As in Noah's Day

"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be in the day when the Son of Man returns." Matt 24:37

Jesus gives that warning sign in his famous prophecy of the end of the age (Matt 24 and parallel passages), where he also spoke about famines, plagues, earthquakes, and 'wars and rumors of wars,' all happening in diverse places (world-wide). Since most of those indicators have manifested throughout history, are Jesus' apocalyptic words of any help in identifying the approach of the end of the present age?

Jesus concludes his end times discourse by comparing the final days and events with the period preceding the Deluge that catastrophically marked the end of the previous age or aion. He points out that those coming days will resemble the time leading up to the great Flood, giving as examples that people then were 'eating and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage,' until the very day Noah boarded the ark. One suspects that those routines of life got interrupted by people pausing to regard the spectacle of old Noah getting his entourage aboard a strange vessel parked in the middle of high ground. Typical of human nature, there must have some boisterous jeering going on all the while. The 'for instances' recorded in the gospels seem intended to illustrate that life was going on as it always had; it was another, regular day in the antediluvian world. Apparently, then, there were no warning signs of impending doom. Or, there must have been some, but, typically, most people preferred to ignore them, clinging to the illusion that ignorance is bliss. Verse 39 (first part) states "and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away." They did not understand. How about that? The end of their world came apparently out of nowhere, as far as the majority were concerned.

While numerous commentators, both professional and amateur, have pointed to the descriptions in Matt 24 as 'proof' that we are presently living in the 'end times,' many others have summarily debunked them with the obvious observation that there have been earthquakes, plagues, famines, and wars almost continuously, somewhere or other on the planet ever since the days of Jesus. Hence, they argue, 'Why worry?' Repeatedly, since the days of Jesus, people have recalled his 'Olivet discourse,' and warned of impending doom... yet we are still here, waiting for Messiah.

A few astute students have noticed that there were other characteristics about the 'days' (meaning probably a few years) before the Flood that could find parallels in today's world scene. Clearly, we're not talking about eating, drinking, or marrying. No, it seems things were so bad that God regretted ever putting mankind on Earth (vs 6). Genesis 6:5 states: "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Verse 11 goes on to state "... the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence." Now there's some data we can see reflected in today's news! Again, the skeptics could argue that this is just business as usual on planet Earth, so not to worry. This argument looks valid superficially, but fails to see the full, implicit sweep of those sparse verses. Other esoteric writings, such as, particularly, the Book of Enoch, elaborate on the deplorable state of human affairs on the earth at that time. In fact, they go on to make the remarkable report that there were non-human races present on the earth, who were engaged in equally (if not more) deplorable activities. Even the Bible refers, fleetingly, to these interlopers as 'Nephilim' and giants (vs. 4) as many scholars have noted. And it seems quite apparent that these unsavory activities were, indeed, taking place world-wide; hence, God determined to destroy the entire planet, not just a region... as in actual fact, folkloric myths around the world can attest.

How does that jibe with today? Since about the start of the 20th century, the world has become a global community; people in one place are almost immediately aware of what goes on in another place. Culture (such as it is) can be instantly dispersed around the globe via modern technologies. By means of satellites and telecommunications, we are instantly aware of earthquakes, famines, wars, etc. wherever they erupt. So, while these disasters may have always existed somewhere, it is only recently that we can account for them as global events. Modern air transportation makes it almost inevitable that a disease outbreak in one place can quickly spread to far-off places, as happened dramatically with the case of 'SARS' a few years ago. That ease of dispersion is the main reason behind the paranoia behind the possibility of 'bird flu' (H5N1 strain) spreading among humans. So, we have the pandemics ('plagues' in Bible terms) such as HIV/AIDS, and regional famines. But there's much more.

Once again, evil forces are afoot to subvert a natural, productive world for all mankind, and to destroy the planet. If anyone thinks this is an extreme allegation, I respond that they need to consider the inevitable outcome of the various policies (both of intent, and of default) currently pursued by governments world-wide in the face of environmental crises. If you believe that global warming is indeed caused by human sources, then it is reasonable to expect that altering human activities could reverse the greenhouse effect. Yet the main culprits behind atmospheric pollution show no serious signs of any desire to change behavior-- nor do the governments with the authority to demand change. Regardless of whether climate change is due to human action or not, it is clear that continued, unabated pollution of the environment has already caused extinction of some species, and can only lead to further disasters and ultimately, environmental collapse.

As my other essays have argued, there is a covert cabal of uber-wealthy, self-centered controllers who are propelling the whole world with all possible dispatch towards a New World Order, wherein they hold absolute rule over the masses of humanity. To achieve this self-serving end, they are prepared to resort to whatever plan is expedient, regardless of the deaths, destruction, and suffering that may result. A perfect example right before us is Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and injured; millions have been displaced; the infrastructure is in ruins; the Iraqi gene-pool is corrupted by the reckless use of depleted uranium weapons... all for what? To please the lust for blood, oil, and mayhem of G.W. Bush and his insane henchmen, is about the only answer that makes 'sense,' if one can label it as such. It is clear that the game is not really just an American predilection. Cohorts like Tony Blair, John Howard, Nicholas Sarkozy, Israeli Knesset members, and so on, demonstrate that the coordination of the conspiracy is handled at a global level.

Sure, we've always had wars somewhere on Earth, but never before have we had such strong 'rumors of war.' For a time, the US administration was threatening North Korea with all kinds of force, including war, it was rumored, unless they suspended their nuclear ambitions. Hardly had that crisis been defused when the US decided that, despite a completely botched entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was time to invade Iran. This time, they denied the rumors; but the denials simply fueled more speculation. The rumors, in fact, are part of the arsenal of global, governmental terror used by the conspiracy to coerce nations and move events towards their desired goals. Truly, we live in a world of 'wars and rumors of war' as never before.

While crime ('evil'), too, has always existed in our midst, in the last century it has gone global, often by design. Drug cartels traffic their deadly commodities internationally, raising billions of dollars of criminal gains. To the incredulity of some innocent onlookers, the slave trade has revived in a big way, with trafficking of children and women as sexual slaves, and even men as indentured laborers. In defiance of UN accords, weapons are traded indiscriminately; land mines and cluster bombs are broadcast by the millions; children are forced to become killer-soldiers; and on it goes. In the 'developed countries,' unscrupulous people claw their way to the top of corporations and governments. Contrary to popular, Western belief, corruption of public officials is not something that mainly happens in third-world 'banana republics;' it has become part of everyday business in the Western world, too. Multinational corporations have tried to legitimize their tactics by embedding lobbying in the halls of power, but this just proves that the difference between criminals and businessmen is a pin-striped suit. Behind all the petty crime, and the organized crime, and the crime that pretends to be legitimate national and international business, there are always the nefarious, deceitful, mysterious agents of the NWO/Illuminati/Zionism, profiting from both sides of every struggle.

It is becoming pretty well known that the Illuminati draw their leadership from the members of 12 (some say 13) families or dynasties, who control virtually all banks and many transnational, mega-corporations, from behind the scenes. Interestingly, there are some investigators who believe that the present generation of these secretive controllers trace their ancestry back to the inter-married descendents of the Nephilim. This sounds like an incredible theory, and I have serious doubts about it; but there is no doubt that these families can be very selective in whom they are allowed to marry, as if intent on preserving some special blood-line. I mention it only to indicate that there may be additional, hidden parallels to the time of Noah than we can see on the surface.

Using their power over the mass media and entertainment industry, the dark forces have been steadily ratcheting up the level and explicitness of violence in our leisure distractions. On the one hand, they vigorously deny any link between their theatrical violence and the enacted aggression that manifests in real life... and yet they pour billions of dollars into highly contrived advertising because they know full well that the audio-visual imagery does, indeed, affect human behavior! Meanwhile, the masses sit mesmerized daily, for hours of voluntary mind-conditioning. As long as violence is happening to someone else, somewhere distant, we just turn off the TV and leave it at that. When we or someone in our family becomes involved in the horror of war or violence, then we learn its true, evil dimensions.

We have to understand that there are only two ways to live: either we sincerely embrace moral values, basic equality and inherent rights for all persons, and equitable sharing of resources... or else we continue on the present, insane path of denial, deception, hypocrisy, Darwinian corporatism, and see where it leads. The so-called Powers that Be have long-ago decided to pursue the latter, self-centered avenue with vigor, and it appears that nothing (short of miracles) can stop them now. They attained their rank and power by exercising every dirty tactic they believe in, and they are determined to drive this planet full speed into a collision with destiny. Every government is corrupt, beholden to the international, corporate, banking elite; pretending to uphold laws while simultaneously profiting from illegal activities now vital to the economy. The media are corrupt collaborators, pretending to report news while shaping it to advance the corporate agenda. Our religious leaders, for the most part, are also part of the problem, focusing the attention of their flocks on relative nonsense while lobbying the governments to persist in their worst policies. If you were God, looking at the state of affairs on this pathetic planet, what hope would you have that decent people could wake up, admit the situation, and somehow restore godly order, on their own power?

In summation, I would say with little hesitation that the world is essentially in the same state today as it was in the days of Noah, prior to the Deluge. And (as I've described in other essays) numerous traditions indicate that, once again, the solution to the mess we're in will appear as another global catastrophe, the 'hand of God,' if you will, that will bring the present age to an abrupt conclusion. Some readers will consider that to be bad news. All things considered, I'd say, on the contrary, it is not just good news, but inevitable news. A true Christian should be happy to foresee the destruction of an evil and perverse generation. A non-believer should take some comfort at the prospect that the universe operates according to rational laws, so that unbridled self-serving greed and immorality are not forever rewarded, but there are consequences for every action. We look forward to the next few years with mixed emotions.

