The Nature of Creative Intelligence

The religious powers-that-be describe the qualities and characteristics of their particular deities in various ways. For example, the supreme being of Islam, Allah, and the ‘Father God’ of Christianity are loving, fair and merciful, but mete out stern justice to non-believers in the afterlife. These beliefs are a matter of faith and rely solely on ancient ideas captured in scripture written long ago.

G_d

I don’t believe in this kind of g_d, but I do believe that there is a Creative Intelligence underpinning and infusing everything. Many quantum physicists – including Einstein and Max Planck – agree. This Intelligence is certainly not a person, but a ‘presence’ or ‘principle’.

Its qualities can be inferred from science, experience and common sense. The world around us provides plenty of evidence that intelligence is at work. It has beauty, order, meaning and intent. What kind of power could produce these effects? Only a positive, bountiful and constructive life force. What would life on Earth be like if this were not so? Could we exist? How long would we survive? Could life on this planet, where everything is in perfect balance, have been created by a malevolent power? A negative life force would surely destroy its own creation.

Since Creative Intelligence is inherently good and it flows through everything, then everything must in essence be inherently good. Only human ignorance and stupidity disturb the balance of nature. Imagine if we were to disappear like the dinosaurs millions of years ago; the Earth would soon be returned to its natural state of harmony.

If humans were to raise their consciousness, rise above their destructive behaviours and work together to create a perfect world, who knows what would be possible?

©David Lawrence Preston, 23.7.18

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

365 Spirituality book

Science and Christianity

Christianity has always had an uneasy relationship with science. Many scientific discoveries have appeared to question the very basis of this religion.

The problem for Christians is that some of the statements in the Bible are just plain WRONG. For example, at the time the Genesis creation stories were written, the Hebrews believed that the Earth at the centre of the universe, it was flat and covered by a dome above which were ‘the waters’. Occasionally the dome leaked (it rained). The sun and stars were fixed to the inside of the dome, and below the ground was the place of the dead, portrayed by the ancient Greeks as Hades.

It’s hardly worth stating that we know better now.

In the Middle Ages, scientists were harshly treated for publishing theories which were perceived to contradict Biblical teachings. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543) published an astronomical model in 1543 which had the sun at the centre of the universe and the Earth and the other planets rotating around it. He did not attract the censure of the Catholic Church at the time, but Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) was not so lucky a century later when he propounded a similar view. The church declared his findings false and contrary to scripture and forbade him to promote his theory.

Galileo later defended his views in his ‘Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems’, which angered the Pope and the Jesuits, both of whom had supported him up until this point. He was tried by the Holy Office, found guilty of heresy and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took 359 years to rectify this wrong. In 1992, Pope John Paul ll acknowledged in a speech that the Catholic Church had erred in condemning him.

For several hundred years, science and religion staged an uneasy standoff. Scientists avoided making contentious statements about religion and vice versa. Then came Charles Darwin, the author of ‘The Origin of Species’. He was declared ‘an enemy of God’ for daring to advocate a theory that refuted the church’s view of creation. Even so, he never lost his belief in a creative force behind the universe. He wrote, ‘When I wrote The Origin of Species, my faith in God was as strong as that of a bishop.’

Some pioneers of science had no difficulty seeing science and religion as compatible. Albert Einstein was viewed as a heretic by the church, yet he had a profound belief in a universal mind, spirit or creative intelligence that transcended the universe and was beyond our comprehension. He and many others, including Sir Isaac Newton and the ‘Father of Quantum Mechanics’, Max Planck, shared a sense of humility and awe at what they discovered in the natural world and gave the credit to this creative intelligence.

Nowadays the church is more comfortable with scientific research. The Catholic Church, for instance, employs ordained scientists to investigate such diverse subjects as the big bang, epigenetics and global warming, but their starting point is always the Bible teachings. They seek to fit the data to the Bible teachings, not find the best explanation that fits the data. We are without doubt gaining a greater understanding of how the material universe works, but are no nearer to understanding why the universe is as it is than were the ancient Hebrews or Greeks.

©David Lawrence Preston, 12.6.18

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things

Heresy and Truth

In the early 1980s, the newly appointed Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr David Jenkins, said he did not believe the gospel birth stories nor that that a physical resurrection had taken place, and that such beliefs were not necessary to be a good Christian.

You may remember the uproar in some Christian circles. Many – including the Prime Minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher – thought he had no right to call himself a Christian and senior members of the Church of England demanded he be tried for heresy (the last heresy trials had been over a hundred years previously).

