 Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
"I have a question for those of you who are familiar with both Christian
Science and traditional Christian doctrines regarding the person/role/mission
of Jesus Christ. Do you agree with me that the role of Jesus is downplayed, and,
to my mind, diminished in C.S? If you agree, what do you think is the reason
for this? Mary Baker Eddy sometimes writes of Jesus with great reverence
and in other places in her writings she seems almost dismissive.
I have studied C.S. for many years but didn't have Class Instruction. My
consecutive reading and study of the New Testament pointed out the
marked differences in MBE's interpretation and that of traditional
Christian teachings regarding Jesus Christ."
Elsie G.:
One of the key things to consider in comparing CS and the Bible is that Mary Baker Eddy, consciously or unconsciously, founded or embraced a new religion (Metaphysics) then tried to make it "fit" the Bible and Christianity, instead of the other way around. Indeed, MBE initially called her new religion "Moral Science", not CS.
In fact, MBE, in a moment of candor, admitted that Jesus Christ was not even needed to embrace her teachings. If you look at one of her writings, Miscellany (318:32-319:2) she stated, “If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me..” in response to a question at a lecture.
She had a problem, however. To advance her teachings, she had to find some way in 19th century America to persuade the world that they were Christian. People were not ready to accept the idea of leaving the Christian faith. She had to make metaphysics “fit” the Bible and Christianity somehow. Hence, the 100+ word rewrites in S&H, and “Christian Science” is born.”
I personally believe if MBE had been born 100 years later, she wouldn’t have bothered calling CS Christian. There would have been no need to, because all religions (or none at all) are quickly accepted socially in this day and age. She therefore would never have attempted to rewrite the Bible, and ignore such passages as you cite above. If she had truly been intellectually honest, or courageous, she would have attempted this in her time. She was neither, however.
Don't know if this helps, but thought I'd share.
John
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda (6/7/2008)
That's exactly what I liked about CS, though. It was more in line with the Book of Timothy view, that the light in Jesus was in all of us.
G,
Can you give some specific references for this? I looked through both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and don't see what you're referring to.
YEESH. I always do this. I meant the Book of Thomas. Sorry to send you on a fruitless hunt.
Anyway, I guess it's only valid if you like the early Christians.
G
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:50 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous "G," count me in as one ... if you like the early Christians. And thus, I revere and refer to the "Canonical writings," those 33 books of the New Testament, written after 45 A.D. and concluded before the conclusion of the First Century (year 99).The "Gospel of Thomas" does not fit in here, either in chronology (written 3rd or 4th Century A.D.) or in content. It is a "gnostic" document, and espouses esoteric, mystical teachings attributed to Jesus by one "Thomas Didymos," purported to be a twin of Jesus! Now (1) surely at least one of the N.T. gospels would have mentioned a twin brother to the Lord, you would think! And (2) is it conceivable that, if there were such a person as a twin, he would be in doubt of Jesus' claims and powers, even over death!? No, "G," the "Gospel of Thomas" is one of the pseudoepigrapha, writings spawned by heretics and dissenters who stuck the names of authentic Christian figures upon their spurious texts. "Thomas" is a favorite of many who reject orthodoxy, especially mystics, highly emotional/"spiritualized" types, New Agers, and especially so-called "higher criticism" types like the Jesus Seminar. A very major theme of gnosticism is belief in a "Christ" which/who is distinct from Jesus. We certainly find this in CS! Here, "Christ" is a kind of spiritual load or emanation which emanates from a higher, ethereal, impersonal godhead. Certain advanced "ascended masters" have managed to transcend this awesome chasm between the corrupt material and the perfect & pure spiritual, and they see Jesus as (probably) the greatest of these avatar-like beings. But they reject the material, especially the body, as impure and deceitful. Jesus was still a material being, albeit a most advanced one. John deals with this dichotomy between the "spiritual Christ" and the "material Jesus" in his first epistle: 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. (I John 1.1) He establishes a unity among Jesus as God/Logos ("word"), a physical being discernible to sight and touch, and the agent/cause of Eternal life."G," stay away from "Thomas" and the like. It's "another gospel" (Gal. 1.6).
|
|
|
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
followingHim (6/12/2008)
"G," stay away from "Thomas" and the like. It's "another gospel" (Gal. 1.6).
Oh, don't worry "followingHim," I stay away from Thomas, just like I stay away from John, Luke, Timothy, etc. I realized Thomas and the Science and Health were wrong about the same time I realized the Bible was the West's collection of creation myths.
"G"
|
|
|
|