[To clarify for atheists: I am not saying that Christians should either sit back and drift with the current, or else (as some US Evangelicals) promote and lobby for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in foolish, deluded hopes of hastening the hand of God. The point is that we can trust the words of Jesus. If he compared our time with the run-up to the Flood, then we would be wise to take it as a solid prediction. It is time to prepare our souls, not bow down to Zionist ambitions for renewed temple worship.]

Hostile towards Freedom-- What Gives?

A recent radio program had an interview with a Jewish writer whose latest book details his lifetime of neurotic fears of a vengeful, capricious Ogre in the sky, the God of his childhood, based on common perceptions of the Old Testament. This view, of course, is perhaps the one most popular among both religious people and, curiously, atheists too. In this essay, I don't intend to explore that warped outlook, except to look at one unfortunate consequence of its inherent legalism. I will illustrate what sounds like an abstract concept with a recent, true-life anecdote.

In mid-winter, a friend asked for my help in moving to another city. She wanted me to drive a truck with her furnishings across the mountains to her new abode. I was available, and so agreed. Besides, I thought it would give me an opportunity to re-establish contact with a former friend that I hadn't seen for several years. I telephoned said friend-- let's call him Tom-- and he seemed happy to hear from me, even letting me stay in his home for the few days I'd be there. Things really fell into place, and a drive that can be a horror in winter snow squalls turned out to be a cake-walk. The move went smoothly, and the visit with Tom seemed to go well, too... despite a few awkward moments that we quickly passed over. Obeying an inner voice, I waited till the morning I departed before telling him that I'd left a set of books that I thought he'd find very interesting to read.

Once home, I sent an e-mail message to thank my hosts for their hospitality. Tom's wife-- the official e-mail communicator-- replied very quickly, asking for my mailing address. Hmmm... okay, I sent her my address... with a slight apprehension mixed with curiosity. Was he sending me a book for my perusal? Several days later, I got a notice in the mail that a package was waiting for me at the post office. I walked down and picked up the package. It was a large envelope that had torn and was re-packaged by the postal service; but I could feel several books inside, and then noticed that they were, in fact, the same ones I had left him. He's a speed-reader, you may be thinking. Not! He was giving those books the bum's rush back to me; but as I intimated, I wasn't completely surprised at this. Tom is a man of stubbornly-held beliefs, and doesn't brook dissent lightly.

Something did surprise me, though. It was a hand-scribbled note he had included with the books, and it was probably the rudest letter I'd ever received, even from enemies. In it, he called me a deluded fool, and biblically illiterate; and had even worse descriptions for the author of the books-- who happens to be a friend of mine. I was, frankly, rather stunned. Especially so, since earlier the same day, I had received another e-mail from his wife in which she stated that 'Tom hopes you will not take offense at our religious differences,' or words to that effect! 'Sure,' I thought to myself, 'why would anyone take offense at being called a deluded fool?' The whole episode had a surreal feel to it.

After sitting on it for a day, I sent an e-mail to Stan, the friend who wrote the offending books. Later, he telephoned me, and sounded quite up-beat. 'Don't worry,' he said; 'it's not you; your friend is not even aware of why he reacted so violently to the books.' In view of that last e-mail from Tom's wife, I thought Stan may be on to something. He explained further that Tom was unconsciously under the influence of a controlling spirit of legalism. It sounds far-fetched to the non-religious mind, but could be re-cast in contemporary terminology. You see, the whole tone of Tom's note was of indignation. He was highly indignant that I had had the temerity to even suppose that he would lower himself to entertain the premise of Stan's books. His note avowed that he had taken all of 'ten minutes' to ascertain that these tomes were full of nonsense not worthy of a Bible student like him. Like the Pharisees condemned by Jesus, Tom was deeply offended, and spared no language in conveying his disgust to me, an erstwhile 'friend.'

Thinking back to a previous incident, years before, I realized that Stan had a valid observation. On that occasion, I attended a small conference with Stan where speakers presented papers on matters relating to Bible study. One of the presenters was another friend of mine, at the time; let's call him Ken. I was familiar with Ken's favorite Biblical hobby-horses, most of which I tended to share, and had just become enthused with Stan's new insights. Innocently, I thought they should meet each other, and we'd all have a grand time sharing our views. Wrong, again! As soon as Ken met Stan, he immediately got on the defensive and we ended up having a very unpleasant lunch together. I was somewhat flummoxed; but Stan was surprisingly sanguine about it. Later, he told me the same thing-- when a person is under the spell of legalism, they simply will not listen to any other viewpoint. In fact, they seem to detect the spirit of freedom at once, and react viscerally and bluntly, often acting completely out of character with rudeness never before witnessed. Frankly, I wouldn't have believed such things until I had first-hand experience, seeing it happen before my amazed eyes.

Today, I am passing on this experience to other lone warriors of truth, who may wonder why many of their listeners are not just indifferent to their message, but outright hostile... even before they get to discuss it. The unbelievers you encounter will almost always gracefully decline your attempts to enlighten them; their attitude is usually 'Nice try... but I'm really not interested.' And that's fine; it's their choice entirely, as God wants. It's the so-called Christians who get riled up and indignant; 'How dare you attempt to expose them to your heretical garbage!' is their typical manner of response. So, as Jesus said, don't waste your pearls of wisdom on those of hardened hearts; where you are not welcome, shake the dust of that place from your shoes, and just carry on to the next destination (Matt 7:6; Mark 6:11).

As Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation: "For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?" (2 Cor 2:15-16, NIV) Paul recognized the same phenomenon: that some hearers of his message find it deathly intolerable, while those who are open find it refreshing. We bearers of the message are equal to the task by the grace and power of God within us. There's no point trying to argue with the former group; their spiritual ears are blocked by hardening of the attitudes. Paul provided a penetrating analysis of the response of his Israelite countrymen to the gospel, in 2 Corinthians 3 (NIV; italics added): "[14] But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. [15] Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. [16] But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [17] Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [18] And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

Although Paul was writing about the Jews of his day, there's no reason to suppose that his analysis doesn't apply equally 'even to this day' to anyone who focuses religious attention on the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant. As he states metaphorically, a veil covers their 'heart,' meaning their ability to see spiritual reality. That veil, that blinder, is only removed, Paul affirms, whenever one turns to the Lord, Jesus. And as he states in several other epistles, the Spirit of the Lord equates to freedom and life... while the letter of the Law is slavery and death. It seems simple enough: look to Jesus and enjoy the freedom that he purchased on our behalf, or look to the Law and remain in bondage to its stony demands. The legalistic Christians (the 'Judeo-Christians') don't want to admit to legalism, however; they think they can have one eye on Jesus and the other eye on the Law, and somehow get the 'best of both covenants!' They attempt this ploy, despite the clear words of scripture that you can't have it both ways-- either you are under Law or under Christ. Choose today which god you will serve (Gal 3:2-5; & 11-13; Rom 10:3-5); choose between life and death, as even the Old Testament challenged (Deut 30:19).

Only the Holy Spirit can soften the hard heart of the covert legalist... and then, only if the soul is willing. Those with 'unveiled faces' who are open to the message of liberty, are being transformed by the renewing of their thinking into closer relationship with Christ, as Paul again notes in more than one letter. Remember, Jesus himself inaugurated his mission by quoting Isaiah: "He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Those goals he accomplished, not merely in the physical sense, but spiritually as well. So yes, you can always pray for those 'blind guides of the blind' to listen to the still, small voice that beckons them to freedom. Some of them will eventually crack, and let the light shine in.

Covenant Confusion, Old and New

It is a source of constant amazement to me how certain ideas get so entrenched in our collective psyches that it doesn't matter how erroneous they are, they are just accepted as given. A half-century ago, it was the case that anyone could smoke a cigarette anywhere they pleased, and everyone just assumed that it was a harmless indulgence. It took several generations of disease-induced deaths and a battle with the tobacco industry to finally put an end to that dangerous mass delusion. In the realm of religion, there are numerous examples of assumptions that are blithely accepted by millions of believers, but may be deadly to their spiritual well-being.

One area of Bible study that has experienced extreme misunderstanding is the covenant of Moses, also known as the Sinai Covenant, or the 'Covenant of Works' by scholars. Everyone who discourses on this premier covenant of the Old Testament of the Bible presumes the belief that it was, in fact, a covenant of works. In other words, it was a deal between God and the Israelites whereby if one faithfully observes the Law (understood as the 'Ten Commandments' by Christian pundits, but as a full 613 laws by Jews) then that person will merit salvation in the afterlife. At least, that is the way that generations of both Jews and Christians seem to comprehend the Old Covenant. It seems perfectly straightforward: you mind your 'Ps and Qs' like a good boy or girl, and when you die, you get your eternal reward. Isn't that what a covenant of works is all about? Many people of all belief systems around the world have believed this 'OT gospel' over the centuries of human history. Today, it remains the story that Judaism relies on as its hope for the afterlife; and, sadly, it persists in the minds of many Christians as a hazy description of the 'obscure half of the gospel' proclaimed in their churches. But, is this notion correct; is it a biblically valid doctrine?

My clear conclusion from a plain reading of the scriptures is that this notion-- that the OC promised salvation for obedience to the Law-- is completely wrong! However, the error began right within the pages of the Pentateuch itself (the first five books of the Bible). Deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 25, states: "It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us." It was understood that without righteousness no-one could stand before God, so by attaining righteousness through law-keeping, the people of Israel expected to deserve salvation. This seems to be the beginning of their assumption that obeying the Law would give individuals a ticket into heaven. Yet, amazingly, verse 24, just before, states: "So the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today." In other words, they indicated that it was a group covenant for 'our' (national) survival. (See also Exodus 19:5-6). So what gives?

