Including song: ON THE LIGHTER SIDE
Thursday, April 30, 2015
On
VISIONS & DREAMS
(Including Song:
On The Lighter Side)
By
Francis William Bessler
Laramie, Wyoming
3/15/2009;
enhanced a bit 5/10/2009;
and modified one more time -
4/30/2015
Note:
Initially, I wrote this about six years ago, but I am revising it slightly now to make a few small corrections and add a new song that attempts to summarize some of the thoughts of this essay. I am choosing to revisit this essay as somewhat of a follow-up to an essay I wrote a few days ago (4/22/2015) called REASON VERSUS REVELATION - which I wrote to respond to a friend who had asked me to comment a bit about what I think of "Revelation" and what I mean by it.
Given that this article deals a good bit with a certain BOOK OF REVELATION - offered as the last book of the Christian BIBLE, I think it is worthwhile to retrieve this previous article and take a look at it. The essay is almost entirely as I wrote it in 2009, but again, with one new addition: a song called On The Lighter Side. Enjoy my "old" essay and "new" song as you can. Perhaps there is a thought or two in each you can consider worth your while.
Speaking of "new," I want to thank Burger King of Laramie, Wyoming for a definition of "love" I have not seen before today. I never expected to see a definition of love on the walls of a fast food place, but this morning, there it was - a definition of love on the walls of the local Burger King that I think is as good a definition of love as I have yet met in this life. Wow!
What is it? Love is: Living Our Values Everyday! Can you think of a better definition of "love"? I can't; and I am so impressed with that definition that I am including a verse in the song I wrote this morning that features that very definition.
Again, enjoy my "old" essay and "new" song as you will.
Thanks! FWB - 4/30/2015
Preface -
3/15/2009:
LEADING UP TO
JOHN OF REVELATION
This is somewhat about how I see visions and dreams – and it refers to a rather notorious vision – one that is found in THE BOOK OF REVELATION (OR REVELATIONS) – the last book of the orthodox Christian BIBLE; however, it is largely a mini-debate about Jesus.
My view of visions and dreams is that they are largely a product from within a subject – or of a subject. It is only an opinion, but my guess is that visionaries and dreamers really only “see” what is consistent with their perceived outlook on life. Some are tremendously imaginative – as is the case with the visionary who wrote THE BOOK OF REVELATION - but regardless of degree of imagination, a visionary or dreamer probably always sees only that which is consistent with his own perception of life. That is to say, of course, that visions are totally subjective. They may have something to say related to the objective – or general truth of things – but essentially they are subjective.
I think it is good to realize that when trying to make sense of any dream or any vision. One must first interrogate the subject to be able to put a dream or vision in perspective. Without such interrogation, one can only guess as to what any dreamer or visionary is calculating in his mind that comes out as a vision dealing with images seemingly seen as real. None of the images of a dream or vision are real, however, in terms of existing or being able to exist independent of a subject. The subject probably manufactures his own images and then sees what he has manufactured – though it is possible that some paranormal entity might assist a subject in the manufacture of images. If so, a subject will still only dream or view consistent with outlook on life. Thus, even if there is assistance from some paranormal entity, that assistance will not override a subject. It will only cooperate with a subject – meaning that the dream or vision still belongs to a subject.
I find it rather amazing that anyone would put any stock in someone else’s dream or vision; and yet it seems that orthodox Christianity has done just that. It has considered the vision of a single person – one called John – to be some kind of objective statement about life, the meaning of life, and the possible end of life. If I had a vision – or a dream – I might consider it important as an expression of myself, but I would never offer it as some dogmatic statement of life. It seems, however, that the John of THE BOOK OF REVELATION considered his vision to be far more than just personal. He was intended to share it with the rest of the world; and the rest of the world ought to believe it.
Before continuing, let me clarify my impression of what orthodox means. I think the term orthodox is Greek for right thinking. Those who think of themselves as orthodox, then, consider themselves right thinking people – as they consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them as wrong thinking. I suppose everyone is orthodox from their own point of view, but history seems to classify one side of a story as orthodox and the other side as heretical. In light of this essay, there are orthodox Jews and heretical Jews. There are orthodox Christians and heretical Christians – and it seems that battles have ensued between the various orthodox and heretical sides of an issue since Adam took that apple that Eve offered him. Adam started out orthodox until being tempted by the heretic, Eve; and the orthodox and heretics of history have been battling ever since. Enough said about that.
Anyway, back to John of THE BOOK OF REVELATION, we have had one visionary stating as some absolute truth a whole series of ideas manufactured in his mind as somehow an expression of objective or general truth. John’s idea of Jesus becomes some kind of dogmatic imperative – or a Jesus we must believe is just the way John dreamed him to be. But I can assure you, if I had a dream of Jesus – and my dream or vision would be just as authentic as was that of John – I would not see a Jesus even remotely close to what John saw.
I won’t go into the differences between John and me now, but I will touch on those differences later. Suffice it to say here that one man’s dream or vision should never be taken as any more or less authentic than another man’s. That we have canonized John’s vision as some kind of dogmatic rule of life is almost beyond astounding. It is nothing – absolutely nothing – that anyone should put any kind of faith into. It is a fantasy – one man’s fantasy – that has manufactured a Heaven of Place for Christians and Hell of Place for Heathens that probably do not exist. Sadly, by offering credence to one man’s foolish vision, multitudes of believers live their lives as if that foolish vision is fact.
It is good to keep in mind, however, that John’s foolish vision was partly a contract with his times. John had no idea of Infinite because when he looked up into the sky, he saw only a world that looked like it ended just beyond that highest cloud. In seeing an end of the world where none really existed, he could only imagine a God that might be peering down beyond that end. In that light, John’s vision was not so foolish – because it was based on the perception of his day; and the perception of his day was that God has to be outside of the world simply because the idea of infinity was probably not perceived at that time – at least, not widely so.
