Chapter 25 - Christianity: The answer to the spiritual Alienation to the Temple

Chapter 25 - Christianity: The answer to the spiritual alienation to the Temple

 

The removal of the Temple as a significant symbol has been expressed by John within the Book of Revelation. Therefore; Revelation 21:3 and 21:22 expresses the intent of the writer to remove the "curse" of the Temple because it impeded another important concept which Paul and some of the New Testament writers agreed upon or had consensus. The consensus was the "grafting" of the Gentiles into the fold of Christianity. The previous statement is supported by the existence of the Jewish-Christians and then Paul's critique of James' behavior (Galatians 2:12-17 and Ephesians 2:11-15) and Paul's doctrine (Romans chapter eleven) which agrees with Revelation chapters seven, eleven, fourteen, and twenty-two. The explicit expressions through the writings of the New Testament tells the reader the significance of a change which occurred through Paul's earlier Dispensationalist doctrine.

 

Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach (1804-1872) wrote a book titled: Essence of Christianity (1841). The book explains the "alienation" concept to be the separation of individuals or self from humanity and nature because of the unrealistic goal in attaining the pleasure of a specific object ("God"). The previous chapters which contains the previous arguments against Christianity has been proven valid. Therefore, the contents of Ludwig Feuerbach's arguments and presentation will now be evaluated and discussed.

 

Ludwig's earlier works, Pierre Bayle (1838) and Philosophie und Christentum (1839), says about Christianity: "that Christianity has in fact long vanished not only from the reason but from the life of mankind, that it is nothing more than a fixed idea."

 

Overall reading and meaning of Ludwig's alienation principle as it pertains to "religion" in general and "gods" or a creator in particular are in three:

 

( 1 ) Acting Agent (Self Projection or the Ego)

 

( 2 ) Reacting Agents (Group Projection)

 

( 3 ) Projected Agent (Creators,Creator,God, Gods or no "god" or the "Ego")

 

All three projections are derived from the acting agent(the sole individual). The term of "Ego" is a borrowing from the philosophy of individualism, philosophy of Max Stirner - the opposer of Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Freiedrich Engels, and the collectivistic materialists in general. Max Stirner was more extreme because he came up with the idea that individuals are alienated from themselves by the objects of "God", humanity, nationalism, and every ideology. While Karl Marx and Freiedrich Engels saw the role of the state in the liberation of mankind from their alienation. Marxism saw the state's role in bringing the family, money or material substance to the individual.

 

There are several problems with the philosophies of individualism and Marxism(collectivism). Atheistic materialism, even expressed by Max Stirner, totally reject the possibility of a (neutral)creator. The recognition of the possibility of a neutral creator and the proven dialectical material history of Marx creates two new groups: Agnostic materialists and Deist materialists. The previous formed on the idea that there is not enough data to formulate an opinion on the matter and the later formed on the acceptance of a neutral creator. The 50% probability principle, from a previous chapter, makes a statement of the possibility of a neutral creator. Therefore, the unknown Projected Agent may exist even if the Acting Agent is not projecting such an object. Furthermore, an Acting Agent who is an Atheist materialist still has a "Projecting Agent" which is the furtherance of "good" acts.

 

Furthermore, the idea of the corporate entity has already been introduced into the consciousness of human beings. Moreover, both individualism and sole state collectivism could not prevail against this particular entity. In other words, the corporate entity is a form of collectivism which is part of the reacting agent(Group Projection). Individualism fails on this main issue. Th group of individuals interacting with the sole individual invalidates the individualism of Max Stirner. The existence of "culture" and first learned language refutes individualism. The reason is because an individual learns the two previous objects from other individuals existing in Group Projection(reacting agents).

 

The problem, as it is being explained through the Essence of Christianity, are the acts committed under the name of "religion" which creates doubt to the validity of the said "religion". The Hegelians, name deriving from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831), had two main problems in Germany towards the Prussian authorities: The state structure and the religious class. The founding members, which Ludwig Feuerbach was part of, critiqued the validity of the "religion". Then years later the young Hegelians, which Karl Marx was part of, critiqued the Prussian state structure itself.

