by John P. Pratt (20 Feb 2013)
©2013 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.
Are we so influenced by worldly apostate teachings that we now unwittingly worship a false Christ?
|
If God is your Father, has He whipped you personally with his belt (as fathers used to do) for breaking his laws, or is He too much of a "Christian" to resort to barbaric corporal punishment? Is the Old Testament concept of "fearing" God now replaced with simply "reverencing" Him because we believe He wouldn't really punish us? Sure, He destroyed many nations in the past, including His "chosen people", but do we believe that somehow He's matured beyond such primitive emotional punishment? Or is it because we believe ourselves to be righteous, even though Jesus declared that only God is good (Luke 18:19)?
Most of what we think we know is taught to us by the world. It can come as wise philosophy, sometimes mingled with scripture. It comes through the mainstream media, from government schools and universities, from scriptorians, from society-approved experts, opinion polls, and so-called reported "news". In other words, our knowledge comes almost entirely from Satan's dominion. He is the prince of this world (John 12:3, 14:30). Is there any doubt in your mind that Satan has the world well in hand? Or are you with those who don't even believe Satan is real (2 Nephi 28:22)?
This article explores the Christ that is testified of in the heavens, and then compares that to the teachings of the world today. If you are among those who think you are not tainted by evil teachings, think again. We are all so deeply influenced that it is well below our conscious thinking. It is almost impossible to purify ourselves of the black, sticky tar of evil indoctrination that we have been immersed in since birth. It influences (controls?) our thinking, our words, and our actions, by which we will be judged (Alma 12:14)
Rather than ask what we know about God, let's just focus on Christ. He is the member of the godhead, which is unified in thought and purpose, who actually came down to earth. Men saw and recorded his actions and words, and left a surprisingly clear description of him. What is your source of information about him?
Do we get our understand of Christ directly from the scriptures? Do we get it by listening to the light of Christ within us, which is given to everyone at birth (John 1:9)? Or do we depend on other men to teach us because we feel they are more righteous and know more? In other words, do we get it from lesson books and commentaries or more directly from the source? Of course, those sources can provide insight, and they usually give references to the sources, but do we take the time to look up the source. And most importantly, even when we are reading the scripture, do we listen for the ring of truth to make sure our understanding is correct?
When we come across passages which contradict what we have believed, do we skip over them so that our (false) understanding is not disturbed by truth? It has been amazing to me personally how many passages of scripture, including the very words of Jesus Christ, have been skipped over rapidly in my mind because they didn't fit in with my world-view at all. When the time was taken to slow way down and ask what was really intended, or what the true meaning is, it was amazing how often the meaning was the opposite from what had been previously believed. Sir Winston Churchill is quoted as having said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
One thing the crops up often in studying the four Gospels, is that Christ often exhibits what we might consider rude, uncultured, or even "unchristian" behavior. For example, after first ignoring her, and then refusing to heal her daughter, Jesus compared the Canaanite woman to a dog, undeserving of the miracles reserved for the chosen people (Matt. 15:26-27). What if you had been called an unworthy dog by Jesus of Nazareth? What would that have done to your belief that he was the Messiah?
What would probably be considered "rude" behavior occurred when Jesus told the Pharisees that they were sons of Satan, rather than of Abraham. Let's see . . . where does it talk about calling investigators "whitewashed sepulchres" in the missionary manual? And such condemnation wasn't just reserved for his enemies. He told His lead apostle Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16:23). Apparently one needs to be thick-skinned or to really love truth (or preferably both) to hang out with the likes of Jesus. And yet so many say they want to be with Him forever. We might all do well to find out more about this person we want to eternally dwell with.
Another thought along these lines is that it seems that so many people say that when they meet Jesus, they will run and throw their arms around him. That sounds wonderful, except that several who actually have met him seem to say that it is a terrifying thing to come into the presence of God. All of one's guilt and unworthiness is immediately apparent. Unless one has been thoroughly cleansed of sin and is filled with charity and virtue (D&C 121:45), the experience of meeting God has been described: "in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence" (Alma 12:14).
Jesus was also criticized for keeping company with harlots and eating with publicans and sinners. Haven't we been taught that good Christians avoid such behavior? We'll be judged by the company we keep, because "birds of a feather flock together." Let's see, where is that in Proverbs? Or is that the world's wisdom again? But wait, those who are making such judgments have been admonished not to judge. So when is such behavior right and when is it wrong?
Finally, Jesus was even accused of breaking the law of Moses, as when he healed on the sabbath, picked grain on the sabbath, and most notably when he claimed to be the Messiah. His doctrine was shocking. In the Sermon on the Mount, He referred to Moses and the Ten Commandments as "it has been said of old time that ... " and then went on to replace that outdated law with a new law (Matt. 5:21-22).
Think about that! How would we feel if some new upstart prophet referred to the teachings of Jesus that way, saying that they were a good start, but by following his new teachings to obey an even higher law one could receive an even higher glory? Would we have "ears to hear" and be open-minded enough to be converted? Or would we join in the crucifixion mob to free ourselves of a higher standard of performance when we have trouble with the Ten Commandments (that law of "old time")?
Now let us turn to what the "heavens" teach about Jesus. This current article is somewhat a sequel to an earlier one entitled, "The Zodiac Testifies of Christ". Even though the key points of that article are summarized here, the serious reader should consider reading that entire article before proceeding with this one.
 |
For the signs, the seasons, the years, and the days, Uriel showed me; the angel whom the Lord of glory appointed over all the luminaries. — Enoch 74:4-7
Note that the word "signs" was the ancient word for "constellations". When Enoch came to understand their meaning, it records that he exclaimed,
I blessed the Lord of glory, who had made those great and splendid signs, that they might display the magnificence of his works to angels and to the souls of men; and that these might glorify all his works and operations; might see the effect of his power; might glorify the great labor of his hands; and bless him forever." — Enoch 35:3
Twelve of the forty-eight signs form a circle around the heavens (centered on the observer) called the zodiac. One of the sets of meanings for those twelve figures is apparently that each symbolizes a different aspect of the mission of Christ.
The rest of this article summarizes briefly what appears to be the meaning of each of the original ancient set, and then a new set of twelve is presented which seem to more accurately represent modern apostate concepts of the roles of Jesus Christ. Reader caution is advised: it is highly likely that some of the material will be offensive, just as was some of the above. This article is not intended to be soothing or comforting, but rather a wake-up call meant to shatter false traditions.
The earlier article pointed out that the twelve zodiac constellations apparently break into three sets of four. Each of those four has one lead which summarizes the whole group, and then three which each represent one sub-category of the whole. So let's look at each set of four.