All reported speech in the New Testament is only an interpretation of what was actually said

Posted on August 24, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Not many people realise that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek – a language that Yeshua and his disciples barely knew (if at all). Their everyday tongue was Galilean Aramaic. They may have understood a smattering of Greek since Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee and just a stone’s throw from Nazareth, was on the main trade route from Greece to Asia Minor.

Most Jews also learned Hebrew so they could understand the scriptures, just as Muslims today learn Arabic to read the Qu’ran. Yeshua would also have needed Hebrew to communicate with the temple dignitaries in Jerusalem who would surely not have spoken Aramaic. We don’t know if he spoke Latin, the language of the Romans. Probably not, which poses an interesting question – how did he communicate with Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect, if indeed he really did (and there’s plenty of doubt)? Pilate may have spoken some Greek, but it’s unlikely they could have held a detailed conversation.

The implications are clear. Since the entire New Testament was written in a language foreign to Yeshua and the poor, illiterate Galileans with whom he associated, all reported speech in the gospels must be at least a third-hand translation of what was actually said. Or, more accurately, of the authors’ impressions of what was said or what the authors would have wanted him to say.

Aramaic, Hebrew and ancient Greek are said to be extremely difficult to translate into modern languages, but today’s expert linguists have a better knowledge of these languages and the people who spoke them than ever before so modern translations are considerably more accurate than their predecessors.

Scholars have thrown such additional light upon the original meaning of the scriptures that we cannot assume that a single paragraph of the Bible is understood in our day as it was intended at the time it was written.

Here’s the key. When reading any Bible passage we should ask ourselves, ‘What meaning did these events and sayings have for people living in that place at that time?’ Look for the meaning behind the words. That’s the challenge!

©David Lawrence Preston, 25.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

A miracle is an event that cannot be explained

Posted on August 24, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

A miracle is any event in the physical world that cannot be explained by the known laws of science and nature. Consequently ‘miracles’ change as scientific knowledge advances.

In times gone by mobile phones, microwaves, aeroplanes, television and the internet would have been considered miracles. Even flicking a switch to light up a room would have appeared miraculous to the average person a century and a half ago. In some parts of the world it still is.

The laws of physics have not changed in the past two thousand years; indeed, they have never changed, not in two thousand billion years! But our knowledge of them has. Every major scientific advance makes a ‘miracle’ no longer a miracle. Today space flight is no miracle, but transporting ourselves across time and space instantaneously as they do in science fiction programmes such as Dr Who and Star Trek would be. But for now, we can’t, so it appears just as miraculous as a pistol shot in the first century.

As for the healing miracles in the New Testament, if they happened (and I genuinely believe some of them did) who’s to say they weren’t the placebo effect at work? Scientists have demonstrated that placebos – pills with no active ingredients – can produce miraculous cures when the patient believes they can, and the stronger the belief, the more effective the cure. It’s perfectly possible that people who believed in Yeshua’s power to heal would get better simply for that reason.

There’s no doubt that the gospel authors saw no harm in massaging the facts to fit their stories; perhaps they even believed some of them. But there are no historical references to Yeshua transcending the laws of nature outside the New Testament other than as one of several gifted healers. Don’t you think there would be if something as remarkable as bringing a dead body back to life or turning water into wine had taken place? Suspiciously, these two events from the Fourth Gospel didn’t even make it into the other three!

Do I believe in miracles? Emphatically yes! But only because there’s so much more to learn about our world and the part we play in it.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Balboa Press, 2015

Why doesn’t the Church own up?

Posted on August 23, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Earlier generations were unwilling to challenge the Bible from a scientific or historical point of view, but now we are willing, and, moreover, we can.

Biblical scholarship has reached a new high in recent decades. New and better evidence has become available for historians, theologians, archaeologists and linguists to scrutinize for factual accuracy and new meanings. They have a better understanding of 1st Century Palestinian society than ever before.