David Strauss, one of the main members of the Hegelians, also wrote an earlier treatise presenting Jesus as simply as a human being: The Life of Jesus. The main issue or subject is the importance of "acts" which is an outward expression of the projection. In other words, there are problems between the definition of the Christian faith and the various "acts" attributed to Jesus.

 

The errors within the New Testament were already presented and the religious philosophers defending the Christian faith were refuted. David Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbach both have already written volumes concerning the historical errors and philosophical flaws of the belief system of Christianity. However, they have not presented a refutation against a possible neutral creator. Nor have they thoroughly investigated the connections between the inter-relationship of all the books within the New Testament canon.

 

If the neutral creator exist then the object is separated from nature because of causality or 'cause and effect'. In other words, the neutral creator would not be part of the 'cause and effect' mechanism of the universe or the universal timeline which started at a supposed 'big bang'. Therefore, the natural realm is the mirror of the said object. In comparison, to how we see ourselves as mirrors of others. In other words, the neutral creator would be the acting agent and nature would be the reacting agent. The nature described is the whole universe and its materials as it relates to us as a neutral substance. We, as human beings, derive from the neutral substance(please; refer back to Rene Descartes' classification of the three objects or substances in the universe, however, the "eternal" substance describing "God" would no longer exist because it refers back to "fixed" or first cause of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas' formulae).

 

As human beings, our self-awareness of "good" and "evil" forms our actions. Our actions towards each other is what defines "good" and "evil". In other words, our total understanding of an objective moral imperative is limited by the social conditions which create a relative or imperfect understanding of morality unless subjected to natural evolution. Therefore, what is needed are "good" individuals, "good" corporations, and "good" state governance. The "good" is within the definition of natural rights and its preservation. Furthermore, a possible neutral creator would not be subjected to these conditions because "good" and "evil" derive from the understanding of a sentient being. Therefore, we are alienated from a proven probability: Our positive attributes which derive from our good acts or good works. The first principle of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative expresses this possibility: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

 

The foundation of Christianity derives from its alienation of Jesus himself (Revelation 21:3, Revelation 21:22 and the Gospel of John 2:19-21) . In other words; the missing input from Jesus, concerning new issues, created the impetus for the formation of Christianity. In comparison to the three previous paragraphs, we witness the three errors: (1) The lack of historical verification because it is known Matthew, the first writer of the first Gospel, wrote his Gospel when Paul was an active member of the community years after Jesus' death. (2) Hence, there are no actual words of Jesus himself then there would be no reason for the four Gospels. The very fact that there is a 'cause and effect' mechanism like the 'focusing events' mentioned earlier invalidates the Gospels. (3) Anyone with any belief could do "good" and forbid "evil" which is universal. James even challenges the early Christians: "But you know, vain man, that faith without (good) works is dead?" (James 2:20)

 

Christianity was formed from the spiritual alienation to Jesus the spiritual Temple or their object. The first error was already presented through the acts and words of James himself. James 2:20 creates two impossibilities: (1) What is the definition of "good" works? (2) What is "good" faith for a Christian believer? Remember the Book of James was composed to address the various problems and confusions within the Christian movement and community during this early stage of development.

 

 

The thesis: The impossibility to emulate Jesus and therefore it is impossible to objectify(worship) Jesus.

 

* Jesus actions, "good works" to emulate, are limited to a specific era on the historical timeline. However, the "Golden Rule" is expressed in Matthew 7:12 (There is a possibility that Kant's idea derived from this specific verse and other verses in the New Testament canon). However, there are other "acts" of Jesus which limits the universalizability of the said "acts".

The verse which describes the 'objectification of Jesus' rule - The Gospel of John 14:23.

The verses which describes the 'historical limitation' of the above rule - Matthew 5:38-48, Matthew 6:19, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 18:16-18, and Matthew 19:21-30. This should not be a surprise all of the evidence derive from the first "gospel" as the next proceding "gospels" seem to repeat or edit out the presented verses.

 

* The next problem becomes apparent: the revision of the "gospel", by Paul, as he introduces new terms and phrases to initiate dialogue and corrections.

 

The terms: "dispensation" and "mystery" were often used by Paul to introduce a "new doctrine" into the collective "gospel".