Moreover, on the day of Dr Jenkins’ ordination at York Minster, lightning struck the Minster and part of the roof caught fire. Proof, said his critics, that God was angry with the church for appointing him.

All this made quite an impression on me, having rejected the strict Methodist upbringing to which I had been subjected. I began to take an interest in religion from a historical point of view. I quickly discovered that Bishop Jenkins was merely expressing a view that had long existed among scholars. For example, Dr Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906: ‘The histories of Jesus’ birth are not literary versions of a tradition, but literary inventions.’[1]

But what was the Bishop really saying? Let’s take a look at the Christmas and resurrection stories:

The Christmas story which is enacted around the world every December is based on just two gospels – ‘Matthew’s’ and ‘Luke’s’. ‘Mark’ and ‘John’ have nothing to say on the issue. Indeed, the Fourth Gospel reports an incident in which a crowd doubted that Jesus was the Messiah precisely because he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Galilee[2]

nativity

The familiar Christmas tale combines ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’.

Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem on a donkey. Their son was born in a stable because there was no room at the inn. They were visited by shepherds and three wise men from the East. According to ‘Matthew’, and ‘Matthew’ alone, the family then had to escape to Egypt to avoid persecution from King Herod. Eventually they returned to Nazareth and nothing more was heard of them for over a decade.

Now apart from the sheer implausibility of such a tale, it is compounded by a number of ‘inconvenient’ facts based on what we know about history and the culture of Palestinian society at that time.

To start with, the above narrative is a combination of two incompatible and very different sources. The only thing they have in common is the location, Bethlehem, and their wish to portray Jesus’ birth as important. ‘Matthew’ was also concerned to link it in as many ways as possible to the ancient Hebrew prophecies.

There is no mention of this miraculous birth anywhere else in the New Testament: no mention in the earliest gospel, ‘Mark’, and no mention in Paul’s letters, which pre-date ‘Mark’. Paul had met with the disciples Peter and James (Jesus’s biological brother) – surely they would have discussed such a remarkable turn of events? Or is it simply that these stories hadn’t yet been circulated when the earliest New Testament texts were written?

There’s no mention of the birth in ‘John’s’ Gospel; no mention in the Acts of the Apostles; and no mention in the later letters. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any reference to his birth, and neither do his mother or his brothers! Curious!

Bethlehem

It was especially important for the author of ‘Matthew’s Gospel’ that Jesus was seen to come from Bethlehem, since the prophet Micah had foreseen a Messiah being born there [3]. ‘Matthew’ stated it as a fact [4] but made no attempt to explain how they came to be in Bethlehem; that story came only from ‘Luke’. He wrote that a census was to take place which required every citizen to return to their ancestral home. Because Joseph was said to be a descendent of King David, this meant David’s city, Bethlehem.

Good story. The problem is, it simply isn’t true. Historians have searched in vain for an empire-wide census at the time of Jesus’s birth, but there was none. In any case the Romans had no jurisdiction to hold a census in Galilee since this was Herod’s province. And not even the Romans would have insisted that a heavily pregnant woman travel the eighty miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem through hostile territory on a donkey.

The flight into Egypt

According to ‘Luke’[6], after the birth the family immediately returned to Nazareth. But ‘Matthew’s’ gospel says that Mary, Joseph and the baby fled to Egypt to avoid an order from King Herod that all new born Jewish boys be killed. But there’s no record of any such decree, and no record of a slaughter of Jewish babies at that time. It is simply a literary way of linking Jesus’s birth to the passage in the scriptures in which Yahweh says, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’[7]

So were ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ fibbers? Yes and no. They saw no harm in using a little artistic licence or borrowing a few ideas from other cultures. They simply wanted to encourage people to join their new community.

JC

Let’s turn to Jesus’ crucifixion, burial and resurrection.

While Jesus’s crucifixion is not in doubt (it is about the only fact about his life that is mentioned outside the official gospels), the circumstances of his burial are contested. It was unheard of for a crucified person to receive a decent burial. It was normal practice to leave them on the cross until the vultures had torn off the flesh, then take the bones to the sulphur pits outside Jerusalem which were used as a crematorium. The balance of probability is that this is where Jesus’s body ended up too.