If you read the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, what you find is copious language that makes it clear that God was addressing the entire tribe of Israel through their representative Moses (and later, Joshua). In His words, God promised to give the rootless people of Israel a homeland, and to give them prosperity and dominance as a nation. Now, let's back up a moment and remember what happened in the book of Exodus. This book (the next after Genesis) is the story of the descendents of the grandson of Abraham, who started with the name Jacob and earned the name (or title) Israel, meaning 'overcomer.' Recall that Jacob went to Egypt with his extended family of 11 sons (the 12th son, Joseph, was already there) at the time of a great, widespread famine in the land where he was living, Canaan. They came as honored guests of the Egyptian government, and apparently life was so cushy there that they decided to stay. In fact, they stayed for 430 years, long enough to out-last their welcome and to fall into slavery. By then, the original family had followed the laws of exponential growth, and numbered roughly 600,000 adult males-- which seems to be how they conducted a census in those days (Ex 12:37). Obviously, the children of Israel must have totaled something in the region of 1.5 million souls, which would have constituted a virtual nation within a nation. At the time of the Exodus, picture this great assembly of people suddenly uprooted and sent off into the barren wilderness. All they had ever known was Egyptian rule of law and socio-economic system. Apparently, they had preserved their original culture, language, and religious beliefs as an identifiable social community, over those centuries.

Now, God leads them out of the confines of Egypt and into the great wilderness of 'Sin' (or Sinai) where they are following this 80-year old prophet to some 'promised land.' Allow yourself to imagine the situation, if you can. Then it becomes clearer why God, together with Moses, had to supply this group of refugees with a complete 'constitutional package'-- a moral code (the Ten Commandments), a legal code (elaborated in Deuteronomy), a health and nutrition code, and a comprehensive worship system (the Levitical, sacrificial system). Clearly, this assembly was not left to drift, but God provided all they needed to exist as a new nation in the midst of other established nations. In this optic, the true nature of the Old Covenant at Sinai starts to take shape. Going back now to the fine print of the covenant, it must be noticed that God prefaced His promises of national ascendancy with a big 'IF!' Without taking another, side excursion to consider the structure of OT covenants, suffice it to say (and readers are urged to verify for themselves) that these agreements were entered into by spokesmen for two parties, and spelled out benefits and penalties for observance or abrogation of the stipulations. Both the book of Leviticus (ch. 26) and Deuteronomy (ch. 28) spell out in starkly worded verses, first, the blessings Israel could expect from adherence to the terms (essentially, the Law) and next, the curses that would befall them if they should fail to live up to those conditions. Notice the nature of the blessings and curses: they are all 'group benefits' and 'group penalties.' It is all about national success or national disaster; there is nothing at all about personal salvation!

Well then, one wants to know, how did the people come to think of the covenant as a personal covenant of works? That's a good question, especially when you read the NT book of Hebrews and see that the writer acknowledges this same erroneous interpretation. (He merely reflects back to his readers what they assume to be true of the Mosaic covenant, then goes on to substantiate how the new covenant is superior in all respects.) I think the reason the Israelites got it confused so badly is wrapped up in three main problems. And once the false notion got entrenched in their thinking, it got handed on to the later Christians in the same, garbled form.

First, they did not understand the covenant God had made with their ancestor, Abraham, although they were mighty proud to be his descendents. Since God had made unequivocal promises to Abraham (unlike the Sinai contract) the Israelites presumed that they were automatically covered by right of birth. You can see that attitude even in the arrogant words of the Jews of Jesus' day (Jn 8:33). They just didn't clue in to the clear words of their scriptures that 'Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness' (Gen 15:6). In other words, the basis of their patriarch's righteousness was his belief, his faith in God; not anything he did. Yet his descendents didn't appreciate the value of faith; they found it more to their liking to assume that good works were just as acceptable, if not more so, than 'mere faith.'

And that leads to the second reason, which is that they were predisposed to think in terms of works, as are all humans operating in the flesh. We are raised in a system of reward and punishment from our earliest days of consciousness, and our societies function in the same manner. Remember that at least the last generation of Israelite adults had been raised as slaves of the Egyptians. Slaves cannot operate as free agents; they either follow the rules, or else they are punished. It's a simple system. To free ourselves from such cultural, genetic blinders can only be done with spiritual insight. It is far easier to just ask for a set of rules to follow, a simple and familiar formula. "All the people answered together and said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do!' And Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord." (Exodus 19:8). Apparently, they thought this was going to be 'a piece of cake!' It is this 'servant mentality' that seems to be the hardest habit to break for humans. The plight of Israel is illustrative of the dilemma facing every individual who hears God's gospel of freedom: are you going to believe that you are really free... or are you just unable to accept such an absurd offer that comes with no strings (other than you must believe it, of course)? Sadly, most individuals, and societies, just cannot fully grasp this incredible offer. Read for yourself Paul's stern and scriptural attempts to liberate his Galatian congregation, especially in chapter 4, verses 21-31.

Third, they failed to understand the significance of the sacrificial system of worship spelled out in their covenant package. Again, this failure really harks back to not appreciating the Abrahamic covenant of faith, combined with the desire for simplistic, works-based solutions. Had they understood that the burnt offerings ('holocausts') offered twice daily for the nation, and the other specific sacrifices for individual sins, and the annual Day of Atonement, were all intended to point them forward in faith to the coming promised one, the Messiah, then the whole history of Israel would have been hugely different! It is true that this foreshadowing is not explicitly stated in the texts, yet we can see that King David, for example, expressed an understanding of the Abrahamic covenant in the verses of his psalms (e.g. 51, 85). The book of Job, considered a very early scripture, also expresses the NT gospel (e.g. 19:25). Some 1,200 years after the Exodus, the writer of Hebrews clearly saw 'the big picture' of the covenants, and understood exactly what differentiated the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant from the 'New Covenant.' Obviously well versed in covenant law, this writer had no problem 'seeing' how the OT presaged or foreshadowed the New, and how the Mosaic provisions were mere 'types' or images of the later, genuine, heavenly realities. Notice ch 8, vs 6: "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises." He can confidently affirm that this new agreement is founded on better promises than the Old because he realizes that the covenant sealed by Jesus promises eternal life to the believer-- not merely national greatness in this present world. (See also ch 7, vs 18).

In all fairness, we should not be too harsh in judging the OT people of Israel; most of us would not have done any better in their situation. They had just emerged from slave status; then they were handed a big rule-book with dozens of regulations designed to help them live an orderly, communal life. It is natural that they would assume that if they just followed the rules, they must be doing what God wants; ergo, they must be righteous. The other pitfall lies in the very rituals themselves (the Levitical rites). It is characteristic of human nature that anything done on a repetitive basis eventually becomes 'routine,' mundane, and loses much of its meaning. How many Christians sit through weekly services over the years until it's like a sleep-walk? So too, the Israelites had their burnt offerings and sacrifices for their 'sins.' But how long was it before the rituals became purely 'cultural?' Today, believers in every faith go through their prescribed routines, recite their prayers, make their pilgrimages... and then go about life as always. This innate tendency to regress all ritual to the mean of habit and custom is one of the biggest dangers of all works-based systems! It's only when we internalize faith, base it on the constant attunement to the promptings of the Spirit of God, that we can avoid the subliminal, dulling influence of routine.

That's what the scriptural record shows: a few, spirit-led individuals understood the everlasting gospel-- that God provides for all our spiritual needs through His anointed one, the Messiah-- while the vast majority remained stuck in their preferred interpretation that they could earn righteousness, hence salvation, by following the 'works formula.' That's why Paul wrote in 2 Cor 3: "[14] But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. [15] Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts." In other words, they suffer from spiritual blindness, just as today, do the majority of Christians who simply sit and listen to a pastor preach to them, without studying scripture for themselves. So then, how does one get cured of this miserable condition? Paul continues, [16] "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." Turning to the Lord requires a teachable heart, a willingness to seek for truth, to ask for guidance, and to respond to the Spirit of God. (Matt 7:8).

As I intimated above, this condition of spiritual blindness is not just something that affected Israel of the OT, or even that affects the modern Jewish faith. No; it is a pernicious condition that afflicts the contemporary organizations that claim allegiance to Jesus Christ. 'How are the churches blind?' you wonder; don't they proclaim the gospel? That's the problem-- they do not! Sure, they think they do, when they tell people that Jesus has won the victory over Satan and by believing in Jesus we can be saved. But-- they almost always add a 'but' to the effect that after accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior, we must then 'keep the Ten Commandments' for the rest of our lives to ensure our salvation. This is not what 'righteousness by faith' means! We are falling into the same trap as the Israelites in the wilderness when we let the pastors sell us that bogus, two-step gospel. By now, the casual reader may be confused, because isn't that what the NT teaches? Again, no! Check for yourself; when Paul was asked by the Philippian jailor 'What must I do to be saved?,' he replied very directly: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31). Jesus had already stated the same idea during his ministry (see Jn 3:16, Jn 6:28-29). You see, we've been mind-conditioned, programmed, to expect that there's got to be a 'performance clause' in the agreement somewhere-- but it just isn't there! When God gives a free gift, it is truly free. We fleshly humans just can't seem to 'get it,' because it's so contrary to the way we do things. What the nominal 'Christian' churches have been peddling all these centuries is really 'Judeo-Christianity,' a doomed attempt to live the New Covenant life using an Old Covenant, Israelite mind-set. The fact is, it just doesn't work! See Matthew 9:16-17, and now you will understand those condensed parables!

