righteousness in Christ" is positional only? More to the point, how does this jive with a salvation that is focused only or primarily on the forgiveness of sins? According to this theological worldview, these Scriptures are teaching that if someone sins they aren't saved because they're not born of God but of the devil. Yet it's very clear that even after someone has prayed the prayer, accepted Christ, believed, been baptized, etc. that they are still capable of sinning or malfunctioning. Does that mean that their salvation "didn't take" and they have to start all over again, this time for real? These are the very real and insane questions and misunderstandings that drive many to doubt their salvation in Jesus Christ, and it is all because they are taught it is only or primarily about being forgiven and going to heaven, when the salvation which Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught had little if anything to do with this.
     The salvation which the New Testament teaches is about being delivered from our malfunctioning responses and behaviors through disengagement from our malfunctioning "flesh" and engagement with the Spirit of Christ through our Union with God through Jesus Christ so that it is Jesus Christ acting and speaking through us just as it was and is the Father acting and speaking through Him. And because it is the Spirit of Christ in control, that person who is cooperating with and submitting to His Spirit simply cannot "sin" or malfunction any more than Jesus Christ or the Father can while so doing, because it is not the malfunctioning flesh which is the source of their words or actions. One can only do so by re-engaging with that flesh through submitting to their fear, aggression, or bodily cravings, offering themselves to their malfunctioning flesh as a slave.
     It has never been about being forgiven and going to heaven. Did the father in the prodigal son require that all the money he wasted be paid back before accepting him home? No! Of course not! All that son had to do was come to his senses, turn around, and return home and the father threw a party and made sure he was taken care of! and provided for right off the bat. This is all the Father requires for forgiveness. Coming to our senses and returning home.

A Woman Rides The Beast

 "And he brought me into the wasteland with the Spirit. And I saw a woman sitting on a red, four-footed wild beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman had been robed with purple and red and had been gilded with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a gold cup in her hand filled with abominations and the filthiness of her whorings and on her forehead had been written a secret name, 'Babylon the Great,' the mother of whores and of the earth's abominations. And I saw the woman intoxicated from the blood of the holy ones and witnesses of Jesus." - Revelation 17:3-6, my own translation this morning.