The gospels say that that Pilate, the Roman governor, gave permission for Jesus’ body to be removed and placed in a tomb. Quite why this notoriously cruel and ruthless man would have given permission for the body of this particular insurgent to be given this special treatment is unclear, except it set the scene for what followed next.

Nobody saw Jesus walk out of the tomb!

Why make up a story? When Jesus died, his followers’ hopes that he was the one to liberate his people were shattered. Then, as the decades rolled by, successive generations of Christians began to see him as the personification of G_d. But how could G_d die? How could they execute G_d as a common criminal?

The New Testament writers and subsequent theologians had a lot of explaining to do! Resurrection was the startling explanation they came up with.

According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he would be killed and then resurrected on the third day[3]. Did he actually speak those words? We don’t know. According to these same sources, nobody – not even his closest disciples – expected him to rise again, and when the post-Easter Christ figure ‘appeared’ to them, all the witnesses were so surprised they didn’t recognise him.

Most of the gospel sightings began and ended mysteriously. Usually he ‘drew near’ then ‘disappeared from sight’. But the gospel writers went to great lengths to insist that the risen Jesus was not a ghost, nor a badly injured man hobbling around. Even though he could appear and disappear at will and walk through walls, they claimed he ate, drank and could be touched.

Paul of Tarsus would not have believed this. He believed that Jesus returned in changed form, not as a resuscitated corpse but transformed into a spiritual body

I don’t have space to go into all the inconsistencies in the resurrection stories, so I’ll summarise:

  • In ‘Mark’s’ Gospel the disciples fled in terror and returned to Galilee.[4] The original gospel ended there, but decades later twelve extra verses were added by a second author in which the Christ figure ‘appeared’ to them several times, spoke to them and was immediately whisked away to heaven. Nowhere does either author claim that Jesus had risen in bodily form.
  • In ‘Matthew’s’ Gospel, Mary Magdalene encountered Jesus as they fled from the empty tomb, but she didn’t recognize him. Clearly he wasn’t the man they remembered from just a few days earlier.
  • ‘Luke’s’ Gospel added several more appearances in which Jesus ‘came near’ and ‘stood among them’, showed them his wounds, ate fish, then vanished. There are no such claims in ‘Mark’ or ‘Matthew’. Moreover, far from fleeing to Galilee, the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and ‘were continually in the temple.’
  • In the Fourth Gospel – written around 70 years after the crucifixion – neither Mary Magdalene nor Peter recognised him at first. Later, he ‘stood among’ the disciples and invited ‘doubting’ Thomas to touch his wounds.[5] He also appeared to the disciples on various occasions, once while they ate bread and fish for breakfast and another in which he appeared on a beach and gave the disciples some advice on fishing.[6]
  • Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author as ‘Luke’s’ Gospel, merely says he ‘presented himself alive’ to the disciples over a forty day period before the momentous events of Pentecost.

Once again we find ourselves wondering which, if any, of these accounts is correct, since they can’t all be right! The only things the gospels agree on is that the tomb was empty on the third day and Mary Magdalene was one of those who discovered it. Bear in mind that with many of the gospel stories, the longer the period between Jesus’s life (c 5 BCE-30 CE) and the writing of the gospel (c 70 CE – 105 CE), the more embellished they become.

Psychologists tell us that we are just as likely to see what we believe as believe what we see. In my opinion there’s no verifiable evidence for a physical resurrection, just the words of a small group of devotees. But we must all decide for ourselves. Whatever you choose to believe is true – for you. That’s the nature of belief.

Bishop Jenkins described the resurrection stories as ‘a conjuring trick with bones’ – hardly likely to endear him to the diehards. But what I believe he was trying to say was important – seek the deeper, metaphysical truths in the scriptures rather than blindly accepting them as literal truth (which they are quite plainly not).

But what are these truths? The 19th Century mystic, Charles Fillmore, said that ‘there is only one metaphysical interpretation and that is your own.’ In other words, what matters is what the biblical texts mean to you. For me, Christmas is about celebrating the birth of divine consciousness or the Christ spirit within, and the resurrection about re-affirming the indestructible nature of consciousness.

Spirituality for me is knowing that the life force, universal energy, Christ spirit, zero point field,  whatever you want to call it, is present everywhere, including in me, and expressing it with joy. I believe that Bishop Jenkins – the man branded a heretic by members of his own church – thought the same.