It's not just my opinion that the churches are off-track and spiritually blind. Jesus himself states it bluntly in Revelation 3 (:14-19) in his address to the church of Laodicea, which many scholars accept as representative of the Christian church in the latter days. The Lord acknowledges that they perform 'deeds,' but he states that they have become mere observances ('lukewarm') conducted by 'blind' followers. Going further, the false gospel of traditional teaching also explains why it is necessary for 'another angel' (Rev 14:6) to proclaim the everlasting gospel in apocalyptic times, to correct the erroneous message. What makes the gospel the 'good news' is precisely the fact that it is a free gift and there's nothing for the believer to prove. Does that mean I advocate anarchy? By no means! A full explanation requires another essay, but if a true believer accepts Jesus, then he becomes open to the promptings of the Spirit of God, and that Spirit leads us to right choices and putting the law of love into action in our lives. It is a matter of following the 'still, small voice' within-- not of running down a check-list of 'don'ts!' (E.g. Rom 12:2, Heb 5:14, etc.). Only when we take our eyes off the Law, and unto Jesus, can a believer be empowered and ready to begin the process of transformation into his image. That's what 'lukewarmness' is pointing at-- this attempt to mix the fervent heat of Jesus' gospel with the old, stony coldness of law-keeping! That's why Jesus wants to vomit it from his mouth! Did he win freedom for us at the cross, or not? If you believe he did, then it's time to grow up in the Spirit, escape the schoolmaster, and actualize that belief in your Christian life. (Gal 3:2-5, 22-26; Heb 5:13-14, 10:29). Face it-- there is NO hybrid gospel in either the Old or the New Covenants! Either put your faith in Christ... or keep trying to add works to the gospel, and fail.

My hope is that the reader will now have a firm understanding of the two major covenants of the Bible, how literal Israel and then figurative Israel (the 'Church') got the story confused, and why the 'eternal gospel' is almost too good to be true. These are all crucial turning points of doctrine, and the heart-converted Christian must understand them in order to resist the strong wine of delusion being poured out by Satan and his agents to intoxicate believers and render them prey to all manner of deceptive doctrines. And perhaps the worst of those lies is that we are under obligation to the same Commandments as the Israelites were during the Old Testament era. Surely the obvious question for all believers should be: What makes the New Covenant 'new'? Once you discover the answer to this conundrum, you are on the road to spiritual freedom and insight. May the Spirit of God enlighten every reader who diligently searches the scriptures to see if this message is true, and to find the everlasting gospel of Jesus.

Truth or Consequences? Religion or Not?

Few people would deny that the world is in a state of turmoil provoked by political events, ecological disruptions, and disturbing earth changes. All indications are that these factors will continue to increase; therefore, we can expect the world to become more tumultuous in the future. People have different ways of dealing with these manifestations, depending largely on their individual personality. Yes, I say it's personality, not knowledge or intellect or some other trait. For instance, many (perhaps the majority) simply immerse themselves in the busy-ness of life, keeping their scheduler and their mind so occupied that they have no time to consider the state of their world. Others can't tolerate 'bad news,' so they deliberately avoid 'news' as supplied by the media, and go about their routines listening to their favorite tunes in their iPods. A minority are morbidly fascinated by the dark images discernible in the reporting of global events, some persons becoming neurotic over them, and others preparing for 'Armageddon.' The easiest coping mechanism is always denial, and to really demonstrate effective denial, we ramp up the partying, buy more unnecessary gadgets, drive a bigger vehicle, engage in more risky sports, and so on.

Part of this whole 'future shock' syndrome is a reaction to sheer information overload-- we are bombarded by a relentless torrent of 'information' daily; some of it useful and necessary; some of it devoid of application to our harried lives. The problem is, we don't always know what information is worthwhile, and what isn't. And since we're swamped with it, we tend to ignore some information that may be valuable, but we just don't spend the time to investigate it. Or, we may realize that we should check into it, so we take the digested, summarized, edited version offered by a supposed expert, and we now feel that we've got all we need on that subject. It's this reliance on the opinions of others that gets us into the most trouble as a society. (And any derivative commentary on an original source is always an opinion to some degree.) Because the fact is, that too many of these experts have their own agenda to fulfill, and knowing the faith that people vest in them, they present a version of reality that serves their own ulterior purposes. The flocks that have bought into those opinions then carry on their lives based on these views. And since they have paid for them, either with money or personal approbation, or both, they then feel compelled to support those views, often vehemently. That is the dilemma facing every individual in this dawning decade of the 3rd millennium.

Inside the 'soul' of every human, (however you understand soul), there is a small voice that cries out for meaning, as described in the book, 'Man's Search for Meaning,' by Viktor Frankl. We want our lives to mean something-- not just existence like an animal before passing back to dust. To mean something implies that there must be truth, otherwise all is illusion. So the dilemma of existence is what is truth and how do I find it? Anyone with a little experience browsing the Worldwide Web soon realizes that there are manifold versions of truth available to the shopper. All kinds of theories of the origins of humanity, our purpose, our nature, abound in the sphere of speculation. Each proclaims itself the 'answer' to our perplexity, and explicitly or tacitly dismisses all other theories as false. Great! As the old German proverb goes, he who has choice has problems! What can the seeker do in such a confusing situation? Again, the selected path seems to depend to a large extent on personality. Some people can place their faith in someone else's ideas or experiences, and leave it at that. Others reject all theories, and just soldier grimly on, increasingly aware of the great void awaiting them at the end of life. And so we have the religions of the world, proclaiming a convenient, all-inclusive package of answers for the eager adherent, while there's the curious and dreary non-belief package of atheism that purports to explain existence as a mere accident and hence, devoid of ultimate meaning.

Obviously, I don't care much for either product. But, what else is there? Well, I have to reject atheism because of its inherent nihilism, which taken to the logical conclusion should lead to suicide of the individual (at least upon nearing death) and chaos for society-- both of which we are seeing manifest presently. So then, I'm stuck with religion, you say. Not exactly... if we follow the argument. This is where so many people get it wrong, and make a deadly mistake! They quite rightly observe the terrible wrongs perpetrated in the name of religion, all around the world and down thru history... and so they throw out the whole notion of religion as a sorry concoction of human imagination. God didn't create Man, they decide; instead, Man created God as an expedient 'Big Daddy in the Sky' to give our lives the meaning that an accidental universe lacks. Others are exposed to some religion by birth or circumstance, and once mind-conditioned in the system, simply live out their lives in nominal or, perhaps, zealous acquiescence. A few individuals take the initiative to look into their faith to see what it teaches. However, they generally do so by reading (hearing) the explanations provided by anointed spokesmen for their faith tradition. These teachers are supposed to have all the answers-- the answers rehearsed and supplied by the organization to respond to any question raised by those on the inside or from outside. Rarely does a believer go back to the source of his/her fundamental beliefs to see what the originators had to say. And if a seeker should decide to investigate the origins, few of them are aware of the degree to which their findings are pre-determined by their pre-existing beliefs.

There's the rub! Either we reject out of hand, without serious investigation, the claims of religion; or else, we subscribe blindly to the nostrums dispensed by the zealous purveyors of religious snake-oil. The dilemma is really another instance of the classic Hegelian dialectic choice-- an artificial splitting of all problems into just two opposing choices-- which inherently limits the thinking of the chooser. Who says there are only two choices? Why can't there be more options? You see, the problem is that the option that is being offered to the world as 'religion' is a false choice! Religion was never meant to be pre-packaged and retailed through franchises that we call churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. The religious experience is supposed to be between each person and the 'higher power,' however we can presently understand it. By interposing an organization between the believer and 'God,' unscrupulous humans have perverted the belief systems to their own malevolent ends. Cynics sneer that all wars are caused by religion. Obviously that's an exaggeration; but there's a certain amount of truth to it. Every organized religion behaves like a franchise, and desires to expand its market share. It does this by competing for believers, and that competition inevitably leads to conflict. And so we see battles between major religions (e.g. Muslims vs Hindus), but also battles (usually bloodier) between sects of the same religion (e.g. Catholics vs Protestants; Sunnis vs Shias).

What I'm trying to say is that at their fundaments, most religions are benign, beneficial, and peace-loving. It's when they get organized formally that they become prey to the opportunists who know how to manipulate any group of well-meaning people into a force for mischief. More than that, I am advocating the idea that true, primal Christ-based faith is the one, trustworthy path towards intellectual and spiritual freedom for all who investigate for themselves. I think there are many who call themselves atheists because they have seen the false dichotomy offered to them, and have reluctantly taken the only selection that made sense to them. What I urge such atheists to do is to bypass the retailers, and go directly to the source. Don't read commentaries on the Bible; go and read it for yourself! Here's how to go about it. First, don't get dissuaded by the notion that you have to read the King James version with its 'thees and thous,' and run-on grammar. Get a modern language version, and read it with a highliter in hand. Second, I recommend that every seeker should start reading the New Testament, not the Old. It's true that the NT presents the fulfillment of OT prophecy and foreshadowing; but it makes for much easier understanding and gets to the heart of Jesus' mission. Once the NT has been studied, the seeker can then go back and read the OT with much more insight and comprehension, without getting bogged down by the apparent inconsistencies and cultural peculiarities, and so on. If one reads with a genuine desire for enlightenment-- not to confirm preconceived biases-- one will be struck with the overall coherence of Biblical scripture (e.g. how the themes in the OT are echoed and fulfilled in the NT). As the seeker continues to delve into scripture, more and more truth is uncovered to his/her mind. I don't claim that you will find the meaning of everything in those pages-- that's not its purpose. You will, though, find everything you need to live a meaningful life, and to be confident of your existence in the after-life. Try it. And for you former Christians, I say 'try it again, for the first time!'