When you do take in the idea of infinity, however, then the physical end of a world goes away and there is no longer a need to imagine a God outside the world. With embrace of the concept of infinity, placement of God goes away because it becomes impossible to deny that a true God must be everywhere. Take away the idea of God being able to be one place and not another – and presto, there goes Judgment of God and the division of existence into good and evil. Where there is infinity and no separation between God and reality, there can only be Good. Why? Because if infinity is equated with God – which equation I have made – and infinity reflects endless, meaning without boundary, then God must be everywhere and there can be no separation between God and anything.
But John did not know that. John did not know of the idea of infinity – though Jesus may have. Some of the day of Jesus had some idea of infinity, however, and among those that did were the Greeks – or at least, some Greeks. Because of what I see as ideas of Greek thinking on the part of Jesus – like the ultimate Divinity and Questioning of Everything - I think it is highly possible that Jesus actually originated among the Alexandrian Jews located in Egypt when King Herod was ruling Israel.
Jews were dispersed throughout many lands at that time – and Egypt may have been one site where many Jews chose exile from their native Israel. Alexandria, Egypt was known for its Greek scholars; and Jesus may well have been schooled by such scholars. Thus, Jesus may have become introduced to the idea of infinity – which would have allowed him to realize that Jehovah – supposed God of Israel – was only Jehovah, god of Israel.
The difference between a god and a God, as I see it, is that a god relates only to some whereas a God must relate to all equally, given that a true God must be in all. Jehovah was not a God that is present in all, but rather a god that favors some over others. Gods that favor some over others are really pagan gods. Thus, Jehovah could have only been one of the many pagan gods of the time – even though the Jews acknowledged only one god whereas other nations may have acknowledged multiple gods.
I realize that Jews and Christians (and Moslems) resent being called pagan, but according to my definition of pagan, they were – and are. For me – and I think, for Jesus, too – anyone who believes that God is outside of them and there is need to appeal to that God outside of them is really what pagan is all about. People of old believed they had to sacrifice to pagan gods because they believed they had to gain the favor of a given god. One of the certain proofs that Jews were really pagan is that their law actually commanded them to sacrifice – or offer a sacrifice – to their god – Jehovah.
Did Jesus believe in Jehovah? I don’t think so. I don’t think Jesus was a pagan – though others may have seen him in that light because they were pagans. Personally, I am not a pagan because I do not believe that God can favor one over another simply because God, being infinite, must be IN all things. If God is really in all things, then nothing need to appeal to God to become one with them. God is already one with everything if God is infinite.
I think that some thinkers, like Socrates of the Greeks, had concluded to the same thinking long before Christ – even though many in authority did not agree with that thinking. I think it is likely that almost all of the Greeks of the time of Socrates – who lived about 400 years before Christ – were pagan. Perhaps even Socrates struggled to overcome the notion – but I do get a sense that he did struggle with it. And in struggling with it, he was condemned by the pagan authority of his day just as Christ would be condemned by the pagan authority of his day – 400 years later.
One of the real ironies of history, however, is that Jesus himself would be made a pagan god by subsequent pagans in need of a god to which they could appeal for favors. At least, I see it as ironic. I think Jesus really taught that virtue is not in appealing to God for favors or sacrificing to God to gain some favor; however, Jesus has been made a god who has become the object of continuing sacrifice. Many orthodox Christians do not think they are pagan and resent the entire notion, but I think they are pagan in that they hold Jesus as an object before them that they must please in order to gain salvation. That is exactly the definition of a pagan – one who obeys something or someone outside of themselves in order to attain salvation. I believe that Jesus objected to that kind of thinking – just as Socrates had 400 years before Jesus – and yet he has become in the eyes of many – a god to be worshipped rather than simply a teacher of ethics.
Be that as it may, I think it is reasonable to conjecture that later after King Herod had died and things may have seemed to have simmered down in Israel, Jesus could have made his way from Egypt to Israel, taking with him Greek concepts that would have definitely angered “orthodox Jews." Also, Jesus may not have traveled alone. A fellow “Greek Jew” like a Thomas could have traveled with him. In that light, such a Thomas could well have known Jesus as a much closer companion than some of the Jews of Israel who may have eventually chosen to become disciples of Jesus.
It is, however, much more likely that Thomas and Jesus did not travel together to Israel, but rather “shared” an origin from Alexandria – or some area of Greek influence. I say that because from various descriptions I get from various gospels, I see Thomas as a student of Jesus. If Jesus and Thomas had traveled together, they would have probably traveled as companions and not as master and student. I do believe that Jesus and Thomas became companions in time, but I do not get the sense that they started out as companions – but rather as master or teacher and student. Jesus and Thomas may have become close, however, partly due to a common origin – and that could have been as “Greek oriented Jews” from a land outside of Israel.
Thomas & Jesus
For what it’s worth, there were other gospels written about Jesus other than those eventually selected to fit within the canon of the BIBLE. Among those written but eventually banned was a Gospel according to Thomas – which I will subsequently refer to as THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS. Though lost for over 1,600 years and only recently in 1945 discovered, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS seems to indicate just what I have maintained – that Thomas may have been a much closer companion to Jesus than were Peter or Matthew or any of the others. Who knows how all of that transpired? But it is entirely possible that THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS was the first gospel written and that all other gospels selected from that first gospel and then expounded their own tales.