I conclude my book ‘201 Things About Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)’ with the following comment:

If I have to believe in a virgin birth, walking on water, dead and decomposing bodies coming back to life and a man being carried up to heaven on a cloud before I can realise my spirituality, then there’s no hope for me. For me, in this sense conventional Christianity is a barrier. I can study it, learn from it and borrow the sayings and parables that make sense to me. The rest I can reject without fear of eternal damnation (a loving G_d wouldn’t do that to me anyway).

That’s what Bishop Jenkins was driving at. That’s not heresy – that is truth!

©David Lawrence Preston, 19.3.2018

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

 

[1] The Quest of the Historical Jesus

[2] John 7:40-42

[3] E.g. Mark 9:31 and 10:34; Matthew 16:21 and 17:23; Luke 9:22 and 24:7; John 20:19

[4] Mark 16: 5-8

[5] John 20:19-20

[6] John 21:4-6

The earliest passages in the New Testament

Not many people realise – even Christians – that the earliest passages in the New Testament appear in letters written by the apostle Paul of Tarsus around 52 CE. They think the gospels came first, but they didn’t. Paul’s genuine letters predate the first gospel, ‘Mark’, by 15-20 years.

By the time the official gospels came to be written (between 70 CE and 105 CE) the fledgling Christian community had been heavily influenced by Paul’s letters. They are the only New Testament writings of a known individual describing his experiences first hand, which cannot be said of any of the other letters, the gospels or Acts of the Apostles.

Paul’s letters are arranged in the New Testament according to length, the longest (Romans) first and shortest (Philemon) last. This is not in the order in which they were written, nor does it reflect their authenticity, subject matter, literary quality or importance.

Thirteen letters in Paul’s name appear in the New Testament. Paul wrote, or more accurately, dictated, only seven of them; the other six were not written by him but, presumably, by Paul’s followers and successors. Some of the early letters reached their final form several decades after his death.

The seven definitely by him, all between 52-62 CE, are:

  • Thessalonians 1
  • Philippians
  • Philemon
  • Corinthians 1
  • Corinthians 2
  • Galatians
  • Romans

Four letters are so different in style, content and doctrine and written so late that they could not have been by the same man:

  • Ephesians (c80-100 CE)
  • Timothy 1 (c95-100 CE)
  • Timothy 2 (c95-100 CE)
  • Titus (c95-100 CE)

Colossians and Thessalonians 2 are also attributed to Paul, but scholars are divided about their authenticity. The consensus is they were probably written in the seventh or eighth decades. (See Kenneth Davis’s brilliant scholarly work,  ‘Don’t Know Much About The Bible.’)

Forgeries? Yes, but in those days it was considered perfectly acceptable to use the name of a respected deceased person, either to add authority to a document or express what the writer thought he would have said had he still been alive.

The irony is, most clergy know this to be true but make little mention of it from the pulpit. Why not?

©David Lawrence Preston, 20.1.2016

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things

Hay House/Balboa Press, 2015

David Lawrence Preston illuminates biblical inconsistencies in new book

David Lawrence Preston illuminates biblical inconsistencies in new book

A historical/factual perspective on Christian doctrine, discrepancies therein contained

BOURNEMOUTH, England — David Lawrence Preston notes that he was inspired to write “201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)” (published by Balboa Press) after his investigation of Christian doctrine, which lead to the discovery of a significant amount of inaccuracies and contradictions within the canon text. Here, he labors to irradiate these inconsistencies while still finding value in Christian mythology from a non-religious viewpoint.

Preston dismantles discrepancies with clear language, intent on instruction for the wider public. The 201 points format provides further accessibility to the reader. Preston aims to inform people about scripture in the Bible they may not have otherwise been aware of had they ended their religious education after Sunday school.

An excerpt from “201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)”:

“If I have to believe in a virgin birth, voices from the sky, walking on water, dead and decomposing bodies coming back to life and a man being carried up to heaven on a cloud before I can realise my spirituality, then Christianity hinders me. It’s a barrier. I can study it, learn from it and borrow the sayings and parables that make sense to me. The rest I can reject without fear of eternal damnation (a loving God wouldn’t do that to me anyway). That’s what more and more people are doing in this enlightened age.”

More information is available at http://blog.davidlawrencepreston.co.uk/.

Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

 

“201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)”

By David Lawrence Preston

Hardcover | 5.5 x 8.5 in | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336994

Softcover | 5.5 x 8.5 in | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336970

E-Book | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336987

Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

 

About the Author

David Lawrence Preston is a speaker, life coach and author specializing in life enrichment, holistic health and spirituality. His interest in Christianity dates back to his school days and his passion researching the world’s great spiritual traditions. He lives by the sea on the South Coast of England, where he dedicates himself to helping create a kinder, more authentic and spiritual world.