Bible Describes End-time Church

Probably no book of the Bible has received as much speculation-- idle to bizarre-- as the enigmatic book of Revelation. The most credible scholars recognize that the entire book is written in symbols, using vaguely familiar images from the Old Testament re-worked and imbued with new spiritual significance. It presents insights of value to Christians of all ages, but is considered primarily as some kind of screenplay of the future, complete with science-fictional overtones in some readers' mind (not mine). Among the more accessible passages of the book are the first three chapters wherein John envisions Jesus providing specific messages to the 'seven churches of Asia Minor;' which most scholars take to represent seven ages or facets of the Christian Church, from post-apostolic to the 'latter days.' While these verses appear to address historical issues, there are still numerous overlays of symbolism that puzzle readers to this day. One of the sparely worded descriptions that Jesus levels at the last church, the Laodicean congregation, is the term 'lukewarm.' I would like to discuss that single, simple-looking term.

While the casual reader is tempted to dismiss the word lukewarm as self-evident, or insignificant, or even opaque, the fact is that this one word has enormous significance for the Christian Church of these apocalyptic times. Various theories have been advanced to describe the underlying meaning of the symbolic term lukewarm. Let's consider the more common ones before I get to a new analysis.

One theory, perhaps the most obvious, is that it refers to insipidness, that is, to a lack of zeal, a listlessness that characterizes the people who nominally profess faith in Christ. Well, it's easy to agree that this view makes a lot of sense-- on the surface. We live in an era of enormous wealth and general ease of life, amid a secular, multicultural society; therefore it is difficult for churches to motivate their flocks to promote the Christian message vigorously. That's a rather superficial understanding, but it has some validity. An obvious flaw with this literal view is that it hardly conforms to the generally symbolic or metaphorical tone to the overall book.

Another theory, that I have only heard from one erudite pastor, makes some sense on first examination. He proposed that the lukewarm condition is really referring to the motivation of the believers' heart. Noting that Jesus' words admit of 'deeds' by the Laodiceans, he claims that the deeds are being performed largely out of 'fleshly' motives-- i.e. for personal prestige, to promote denominations, to gain new tithe-payers, for bragging rights on new converts, and so on. Again, there's a lot of credibility to this outlook. We've all cringed at those TV evangelists who seem so transparently phony, and who've been uncovered as self-indulgent, hypocritical multi-millionaires. But not all Christians are like that, even among those in the spotlight. And besides, that condition is not easily allegorized as lukewarm, since it is really hypocrisy. Could there be more to the metaphorical condition than that?

To understand the third explanation for lukewarmness, we first need to grasp some important background. We have to consider how the gospel of Christ is understood, and promoted to the world by the mainstream organizations that profess to be Christian. First, what is the 'gospel?' Well, the word means 'good news,' right? But what is that good news? Christians would recite the rehearsed line that it's the teaching that Jesus died for our sins and opened the way for mankind to have eternal life. 'How do we get that eternal life?,' people want to know. We respond, 'by believing in Jesus Christ.' 'Is that all?,' the hearer inquires. 'Not quite,' the evangelist replies. Once you've confessed your sins, and accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, you must live the rest of your life in obedience to the Ten Commandments. There may be various ways of formulating (or disguising) this 'packaged gospel,' but basically, those are the elements that 'official Christianity' proclaims. You may argue that this isn't so. My counter-argument is that, if it isn't so, it is certainly the picture that the vast majority of people understand to be the Christian message, as numerous polls and interviews demonstrate.

Many readers will accept that version of the gospel with tacit comprehension, and never notice something peculiar about it. The main churches have been promulgating that gospel paradigm for centuries, and it rarely is challenged; certainly not by insiders, those employed by the denominations. So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is that this bifurcated gospel is a non-scriptural hybrid. It states, on the one hand, that salvation is attained through faith, through belief in Christ; and then appends, on the other hand, that after exercising initial faith, the believer is thereafter under obligation to 'keep the Commandments' in order to ensure their salvation! This desire to have it all, the old ways plus the new, was the very problem tackled by Paul in his straightening letter to the Galatian believers. Once made explicit like this, the two-pronged gospel must be admitted as 'problematical' at the least. Yet, I know from hard, first-hand experience that legions of 'scholars' have worked feverishly over the centuries in Herculean efforts to square the theological circle, and justify the imposition of this crossbreed gospel. [*]

Now we are in a suitable position to discern the true intent behind the application by Jesus of the word 'lukewarm' in describing the end-times church of emblematic Laodicea. The 'Alpha and Omega' states [3:15] "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!" He goes on to state his utter disgust with this loathsome condition; he wants to vomit this congregation from his mouth! What is it about this condition that is so abhorrent to our Lord? Is it merely a lack of zeal? In his address to the church at Sardis, he admonishes their flagging company as 'dead' and advises them to wake up; but he certainly does not indicate guttural distaste for them. Is it worldly motivation that so disgusts Christ? Again, rather dubious. My thesis is that the lukewarm condition is referring to the unscriptural hybrid gospel being promulgated by the mainstream churches of today.

Lukewarm means neither hot nor cold, a mix of the two extremes of heat and cold that results in an insipidness that is muddled and impotent. Worse than that, this chimera really casts aside the ineffable sacrifice of Jesus and his boundless grace toward us (Heb 10:29). Why does Jesus say that he wishes 'you were either one or the other'? Well, if this church were 'hot,' that would mean (in my analysis) that they were committed to the true gospel of liberty that he proclaimed in his earthly ministry, and in that case, they are already full citizens of the heavenly kingdom. On the other hand, if they were 'cold,' that would mean that they adhere purely to law-keeping as their mode of salvation. (And remember, most world religions fall into this camp; besides Judaism, there's Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc.) In this case, the Holy Spirit has scope to exercise His influence in convicting their hearts and leading them towards truth. They are reachable. In between those extremes, exist the pseudo-legalists-- they deny they are legalists because they "accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior;" but, just to be safe, they also accept the yoke of Moses Law! Hence, their lukewarm condition.

These lukewarm people-- those who mix Jesus' gift with Judaic law-keeping-- are in the most miserable state because they are so difficult to reach. Jesus states '[17] You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' In other words, this group believes they have acquired the riches of all truth, already, and have no further need of anything. That's why Jesus admonishes them bluntly: 'But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.' That is a damning condemnation that our Church leaders of all stripes do not seem to take very seriously! The worst aspect is their self-righteousness and self-satisfaction, so that they do not realize their terrible condition! If any extra proof is needed to support my view that lukewarmness relates to mixing law and grace, it is found right in that verse and the next (17,18), where Jesus refers to the necessity to cover their 'shameful nakedness.' As is well known by Bible students, Jesus used this same metaphor in the parables ('the wedding feast,' Matt 11-13; the prodigal son, Lk 15:22) to symbolize the covering garment of God's grace provided by the shed blood of His Messiah. And blindness is precisely the same charge Jesus leveled at the Pharisees on numerous occasions, for their unwillingness to see beyond the surface and to discern with spiritual insight how he fulfilled 'the Law and the Prophets' (Lk 16:1).

What can be done with such a congregation? Jesus offers his remedy: [18] 'I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.' It seems odd to advise people to 'buy' gold if they are 'poor,' doesn't it? Yet Jesus is obviously advising his hearers to purchase, by whatever sacrifice required (perhaps pride), the purified gold of the blood-bought gospel, the gift of inestimable value. Those white garments are, as we know, the symbol of his salvation that covers the stained rags of our pathetic self-generated righteousness. And the salve, like oil in the parables, seems to point to the unction of the Holy Spirit, who alone can impart the insight necessary for man to see the gospel in its pure light. The message to Laodicea ends with the admonition to 'be earnest and repent.' It is a hard thing for the legalistic mind to repent-- just think of how many Pharisees became Jesus' disciples.

The cure for spiritual blindness-- the 'salve' of the Holy Spirit-- is a curious thing in itself. Notice that the word, salve, comes from the same root as 'salvation!' I suggest that it is no accident that this word was employed in this context. Again, it provides yet another clue in decoding the hitherto hidden meaning of the term 'lukewarm.' When the legalist finally recognizes from where his salvation originates, and the futility of looking at the Law, then he or she can start to understand the everlasting gospel of Jesus. I know the neo-legalist position that 'we don't observe the Ten Commandments to merit salvation, but for other reasons.' Those reasons can sound plausible at first glance. 'We keep the Commandments to evidence our faith,' is one of the most laudable-sounding. Yet when you think about it, much of the worst atrocities committed worldwide springs from a desire to enforce compliance with 'God's laws!' Before the European 'Enlightenment, there were the Church Inquisitions. Today, it's Islamic fundamentalists desiring to impose 'sharia law' on whomever they can. American Evangelicals are just as zealous in wanting to impose 'God's laws' on the USA, and then exporting the cause abroad at the end of a gun-barrel. Extreme examples? Not really, when you consider the homes where legalism has turned children away from anything to do with religion. Turn the notion on its head. Wouldn't Christians attract far more interest if, instead of obsessing about law-keeping, they would give 'positive evidence' of faith in the form of loving their societal neighbors, instead of judging them?