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS is comprised of 114 Jesus said sayings. It is not a narrative form of writing that tells a story of what Jesus supposedly did – like the stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John of the BIBLE. It only offers what Jesus supposedly said in terms of bits of wisdom. For instance, Verse 5: Jesus said: Know what is in thy sight, and what is hidden from thee will be revealed to thee. For there is nothing hidden that will not be manifest. Or, Verse 9: Jesus said: See, the sower went out, he filled his hand, he threw. Some (seeds) fell on the road; the birds came, they gathered them. Others fell on the rock and did not strike root in the earth and did not produce ears. And others fell on the thorns; they choked the seed and the worm ate them. And others fell on the good earth; and it brought forth good fruit; it bore sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure. Or, Verse 21: Mary said to Jesus: Whom are thy disciples like? He said: They are like little children who have installed themselves in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say: “Release to us our field." They take off their clothes before them to release it (the field) to them and to give back their field to them. Therefore I say: If the lord of the house knows that the thief is coming, he will stay awake before he comes and will not let him dig through into his house of his kingdom to carry away his goods. You then must watch for the world, gird up your loins with great strength lest the brigands find a way to come to you, because they will find the advantage which you expect. Let there be among you a man of understanding; when the fruit ripened, he came quickly with his sickle in his hand, he reaped it. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.
Any student of the various gospels of Jesus should be able to see similarities. It is my opinion that THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS may have been written first – and then the other gospel writers of the BIBLE may have copied from THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and fitted narrative stories around the various Jesus said statements. In the process of doing that, they may have retained much of what is in Thomas, but may have also discarded and confused things too. It is difficult to say. Isn’t it? Who came first? Who came second? Who copied from who? Who fabricated tales? Who stuck to the truth? Etc.
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS is lacking any stories of miracles. From that point of view, too, it would seem that THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS was first because subsequent stories tend to exaggerate from earlier stories. Thus, in all probability, the version that exaggerates the least is probably the first. All subsequent versions, then, probably copy from a first where there seems to be much similarity; but it stands to reason that subsequent copies are offered in order to establish some different point of view. I think it highly likely that the gospel writers included in the BIBLE wrote their various stories in order to supplement the story of Jesus with fabrications. I think that it is highly probable that Peter was behind much of this exaggeration because he had the most to gain and wanted stories to be told to make Jesus look like a Jewish messiah and not just a morality philosopher – as one might conclude if the only source of information about Jesus was THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS.
Thus, Mark and Matthew and Luke and John could have been encouraged to tell tales of Jesus to make him look bigger than he was so that Peter – and any successors of Peter in the rite of authority - could look bigger than they were (and are) – as associates or friends of Jesus. Keep in mind, all gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. Much could have transpired from the time of his death to the writing of the gospels; and in that period of time, Peter could have persuaded much of the following of Jesus that Jesus had truly been a Jewish messiah – and much more importantly to Peter, that Jesus had chosen Peter as his successor.
It is now almost impossible to distinguish truth from fable because once fable is established, truth become much more difficult to know. One example of almost sure fable: In their order of writing, Mark first, then Matthew, then Luke – none of these three report the raising of Lazarus from the dead – and yet the final story from John reports the story. How likely is it that three reporters could tell a story about a man who is supposedly superhuman with all three offering tales of miracles performed by that man to make him look superhuman – and not report a miracle as outstanding as raising a man from the dead? So, why did Mark, then Matthew, then Luke all omit a story so huge as the raising of Lazarus from the dead? Why did only the last story report it? The obvious answer to that is that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were unaware of it. Why were they unaware of it? Probably because it never happened. And that suggests a fable on the part of at least one of the gospel writers. Now, we are faced with the question: what is fable and what is truth?
Now, add to the fable aspect of the gospels of the BIBLE one common story of all four that is completely missing in what may have been the first gospel – that of Thomas: a claim by Peter that he was chosen by Jesus to head a church. Not only is Peter largely ignored in THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Peter is defined by Thomas as one who didn’t seem to get it. Peter was often presented as outside the confidence of Jesus, not inside of it as he claims in the probable four subsequent gospels. From THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, no one can find any evidence that Peter could have even remotely been considered a confidant of Jesus – nor in another of the banned gospels, THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, is their any evidence that Peter may have been a confidant of Jesus – and yet in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, Peter is established as a confidant of Jesus and one chosen by Jesus to lead. I don’t think so.
For example, let me present Verse 13 of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS: Jesus said to His disciples: Make a comparison to me and tell me whom I am like. Simon Peter said to Him: Thou art like a righteous angel. Matthew said to Him: Thou art like a wise man of understanding. Thomas said to Him: Master, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom Thou art like. Jesus said: I am not thy Master because thou has drunk, thou has become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have measured out. And He took him, he withdrew, he spoke three words to him. Now when Thomas came to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say to thee? Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which He said to me, you will take up stones and throw at me; and the fire will come from the stones and burn you up.
This one is found in various form in the other gospels too, but for the most part, they have Peter answering Jesus – Thou art the son of God or the messiah – or some such. From that, Jesus replies in effect: You have spoken correctly, Simon - and because you have, thou art Peter – meaning the rock or my rock – and upon this rock, I will build my church. In the above quote, however, Peter answers: Thou art like a righteous angel. Notice that Thomas does not have Peter answering with you are the messiah. And later, it is Thomas that Jesus takes aside to confide in – not Peter. When Peter asks Thomas what Jesus confided to him, Thomas says that Peter would not be able to understand and that if Thomas were to tell Peter what Jesus told him that Peter would get mad and throw stones at Thomas. This scene hardly suggests confidence in Peter by Jesus. Does it?
Also, it is worth noting from the above verse of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Jesus denied being the “master” or “lord” of Thomas, stating that because Thomas had drunk from the bubbling spring of Jesus that Thomas had become equal to Jesus. It implies that wisdom is the hallmark of virtue – not obedience. It also flatly states that Jesus did not – and does not – want to be seen as the lord of anyone. His desire is that people “understand” the truth and thereby become their own masters. This idea is in complete defiance of what might be called Peter Principle that all must goes through Jesus on a personal basis – and, of course, Peter - to find wisdom, grace and salvation.
Anyway, if THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS was the first gospel, or even if it came later, there is no indication within it that Jesus considered himself an orthodox Jew. If so, he could hardly have been a messiah for an orthodoxy that he rejected. That could be the true story of Jesus – that he was not an orthodox Jew and that he actually defied the so called Law of the Old Testament, knowing as he might have that Jehovah could not be God because God has to be inside of all, being infinite.
I think it worthwhile, too, to repeat that Christianity has not always been strictly what is called orthodox. As early as the 1st and 2nd Century, there were many who saw Jesus as mostly Greek philosopher; but their movement did not have as much strength as the orthodox movement had – simply because it lacked any need for authority. Greek philosopher Christian types believed much of what THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS has declared that salvation is strictly a personal matter and that no authority is needed to access God or attain peace. The notion was there and there was a significant following of it, but being individual oriented, there was no real need to form organization. Without organization on the part of Greek philosopher types, orthodox Christians eventually took command – and eventually commanded their views. Then by the 4th Century, a Roman emperor, Constantine, made it official. Only orthodox Christian churches were permitted and even the books of the former Greek philosopher Christians were commanded to be destroyed.
Some monks, however, disobeyed the command to destroy non orthodox sources and hid some of them away in various places to avoid their being found and destroyed by officials. Among books that were stashed away was a Coptic (or Egyptian) copy of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS. In 1945, a peasant in Egypt stumbled on a jar in a cave off the Nile River. That jar would contain the long lost THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and many other non orthodox Christian sources that were supposed to have been destroyed in the 4th Century, but were not.
Peter & Jesus
Why would a legend develop that would assign Jesus as an orthodox Jew as a faithful son of Jehovah if it were not the belief of the day? I think I have already alluded to the answer to that – it may have been because of advantage to one called Peter. Supposing, as I think is credible, that those who knew different could have departed Israel after the death of Jesus, it could have been open season for Peter. If Thomas had been an Alexandrian Jew, it is entirely feasible he could have returned to Alexandria – and from Alexandria – extended further into Asia and beyond. In fact, Indians lay claim to just such a story. They claim Thomas came to them and was missionary to them in the name of Jesus.
Anyway, if such was so and Thomas (and maybe others, like Mary Magdalene) departed Israel after the death of Jesus, there was nothing to keep someone like Peter from taking over and establishing the view that would become orthodox Christian that Jesus was a messiah of the Jews. With Thomas gone – and perhaps others who may have sympathized with Thomas gone – the coast could have been clear for Peter to claim head of church privileges. The truly sad thing about that is Jesus may not have desired to start a church. Thomas probably knew that; but with Thomas out of the picture, Peter could have taken over.
As I see it, having no real ties to orthodox Judaism, I doubt that Jesus wanted any part of it – let alone become its messiah. In THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, there is clear indication that when it was suggested that he was some kind of prophet, he flatly denied it. According to Verse 52 of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS: His disciples said to Him: Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel and they all spoke about Thee. He said to them: You have dismissed the Living (One) who is before you and you have spoken about the dead. In essence, they had him wrong; and one of the reasons they could have had him wrong could have been Peter – who may have seen Jesus as some kind of stepping stone to authority – as I have already stated.
There is so much we do not know about what really happened in the story of Jesus; but it is my opinion that Peter does not seem to have taken to the rule of forgiveness that Jesus preached. I get the impression that Peter wanted to rule whereas I see no such thing in Jesus. I do not see any compatibility at all between a Jesus who taught forgiveness and a Peter who claimed authority. The two do not mesh. That leads me to believe that Peter made Christianity a thing of obedience to authority in the very name of one who forbid it – once rival Thomas was out of the picture.
What happened to Thomas once Jesus died according to stories in the BIBLE? No one knows. It is like he was here today and gone the next day; and that may well have been the case too. Also, what happened to Mary Magdalene after Jesus died? Again, no one knows. Mary could have departed Israel with Thomas. Given that neither Thomas nor Mary Magdalene seem to be part of the Christian drama that ensues in Israel after the assumed resurrection of Jesus, I think it is reasonable to assume that they simply did not stick around. If they had, you can bet they would have been part of the drama – which seemingly, they weren’t.
Importantly, however, with Thomas (and maybe other rivals) out of the way, Peter could have been free to take over – and take over he probably did. In the process, I think he made the tale of Jesus his own – teaching that Jesus had been a messiah. With few around who may have known otherwise, eventually many Jews could have swallowed Peter’s tale hook, line, and sinker. With Peter being a very confirmed orthodox Jew, as self-proclaimed head of the church, it is quite easy to see how Jesus could have been turned into a messiah when he had not been – with the willing cooperation of ones like John who may have shared Peter’s conviction of the need for a messiah to resolve sin and make the way straight for a lord to truly unify man with God.
John & Jesus
What has this got to do with the eventual vision of John that is proclaimed in THE BOOK OF REVELATION? Tales of rule of Messiah could have overridden the real Jesus tale of Love and Forgiveness. What is significant about that is that Jesus was not likely about rule over others in any way. By making him a messiah when he had no such inclination, the door was open to expanding the tale of a messiah to include eventual victory over all enemies – including Satan. After all, orthodox Jews lived in expectation of their god eventually letting them have a real kingdom. With the idea of a real kingdom comes warfare with enemies; and so that is what becomes the Jesus tale in THE BOOK OF REVELATION. The use of Satan may well be only a figurative expression to state the idea of opposition. For sure, orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians love the concept of opposition because, in fact, that is what they are all about. Without an enemy to fight, it seems they would be lost. So, they create an enemy – and call it Satan.
Under the influence of Peter, then, Jesus could have been turned into a messiah – and turned away from being simply a teacher of Greek wisdom – including that a real kingdom of peace is not physical, but mental. The real kingdom of peace resides anywhere and everywhere because it resides in the individual and not a nation; but Peter may not have understood that – and then took his ignorance to literally corrupt the Jesus message of love and forgiveness – overriding all of that with tales of judgment and victory of good over evil. That is essentially the story told in THE BOOK OF REVELATION. John may have been told in a vision all about war and victory and all of that because that is what he believed Jesus was about.