     I hadn't really thought about this passage from John's prophecies for a long time. I translated through Revelation again, oh a couple of years back now, but I still hadn't really given it much thought then. But these words, and this image of a woman riding a beast have been on my mind lately.
     When I was in Bible School in Wisconsin, and afterwards, I owned a book called "A Woman Rides The Beast." I had been introduced to the material within it indirectly through my "Cults and Heresies" course, and its section on Roman Catholicism. In short, the book was a ringing (and mostly fabricated) indictment of the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon mentioned in the passage with which I began this article, and the "beast," universally understood to be a reference for "the Anti-Christ" throughout Christian history as far as I am aware, a reference to the papacy in general if not any one specific Pope. Clearly, I've become far removed over the last two decades from the understanding about the Catholic Church as posited in this book. But these words, "a woman rides the beast" have been sticking in my head over the last while as I've been watching the situation in the world.
     The more I try to understand and flesh out why these words have been sticking in my head, the more of a pattern I've been seeing in history. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church and its highest leadership have been culpable in collaborating with the most anti-Christlike figures and dictators throughout history when it became politically expedient to do so. The cooperation of Pope Pius XII with Adolph Hitler during World War II is well documented, but it's not the only example. But then I got to thinking about the current Russian Orthodox Church and its patriarch's wholehearted support of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and his machinations, propaganda, and war crimes in direct contravention to what Jesus taught. John Calvin, Calvinism, and the atrocities committed by himself and his followers in Geneva in contravention to what Jesus taught should not be overlooked either. But what really triggered these words in my mind is the wholehearted and full throated support by a large swath of American Evangelicals for Donald Trump and the clearly racist, fear mongering, and even at times violent MAGA movement to the point where they will tell a pastor that Jesus's teachings are too liberal and "woke" and that he needs to get with the program.
     A woman rides the beast.
     One of the things which John says in his first letter is that, "Many antichrists have come already." We always picture "the beast" and "the whore" as singular events in prophecy. That is, there's only one of each. But as I look through history, it seems more to me to be a pattern, and a repetition of whores and beasts beginning perhaps with Nero, the original "Beast" if ever there was one, and the Imperial Cult, and replaying itself over and over again with dictatorial political and religious leaders each seeking more power for themselves from one another and prostituting and poisoning the teachings of Jesus Christ for the people so that what He actually taught and practiced gets pushed to the side or lost in favor of whatever agenda they're trying to push. In the process, many well meaning and sincere "Christians" are deceived and led far, far astray from even the basics of what Jesus taught, to remain in Him, to love everyone without exception, to forgive, and to not judge. The religion of antichrist is whatever helps these unscrupulous leaders to achieve the power they want, and it frequently sacrifices the poor, the immigrant, the outcast, the orphan, and the widow in the process. And it thrives in an environment of fear, not love.
     It should be a red flag to any disciple when something Jesus taught is dismissed or called too "liberal" or "weak" to be obeyed. It should be a red flag when any other person is called "savior" or is placed on nearly the same level as Jesus Himself. It should be a red flag when any movement encouraged "Christians" towards political violence, something which Jesus expressly taught against when He taught to love our enemies, and to "turn the other cheek,"and to not resist the evil person. But as John's prophecy foretold, the lies of the Beast would deceive even if possibly the elect of God.
     We need to look carefully, very, very carefully at what these people are teaching and comparing it to what Jesus Himself clearly taught, all of what He taught. Not what a pastor says, not what a political leader says, but what Jesus Himself taught. We need, especially in these times, to cling to Jesus Christ Himself and our union with Him forsaking everything else that would, like the snake in the Garden, ask us, "Did He really say that? You don't really have to do that, do you? He didn't really expect you to follow everything He said, did He?" and the like. And we must weigh everything against the standard of loving one another, because the one who doesn't love doesn't know God, because God is love. As John wrote, how can the one who hates his brother whom he can see claim to love God whom he cannot see?
     A woman may ride the beast, but we must not saddle up behind her.

Sexuality and the Disciple of Jesus Christ

     I want to talk for a minute about homosexuality, heterosexuality, and really any sexuality one might be able to think of and how it relates to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. I've written about it before, mostly trying to work through it myself and come to my own conclusions without someone telling me what my opinions ought to be because of this or that Scripture taken out of its historical and cultural context (and there is a lot of Scripture taken out of context by the American Evangelical churches, on this and other subjects).
     Where one's sexuality is concerned, we are distinctly discussing one of the survival responses of the human brain which is malfunctioning: the urge to have sex, and by extension what triggers the urge to have sex. At its most basic, any sexual desire is, quite literally, a function of the flesh, and one which exists as a survival response among animals for the specific purpose of reproduction of the species. The brain registers the survival need to engage in copulation of some kind in the same way that it registers the need to eat, or the need to protect oneself by either fleeing or fighting. And like with those other survival responses, the human sexual response is malfunctioning.
       What does this mean for the disciple of Jesus Christ? What it means is that, if a person is cooperating with and submitting to the Spirit of Christ, then this sexual response will not be dictating what you do and say, but the Spirit of Christ will. It means that it does not matter necessarily what may trigger that response, or who may trigger that response whether they are male or female. The Spirit of Christ will be the one responding, not the malfunctioning sexual drive.
      What does this look like in practice? If it is Jesus Christ acting and speaking through you, and you are not re-engaging with you sexual responses but remain disengaged from that and engaged with the Spirit of Christ, then it will be Jesus Christ loving the other person through you, and doing what is best for the other person rather than trying to satisfy that sexual drive. So then, would Jesus Christ then try and seduce someone outside of marriage? No, of course not. Would Jesus Christ then abandon His spouse in order to satisfy Himself with someone else that has triggered His sexual drive? No, of course not. Would He give Himself over to the person to whom He has committed Himself body and soul willingly when they are triggered? Yes, of course He would. The key here though is that He would not be trying to satisfy whatever sexual craving He might have at someone else's expense. And as such, He also would not be doing that through the person who is cooperating with and submitting to His Spirit.
     Satisfying your bodily cravings because you crave them doesn't figure into being a disciple of Jesus Christ. This is the modus operandi of the malfunctioning flesh, not the Spirit of Christ. And this is true whether we are talking about heterosexual cravings or homosexual cravings. Being sexually attracted to someone, regardless of gender, does not give a disciple license to then attempt to satisfy that craving at the expense of another, or where it would cause harm to all those involved. Love and sexual desire as the Scriptures teach them are two very different things, and it is caring about the other person regardless of how they make you feel which is commanded and called for in the Scriptures.
      In the ancient world, homosexuality was seen as merely a matter of sexual attraction to someone of the same gender. It was seen along the same vein as visiting a prostitute or "fornication," entirely physical or "fleshly" in nature. At it's best, it was an intimate friendship which had gone past mere friendship, but it was still frequently looked down upon. In the modern world, this is more and more not the case. More and more stable homosexual relationships and even marriages are seen where it is not merely about one's physical urges.
     So how does a homosexual be a disciple of Jesus Christ? How do they practice? The same way a heterosexual does, by cooperating with and submitting to the Spirit of Christ with whom they have been joined. By disengaging from that malfunctioning sexual response (neither less nor more malfunctioning than a heterosexual's let me be clear), and allowing Jesus Christ to act and speak through them, by manifesting Jesus Christ and the God who is love through them towards all those around them, and in particular to their spouse, the partner to whom they are legally committed. Sexuality is not and cannot be a factor in how one practices the Way of Jesus Christ, and certainly not "if" they can, because once one is practicing His Way, that person is disengaged from his own malfunctioning sexual responses, and it is Christ who is then taking over and responding.
     This I think is why it drives me a bit nuts when I hear professed "Christians" talk about leaving their spouses because they discover that they "love" (not love as the N.T. defines it, but sexual attraction) someone else, or are sexually attracted to the opposite gender. The only way this becomes a factor is if one is functioning from their own malfunctioning survival responses, and not from the Spirit of Christ. It is one's own gray matter in control, and not Jesus Christ. And it always, always ends in harm.
     The absolute first rule of being a disciple is, "Is it Jesus Christ acting and speaking through me?" This is true whether one is a homosexual or heterosexual. "What did Jesus teach?" "Am I manifesting the God who is love through my words and actions towards this person?" And where things of a sexual nature are concerned, "Is it just my bodily cravings which are running riot? How can I genuinely manifest the love of God towards this person to whom I am committed, and how can I best serve them?"
      In the end, it doesn't really matter whether one is sexually attracted to the same gender or the opposing one, because those sexual cravings are not in control for the disciple of Jesus Christ, but Christ Himself.

On Judas Iscariot and the "Unredeemable Villain" We Are Encouraged to Hate

      The narrative around Judas Iscariot usually makes him out to just be the bad guy. The traitor that was always bad, and whom no one can understand why Jesus called him to follow Him except because He needed someone to betray Him.

     Really? Is that really how people work? Are some people just mustache twirling villains? And would Jesus really recruit one of these to be His Apostle? His emissary representing Him? Or was there more going on with Judas? As human beings, we like our heroes and villains to be clear cut good and clear cut evil. We like our Saurons, our Emperor Palpatines, our Megatrons, our Lucifers, our Cobra Commanders, and our Skeletors. Why? Because then we have no reason to feel guilty wanting them defeated, destroyed, or dead. We have no reason to feel any compassion for them, and our hatred seems justified. We’re “glad” they all go to hell, and they deserve to be there. Vessels created for destruction in order to make the hero or heroes look better.