Another argument I've heard from legalists is that we 'need the law to show us what sin is.' That statement betrays a very na•ve, superficial understanding of the concept of sin and salvation. Yes, Paul seems to say something like that, but if you put it in context, you will see that he is saying that the law makes knowledge of sin unavoidable; but we were sinning before that awareness, regardless (Rom 3:20). Paul goes on, almost in passing, to acknowledge a basic comprehension of sin (that can also be found in the Old Testament)-- that it is not a matter of mere behavior, but that 'whatever is not from faith is sin' (Rom 14:23). I used to argue with legalists that we are no longer under the Ten Commandments of Moses, but rather, under Jesus' law of love (e.g. Matt 7:12; Jn 15:17). That is true, in a sense. But I have come to realize that it doesn't matter whether we think of 'the Law' as ten commandments, or 613 rabbinical laws, or just one law; our sole duty as Christians is to 'keep' our eyes on Jesus, that's all! (Jn 6:29). That's the beauty of the eternal gospel that is just so hard for people to accept-- that it's all about a person, Yeshua ha'Mashiah, (Jesus the Messiah), and nothing else is to interfere. If the believer could focus his/her attention on Christ, then-- don't you see-- everything else falls into place! This is the one, enormous characteristic that is supposed to distinguish the Christian faith from all others-- that it is based on a personal relationship with its 'guru'-- while all other systems depend on some kind of performance from the adherent in exchange for divine favors. And yet Christians too find it so hard to let go of their neurotic need to 'do their part' in gaining salvation.

This whole insight into the lukewarm condition came about for me thanks to a telling demonstration that came through a one-time friend, a charter member of the Laodicean church. Ironically, said friend had been instrumental in helping me escape the legalistic system of modern 'churchianity.' Yet, when I pursued this path to its logical conclusion upon realizing that the New Covenant life cannot be lived with an Old Covenant mindset, this friend (and his fellow-travelers) parted company with me. It was not without some unpleasantness, as they labeled me 'antinomian' and an anarchist. A recent attempt, after several years, to re-establish contact, ended in like fashion when this person rejected some books I'd left for him to read, after perusing them for 'ten minutes'. The worst part was the note he included with the books, which was the rudest letter I have ever received, and whose tone can be summarized in the word 'indignation.' He was absolutely indignant that I had the temerity to even suppose that he'd lower himself to read such patent 'garbage.' Another observation during this visit emerged when my 'friend' expressed his disgust with the municipal government for providing housing for homeless people. This harsh attitude towards life's 'losers' is typical of the legalistic spirit; the reasoning seems to be, 'if I can succeed, why can't everyone else?' Now I don't want any reader to surmise that this fellow is malevolent; he's not. That's why his note was such a shock. What you should perceive here is the 'spirit of legalism' acting through an unwitting, virtual member of the Laodicean church. Like most legalists I've met, he is so enthralled with his supposed wealth of Bible knowledge that he refuses to remove the blinders from his eyes long enough to expose them to (the possibility of) some genuine illumination. Ironically, I am now indebted to him again for confronting me with a situation that sent me searching the scriptures!

Unfortunately, if Revelation is indeed a book of prediction, it does not reveal whether the Laodicean church succeeds in shaking free of the chains of legalism intermingled with the gospel. It is entirely in our hands, the members living in the era of Laodicea, to sound the alarm, to entreat the Holy Spirit to break through the stony shell of righteousness that insulates the Laodiceans from truth that challenges them. If only they would accept that challenge!

[*] Every skeptical reader is urged to check the Bible for themselves. You cannot find a salient enunciation of the gospel that mentions anything about the law... anywhere. The arguments of the legalists (or pseudo-legalists, the lukewarm) rest entirely on assumptions and fabricated inferences. They will claim that the Commandments aren't explicitly cited because they are 'understood' or 'implied.' My response is that they are omitted quite deliberately... God does not imply what is essential to human salvation! And incidentally, but importantly, you can clearly see why the scriptures are so often written in symbols, which are a kind of code that is only decoded spiritually. The Divine author ingeniously hides His vital messages in a form that is opaque to the worldly and malicious editor, to protect them from tampering, and preserve them for those being saved. Pure genius!

The Heart of the Issue

Over the last several months, a question cooking for years has come to the forefront of my consciousness regarding the position of the Christ-based faith amongst the panoply of religions. Because it is becoming clear to me that where this question is heading is towards an inevitable confrontation between Christianity and all other contenders in the broad field. That may sound like an overblown assessment, but I believe it will, probably soon, prove to be true.

This confrontation will not emerge willy-nilly as an accidental artifact of religious progress; it is being deliberately fomented by ‘powers and principalities’ operating behind the scenes. You can see the situation crystallizing if you observe the current trends. In parts of the world, it has become ‘politically incorrect’ to say things considered negative against certain religious groups—primarily, Jews and, sometimes, Moslems. Usually, other religions (eg. Hinduism, Buddhism) get swept along in this current, becoming incidental beneficiaries of the implied protection. However, it appears that the protection offered the ostensibly maligned groups has, behind it, the tacit motive of shielding the race, rather than the religion, per se. Thus, it’s not really Judaism that is being sheltered, but all Jews; and not Islam, so much as Moslems, which usually means Arabs. The tacit reasons tho, are quite different. If ‘political correctness’ is bestowed to Islam (thus, Arabs) it appears to be designed to create the impression that the authorities involved (be it government, universities, or whatever) are not prejudiced against Arabs, but only against ‘religious extremists’ of that stripe. The hope seems to be that, appearances to the contrary, we in the Western ‘democracies’ are not innately hostile towards Arabs, but only towards the ‘terrorists’ among them. In the case of Judaism, on the other hand, the result of ‘anti-hate’ legislation has been to supply a convenient instrument to silence any criticism of the state of Israel or its proponents.

One group that has received rather little benefit from political correctness and its adjunct legalities is Christianity. The kind of remark that would immediately elicit the label of ‘hate’ if directed towards Judaism (or possibly, but not always, Islam) can slide by the public awareness with nary a concern if it is directed instead at the Christian faith. Of course, there are historical reasons for this ambivalent response. One being the long-standing effect of the Schism. Since that event, it was ‘normal’ for Protestants to denigrate Catholics, and vice-versa, in the battle of faith that was waged both militarily and metaphorically over the past centuries. Another reason might be the feud between science and religion (essentially Christianity) in the USA, wherein the faith became more and more an open target for abuse as the society at large becomes increasingly secular.

The media have played a role in the gradual erosion of the position of respect once held by the Christian credo. Movies and TV ‘exposés’ have taken stories of the failures and dereliction of prominent Church leaders and turned them into ‘compelling dramas’ that, while based on truth, have cast aspersions on the whole concept of religion and Christianity. So far, the other major religions seem to get a ‘free pass’ on this accountability of leadership, except for the vilified Islamic extremists of course. Surely there are corrupt leaders in every faith; but the fact is that the USA—epicenter of the entertainment industry—was recognized, until recently, as a Christian nation. Time will tell if the microscope of Hollywood will be turned on other religions for ‘realistic depictions’ of their fallible leaders.

The point of these observations is that the religious scene is being segregated in the public, or secular mind into the two major camps of Christianity (such as the caricature exists) versus the collection of other beliefs. In the realm of religion or, to employ a broader term, spirituality, there are interesting movements afoot. Many of the New Age branches have unabashedly borrowed concepts and personages from Christianity, often claiming to enhance that structure with their ‘new insights,’ yet not hesitating to criticize the main tenets of the treasury they have just robbed. These revamped and upgraded versions of ancient mystic religions (Babylonian, Hindu, etc.) will mix reincarnation with Jesus and other notions to create hybrids that are abominations to the Christian faith. The worst phenomenon is that the primitive Christian creed itself has been so fragmented into smaller, more diluted, less authentic, more heretical sects that it has been sapped of almost all of it original vitality. It is essentially impossible to find a pure Christ-based creed in any institutional church. If it exists, it does so in the bosom of small study groups and in individual believers scattered thru-out the family of man.

One of the more insidious religious belief systems to emerge among the galaxy that sprang out of the 19th century explosion of religious energy is Baha’i. There is much to commend in the beliefs of Baha’i—that, in fact, is what makes it so subversive to Christianity. For any pilgrim ready to flee the wretched futility of materialism for the sanctuary of religion, the fundamental tenets of Baha’i are compelling indeed. Their system offers the ‘three unities:’ Unity of God, unity of religions, unity of mankind… You can’t quarrel with that, can you? In addition, to those ‘window shoppers’ from other faiths, Baha’i assures that ‘you don’t give up your faith, you upgrade it.’ (They can state this because of their doctrine of ‘progressive revelation’… see my essay on Baha’i). To the Christian skeptic, they say that their founder, Baha’u’llah, fulfilled the NT scriptures that foretell the Second Coming of Christ, and anticipating the obvious objections, that it was all accomplished in a spiritual rather than physical sense. That interpretation using the scriptures of Christianity is very hard to refute. If you disagree with it, they say you are not looking thru spiritual eyes but are focused on the material world. If you persist, they can accuse you of being stuck in the same blinders that prevented the Pharisees from recognizing the First Incarnation of Christ! It becomes very difficult for a Christian to dispute the claims of Baha’i, and may even dislodge some believers with shallow roots into being transplanted to their backyard.

Yet there is a fundamental tenet of faith that distinguishes the Christ-based belief from all other systems devised by man or god. That is why the final showdown will transpire between Christianity and all other belief systems (and that includes even ‘science’ which is more accurately labeled scientism). The distinction is embodied in the Man-God, Jesus himself, and is the quintessence of the faith that is called by His name. You see, every religion devised by the mind of man is based on the idea that each person must earn his/her way to ‘salvation.’ Now, salvation may be understood as ‘heaven’ or as ‘Samadhi’ or the final liberation from physical incarnation, or whatever; but it’s the destination after death in this world. The word ‘earn’ also needs explanation. In some faiths, it’s clear—you must obey the ‘Law’ (as they define it by, for e.g., Torah, or the Koran). In the Eastern traditions embracing reincarnation, it’s more complex—you must live a ‘spotless’ life (after innumerable attempts) until you finally earn liberation from the cycle of karma. While Baha’is don’t talk much about laws, they are assiduous laborers for the cause they hold dear, following the directions of their founding fathers to bring about the desired end of world peace. Their focus seems to be on what they can do to move humanity towards this goal.