Scholars go back to the earliest possible sources to uncover the influence of the numerous editors and translators. They can discern with a high degree of certainty where sections have been added or where original material has been altered. They examine the style and language of different passages to identify where several authors were at work. They study the context in which the manuscripts were written so they can piece together clues and fill in the gaps.

And yet many Christians continue to insist that the gospels were written by eye witnesses and are 100% reliable testimonies.

Much of what I included in my book, 201 Things About Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To) has been known for at least a couple of centuries and taught in seminaries and theological colleges around the world. Some has found a wider platform in the broadcast media and literature, but is rarely communicated to the people in the pews.

It’s about time it was!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

The clergy know, but the faithful don’t want to hear it!

Posted on August 23, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

I’ve had many conversations with churchmen and women and discovered that many of them continue to teach the same old things about the Bible without really believing it themselves. They dare not say, though, so for fear of confusing their congregations and losing their employment.

One Anglican vicar told me that, like all trainee clergy, she had studied the Bible from a factual-historical point of view at university. I asked her why, then, vicars continued to peddle the same old line in their Sunday sermons as if nothing had moved on from the 17^th or 18^th Centuries. Her reply astounded me. ‘Because they (the congregation) don’t want to hear it!’

‘Because they don’t want to hear it!’ Why not? Psychologists tell us that once people have made up their minds about something they don’t want to change. Previously I had believed that the church itself (that is, the ruling bodies that dictate doctrine, policy and procedure and the clergy who preach it) was the sticking point. Indeed, it has a long history of being suspicious of any verifiable facts that could threaten the foundations of its faith. Once an idea has been labelled ‘the word of the Almighty and people have convinced themselves that this is so, all discretion, all criticism, all scrutiny goes out of the window.

For example, if you believe that the gospels were written by contemporaries of Yeshua (‘Jesus’) who knew him personally and wrote down what they observed at the time, then no amount of evidence and reason can shake your faith in them. Your mind closes and so do your ears; common sense flies out of the window. But surely any belief system that cannot survive factual scrutiny is of little value!

My book ‘201 Things About Christianity You Probably Don’t Know (But Ought To)’ offers a selection of facts which I hope you will find interesting and significant. It may change your viewpoint on certain things, or not – your choice. I’m confident that few independent experts on the history and practice of Christianity would disagree with the information presented there, although some may differ with my interpretation. All I can do is set out the facts in good faith according to my understanding.

And that’s exactly what I will continue to do!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015. Available from Amazon and other booksellers.

Chinese Whispers

Posted on August 23, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Nowadays if you wanted to write a biography of someone who died half a century ago, like Dr Martin Luther King, Sir Winston Churchill or President Kennedy for instance, you would search the internet, visit a library and bookstore and look for film clips and old newsreels. You could even try to make contact with people who knew him, although they would either be in their dotage, their memories faded, or very young at the time in question.

This is the situation that faced the New Testament gospel writers. The earliest gospel, ‘Mark’, is dated around 70 CE, forty years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, the Christian prophet and allegedly Son of G_d. ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’s’ gospels were written around 75-85 CE, and ‘John’s’ around the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Scholars are quite clear that the authors could not have known Yeshua personally – they doubt that three of them ever visited Palestine. They would, of course, been quite elderly, and bear in mind, the average seventy year-old today is much fitter than they were in the 1st Century.

Imagine. It’s forty or fifty years since Yeshua’s death – two or three generations in those times – and you’re writing a biography of him. You live in Syria, Turkey or Rome, hundreds of miles from Palestine. You’ve never visited Galilee or Jerusalem and know little about the area. You have never lived as a Jew in a predominantly Jewish region, so are not as fully steeped in Jewish culture as were Yeshua and his disciples. You don’t speak his native language, Aramaic. All his family and close companions (except perhaps one elderly disciple who is blind) are dead and they don’t speak your language, Greek. You try to piece together his teachings, but have no recordings of his actual words, intonations and gestures. His followers share anecdotes with you, based on what they’ve heard, but you have no reliable way of checking whether their versions are correct.