 

The verses: Colossians 1:25-27, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 3:1-3, 1st Corinthians 9:17, 1st Corinthians 15:51, Romans 2:16, Romans 11:25, Romans 16:17, and Romans 16:25, 2nd Timothy 2:8, and 2nd Timothy 3:10.

 

Observation: If Jesus' actual "acts" and words are not completely followed then why worship Jesus? Why revise? Why edit? Why not follow his actual words? Jesus is supposed to be supernatural.

 

* A dialectical interaction should then never exist within the New Testament canon. "Dialectical" is meant as opposing opinions or forces creating a new synthesis or formation.

The verse which exposes the dialectical contradiction, the dialectical primer, within the New Testament canon: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17.

 

The dialectical contradictions: 1st Corinthian 8:1-13, Acts 15:19-20, Acts 21:18-25, Revelation 2:14 and Revelation 2:20.

 

The dialectical evidence of conflict between two forces concerning the consumption of foods sacrificed to idols: James 4:1, James 4:11-12, Titus 1:10-16, Galatians 2:12, and 1st Corinthians 15:32.

 

Observation: The absence of Jesus' opinion and advice concerning the 'foods sacrificed to idols' is evidence of a flaw concerning this particular Projected Agent.

 

* The last evidence is a historical manifestation flaw of the objectification concerning the Projected Agent called Jesus of Nazareth.

 

The fallacy of slavery: Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1st Timothy 6:1-3, and Luke 12:45-48.

 

Observation: Not only have humanity witnessed slavery by Christians but also the crusades. "Usury" or financial interest was also followed(Revelation 18:6). There is an absence of Jesus' words against slavery and its mandate for its complete removal. What happened? Why hasn't Paul received a 'divine command' from Jesus concerning this issue? Why hasn't Paul foreseen the removal of such a practice? Why hasn't Paul forced the issue for its complete removal? The reason is because Paul had falsely predicted the return of Jesus(1st Corinthians 7:26-29).

 

Conclusion: The objectification(worship) of Jesus has led to disastrous consequences throughout the history of Christianity rather than the obeying of the literal words or 'divine commands' by Jesus of Nazareth. The experience of Christians and Christianity to the Alienation of Jesus has exposed several contradictions and absurdities. There is an absence of Jesus concerning early and future issues concerning the Christian community.

 

The above has lead to three obvious results:

 

( 1 ) It is impossible to emulate Jesus of Nazareth.

 

( 2 ) It is impossible to objectify Jesus because he is proven to be 'Human' rather than "divine".

 

( 3 ) Jesus of Nazareth never resurrected and will not return. The Edict of Milan has sealed such a return.

( 4 ) Jesus of Nazareth was a social revolutionary who was executed by Roman authorities. Paul, James, and many others decided years later to create a fictional Jesus with supernatural qualities towards the Gentile population.

 

*( 3 ) The third result could be confirmed concerning the role of the 'foods sacrificed to idols in the Roman marketplace' as this issue was resolved by human beings years later.

 

If a neutral creator exist it will be because of the neutral creator's attribute of being an unknown Projected Agent. Therefore, sentient beings throughout the universe would be classified in the opposite spectrum as "known" Projected Agents because they exert "positive" and "negative" forces. The neutral creator is "unknown" because there is a 50% probability of the creator's existence and the neutral creator is "neutral". Even the words of Paul himself has shown that many during his era may have thought of the previous proposed hypothesis in a different manner - Acts 17:22-24.

The possible existence of a neutral creator as an acting agent and the universe(nature) as being a reacting agent refutes the notion of First (Fixed) Cause and all of Thomas Aquinas' five cosmological arguments: 1. Unmoved Mover, 2. First (Fixed) Cause, 3. Contingency, 4. Excellency, and 5. The Harmony of Nature.

The above formulae by St. Thomas Aquinas is not 100% proven because of the refutation concerning the New Testament canon. This is the reason why it is flawed. Furthermore, the only substance existing in or on the timeline of 'cause and effect' would be the universe(nature) itself and not the possible Projected Agent called the 'Neutral Creator'. In other words; the creator, as a neutral acting agent, exist alongside the universe(nature). Moreover, the neutral creator and the universe(nature) are both neutral.