The subtle pivot point about the systems based on works is that we are not all equally capable of performing them. Some people just have more self-discipline than others. Some people are better able, at least, to present a righteous appearance to the outside, despite the rot within their soul. This inevitably creates a class system where there are the priests, gurus, holy men, etc.—who are perceived as ‘masters’ who have lifted themselves to holy heights—and there are those below them, who have attained some lower degree of righteousness by their efforts. Of course, there are the absolute ‘losers,’ who can’t manage to get anywhere, spiritually, for reasons of moral turpitude. The inevitable result of a caste system is that those near the top end will naturally judge themselves spiritually superior to those seen as ‘below’ their level. We are familiar with the typical outcome of this attitude when assumed by ‘Christian preachers’ (you know the names of those guys from TV). The same happens in any faith. One extreme result is illustrated by Hinduism, where the Brahmin caste hardly thinks about the suffering of the lowest Harijans because, after all, they earned this fate by their failures in past lives. Any works-based religion brings division and discord from pride and prejudice, automatically.

Those creeds that teach that ‘God is within you, or within everything,’ lead to the notion that we are God, therefore everything we do is perfect, is part of our ascension to final merger with the ‘cosmic consciousness’… who is just the collective mind of…us. This human-centric belief can lead to some egregious abuses, as self-serving, eloquent leaders can convince gullible followers that even heinous acts are legitimate since they are committed by ‘gods.’ Once again, it is a works-based platform, but perilously, the works are not evaluated on the premise of an external, divine judge, but decided by the doers themselves.

In complete counter-distinction to the path of ‘works’ to attain nirvana/heaven, the pure Christ-based faith (as expressed in the Bible, but rarely proclaimed by any institutional church) puts all humanity on an equal footing. It tells us ‘All have sinned, and are far from God;’ and ‘There is none righteous, no not even one!’ Because of the stain of sin, embedded in our very DNA, we are born with the nature to follow the compulsions of our mind, to act selfishly, in other words, to sin. It’s a vicious cycle, and there is absolutely no way we can exit from it on our own efforts. Then, you wonder morosely, ‘Are we doomed; is there no hope?’ Yes; that’s our predicament! Well, praise God; not really. That is precisely why God sent the Christ, as Jesus, our one Savior. Jesus alone, of all humans, lived a perfect life, as our representative; and God offers us all the opportunity to partake of that achievement, vicariously in Christ. That is the very crux of the faith! By ‘faith,’ anyone can accept the gracious gift of ‘imputed righteousness’ extended by Jesus. The good news (gospel) was enunciated clearly, succinctly, unequivocally by Jesus, and recorded by John (John 3:16): ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him will not die, but will have eternal life.’

One could deliver a sermon on that one verse of scripture, but I’ll just tantalize with a paragraph. The ‘world’ in this context is translated from a Greek word that implies all humanity—it doesn’t matter what race, language, nation, or church you come from, God loves all, equally. God doesn’t have other ‘begotten’ offspring; Jesus was the only one, ever, and thus is uniquely qualified to offer the perfect antidote to the vexing sin problem. ‘Whoever’ came down as ‘whosoever’ in the King James translation, but either way, it obviously includes every human being, regardless of birth-right, position, wealth, intelligence, piety, or ethnic descent. We are all eligible to partake of the benefits. But, we have to signal our acceptance of the free offer. There’s no skill-testing question involved, but we have to acknowledge that, yes, God’s plan makes total sense—I believe His promise simply because it comes from the Creator, and I’m ready for the package. The benefit, of unparalleled value, is the promise of eternal life, sentient existence in some plane of reality that is beyond our present understanding. And this life to come is the alternative to what is, otherwise, the natural consequence of unregenerate, physical life outside of God’s provision—death. Note that there are just two choices, diametrically opposite one another—‘death’ versus ‘eternal life.’ Notice, it’s not ‘eternal death’ versus ‘eternal life,’ nor even ‘hell’ versus ‘heaven.’ (I’ll let you think about that without trying to elaborate what I am convinced it means. But to add a clue, ‘death’ is apparently final, while life is described as ‘eternal,’ by the only person ever to resurrect from the grave.)

Quite clearly, in the Christ-based system, there are no class distinctions, no swollen-egos, no losers, for we are all in the same, sorry state. We are lost, except that, through no striving of our own, God extends a golden favor, a divine boon, the attainment of liberty from karma, forgiveness of sin, through His emissary, His Avatar, Jesus. Instead of the futile attempt at the impossible task of self-improvement, we have only to accept the achievements of Jesus on our behalf. It sounds too good to be true—and therefore, many who hear the gospel just can’t accept it. They are to be pitied. Many of them decide to ‘accept’ it but they have to adduce their own formula to it, like a spiritual hedging of bets. (E.g. I ‘believe’ in Jesus, but I ‘keep’ the Ten Commandments too, just in case.) This just brings them back to a works-based faith, and we end up with the notorious abuses of the spiritually privileged over the ignorant.

In conclusion, there are only two religious systems: the pure Christ-based faith on one side, and the works-based creeds in the opposite corner. You who call yourselves spiritual have a clear choice before you—will it be God’s sublime plan… or some concoction devised by the devious mind of man? To say you choose ‘science’ and rationalism over ‘mere religion’ is to opt for another, disguised religion, for these are simply ingenious means of worshipping ourselves as gods, making idols of abstractions and conjecture. At the closing days of this Age, this World, there is no third option, sorry.

Toward a Credible Prophetic View…

In an earlier, introductory essay on the question of whether we live in the ‘End Times’, I pointed out the confluence of numerous prophecies, ancient and modern, that converge on some kind of vision of the end of the present age… whatever that means. I stated that there was a thread of commonality running among these disparate models, that lends a collective gravity to them. After all, one may dismiss an isolated oracle; but dozens pointing in the same general direction cannot be ignored or conveniently explained away.

Having made that point, I now have to deal with the more difficult problem. In their details, themes, and basic values, the various prophetic models differ considerably, sometimes radically. So the truth-seeker is faced with the always thorny problem facing all humans: which one(s) is/are presenting a true picture, and which are not? As I implied in that previous piece, there’s no secret guide book, no decoder ring you can order online; everyone is on his/her own in this cosmic dilemma. Well, perhaps not quite alone… but that will emerge later. In that intro, I laid out the kind of approach that works for me—briefly: examine all pieces of information that come along, placing them in a great metaphorical puzzle board, rearranging them as reason and inspiration direct, into as coherent a collage as possible at the moment. You just keep doing this, like a philosophical algorithm, until the truth starts to emerge, by virtue of consistency and inner conviction. As the saying wisely goes—the truth will prevail. And as it solidifies, you know where to direct your successive efforts.

As a tangible example of how this can work, I cite for your consideration, the Bible… asking the skeptics to please concede that the process requires an open mind… we’re not talking about ‘religion,’ mark; this is about information. The Bible, summarizing, is a compendium of literature, compiled over some two millennia, written by numerous authors of widely differing backgrounds and dealing with a variety of subject areas (e.g. history, poetry, prophecy, proverbs, spiritual insight, etc.). It starts with five books attributed to Moses (the ‘Pentateuch’) followed by stories of kings and prophets, ‘wisdom books,’ and more history and prophecy, all packaged as the Old Testament. That’s the Bible for Jewish believers. For Christians, there’s a whole, added section called the New Testament, dealing with the life and teachings of the one called Jesus, the Christ (Greek for ‘Messiah,’ which means ‘anointed one.’).

Okay; my point here is that this dense book contains a great deal of information. In fact, one can argue that it contains too much! Certainly, there’s more in that book than one needs to find the ‘gospel’ of Christ and consequent ‘salvation.’ An objective onlooker could logically enquire why do Christians even keep the Old Testament? Of what use is it to their faith? Indeed, then, why is the Bible so voluminous? The answer may surprise many. It has to do with redundancy that ensures reliability… to apply a key concept from information theory. What the heck? Well, you have to know a bit of secular history. You have to know that, down thru the ages, dark forces conspired to destroy Jesus’ message of hope, the gospel. They did this by attempting to destroy the receptacle of God’s truth, the holy scriptures. Councils were convened in the centuries after Christ by men with various views, orthodox or heterodox, to define the canonical Biblical texts. Authorities of the self-appointed Church kept the scriptures hidden from the eyes of all but the adepts. Primordial text was translated from one language to another, allowing the potential for selective editing. And yet—thru all this manipulation, the essential message of Jesus remains available to any who seek. Why? Because under divine guidance it is woven so skillfully into the words that no human could extirpate the truth without gutting the entire book! Nowhere in the book does a gospel or epistle writer indent a paragraph or underline a sentence, and insert a heading ‘This is the gospel.’ No; a reader must assemble it from interrelated scriptures under the unction of God’s Holy Spirit. The Bible’s message, to use a modern analogy, is fractal—it is nowhere yet it is everywhere, like a divine hologram. Or put another way, the Bible is merely the physical vehicle; the message is infused within it, and only discerned by means of a sincere search. You see, this is precisely why Jesus could state unequivocally that he has hidden the message from the wise and revealed it unto little children.

Alright, I hope you are still with me. I believe this is the same way we can discern truth in our present age of rampant deception. Allegorically, we are creating a hologram, using pieces of information, some of which fit the pattern, and some that don’t. Having laid that groundwork, the next thing we can do is examine some of the main lines of prophecy that confront our minds today.