     We translate this worldview all too often to real people. We see someone commit a murder, commit a terrorist act, or commit the unthinkable, and they are perceived as evil, without any redemptive qualities. We have no compassion for where they’ve been, or what drove them to commit this heinous act. We don’t have to because they’re the villain, right? We can cheer when they burn in hell, and will gladly show them the door.

     I’ve worked with too many kids with criminal, sometimes murderous pasts to believe this to be true of real people. There’s always a reason why they do what they do. There’s always some mental illness. There’s always some neglect, some traumatic history, some abuse of the emotional, mental, physical, or sexual kind. There’s always something that triggered an extreme fear and survival response that made them believe they had to do what they did to protect themselves or what they were attached to in some way. In other words, they reacted how most human beings might react if they had grown up under the same circumstances, experienced the same things, or had the same mental illness. We deny this vociferously, but we didn’t have the “privilege” of seeing their lives through their eyes.

     We always imagine or represent Judas Iscariot as an older man, or at least around Jesus’ own age. What if he wasn’t? What if he was the youngest disciple? What if he was just some kid who was neglected and abused by his own dad and had to grow up on the streets? What if he had a mental illness like bipolar or personality disorder? What if he had Reactive Attachment Disorder because of his own father and Jesus of course became as close to him as a father figure? And what if Jesus called him to be His Apostle because He knew that, in spite of what would happen, the kid needed someone to believe in him? To love him on his terms? To not just abandon him when he screwed up, like he did with the moneybox? To always receive him back no matter how he pushed away or flew off the handle?

     Jesus called Judas Iscariot knowing, knowing that he would betray Him, and He didn’t care about that. All He cared about was loving Judas and giving him the tools to heal and be like Him. Judas screwed up. Of course he did. He flew off the handle and sold Jesus out after Jesus publicly rebuked him over the spikenard. Of course he did. Satan entered him when he went to the high priests. Honestly, our flesh and malfunctioning minds can be our own worst satans, and this happens every time we embrace this rather than the Spirit of Christ. To say that Judas was worse than any of us, that he was the ultimately evil black hat is to totally reject what Jesus Himself taught and did.

     Finally, Judas, after the fact, repented. He regretted what he had done when he saw what had happened. He came back to his senses, and was in such anguish that he tried to return the money and set Jesus free. The religious leaders refused his penance. The religious leaders refused his absolution for their own deranged purposes. The religious leaders pushed this already hurting and disturbed young man over the edge to suicide, something Jesus fought against for as long as he was with Him.

     Let me ask you this, if Jesus could forgive the thief on the cross, why couldn’t God forgive this clearly repentant young man, this called Apostle, when even Jesus said that “Every sin and blasphemy committed against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” Judas didn’t stop believing in Jesus, he just got angry at him and went out of his senses because of it. When he came back, he realized what he had done, and tried to turn it around. As in Ezekiel, that is all God asks of anyone, that the wicked man turns away from his wickedness to do what is right. In the end, Judas didn’t set himself against Jesus at all. In his fear, anguish, and mental instability, being afraid of the other Apostles and rejected by the high priests, he just didn’t know where to turn or to whom to run.

The Flesh and The Spirit

 Beginning with Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, you see the difference between what is of the flesh and what is of the Spirit being pointed out throughout the New Testament, and with Paul's and John's writings in particular; what is born of flesh and what is born of the Spirit, or in John's first letter, what is born of God.

     In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again from above in order to even see the kingdom of God, and that what is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is Spirit, emphasizing that one cannot produce the other. In John 15, Jesus tells His disciples to stay put in or make their home within Him, and if they don't they can't do anything at all. In John's first letter he says both that the person who does this doesn't "sin," and that what is born of God does not "sin." In Paul's writings he becomes adamant about walking in the Spirit and not living according to the flesh, and states that these things are opposed to each other, so that you don't do what you want to do. He says that those living by the flesh cannot please God because the thinking of the flesh is hostile to God, and says that there isn't a condemnation for those in Christ Jesus who don't walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

     This understanding of the inability of those functioning from, living according to, or walking in the flesh to do anything other than "sin," and the total inability to do what God wants by them is the foundational understanding that runs throughout the New Testament. In the same way is this understanding that those who are born again from above, walking in or living according to the Spirit, inheriting the Kingdom of God can do nothing else but please God while they are so doing because it is God doing it through them.