However, based at least partly on banned gospels like that of Thomas & Mary Magdalene, I do not see a Jesus that was about anything but individual peace and independence. I see a Jesus who even challenged the entire concept of sin upon which Peter would base his right of authority to lead a church. In THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, Peter asked Jesus about sin; and Jesus told Peter that there is no such thing as sin, except that you create it. That is in direct conflict with the idea that mankind inherits sin. The only reason Peter could claim authority was because a church was needed to overcome sin; but in THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, Peter was told there is no sin. Why, then, was their need of a church to overcome sin if there is no sin?
For whatever reason, however, it seems Peter did not believe that – and so he took control and taught that we do have sin and that the only way we can dissolve that sin is to override our sin with grace from Jesus – who had been turned into son of Jehovah. It is not what Jesus probably taught – and there is clear evidence of that in both of the banned gospels – that of Thomas and that of Mary Magdalene. Why did Peter believe it? In the end, I think he believed it because he wanted to believe it. Without such a belief, there was no room for a Pope Peter; and I think Peter was so vain and wanted power so much that he was just plain blind to the real teachings of Jesus. The real teaching of Jesus is that we command our own peace with love of others and forgiveness of others. No authority needed. No special grace needed. Just do it. That, I think, is what Jesus really taught.
But by the time John wrote THE BOOK OF REVELATION toward the end of the 1st century, over 50 years after Jesus passed, the real truth of Jesus had probably become lost. Because of the corruption of the Jesus idea by Peter (and willing cohorts), the church that existed was almost entirely authority oriented. No one could find peace on their own. As the Peter dictum went – and still goes: Outside the church, there is no salvation. All have to go through the church – and Peter. Peter stands at the very doors of Heaven – and only those he might allow in can get in; and nothing could be further from the truth.
Salvation has never been other oriented. It has always been of individual mind. It has always been what the Jesus of Thomas would call a “solitary” matter. No one needs to depend on any other – including a Jesus – to make peace with God because peace is only recognizing that we are all of and in that same God. Peace is all about knowing that each soul can and must attain salvation by him or herself. It has never been about having to go through another.
When John wrote THE BOOK OF REVELATION, however, the very identity of Jesus had been changed from Greek philosopher to Jewish messiah – and probably at least greatly encouraged by Peter. In all likelihood, John had only inherited visions of battle between good and evil from his own personal conviction that life is corruptible and was corrupted – thus requiring some additional grace from without to resolve that corruption and to allow unification with God. With that in mind, John probably projected a tale that would define battles between good and evil, between God and Satan, between damnation and salvation that the Peter Church had come to teach.
Or so I believe!
5/10/2009:
Jessica & Jesus
Yesterday, I had quite a day. I attended a local soup kitchen here in Laramie during the day and attended a brief discussion of THE BOOK OF REVELATION – the last book of the BIBLE - during the evening. At the soup kitchen, I dined with lovely Jessica, probably around my youngest daughter, Melissa’s, age – about 30 or so. I have known Jessica for a few years. We met initially in 2003 when we both attended a local Christian church for a time. When we met again – several years later – Jessica remembered where we had met years before – though I only remembered her face and not where we met.
When we met again years later, though, we had both moved on to new churches and we were both helping out at the local soup kitchen; and I was taken by the spirit of this fine wonderful lady. As I commented to Jerry, a cook of the soup kitchen, yesterday (5/9/2009) - when Jessica walks into a room where I am, it is as if the whole room lights up. Her smile dismisses any sadness I might be feeling; and little Jessica, warm Jessica, lovely Jessica, wonderful Jessica becomes my savior. I am 67 and I have a 30 year old as a savior. And every time Jessica & I meet, it’s the same. She was a light when we met in 2003; and though we have only encountered each other a half dozen times since then, she remains a light to me.
Jessica is a teacher at a local school. She teaches a class she calls a character class – as well as Spanish – to young kids, maybe 10 or so. I’d like to draw a parallel at this time. I think Jessica is a lot like Jesus; and though she may not like me drawing the comparison and may even see my portrait as somewhat heretical, I believe it is so.
I think Jesus was a light that enthused too – just like Jessica. That’s why I see them as the same. They both teach, but their main teaching is their character. They do not preach; they teach; and neither one of them will punish a student who chooses not to learn. I guess you could say that anyone who teaches character can only offer example in the end; and it’s that example that is really the text of their course.
Will Jessica change tomorrow – and maybe become a harsh ruler of a classroom, willing to whack a student who falls asleep in her class or whip a kid who doesn’t learn his or her Spanish verbs? Not likely, is it? It is no more likely that Jessica will change to turn out her light tomorrow than it is likely that Jesus could ever change from being the person he was, is, and always will be. No! Jessica will not change tomorrow. Her light will still be the same. She will still teach that forgiveness is an ideal of a soul to avoid the burden of a grudge and not a commandment risking punishment for disbelief; and so it will be for Jesus too. Like Jessica, Jesus is not likely to change to become tomorrow what he was not yesterday.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Then came the evening. Some friends and I met to look at another Jesus, one whom I can never recognize as one of true character. This is a Jesus that is offered in what is called THE BOOK OF REVELATION that changes and does not remain constant. It is the inconstancy of this Jesus that lets me know for sure that the Jesus of THE BOOK OF REVELATION is a fake. I don’t think that one who is given many different masks is genuine. That’s not to say that Jesus is not genuine. It is only to say that the various masks of Jesus are not genuine; and one of the masks of the Jesus of John in THE BOOK OF REVELATION is that he was a lamb – as in one who was sacrificed to the god of the Old Testament.