The Anthropomorphism of a possible Creator:

*(4) The fourth result explains the creation of a supernatural or superman Jesus. The result was enacted by the Christian leadership for the survival of the Christian movement among the other various Jewish-Messianic movements. It was Paul, as a catalyst of change, which introduced a new doctrine for the expansion of membership expressed through the book of Romans - Romans chapter eleven. There is evidence through the Gospel of Matthew showing "dialectical" conflict through Matthew 10:6 vs. Matthew 26:13. It is highly probable that Matthew added the later verse, Matthew 26:13, when Paul introduced the new doctrine:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1

The definition of Anthropomorphism is to humanize projected objects impossible to acquire and attempt to establish an interaction with the said projected object. In the previous setting of the proposed definition, Christianity has anthropormorphized two things: The Temple and Jesus (Revelation 21:22).

What is the historical evidence of the previous proposition?

The author, Rebecca Gray in Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus says:

" Finally, we shall see that one or two of the purity practices mentioned by Josephus were observed by priests and lay-persons alike; even these practices, however, suggest that the stricter group of Essenes treated their community, in some respects, as if it were the temple.
   Priests on duty in the Jerusalem temple wore linen breeches and, on special occasions, white vestments, also made of linen. The linen loin-cloths worn by the Essenes may not have been exactly like the breeches worn by priests, but they are similar enough, and unusual enough, to suggest that the Essenes were imitating, priestly dress in this respect. (pg. 87)

To understand further the phenomenon of anthropomorphism imagine that "evil" derives from the fallen angel of Satan. The previous is an issue with Judaism and as much with Christianity. As for Islam, there is a bit of a difference. "Satan" is not a fallen angel but a Jinn(spiritual being) from Earth and parts of the Qu'ran, the holy book for Muslims, speaks of "evil" deriving from the actions of individuals themselves. The previous two are incorrect concerning the personification of "evil" and the later imitated several fallacies deriving from the previous two.

The Biblical evidence in agreement with Rebecca Gray's research is located in Acts 2:46 and Ephesians 2:21. There are also examples in the book of Acts which presents a form of communistic idealism which was later expressed by Karl Marx: Acts 4:32-37, Acts 5:1-11, and Acts 6:1-3. Paul's creation of the Christian projected agent - Jesus(Christ) of Nazareth - transformed the relationship between Jews and Gentiles(non-Jews). It was Paul's introduction of a transformative figure which united the previous factions into one new entity(Ephesians 2:15). Of course, explained with the soon appearing projected agent which never occured(1st Corinthians 7:16-31). Again, the reason why Paul had done this was to eliminate the years of antagonism between Jews and non-Jews in the region therefore removing the need for a physical Temple. In the case of Karl Marx, the projected image or agent is the state. Marx' thought was a copying of Hegel's concept of the transformative role of the state entity. Karl Marx presented a material projected agent which could interact with the individual(acting agent). While Paul, earlier introduced a "spiritual" or immaterial projected agent. The former highly probable with imperfect results and the later impossible to produce or emulate. Furthermore, both are flawed projected agents. However, there is a difference between the said two. Marx' doctrine was more realistic in contrast to Paul's doctrine because Paul's doctrine has to be believed without question while Marx' was based on trial and error which leaves room for change or evolution.

The spiritual alienation to the Temple is given:

( 1 ) To remove the "cycle"(wormwood) of purification for the physical Temple, everytime it is destroyed, the new doctrines were created by Paul and then embraced by the rest of the Christian leadership.
( 2 ) The Temple is no longer relevant because its relevance negates Christianity.
( 3 ) The Temple and Jesus are objects, immaterial or "spiritual", which no longer could be physically destroyed.
( 4 ) The Temple and Jesus are both preserved, "spiritually", through the Pauline doctrines of "Body of Christ" and the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

The proposed model which expresses the previous notion of christian 'alienation':

Christians(physical material existence) <--> Jesus(physical then "spiritual") <--> Temple("spiritual" immaterial existence).

If we separate and form the common denominator then the pursuit of happiness is universal among all mankind and sentient beings(James 2:17). The pursuit of happiness is to remove the alienation from our positive attributes which resides in all of our projected agents and only through "good" acts and "good" works its liberation is highly probable. The previous variable or factor exist within the Christian's projected agent.