     That both Jesus, Paul, and John were almost begging the disciples to do this and not to live according to their flesh says that it was a completely voluntary, and not a once and done thing. It was possible to make mistakes if you stopped walking in the Spirit, if you stopped making your home in Him, and it was possible to return to dong so if you did find that you stopped.

     The genuine teaching of discipleship, of even the Gospel itself, got muddied, shoved to the side, and even outright thrown away in some cases in favor of the teaching that it was all about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. And this latter thing has been used to beat and control people with fear for hundreds of years, something which Jesus never did. Neither did Paul.

     The Gospel which the New Testament preaches isn't about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. It's about what source our behavior comes from in the here and now. It's about manifesting the God who is Love through us instead of living in the existential hell which our own flesh forces us into. That Gospel about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is a human construct based on human misunderstanding, guilt, and fear and transforms our perception of God into a cruel, vengeful, abusive bloodthirsty pagan deity, nothing like what Jesus showed us the Father is.

     "Walk in the Spirit, and you won't bring the desires of the flesh to completion." This is the practice of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, the sum total really, in a nutshell. The rest is commentary.

An Overview of the "Sin Nature" and Its Solution

 What Evangelicals call the "sin nature," Paul called "hamartia," and the ancient Hebrew authors called "khata'," is actually the improper growth of certain small parts of the human brain to a larger size than was intended, in particular the human amygdala, also affecting the hypothalamus as the amygdala controls how the hypothalamus is activated. This is a result of our ancient ancestors consuming a piece of fruit containing a toxin which altered our genetics involving this part of the brain, causing it to grow larger than theirs originally had been.

     The enlargement of the human amygdala caused the human brain to enter into an overactive or nearly constant survival response, treating everything as either a survival threat or a survival necessity whether it was a physical survival threat or not, something which is unknown among other animals. The constant sub-conscious survival or panic response drowned out the immaterial consciousness' natural connection to God, the Source, so that the "necessities" or "threats" were instead constantly being reinforced in the human mind and the human mind then latched on to them, forming a pseudo self-identity based on what it "liked," those things it believed were necessities, and what it "didn't like," those things it believed were threats. Those things it liked, the survival necessities, were deemed beneficial or "good," and those things it didn't like, the survival threats, were deemed malevolent or "bad." These effects can be seen in very young children from nearly the time they have learned to talk. From two years old or earlier, a young child has determined that those things it likes are "good" and it must have more of them, and those things it doesn't like are "bad," and it must eliminate them or be removed from them immediately. This is the foundation of human moral development as it moves from self-centric morality to black and white rules based morality, those rules the child agrees with, to a more nuanced, philosophically based morality. But the foundation of all of them is whether or not the person agrees with, likes, or disagrees with, doesn't like, the thing or rule in question.

     This is also the reason why animals do not appear to have a concept of morality. Compassion and empathy, yes, but not a sense of arbitrary "good" or "bad." Their survival response mechanisms are still working as intended and are applied only to actual perceived physical threats.

     Because of this relatively minor alteration from the human brain's original configuration, an enlargement of the amygdala, human beings are nearly constantly ruled by fear, aggression, and bodily cravings which are only kept in check by human society with a somewhat functional empathy, the ability to feel what the other person is feeling and its accompanying compassion, and whatever rules and punishments are agreed upon in order to constrain harmful human behavior. But those rules and punishments, because they operate from the same survival response system's psychology which is the problem, cannot actually solve the malfunctioning behavior, and at times can actually make it worse.

     This is the reason why this whole system must be bypassed as a source of human behavior, and the original connection by the consciousness to its Source must be allowed to operate freely. This is the reason for Jesus Christ, His birth as a virgin born human being, His life and teachings, and His death, burial, and resurrection. The re-connection afforded by our union with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection allows for the malfunctioning parts of our brain to be bypassed so that His Consciousness may then return to its appropriate function within the human psyche, thus producing non-harmful and beneficial behaviors in synchronization with the character and Person of the Source, that is, God.