Today we know exactly what Dr Martin Luther King said at the Washington Monument in 1963 or President Kennedy at the Berlin Wall that same year. We can even go back to recordings of Churchill’s wartime speeches and his warnings about the Soviet threat in the 1950s. Their content is beyond dispute. But we can never know, for instance, what was said during Yeshua’s trial or the Sermon on the Mount; if they ever took place at all, which is highly unlikely.

Now jump forward to the present day. You obtain a partial biography of Yeshua written more than nineteen centuries ago – it’s called a gospel. It’s been copied, miscopied, edited, added to and translated many times. It’s been amended many times by people with vested interests to ensure it’s ‘on message’. How reliable is it as a factual account? And yet, incredibly, a third of the people in the world live under political and religious systems based on these writings!

Wherever people gather and tell stories, the Chinese Whispers effect is present. Always was, and always will be!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

Until the early 19th Century few in the West questioned the Bible’s accuracy

Posted on August 23, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Until the early 19th Century few people in the Christian world questioned the Bible’s accuracy. It was considered sacrosanct. Only when the biblical texts began to be studied seriously in the early 1800s and cross referenced with other sources did a better understanding begin to emerge. As result, most Christians at that time had a very unrealistic view of Christian history and their religion, and now, two hundred years later, most still do:

They don’t know how their religion was founded, who wrote – or did not write – their sacred scripture, the New Testament scripts, when, or in what order.

They’ve never compared the gospels and wondered why they differ so much both in content and detail.

They have no idea how the religion developed over subsequent centuries.

They can’t even tell you the real name of their saviour, the language he spoke, or the language in which the New Testament was originally written.

But unless we understand how the New Testament came into being and how it ties in with the historical and archaeological records from that time, we will never understand Yeshua [1] and the religion that functions in his name.

My interest was triggered when a friend lent me a book called ‘Joshua’. Written by a retired Catholic priest, Father Joseph Girzone, it tells the story of Yeshua’s return to Earth as a humble carpenter in modern-day America. It’s a heartening tale of a compassionate man who engages the local townsfolk with his warmth, wisdom and generosity. I won’t spoil it by telling you that happens, except that he ends up being sent to Rome and thrown out of the Catholic Church for subverting their religion!

So impressed was I by this simple, down-to-earth tale that I started to explore the Christian scriptures. I read the New Testament cover to cover and attended Bible classes. I studied the Hebrew Scriptures (better known as the ‘Old Testament’). I rediscovered teachings that took me back to my childhood experiences in Sunday School. I even started referring to myself as an admirer of Yeshua, which, ironically, brought me into conflict with some Christians!

Then I realised: it is not following the gospel teachings that makes one a Christian – it is believing certain things about Yeshua, how and why he came into the world, how he left it, and what came after!

Frankly, 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 is a barrier. I can 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 enlightened people are doing in this modern age; long may it continue.

[1] Aramaic for ‘Jesus’. Jesus is a Greek name ascribed to him more than two centuries after his death

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015. Available through Amazon.

Christian Baptism

Posted on August 22, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Did you know there is no mention of infant baptism (Christening) anywhere in the Bible? Yet the early church took it upon themselves to interpret their prophet Yeshua’s message as they saw fit.

The purpose of the christening service is, of course, to deliver another generation of youngsters into church membership as parents promise to bring them up faithful to its teachings. In decades past, most infants in the UK were christened as a matter of course; it was synonymous with naming a child, giving him or her an identity.

Nowadays most parents no longer consider it essential. Even the majority who have their infants christened are not particularly religious; they do it because it is expected of them and because it gets the family together to have a nice day.

There are exceptions of course. The last christening I attended was a very devout affair. The service followed the standard Anglican format, and the sermon was a lengthy diatribe on how Yeshua’s resurrection had saved the young infant from his sins. I wondered what possible sins he had committed? ‘Mewling and puking’ (to quote Shakespeare)?