The god of the Old Testament commanded such, you know. Like the gods of other pagan religions, the god of the Old Testament found great delight in having lambs offered in his honor; and eventually he even required human blood to be offered to him in his honor – which was somehow construed as necessary to forgive the sins of man. Thus Jesus, son of the god of the Old Testament, was required to be a just sacrifice that would please the god of the Old Testament - and in being pleased, the god of the Old Testament would forgive some sins of man - not all sins, mind you – just some. We can know all sins were not forgiven because sin begets sin; and since we have as much sin today as ever before, some sins must not have been forgiven.
This Jesus, this lamb, changes, though, through the course of time – alternating between lamb and lion. It is my opinion, of course, but as I see it, the author of THE BOOK OF REVELATION is determined to validate the Old Testament (represented by the image of a lion) through his vision by somehow connecting it to the New Testament (represented by the image of a lamb) – as if to argue that the god of the Old Testament was really Jesus in camouflage. The lamb of the current day was the god or lion of the olden times – and then quite amazingly, we are led to believe that the lamb of the current day who was a god or lion of the olden times is going to change and become the god or lion of the olden times again. And what will this new Jesus, reborn from the old Jesus, reborn from the first Jesus do? He will stone all who disobeyed The Law; but all those nice little souls who bowed down to this Jesus will be ushered into an eternity of love and celebration.
Quite a picture, isn’t it? On one side of a street will be eternal punishment whereby all on that side are being whipped or stoned or burned or whatever – and on the other side, all smiles, and joyous barbecues of fresh lamb and sumptuous orange deserts. On the one side, a guy named Prince Satan will be delegated by King Jesus to punish by embrace all who did not believe in King Jesus before Judgment Day – and on the other side, there will be King Jesus, smiling at his billions of fans who saw fit to offer him obedience.
As outrageous the picture I have just painted is, many believe it. They think that a real Jesus can change – can be a forgiving saint on one day and a condemning judge tomorrow – can be a lamb today and a lion tomorrow. Oh, they don’t call him Judge Jesus. They call him King Jesus; but regardless of name, it all comes down to the same thing. Be he a judge or a king, this Jesus will rule the world – after overcoming other false kings and terrible dragons, of course. Those who know The Law can think such things; those who live by The Rule cannot.
But, you see, in all probability, the one who wrote THE BOOK OF REVELATION was not particularly impressed with The Rule. His obsession was with The Law. What’s the difference? Life according to rule is only life conducted within the framework of character – like that of Jessica’s class. It’s to say that I will inherit what I am tomorrow – character wise. It is nothing more than that. If I do not become a character of choice today, then I can’t continue to be that character of choice tomorrow. Can I? That is my judgment and the Judgment of The Rule. Likewise, if I am kind today, I will be kind tomorrow. Pretty simple, huh? It stands that if I do not want to inherit a certain character tomorrow, then there is only one thing to do – change to embrace a character (or character trait) I will want to inherit. Like I say, pretty simple, huh?
Life according to The Law, however, is much different – and much more complex. It is not about character and continuation of character as much as it is about obedience. I will obey – or else – and the else is always connected with punishment by another. In THE BOOK OF REVELATION, the new Jesus (or lamb) will become the old Jesus (or lion) – or the old god - and will literally punish those who will have refused to obey The Law - a “law,” by the way, that Jesus repudiated in his life.
In one of the gospels of the BIBLE, Jesus was asked what a person has to do to gain eternal life. His answer was something like this: Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind - and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s it – no need for going through him, Jesus, to acquire some special grace in order to love God and others. No need to love God by obedience to some authority like a Peter. All one has to do to gain eternal life is to love God and love everyone just like that one is God. That is all that salvation amounts to. So, The Law, demanding much more specific conduct including sacrifice of lambs in the so called Temple was repudiated by Jesus. How, then, could Jesus have been a champion of a way he repudiated?
Amazingly, as I see it now, and it is only personal speculation and nothing more – the author of THE BOOK OF REVELATION attempts to do the impossible – to connect Jesus with The Law, not against The Law; and just as amazingly, there are 90 billion Christians who think he was right. Where is Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind – and love your neighbor as yourself as the only rule for salvation in THE BOOK OF REVELATION? It is not there. Why? Because John was trying to establish a need for authority – and he could only do that by relating back to The Old Law – and the testament of authority from which it came. To do that, obedience to the old law had to be supplemented with threat of punishment for disobedience. Otherwise, any idea of authority was null and void; however, in reinstalling the notion of authority and accompanying that installation with threat of punishment for violation of authority, in effect, The New Rule of love and forgiveness as the only rule of salvation was negated. Peter talked love alright, but he acted threatening. It was not love that Peter commanded, but obedience to him as rightful heir to Jesus. Almost unbelievably, it seems to me, Peter single handedly turned accent on love and forgiveness to threat of punishment for disobedience – and it is that accent on punishment that is the tall tale of THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
If you doubt what I say, ask one who is a fan of THE BOOK OF REVELATION about some so called Judgment Day; and to a single soul, the answer will always be punishment by another – not simple continuation of character. That is, of course, where punishment is concerned; but it is very unlikely that one who believes such punishment will be imposed will be among the crowd of dissidents who deserve such an eternal spanking. No, they will be among those of rapture who will have committed to the god of the Old Testament and to the Jesus of the New Testament – as if the one is the other.
Most importantly, however, it is extremely unlikely that one is of the other. I am not John. I do not see a Jesus as any kind of friend to the god of the Old Testament – let alone a son of that god. I see a Jesus who tried to defy The Law of the god of the Old Testament – not complete it as some kind of graduated order of God. I see a Jesus who recognized that the god of the Old Testament was just that – a god – and not The God of All. That god of the Old Testament acted like the gods of the Greeks and the Romans and the Persians. My Jesus recognized that and probably tried to warn his disciples not to identify the god of the Old Testament with The God.