Fully God and Fully Human

      What does it mean that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human, the orthodox doctrine handed down by Ecumenical Church Councils since the fourth century, and upon which so much modern Christian theology rests?

     I wrote something the other day, and a friend posited a query about it in relation to Jesus being, as the orthodox teaching goes, fully God and fully Human. His line of thinking followed that, logically, Jesus could be one or the other, but not both, and if Jesus was any different from any other human being, He could not be fully human.

      What does it mean to be "fully human"? This is a question that has serious ramifications for how we see other people. Does fully human mean representative of the average or "normal" human being? If this was the case, one might exclude those with Down's Syndrome from being fully human, or anyone born with a deviation from normality. In truth, this is a question many people have tried to answer repeatedly over the centuries and millennia, and failed with damaging and disastrous results. It might actually be a question that goes back to when there were other species of hominid in addition to homo sapiens. Our ancestors didn't answer that question well then either, at least in my opinion, as we are the only remaining species of hominid left.

     If one were to define "fully human" as having human DNA which matches the DNA of other human beings within the same tolerance which we would use for the rest of us regardless of physiological abnormalities, if we consider His being born without the malfunctioning survival response system an abnormality, then there's a good bet that Jesus Christ was in fact fully human. It's clear from observations written about Him that He was in fact born from a woman, He grew up, had a childhood, ate, drank, needed to sleep, could be physically touched, and had His own, independent free will, intellect, and emotions like every other human being does. When injured He bled. He appears to have had a heart condition possibly related to the circumstances of His parthenogenesis. I think it can be presumed that if He ate and drank, He would need to eliminate those waste products as well. So, clearly, from all observable evidence, any reasonable definition, and within the tolerance we would show for anyone who might have been born different from the average, Jesus Christ was fully human.

     And fully God? How was He fully God? this is where we get truly hung up, because this is human beings trying to explain or define what we simply don't have the language tools or experience to explain or define. In John's Gospel, he describes Jesus as being the Logos, both existing right next to God and being itself God, having taken on human flesh. The Logos in the ancient Roman world was similar in concept to the Tao or even the Hindu Om. It was divine in nature with a relationship to the God, as the ancient Greeks and Romans used the term, which at times seemed distinct and at times overlapped. A standard definition might be the "divine principle which was used to create everything, and which also resides in every human being in some form." According to John and the other New Testament authors, this divine principle was born as a human being, was either identified as "I Am" Himself or "I Am" spoke through Him so frequently as to be indistinguishable from His own personality, was before everything else, the "firstborn of all creation," and was responsible for creating everything.

     It occurs to me that without the inherited malfunction, when Jesus Christ was born, His brain would not have been born in the same "panic mode" which the rest of us are born with. His brain would not have jury rigged an "emergency OS" so to speak. It wouldn't have needed to. He would have been born with His own name, His own free will and intellect, His own set of experiences, preferences, biology, and so on, but without the malfunctioning EMI which plagues the rest of us. He would have been born with full connection to, submission to, and cooperation with that Consciousness of I Am which is also the Foundation, the base upon which all of creation is coded or shaped. He would have been born enveloped in His Father's presence and love from the start without any kind of resistance to it. His personality, aside from the clearly human experiential and biological component, would have been otherwise entirely shaped by this unbroken connection with the Father, the Source. And these two non-competing components of His individual personality, Human and Source, if you will, can be observed from the Gospel writings.

      Jesus Christ represents a human being the way a human being was meant to function, with full connection and cooperation with the Source Consciousness, if you will, the Father from the start. According to the Scriptures, He was meant to be the "Firstborn among many brothers," that is, He was meant to set the rest of us right so that we could be like He is, free from the malfunction which causes all of our problems and separation. He was and remains fully Human as well as fully God, and invites the rest of us to become as He is through union with Him.