For centuries, the primary prophetic optic for the Western mind was the Bible, but in the 19th century a veritable eruption of potential new sources appeared… almost by magic. There were individuals like Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Charles T. Russell (Jehovah Witnesses), Ellen G. White (Seventh-Day Adventism), who started new churches derived from the Christian tradition. Outside that circle, there were movements like the Theosophical Society (Mme Blavatsky), Spiritualism (the Fox sisters), Baha’i (Baha’ullah), and the new popularizing of various enlightened gurus from India (Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc.). From this original vanguard grew the tangle of spiritual avenues that now branch out on the roadmap to truth. I will try to choose the most popular routes that have become recognized for their signposts to the future. And the best way to do that is to divide the choices into groups, because it turns out that there are really just two main schools of thought in this subject area (tho there are, as expected, many variations on the themes).

In fact, the bifurcation in end-times prophecy comes down, basically, to the Biblical eschatology versus the rest. (Eschatology refers to end-time theology). Virtually all the non-Biblical schools profess a cyclical model of cosmic history, in which civilization rises and progresses thru an age or ‘aion,’ until a pre-ordained point in time and space is attained, at which point the world is physically destroyed and mankind must start the cycle anew from the few survivors. There are variations on this model, for example, one variant teaches that there is a change in consciousness associated with each such passage from one aion to the next. For Hindus, the present age is called the Kali Yuga, which implies an age of self-gratification. Another, principally New Age, view is that we are on the verge of a jump in consciousness, going from what they term ‘third density,’ to (you guessed) forth density. This school is further divided into those who envision that only ‘evolved souls’ will make the jump to forth density, while the laggards remain in 3D and presumably perish. Then there are the aboriginal people of the Americas who have had, apparently, an amazingly accurate body of oral prophecy. In their lore, the outcome of the coming calamities will be a new civilization wherein all races will live in harmony and cooperation, acknowledging the wisdom of native peoples everywhere whose traditions emphasized careful custodianship of nature.

A growing community believes in some form of ‘alien intervention,’ either just prior to, or during or following the calamities that denote the paradigm shift in human awareness. I place this group with the others because most often the ETs are viewed as ‘spiritual guides’ who will help mankind make the leap to forth density. In some schools, the aliens are evil impersonators of ‘beings of light,’ including their leader, Satan, who attempts the ultimate counterfeit—the Second Coming of Christ. This school of thought includes believers who are professed Christians, and others who are not.

Some may wonder ‘What about Nostradamus?’ ‘What about him?’, is my retort. After years of considering the enigmatic quatrains of this so-called seer, I have come to the conclusion that you might as well just read them for entertainment; you’re not (ever) going to get anything useful out of those obscure verses. Certain of his proponents claim to read various prophecies into them—after the fact; often long after. But those tenuous successes are of no help in deciphering other quatrains of ostensibly still future events. Sure, some will argue his case; but at the end of the day, my advice is don’t waste time on Nostradamus… it isn’t worth the effort.

Can you see what the main characteristic of all these non-Biblical sources is? They essentially foresee this next end of the age as typical; i.e. that the survivors will, after the time of turmoil subsides, resume business as usual among humanity on planet Earth. These prophets envisage a new aion wherein we’ll have another go on the great cosmic merry-go-round… with or without a new consciousness to help us do it better this time. In these oracles, humans are mostly on their own, or dependent on ‘extraterrestrial entities’ for continued survival and development. Hence, many believers in these camps are ‘American survivalists,’ stockpiling food, goods and guns for their supposed continued existence in the ‘after time.’

In stark, perhaps isolated contrast to all those ‘humanist’ styled prophecies stands the ‘book of our age,’ the Christian Bible. (I deliberately attach the modifier lest anyone doubt that the majority of end-times scriptures are found in the New Testament.) Astronomically, we are living near the end of the era of Pisces, as reckoned from the precession of the polar axis, a slow cyclical ‘wobble’ in the axis (as seen in a gyroscope, for instance) that takes almost 26,000 years. The north pole points within one ‘sign’ for about 2,160 years, and is presently passing from ‘the Fish’ (still used as a symbol of Christianity, tho few know why) into the age (or sign) of Aquarius. This has been the period of the flourishing of the Christian religion (such as it has existed), and of reverence for the Bible as the premier source of transcendent wisdom over that age. Now that period is reaching a transition stage, and momentous events are under way.

Biblical prophecy is not cyclical, nor humanist; it is presented as linear, and theistic. The prophecy embodied in the great vision of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted for him by Daniel in the second chapter of his ‘book,’ (see Old Testament) displays human history as a giant statue, the head being the King himself and his then great Babylonian Empire, and the feet and toes representing the final nations on Earth at the time of the ‘end.’ Thus, quite linear, from head to toes. Now, the end scene in this vignette is depicted as a huge boulder, ‘cut without human hands,’ that smashes into the feet with sudden, explosive force, and destroys the entire statue. It is ground into dust, and the Rock (of Ages) grows to fill the entire world. Without laboriously decoding this ‘verbal-video,’ even a neophyte can discern the allegory of the earthly order being utterly terminated and replaced with the order of Christ. Now let’s move on to the New Testament.

The premier prophecy in the Christian Bible must be (no—not Revelation!) the sermon of Jesus, recorded in Matthew 24 (and parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21). Yet, here again, there is confusion… which I argue is deliberate and effectual. The ingenuous apostles tacitly assume that the destruction of Jerusalem and their fabulous Temple must, naturally, highlight the end of the age. So, they enquire of Jesus, ‘Tell us, when will be the destruction of the temple and the end of the age?’ (paraphrased). Jesus, in replying to the hybrid question, seems to provide a hybrid answer. He warns his followers about the attack of the Roman army and the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives them a warning sign to watch for. Within 40 years of his death, his words were fulfilled, and those who remembered and heeded his warning were able to escape the carnage that ensued in 70 AD.

However, Jesus embedded that warning within a larger description of various, further events, apparently yet to be fulfilled. (One might argue that it was the evangelists who got things confused as they recorded these words, much later, from memory thru the filter of their cultural blinkers. But I submit this is unlikely, since the parallel accounts did not edit the convoluted sequence.) In fact, so skillfully intertwined are the dual narratives that today there is a sub-set of Christians (‘Preterists’) who are convinced that Jesus’ entire sermon describes His ‘Second Coming’ as occurring in 70 AD, everything having a ‘spiritual’ rather than literal, physical fulfillment. I leave it to the reader to investigate Preterism in the strict glare of scripture, and see its folly. The important thing to note is that by giving his ambiguous response, Jesus thwarted later attempts to edit the text into some form that would suit the self-serving agenda of church authorities. Another important point is that several parts of Jesus’ sermon are corroborated in the writings of Paul, Peter, and John, the other NT writers; and similarly, nothing Jesus stated is contradicted in any other text.

I don’t intend in this essay to do an exegesis of NT, end-times, prophetic texts. (Maybe another time!) What I hope to demonstrate is that the Christian prophecies depict the End of this world as we know it. There will be no following aion, populated by the ragged survivors of the cataclysms, ready to start the whole sorry cycle over again, ‘by the bootstraps,’ i.e. on human effort alone. There will be no New Age populated by gurus enlightened by alien intelligences. No; the Bible is clear in enunciating ‘a New Heavens and a New Earth wherein righteousness dwells.’ This revolution is impossible for humans or for ‘ETs’ to accomplish; it is solely a work of the Creator. What the final days of Earth reveal undeniably is the inherent corruption of mankind, and our utter inability to institute righteousness globally. We will finally see, beyond any shadow of doubt, our abject sinfulness and absolute need of a divine savior. And that is what scripture promises—God with us, a savior who becomes our beneficent ruler in a worldwide Kingdom of God. Further, we are told that we will not live in these corruptible, fleshly bodies, but in new, glorious bodies similar to Christ’s resurrection body. (Okay, you could think of that as ‘forth density,’ but obviously in a radically different setting.)

None of this sounds much like the extra-Biblical descriptions of the end of the age. So those are the two main streams of thought on the approaching cosmic crisis. Without going into minute detail (you can do that yourself), I have set out the two big paradigms that await the investigation of the seeker of truth. These are archetypal models at opposite poles of the prophetic spectrum. They present a clear choice: a choice between a path that purports to be delivered from God, and a labyrinth of paths that branch wildly from a multiplicity of mostly human sources. Of course, if you’re an inveterate rationalist with no regard for mysticism or anything that smells of it, you may not care for either description. In that case, you can always continue to listen to the explanations of the official experts, the scientists in the employ of governments and corporations. You will see how consistent and reliable is their version of reality… if you haven’t already noticed the endless lies and cover-ups. If you’re an atheistic skeptic of both governments and religions, then I invite you to maintain a ‘healthy skepticism,’ but to try my process of weighing all the facts while suspending a prejudged conclusion. And ‘weighing ALL the facts’ means taking the trouble to investigate claims that you think you already know about (that is mostly arrogance, and inexcusable to the true seeker). It also means keeping an open mind about things you would ‘prefer’ to dismiss in some convenient category of your personal design.

As for me, I make no excuses for adhering to the Christian Biblical prophetic vision. I do not do so out of some blind, fundamentalist, dogmatic faith that is really the last refuge of the moral malingerer. No, I accept this paradigm because it has demonstrated its robustness, from the aspect of spirit, of logic, and of experience. My final advisory note is that the seeker must go directly to the scriptures themselves; never put your trust in any human middlemen (and their odious denominations). Yes, it’s not easy, I understand… but who said finding truth was going to be easy? This essay has tried to provide the reader with a roadmap; now it is up to you to follow it and see if it, indeed, leads you to a trustworthy destination.