New Agers Redefine Jesus into the Messiah of their own Making

I have found the evolution of our "blood of Christ" conversation at the Keys of Knowledge list to be quite interesting.

First, when I forwarded the comment about the absence of mention of this aspect in "The Immortal" the response I got was "what does that have to do with anything?"

My reply was that it happened to be at the core of scriptural teaching (specifically of the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PGP).

The next comment was "where does it say that!" as if there was serious doubt that the Bible said such a thing.

When I showed many verses to this effect, the next question was "Well, I bet JESUS HIMSELF never said such a thing."

When I showed statements from the lips of the Savior, the response came back, "Well, what about the translation of the Bible, we all know that Jesus spoke in Greek, and a lot can be lost in a translation."

When I pointed out that the Book of Mormon came as a second witness to the Bible on these points, the rejoinder came back that we should be willing to scrap the scriptures for what our soul says is true.

I agree that we need to be willing to ascertain all truths by the Spirit of God.

However, I find it interesting that at the beginning of this dialogue, the scriptures were held in great esteem, as if we could prove something in the scriptures then it was most likely true. J.J., after all, quotes extensively from the scriptures.

But then, when it was shown that the scriptures very clearly teach that we are cleansed by virtue of the blood of Jesus, then you wanted to throw out the scriptures.

I have noticed in my walk in life that the New Agers (Christ is in you, you don't need an external savior) basically have a general repugnance toward Christianity (and considering the hypocrisy and fanaticism that does exist I guess I don't blame them to a certain extent). Nevertheless, they are glad when a scripture from the Bible (or Book of Mormon) is quoted which appears to support their belief. Then you have people completely redefining Jesus Christ, without quoting any scriptures to prove their stance, and lo and behold, Jesus Christ becomes the Messiah of the New Age philosophy -- with a seriously reconstructed paradigm. Now all of the sudden, we have a Christ who was not crucified and resurrected but traveled to India and who knows where else. We have a Christ who is merely another great ascended master like Buddha. We have a Christ who never said anything about requiring a Savior outside of ourselves for our salvation -- that this fallacy was added by Paul and others who twisted his teachings.

The Jesus Christ of the New Age philosophy is not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Rather, he is a reconstructed fictional character designed to suit the fancy of this philosophy that refuses to abide by the terms of the gospel but wishes to have the credibility of one such as Jesus on their side. Convenient. But there is no true basis in it, only a bunch of wishful thinking (and channeling etc).

The irony, which I pointed out from day one of joining this list, is that there are a great many truths which are held by the New Age which are not incompatible with the truths of Christianity, and vise versa. And as we come closer to the center of the various denominational spokes into the central hub, the denominational differences cease to exist and a oneness takes over.

I would posit to you on this list that in that central hub will be found Jesus Christ as defined in the Bible and confirmed in the Book of Mormon -- the one who died for us so that the demands of justice might be satisfied, that we might be able to repent of our sins and not have to receive the consequences of our actions once we realize the folly of our way.

So those of you who have in your walking trashed the Jesus of the Bible, I would invite you to reconsider his place in all of this -- and his definition as the Son of God who died for us that we might live.

Sincerely,

Sterling