I didn’t have my children christened. I felt that baptism was a commitment best made in adulthood, not for the gratification of others when they are too young to know what they are doing. Nor was I willing to make undertakings I had no intention of carrying out, such as schooling my children as Christians to the exclusion of all other faiths.

I was taken aback when a relative asked me in all seriousness wasn’t I worried that my children would go straight to hell if they died. This idea was promulgated by the theologian St Augustine[1], second perhaps only to Paul of Tarsus as the main shaper of Roman Christianity. He insisted that those who died without being baptised would suffer in hell for eternity, although he could not have pointed to any passage in the Bible to back this up because there isn’t one.

There’s a simple reason why there is no reference to infant baptism in the Bible. As now, Jews did not practise it. Infant boys were (and are) circumcised soon after birth and their transition into adulthood marked by the Bar Mitzvah ceremony on entering adolescence.

However, the baptism of adults plays an important part in the New Testament. They say that Yeshua himself was baptised by an ascetic mystic named John who baptised people by total submersion in the River Jordan. Water symbolised cleansing of one’s sins and preparation for the life to come.

The earliest written biblical mention of baptism – of adults only, remember – is in the letters of Paul of Tarsus written in the sixth decade of the First Century. Paul was in the habit of baptising converts, probably aware of Yeshua’s reported baptism by John the Baptist.

There is no record of Yeshua ever baptising anyone or insisting that they be baptised. Nowhere in the gospels does Yeshua call for baptism as an initiation rite for joining his band of followers or as preparation for entering the promised kingdom of G_d.

There is a passage at the end of the Second Gospel in which the resurrected Master urged the eleven surviving disciples (the twelfth, Judas Iscariot, having committed suicide) to ‘go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’[2] but the evidence suggests that this was added to the text much later by an unknown author.

In the fourth century, the leaders of the Roman church assumed the authority to expand on Biblical teachings where ‘gaps’ existed. Infant baptism was one such ‘gap’ (along with purgatory, confession, the Trinity, the infallibility of popes, women priests and so on).

By the 11^thand 12^th centuries, the Roman church had succeeded in regulating all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave. All the main stages of life were to be ruled by sacraments and marked by a church ceremony. Baptism as an infant was the first, naturally, and so it has remained ever since.

Baptism is crucial to Yeshua’s story. It marked the start of his public ministry, but its significance was much greater than that, because Yeshua’s core philosophy was inspired by John the Baptist. John made a huge impression on Galilean society with his warnings that the Day of Judgement was near and Jews must repent for their sins. Nowadays most people would think him mad, but at that time he was a popular and revered figure. Historical sources indicate that John the Baptist was better known and more popular than Yeshua and feared by the ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas.

Incredibly, some Christians (including, apparently, the last pope) believe that John’s head was placed in a sack, buried in a dung heap and discovered four hundred years later. It has since apparently been lost and rediscovered a number of times and is considered a sacred relic by the Catholic Church!

John’s teachings undoubtedly shaped Yeshua’s. If events had turned out differently, perhaps Yeshua would have gone down in history as the Baptists’ best known disciple, but a disciple nonetheless. Of course, the gospel writers were not about to let that happen. Stuck for an explanation for why their ‘Lord’ had succumbed to baptism by a mere mortal, they created far-fetched narratives that emphasised Yeshua’s superiority. But if one reads between the lines, the real truth is clear.

©David Lawrence Preston, 22.8.2016

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

[1] Bishop of Hippo in the 5^th century, not the one who took Roman Christianity to Britain.

[2] Matthew 28:19

John the Baptist and the Carpenter from Nazareth

Posted on August 22, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

It seems to me that John the Baptist plays a much bigger part in the gospels than he is given credit for.