The God does not need laws to order Its world. It simply is – and It is not outside of the world to demand sacrifice from the world. Little gods demand sacrifice – but The God does not because The God is not even separated from Its subjects. The God is Infinite and cannot draw lines between good and evil because for The God, there are no divisions. There is no heaven and hell as combination. There is only Heaven – because Heaven is only being where The God is; and if The God is everywhere, then so also is Heaven.
In my opinion, obedience to any law without respect to rule of heart is not only futile for a soul, but also dangerous because it suggests that life itself lacks splendor in order to need supplementation with law. Our accent should be on life itself, not some arbitrary regulation of it as if life itself is not sufficient for satisfaction. Life itself should be seen as sufficient for satisfaction because there is no such thing as life itself. Life does not exist independent of God. It only co-exists with and in God if God is truly Infinite and everywhere.
Mary Magdalene & Jesus
In THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, Jesus is offered as addressing the issue like this: Peace be with you. Receive my peace. Be careful that no one leads you astray by saying, ‘Look here’ or ‘Look there.’ The child of humanity is within you. Follow that. Those who seek it will find it. Go and preach the good news of the kingdom. Do not lay down any rules other than what I have given you, and do not establish law, as the lawgiver did, or you will be bound by it.
To repeat, do not establish law, as the lawgiver did, or you will be bound by it. And before that, the child of humanity is within you. Follow that. There is no Peter there – or need for a Peter or any authority. If you think you need authority to recognize the tremendous splendid of life, you have failed to recognize the tremendous splendid of life; but if you need authority, then you will be bound by the authority you claim. It makes sense, does it not?
Of course I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Peter did not understand the notion of seeking meaning through the child of humanity within us. What does it mean? I think it only means that we are really equal to something good within us that Jesus called the child of humanity. Whatever it is, it is there – in us and not outside of us. It is not something lacking. It is something present; but if we do not know it is there, it may as well be absent. I think it only means that our humanity is wonderful and without blemish.
I do not think Peter believed that, however. I think he believed that humanity is potentially wonderful, but tainted with sin. Well, that is what he had been taught as an orthodox Jew; and it is what he passed on as an orthodox Jewish Christian. I do not think that Jesus was an orthodox Jew in terms of believing we are sinful by nature. Peter probably believed that; but I don’t think Jesus did – given the evidence of non belief in the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.
The Jesus of Mary Magdalene says that there is no such thing as sin, except that you create it. The Jesus of Thomas says the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth and men do not see it. Can there be sin in the Kingdom of the Father? I don’t think so, but it seems that Peter did.
My Vision
In a vision or a dream of mine, “my Jesus” would have recognized that he was not son of Jehovah, but son of The God – just like we all are. My Jesus would have seen Jehovah for what he was – a pagan god that pretended some rights over others and one who was separated from those he supposedly created, with some strange divine right to select one son over another. The God does not select or favor because The God is in all. In a vision of mine, my Jesus would have recognized this.
Also in my vision, my Jesus would have been consistent from beginning of vision to end of vision. My Jesus lived kindness and forgiveness in his sojourn among us 2,000 years ago; and my Jesus could not but continue that kindness and forgiveness 10,000 years later – or a million years later. My Jesus would have to be consistent – doing later the same as he did before; and there would be no millennium where my Jesus would rule over others when in his life 2,000 years ago, he showed no interest in such rule. No rule now is no rule later – in terms of command. My Jesus could not change – anymore than I can change or Jessica can change – or would want to change.
Of course, it is to each his or her own, but I have long realized that Jessica yesterday is like Jessica today – and the Jessica of tomorrow will be the same as the Jessica of today. Jessica will not change; and neither will Jesus; and neither will you or I. Those who think that Jesus could have been a stoning god yesterday – and then lived an interim life of peace and forgiveness – just to return to a stoning god – have no idea of the real Jesus – or THE REAL GOD. Or so I Believe!
So, I had quite a day yesterday. I encountered with a light, a lamb, and a god. Will I have any difficulty selecting a favorite? You know I can’t. Who would choose a sacrificial lamb and condemning god over a light? No! I choose the light of Jessica, the light of Jesus – a never-changing-always-the-same-forgiving Jesus – and my own light too. The three of us will choose character as our main class – and one of us will teach the other – because we will all learn from each other’s example.
And where will we live? In the Light of THE GOD - THE GOD that is in everything and everyone. Little gods like Jehovah and Apollo select. THE ONE GOD simply Is. No one needs to go anywhere to find THE GOD because THE GOD is everywhere. Once again, that means quite simply that if THE GOD is everywhere, Everywhere is Heaven. Jesus may be where I am or he may be elsewhere. It does not matter in the least. With or without Jesus as actual personal companion, virtually anyone who believes in the Presence of Divinity everywhere and acts like it is automatically a companion of Jesus.
And that would be my vision!
Word of Caution
I am sure that many are saying, it can’t be true. There is no way that we may have been following a Peter Church all these years – no way. It is impossible that a billion minds and souls have led their lives expecting a Jesus of Authority when it is all a lie. Yes, I realize that the idea seems all too much to bear. To think that we could have been having Heaven here on Earth all this time – and that is what I am saying if it is true that when Thomas & Mary Magdalene departed Israel after the death of Jesus, Peter took over and cast his own view as that of Jesus.
I can’t prove it as true. No! It might not be. I might be the one suffering delusion – not Peter. On the other hand, I might be right too. All too often, people argue some point because it was written – as if that which was written has to be true; but I have long been aware that I cannot take what was written with me when I die. I can only take what is in my heart. In the final event, all that was written will not make any difference – in terms of actual truth. For me, if I believe what was written, then it may become true for me in my heart and that may make what was written as true for me as for the one who wrote it; but in truth, what was written and what is in my heart could be false.
