Text: Subject: [acim-l] Re: Did Jesus really die on the cross? Date: 20 Oct 1998 23:46:05 -0000 From: Reply-To: A Course in Miracles List To: A Course in Miracles List On 20 Oct 1998 KIPIJ@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 98-10-20 16:50:50 EDT, dthomp@golden.net writes: Now it is true that Churchianity generally teaches a guilt-laden message - because you are guilty you need the Church to rescue (save) you. There is *some* basis for that belief in the Bible, but as has been pointed out, there is a much larger basis in the Bible for believing God views us as sinless and without judgement and the whole concept of sin and guilt is a human invention - very often invented by institutional religion which is universally castigated by the prophets. Hi Doug, One of the main teachings of Christianity is that Christ died for our sins. This is undeniable. My impression has been that you see the Bible and ACIM to be alike. Having studied both, I do not see them alike nor do they need to be. Bible study is a perfectly valid path, of course, as are all paths that lead to God. I guess it depends on how you read the Bible. I learned Hebrew and Greek and a great deal of cultural history in order to read the Bible as it was written with as much of the cultural sensibility of its authors and original audience as I could conjure from the late 20th Century. Among the surprises is that the modern English word "sin" and all its connotations and baggage, isn't used in the Bible. "Sin" is a mistranslation of several Greek and Hebrew words that actually are used - including words that are better translated as "transgression" and "missing the mark." The "Bible" contains 66 books, each of which is the expression of faith and belief of one or more individuals or communities at one or more points in time. The Bible is full of controversy and contending religious ideas. Within it you can find most of the ideas of ACIM expressed now and again, and often contested by diametrically opposite ideas. We note that ACIM makes frequent reference to the Bible, quoting it, on average, every third page, though few of the quotes are cited. You have to be very familiar with the Bible to recognize them. I get the feeling that whomever the "I" is in ACIM, is addressing an audience He presumes to be familiar with the Bible as he constantly refers to it indirectly. And frequently "He" is addressing himself to historic controversies, sometimes skirting them, frequently wading right in and expressing a strong conviction about which side is on track. When I read ACIM that is what I see, an intensely *biblical* document, fully aware of and deeply informed about the history of the Jewish and Christian faiths. One could go so far as to call it a commentary on the Bible. Yet it stands alone, one need not know what the Bible is to make a great deal of sense of ACIM. So the New Testament stands alone, and while it refers to and quotes the Old Testament frequently, and those quotes are "meaningful" to those familiar with the Old Testament, you don't need the Old Testament to make sense of the New. Now I agree with you that this is not all that important and it matters not a whit to me or, I'm sure to God, if you agree with my observations of parallels and similarities :). I also sense you are thinking there is some danger here that we are straying away from discussing ACIM and moving toward a debate about what the Bible really says. I sense the danger too. The view of ACIM from the "New Age Movement" is generally that it is "way too Christian" and the view from Churchianity is generally that it is "way too New Age." Within ACIM circles one finds three distinct views: A) indifference, B) that which sees ACIM as completely at odds with the Bible and C) that which sees great continuity, a kind of fullfillment or completion of the Biblical themes in ACIM. It is interesting that the opinions that Jews and Christians have of each other tend to fall into exactly the same categories :). It is my view that those who think the Bible and ACIM are at odds, have confused what the Bible *actually says* with 2000 years of Church tradition that has made it impossible, most especially for Church goers, to read the Bible with an open mind and actually notice what it does say and what it doesn't say. Most people come to the Bible, not just without any fluency in the languages (Hebrew and Greek) in which it is written, but with an enormous amount of baggage concerning what it supposedly means, gleaned from Church and Western Civilization in general which has been profoundly influenced, at the level of unconscious culture, by 2000 years of Church interpretation. Thus many people, who have never even read the whole thing, let alone in the original languages, let alone engaged in systematic study of it, to have very strong opinions about what it does and doesn't say, opinions which frequently cannot be substantiated by the text at all. This is a problem to which all "holy writ" is subject. As soon as we say of any text that it is "God's Word" we have made an idol of paper and ink. We have replaced the eternal creative Word of God with a man-made artefact confined within space and time. We've put God in a box which is just where the ego wants Him! Now those who see the Bible as inimical to ACIM see, I think, that grotesque and idolatrous distortion of the text which is common among "Churchians." Yes, I agree, that perception of the Bible isn't very ACIMesque. But what of ACIM's own use of the Bible, which is extensive? ACIM doesn't reject the Bible, it builds on and explains the Bible. Actually it's my view that those who most loudly protest they are "Bible believing Christians" are the ones who have most thoroughly rejected what the Bible really says and who most energetically refuse to read it with an open, inquring mind and spirit. They can't see what it says because their egos have already made of it an idolatrous ego-buttress against Truth. What better buttress against the eternal, creative, infinite word of God could there be than a physical artefact, bound by space and time, which one has come to believe is the "real" word of God instead? In ACIM terms this is the classic error of confusing the body (the physical) with the "real" (or eternal). ACIM warns against thinking we are bodies, time and time again. Christian Fundamentalists frequently assume that the eternal word of God is a book. Having set up those false perceptions, it then follows that the death of Jesus' body could somehow "save" people, as if the body had some cosmic significance and was more than an illusion within an illusion. WE know - heck even physics knows, that time is an illusion. How can an illusion within the illusion, the death of a body within time, be decisive to a "real" and eternal God? While I don't want to see the ACIM list to deteriorate into sterile debates about the Bible, I think it is fair to compare ideas in ACIM with ideas in the Bible, and with the many doctrines of Judaism and Christianity if only because ACIM itself does this quite a lot. ACIM does have comments within it both on the Bible and on Christianity and on Judaism. In that sense it is like every prophetic voice in the Bible, all of which are scathing in their rebukes of the religious orthodoxy of their time. So ACIM is scathing in its rebuke of "insane religion." There is a "pattern" of revelation in the Bible, a pattern into which ACIM falls neatly, hand in glove. Jesus in the New Testament doesn't rebuke Moses, he does however rebuke those who claim to speak in his name and distort him. Jesus in ACIM doesn't rebuke the Bible, but He does rebuke those who claim, falsely, to speak for it. For me that is just one more piece of evidence that the voice of ACIM is the authentic voice of Jesus. He is doing in ACIM very much the same sort of thing, with the same sort of style and tenor, as he's reported to have done on earth in the New Testament. Which is just what I'd expect of Jesus, were He to show up in person today and comment on contemporary religious hypocrisy! I think it is sufficent to note that such schools of thought exist and if the points of divergence are of interest to you, pursue them, and if they are not, ignore them. You don't need the Bible to understand ACIM, but the Bible does provide the context for ACIM, a context ACIM consistently draws attention to. As the Old Testament frames the New Testament and Jesus' earthly ministry, so the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition frames ACIM and Jesus' ongoing work in saving the world. To me it doesn't take away from ACIM to note its continuity with Biblical themes, it just adds another dimension. So I guess my point is, that it's there if you are interested and if you are not, don't fret it :). All the best, Doug A Course in Miracles List

See Also:

Source: