On the previous page I put forward the idea that our conventional religions had misinterpreted the sayings of Jesus, and had kept the people in the dark as far as the way to salvation is concerned.
Now I will put forward my alternative interpretation:
When Jesus said - I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Nobody comes to the Father except by me. - I believe he was saying that by the way he was living his life, teaching, healing, and expressing the Love of God; he was giving us an example to follow.
I am not a scholar of ancient languages, and I have never seen the original texts, but I firmly believe that this is the real meaning which lost in the translations that took place.
Take a moment to thing about this. I promise you will not be turned to stone for even considering it. Use a bit of logic, apply a bit of common sense.
At one time, in our history, the Church actually preached that Christianity was the only true religion, and that those who believed and followed other religions were doomed to eternal Hell. It was claimed that Jesus was the LAST prophet and no one after him could possible have direct communication with GOD. This was based on a book of the Bible that was written maybe two centuries after Jesus, and was put together with the approved texts at a meeting of rival Church leaders under the chairmanship of the Emperor Constantine around AD 300.
Well! Anyone can write a text saying that this is the last revelation to mankind. It gives instant authority to that religion. It does not make it right.
Where does that leave Islam? Nobody today would say that Islam is not a true religion, at least not out loud. So the Church accepts that Mohammad was the recipient of a divine revelation, or does it? You will find it hard to get a priest to commit himself one way or the other.
And what of the disciples, and St Paul? Didn't they have revelations after Jesus had died? What of all the Saints throughout the history of Christendom? Were their revelations genuine?
The point is if the Church leaders want to be dogmatic in their interpretation of the religious texts then they should at least be consistent.
So what do we have?
We have a man who, revered by his followers, preached that one should help others, to teach, to heal, to feed the less fortunate, and by doing so we would upon passing from this life look forward to a life in a better place, but by doing the opposite, by oppressing our fellows, by cruelty, greed, and other so-called sins, we would be heading for a life in a worse place. The Church would have us believe that by saying the right words, and giving money to the Church, a representative of the Church can ensure that we reach the better place in spite of the way we lead our lives.
In other words it is possible to bypass the teachings of the man upon whom the Christian religion is supposed to be based.
Do you truly believe that one man, just because he is a priest or vicar, or whatever, has the divine power to determine your future in the afterlife? And that by implication, all those who have lived a life of generosity, kindness, offering help to their fellows, but didn't attend Church, are doomed to eternal damnation?
What of the followers of other religions? Are they saved or doomed?
I believe that all religions, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, even Spiritualism, have a basis in God's Truth. How much basis I cannot say but they all share the concept of following the example of Jesus, the teaching, the healing, the helping of others. Some actually promote the acquisition of knowledge, the finding of answers, and if that means contact with God, or with Angels, or Helpers, or Spirit Guides, then I believe, from experience, that this is something to be cultivated, and shared. It should not be dismissed as fraudulent or the work of the devil. It should be tested, examined, and if it feels right, if it makes sense then it should be accepted, but with an ever open mind. All teachings whether received direct from Spirit (I will use this to represent God, Angels, Saints, Guides and Loved Ones) or from more Earthly sources are never entirely complete. Our knowledge is only as good as our level of spiritual development will allow, and as we grow spiritually, then so will our knowledge.
Think of it as our knowledge of science. As we progress so our understanding of science grows. Some scientific laws that in the 19th Century seemed set in stone, have in the 20th Century been amended because our level of knowledge and understanding have changed. Or history. How many times have new discoveries been made that have forced us to re-write a piece of history? And so with our spirituality and our understanding of life and the afterlife.
You may not agree with me, and I would not expect everyone to so do, but I would ask that you view this with an open mind, and maybe sit quietly and think about it. I believe that the afterlife you end up with will be the afterlife you deserve, the one that you have earned by your lifestyle. Not one that is given to you by another just because you said the right words on a Sunday, or blindly followed what the priest or vicar told you.
Please do not think I am condemning any religion outright, for I am not. Every religion has something to offer. All I am saying is you should be independent, think about what is being said in your church. Does it make sense? Or do you feel something is not quite right? If so then question it. Investigate, research, until you get an answer that does make sense to you. For not everybody is at the same stage of progression.
May the blessing of God be upon all of us. And may we find our own piece of the Truth. And when we do may we above all have the courage to share it.
Follow this link for further thoughts.
you can return to MY HOME PAGE with this link ----
Get your own Free Home Page