 

He Never Came Back (Even Though He Promised)

Social media recently reported that a Roman Catholic Cardinal, Georgio Salvadore, has stated that it looks as if Jesus Christ is not coming back, thus refuting a core Christian doctrine that lasted for nearly two thousand years. The cardinal is said to have then astounded his audience by claiming that when Jesus promised to return he must have been drunk!

Christians at first were upon in arms and later relaxed when the word spread it was a hoax. Apparently there is no such person as Cardinal Georgio Salvadore.

Even so, the fictional  Cardinal was touching on a raw nerve. The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke, originally written between 70 CE and 85 CE) make it perfectly clear that their prophet, known as Yeshua in his lifetime, promised many times before his death that he would return at Father God’s instigation to establish the kingdom of God on Earth, and he would do so within a generation.

If you doubt this, take a look at Mark 9:1: ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come with power.’ If that doesn’t convinced you, Mark 1:15 reports him as saying ‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’

He reaffirmed it in his Last Supper speech, telling his disciples, ‘I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom’ (Matthew 26:29). He didn’t mean a kingdom somewhere else and in the far distant future, but right here on Earth within the lifetime of those present.

By the time the Fourth Gospel was written around the turn of the 1st century, it was already clear that Yeshua’s prophetic words had been empty. Christians were embarrassed and widely mocked. He had not returned, and far from God establishing a kingdom for the Jews, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed by the Romans along with the rest of the city. Jews who survived had scattered in fear of their lives. That’s why the Fourth Gospel hardly mentions the supposed return.

It’s also why the last book of the New Testament to be written, the Second Letter attributed to (but not actually written by) Peter, felt the need to make excuses for the uncomfortable fact that the kingdom promised by Yeshua nearly a century earlier had still not materialised. ‘Do not ignore this one fact, beloved,’ it pleads, ‘that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.’ (2 Peter 3:8)

Why doesn’t the church have more to say about this part of Yeshua’s message? Is it because they worry that bringing it to people’s attention would make a vital part of his core teachings irrelevant in our time? After all, he was wrong. The world was not transformed within the lifetime of his disciples. God did not appear, and neither did he. And he probably never will.

 

©David Lawrence Preston, 7.11.17

 

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things

Hay House/Balboa Press, 2015

Archbishop Bemoans the Absence of God

Following recent announcements by the Pope that seem to overturn the Catholic Church’s longstanding teachings on women priests, the literal truth of the Bible and homosexuality, the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, has weighed in with an interesting comment of his own: the recent terrorist attacks on Paris made him doubt the presence of G_d!

This is extraordinary particularly since progressive Christianity appeared to be moving away from the nonsensical notion of an bearded old man looking down from above to a ‘Presence’, an ‘Intelligence’ that is ever-present, all- powerful and all-knowing, not a person but an energy and information field not unlike the concept of the Zero Point Field of quantum physics.

The ancient Hebrews believed there were many gods but theirs, YHWH, could be located in a portable tent (yes, really!!) or later an inner room in the Jerusalem Temple. They were YHWH’s chosen people, showered with benefits when the observed his/its laws and subjected to punishments verging on the vindictive when they did not.

The G_d of the New Testament was portrayed as the ‘Father Within’ who could be both a source of inspiration and comfort, but also a harsh judge and exterminator.

So, Archbishop, which G_d are you referring to? Is yours a G_d that happily withdraws from the world allows untold suffering to ensue? One must assume so. An ever-present, all-powerful and all-knowing Intelligence would be, well, ever-present, all-powerful and all-knowing!

The question of how an all-powerful, loving G_d could create a world of such suffering, misery and disease is one of the great contradictions in Christianity. Theologians conclude that it is because G_d allows humans to make our own choices, but if we choose unwisely we must suffer the consequences. This is the doctrine of free which is supposed to explain away most of the tragedy and hardship in the world.

But it doesn’t. Did those people in that Parisian theatre choose to be brutally slaughtered by these medieval butchers, any more than the passengers on that Russian airliner or London bus, the occupants of the Twin Towers and those unfortunates beheaded by sadistic scum in the Syrian desert?

I think not. But one thing I do know – the faith represented by Archbishops and Popes is built on shaky foundations and has a lot more explaining to do!

