Considering we are in a recession, these spirit guides should consider lowering their rates. I doubt reselling spiritual information comes with a lot of overhead.

Urban Monk, do you know if there’s a way I could get into the business? I’m sure my rates can be much more competitive.

Desmognathus, I will not speak for the Urban Monk (he is capable of explaining and defending his own views) but I know many self-professing Christians who gladly wander through the Bible, especially the New Testament, and simply scratch out those parts that don’t line up with their “new revelations.” Don’t like Hell? Get rid of it! Somebody (or some “thing”) else claims Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Scrap that part! Some of Paul’s doctrines rub you the wrong way? Introduce a “new perspective” on Paul that claims he clearly didn’t get what Jesus was up to.

The Urban Monk can respond how he sees fit, and this may not apply to him at all, but I have met “Christians” who would simply dismiss the passages you quoted as later embellishments and encourage us to get back to the “original” Jesus. What grounds they have to claim these are not authentic records of the life of Jesus … well that’s a good question to ask them and I won’t attempt to answer on their behalf.

If, however, there is remarkably good grounds to conclude that a “spirit guide” is deliberately spreading false information on a very theologically significant subject, then I think your question with respect to what kind of spiritual beings would do such a thing is a very legitimate and very pressing question. That of course assumes the information is false. If the information is accurate then it is the New Testament that is horribly inaccurate and should be scrapped.

Clearly this is no small issue that has been raised! Good insight!

Jesus told Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.” Now, obviously, Thomas believed in Jesus; Jesus was demonstrating that it was important that Thomas also believed that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. To deny Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection is to deny the true Jesus, and to contradict Christ Himself, and to deny His fundamental sacrifice for us.

Furthermore, the entire post was praising the book from front to back. Sure there was a grain of salt here or there but the thrust of the article was “you should really read this!” What I pointed out was that “Francine” is dead wrong on one of the absolutely most critical aspects of Jesus’ life. If “Francine” is wrong on the most important issue then on what grounds should I trust anything she says on the more trivial details? What if told you about this great book that tells us all kinds of hitherto unknown details about the childhood of Sir Winston Churchill, but it claims that he was born after World War Two? Frankly I wouldn’t care what kind of little nuggets of possible truths might lie between the lines when the overall picture of his life was so catstrophically wrong. When the big picture is utterly false what would ever inspire me to consider some of the fine details here or there? The source has been shown to be false, plain and simple.

It would be wise of you to do more than just throw a few grains of salt at the book’s claims about Jesus’ crucifixion and accept other claims; you should just throw the book out! “Hesitation” is not an appropriate response to claims which are verifiably false; rejection is.

The New Testament has long been known to be the earliest and most reliable record of Jesus’ magnificent and mysterious life. If somebody claims to have some “additional information” about Jesus (like the Gnostics or the Mormons) then it is absolutely imperative that any seeker of truth ask some tough questions about the alleged source of the new claims. If the source has credentials that are roughly on parwith the credentials of the New Testament (i.e. written relatively soon after the events, based on eye-witness testimony, etc) then it may be worth considering. However, if the credentials are unknown, or the “new information” flatly contradicts well established and critically important details about Jesus’ life then the seeker of truth should just walk right on by. No hestitation is necessary; you can save your grains of salt for something that stands at least a small chance of being accurate.

Paul, please read what I have written! I say very clearly that I have trouble accepting what Sylvia Browne writes about the crucifixion. I listen to what she is saying; I report what she writes. But do not assume that I accept all of what she writes. I say I take it with a grain of salt. I want to be open; I accept the validity of sources such as spirit guides; but I have great trouble, as I say in my post, with accepting that Jesus did not die on the cross. That one will take more for me to accept than reading one book. Please do not jump to conclusions. Hear me a little more carefully, please!

You wrote, “But she also relies on other writings, many of which have come to light only in the past century or so, having been destroyed by the Church …” You call these “early writings” and the entire theme of the post is of the flavour of gnosticism, so I’m not sure what else you would have meant by that but the gnostic “gospels.”

But, fine, forget about the gnostic forgeries for now. Let’s focus on Francine. Anybody who would claim that Jesus didn’t die on the cross was obviously not present and is directly contradicting the records of those who were present. The eye-witnesses whose testimony makes up the New Testament all agree he died. His enemies agree he died. The Roman historian, Tacitus, confirms his death. Josephus (a Jew) confirms his death. In fact the first time that I know of when it was alleged he didn’t die wasn’t until the rise of Islam. By claiming Jesus didn’t die “Francine” is placing herself squarely in the company of Muslims relying on “divine revelation” hundreds of years removed from the events.

Gary Habermas has researched this extensively and he reports, “virtually all scholars today agree that Jesus died by crucifixion.” – http://garyhabermas.com/articles/criswell_theol_review/1989-fall_jesusresandcontempcrit_pt1.htm. Every ancient source even remotely close to the events confirms it and modern scholars “virtually all” confirm it.

If you want to base your understanding of Jesus on a “spirit guide” with such a demonstrably poor knowledge of ancient history then be my guest but if you hope to persuade anybody else to trust “Francine” then you have your work cut out for you. You’ll need to provide some kind of explanation for how absolutely every single Gospel in the New Testament could be so horridly wrong on such an absolutely pivotal point. Not only the Gospels, but the other books in the New Testament that take it for granted that Jesus died and rose again. In fact, the core of Christianity is the message that Jesus died for your sins. If he didn’t die then he certainly didn’t die for your sins. Without a death there is no resurrection of Jesus, another core message of Christianity (1 Cor 15). Without these two pillars, what scraps of Christianity remain under this “new revelation?”

In other words, why believe “Francine” instead of the eye-witnesses, disciples, enemies, ancient historians and modern scholars all combined?

I am a bit puzzled by your reply to my review of Sylvia Browne’s books! For one thing, I never mentioned “gnostic gospels” in my review. I did not refer to them, nor quote them in any way. So I am not sure what you were reading!! Certainly Browne quotes some of these early extra-canonical works in her books, but I never even mentioned that!! All my comments were directed toward Sylvia Browne’s writing. I was critiquing her, not critiquing her use of sources.

So you are wrong if you hear me accepting these “‘gospels’ while casting doubt on the Gospels. . .” I certainly do not “. . . accept the one and reject the other.” I read and receive Sylvia’s stories with a grain of salt, as I say. They are an interesting and informative perspective on stories I have heard from only one side thus far in my life. And nothing more.

But thanks for replying. I do appreciate the dialogue!!

And, by the way, if you accept those “gospels” while casting doubt on the Gospels that contain records of eye-witnesses to the events, and were recorded within the lifetime of those eye-witnesses, pray tell on what basis you accept the one and reject the other. Is it because your spirit guide told you so? I recall a young man who received a revelation from a “spirit of God” that brought forth another Testament about Jesus’ life. His name was Joseph Smith and his additional testament is called the Book of Mormon. I can only assume you accept this source of information about Jesus’ life as well, right?