In the end, it is up to each of us to make sense of life and not depend on others who think they may know the answers to decide for us; and that includes any who are reading this. It is not for me – or anyone – to decide for anyone else. If it makes sense, then I guess it is right for you to believe it – but I would issue a word of caution – make sure it makes sense before committing yourself to it.
The End of the World
As I see it, John’s vision in THE BOOK OF REVELATION had a lot to do with the end of the world. Let’s face it. It is a very dramatic idea because it is inescapable. Everything does end. I will die. You will die. Everything will die; but the end doesn’t scare me much anymore. Once, it did scare me; and I will admit that I was even terrified of the prospect – but not anymore. I have come to realize it is not what it seemed to be when I was scared of it. I think it scared John, though, and that is why he was so obsessed with it.
John talks a lot about death in THE BOOK OF REVELATION. He talks so much about it that one has to wonder if he saw anything else. At least, I don’t get a sense of anything else. I can’t read a single verse in THE BOOK OF REVELATION that says anything but dire to me, even though there is much that pretends to offer glimpses of life too. There is a constant dread and threat of death in John’s vision – from beginning to end. There’s death by sword, death by pestilence, death by earthquake, death by fire, death by disease, death by and at Armageddon - death, death, death! – but all because of sin that I do not believe exists because I believe that everything is sacred. I believe there is sin alright, but no inherent sin. Like the Jesus of THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, I believe there is no such thing as sin, except that I create it. I do not need to flee sin. I just need not to create it.
And what is creating sin? For me, it is the opposite of Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind – and love your neighbor as your self. In other words, sin is hate. Should I concentrate my energies on any kind of hate, I am sinning because my focus is not on love. There is no joy in hating – no matter what the hate – even if it be of sin. I don’t hate sin. I just love life. I don’t hate death. I respect it as part of the process of life-death-rebirth – that wonderful cycle that is in all of nature.
In THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Jesus was asked: Should we fast? How should we pray? Should we give alms? What diet should we observe? The Jesus of Thomas answered: Do not lie. Do not do what you hate. Beside needing to always tell the truth, it seems Jesus was high on not doing what you hate. That is exactly how I feel about sin. I think sin is hating – even if the hate is of something supposedly worthy of being hated – like sin itself. Why waste time hating when that same time can be spent loving? I can’t recall a moment that I really enjoyed hating anything. Some might argue that some hate is ok – like hatred of disease, for instance; and my reply would be: why not focus instead on love of life – and then disease might disappear for having no attention paid to it?
Personally, I have written a lot in my life, but almost none of my writing concentrates on hate or death. Almost all of it concentrates on life and loving; but not so John. For John, there may have been some kind of life at the end of the tunnel, so to speak, but no life within the tunnel. For John, it seems, life had no meaning except that it might lead to something, but that something can only be attained after death. Thus: his concentration on death. Death was his doorway to life; but little did he know about either death or life to be so consumed with death. I cannot imagine focusing on death when such focus distracts me from looking at life and loving it. Why in Heaven’s name would anyone want to look away from life to stare at death?
Yet death or the thought of it doesn’t scare me. Why doesn’t the end of me or the end of the world scare me? It’s because I think death in an illusion. I think death is real alright, but I think it’s also an illusion because as one thing ends, another begins. In terms of my death as Francis, I may be reborn as a Frances – as John may be reborn as a Joan. Importantly, however, the new Frances, reborn from the old Francis, will only be an extension of the former Francis. And that’s why death is an illusion – and it’s why it should not scare. I will not really end. I will only begin again; but I will begin again as Frances just as I ended as Francis. So, why should death scare me – unless I do not like the current Francis and dread continuing as such?
In THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, someone asked Jesus: tell us how our end will be. The Jesus of Thomas replied: Have you then discovered the beginning that you inquire about the end? And there it is: the end is likely only the beginning of another event, another journey, another adventure. So, what’s to fear about it?
But John of THE BOOK OF REVELATION – and Peter – were probably of the mind that they had to conquer death - perhaps by being willing to die a sacrificial death as if their deaths would impress some potential judge on the other side of death. Maybe their deaths did impress someone on the other side, but I don’t think I should have to die to impress another anymore than I should live to impress another.
Jessica & Francis
I am as I am – and you are as you are – because both of us have been blessed beyond any right of being blessed with life – the wonderful, mysterious, splendid gift of life. There is no reason to be obsessed with anything but that – and be aware of the Heaven at hand, as Jesus might say. Never mind the future – or fear it. As long as the present is truly adored, then the future can only be filled with adoration.
Jessica will continue as Jessica – though she may live again as Jesus. Jesus will continue as Jesus – though he may live again as Jessica. And Francis will continue as Francis – though he may live again as Frances.
Or so, I Believe!
Note:
A song about
choosing between visions follows.
A song
by
Francis William Bessler
4/30/2015
REFRAIN:
On the lighter side,
that's how I choose to see Life.
On the lighter side,
that's how I want to spend my time.
You can choose the dark if you want,
but you'll have to DREAM what you see.
I choose the lighter side;
it's the lighter side for me.
Hey, my fellow man,
it's time to celebrate
all of our wonder
and consider that our fate.
Refrain.
Hey, my fellow animals,
I'm so glad to be one with you.
Let us all enjoy
what is our common view.
Refrain.
Hey, my fellow angels,
welcome to the Earth.
Come on down, my friends
and let's share our common worth.
Refrain.
is to Live Our Values Everyday.
So let us all Love
and not one moment waste.
Refrain.
FINAL REFRAIN:
On the lighter side,
that's how I choose to see Life.
On the lighter side,
that's how I want to spend my time.
You can choose the dark if you want,
but you'll have to LIVE what you see.
I choose the lighter side;
it's the lighter side for me.
Yes, I choose the lighter side;
it's the lighter side for me.