 

©David Lawrence Preston, 22.10.2017

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things

Balboa Press/Hay House, 2015

 

 

 

David Lawrence Preston highlights biblical inconsistencies in new book

Front cover 201 things

A historical/factual perspective on Christian doctrine.

BOURNEMOUTH, England — David Lawrence Preston was inspired to write “201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)” (published by Balboa Press) after his investigation of Christian doctrine. It led to the discovery of a huge number of inaccuracies and contradictions. He highlights these inconsistencies and asks what value Christian doctrine has since it is based on shaky foundations.

Preston dismantles discrepancies with clear language, intent on instruction for the wider public. The 201 points format provides further accessibility to the reader. Preston aims to inform people about scripture in the Bible they may not have otherwise been aware of had they ended their religious education after Sunday school.

An excerpt from “201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)”:

“If I have to believe in a virgin birth, voices from the sky, walking on water, dead and decomposing bodies coming back to life and a man being carried up to heaven on a cloud before I can realise my spirituality, then Christianity hinders me. It’s a barrier. I can study it, learn from it and borrow the sayings and parables that make sense to me. The rest I can reject without fear of eternal damnation (a loving God wouldn’t do that to me anyway). That’s what more and more people are doing in this enlightened age.”

More information is available at http://blog.davidlawrencepreston.co.uk/.

 

“201 Things about Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)”

By David Lawrence Preston

Hardcover | 5.5 x 8.5 in | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336994

Softcover | 5.5 x 8.5 in | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336970

E-Book | 250 pages | ISBN 9781504336987

Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

 

About the Author

David Lawrence Preston is a speaker and author specializing in life enrichment, holistic health and spirituality. His interest in Christianity dates back to his school days and his passion researching the world’s great spiritual traditions. He lives on the South Coast of England where he dedicates himself to helping create a kinder, gentler, more authentic and spiritual world.

Facebook and Twitter

Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

 

PRESS RELEASE

A controversial new book which challenges a number of fundamental Christian beliefs has been published by a Dorset-based author. The book uncovers the facts about Christianity that most people-including Christians-don’t know and explains why these facts are so important.

David L Preston, who lives in Bournemouth, has written ‘201 Things about Christianity you probably don’t know (but ought to)’, published by Balboa Press in the USA, a division of Hay House. He found during his research that the Gospels ‘are factually flawed, contradictory, misleading and, in places, impossible to comprehend.’

The book is aimed at anyone interested in the history and basis of Christian belief, including atheists and humanists looking for discussion and debate; Christians who are wavering in their own beliefs because they no longer accept old myths and are looking for a way forward to a more satisfying spiritual life, and Universities, libraries, teachers and theologians who can use the text as a teaching aid and to increase their own knowledge.

David’s interest in Christianity dates back to his school days and his passion is researching the world’s great spiritual traditions. He has written widely on the subject and given many talks and workshops to a variety of audiences. David explains his motivation to write the book: “I am intrigued by how the Gospels have been twisted, manipulated, misquoted and mistranslated to the point where hardly a single sentence means the same to us and it did to the original writer.

‘201 things about Christianity you probably don’t know (but ought to)’ is available in hardback, paperback and on Kindle from Amazon at www.amazon.co.uk

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

David Lawrence Preston is a teacher and author specialising in practical psychology, health, bio-energetic healing and spirituality. He first became interested in these subjects after a life-changing experience in Moscow in 1990 and has since taken his knowledge and insights to five continents. He has worked with countless individuals and organisations, where his warmth, sincerity and integrity go down well with audiences.

You can follow him on Twitter @David_L_Preston.

 

 

‘Truth’ does not have to be ‘true’

The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is largely a symbolic and highly fictionalised account of a people’s struggles and their attempt to understand their world.

The New Testament is largely a symbolic and fictionalised account of a small clique’s efforts to convince their neighbours to believe that their crucified ‘prophet’ was more than human and that the world was about to be transformed by their G_d.

Even so, stories can contain an element of ‘truth’ without being literally ‘true’ – that’s the appeal of Aesop, Homer, the Brothers Grimm and almost every great novelist and playwright.

Perhaps the biblical writers were not so much concerned with facts as meaning, and it would be more beneficial to ask ourselves, ‘What meaning were they seeking to convey?’ than, ‘Is this literally true?’

That’s where the value of these ancient writings lies.

©David Lawrence Preston, 25.8.2017

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things