The gospels tell us that John was a reclusive holy man well-known for preaching that a new world order was about to be established and people had better repent and confess their sins. This would happen very soon. There would be a Day of Judgement after which the righteous would be rewarded and the unrepentant punished for eternity in an unquenchable fire. The gospels say he baptised people by submerging them in the River Jordan to symbolise cleansing, rebirth and delivery from their sins.

He caused quite a stir in the region. According to the Jewish historian Josephus (who, like the gospel writers, wrote in the second half of the 1^st Century), John the Baptist was better known, more popular and more troublesome to the authorities than Yeshua Bar Yehosef. Herod Antipas, the puppet king who ruled Galilee on behalf of the Romans, thought that John’s preaching would lead to an uprising, so he had him arrested and executed. But he left Yeshua alone.

The gospels say that the reason for John’s arrest was that Antipas had recently replaced his wife with a younger woman, Herodius. John had angered Antipas by criticising his behaviour, so Herodius persuaded her new husband to have him beheaded. The truth is probably a combination of Josephus’s view and the gospel writers: perhaps John’s reaction to the marriage was not the only reason for his arrest, just the last straw.

The gospels say that John never claimed to be the Messiah, but spoke of one who would follow who would be much greater than he. And when Yeshua sought him out for baptism, John thought he had found him.

Yeshua’s relationship with John the Baptist

According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins and John, like Yeshua, was the product of a divine conception. The other gospels make no mention of this. If they were cousins, why do the gospels suggest that John the Baptist didn’t know Jesus? We must draw our own conclusions.

We know nothing of how the carpenter from Nazareth came to be radicalised but we do know that he decided to take on John’s mantle after John’s arrest.

The theological dilemma

If you consider Yeshua to be a Great Teacher from whose words we can learn and whose example of love and wisdom we can follow, his seeking of baptism from John doesn’t present you with any particular problems. But the early Christians, intent on convincing themselves and others that Yeshua was G_d incarnate, were unable to satisfactorily explain why he would seek baptism from a man who they considered to be his spiritual inferior. Hence they went to extraordinary lengths to portray Yeshua as superior to John.

All four gospels state that John recognised Yeshua as the Messiah when he presented himself for baptism. Then, to strengthen their case, the first three – the Synoptics – tell us that a miraculous event occurred: as Yeshua emerged from the water the Holy Spirit descended from heaven like a dove and a heavenly voice – the voice of G_d – was heard.

(In the 21^st Century anyone who claimed to have heard such a voice would of course be admitted to a psychiatric establishment! But in 1st Century Palestine, it seems people were quite prepared to believe in a voice from the clouds.)

In the first and third gospels, the voice addresses Yeshua himself – ‘You are my son, the beloved. With you I am well pleased.’
In the second gospel, it addresses the onlookers. ‘This is my son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’
The fourth gospel did not report a voice from heaven, but instead had the Baptist saying, ‘I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of G_d.’
Interestingly, Paul of Tarsus – the earliest of the New Testament writers and the only one we can identify with certainty – makes no mention of the Baptist at all in his letters.

But here’s a curious thing. The second and third gospels say that after his arrest the Baptist sent a message to Yeshua from his prison cell asking if he really was the Messiah or whether they should expect another [1]. This presupposes that John was kept in a visitor-friendly prison, which seems most unlikely. Yeshua’s response was effectively ‘Yes I am.’ Referencing a passage in Isaiah[2], he replied: ‘The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’ This was their way of claiming that Yeshua was indeed fulfilling the ancient prophecy – the new world order was already on its way, and he was indeed the Messiah.

Don’t you think this is odd? These two gospels say despite a voice from heaven, the Baptist was not convinced that Yeshua was the Messiah. If this had indeed occurred, how could John have doubted it?

Yeshua’s baptism marked the start of his public ministry. The gospels clearly state that he was convinced that G_d had called him to carry on the work of the Baptist. And he never abandoned his faith in his mentor. Towards the end of his life he told an audience of Chief Priests and Elders: ‘John (the Baptist) came to you… and you did not believe him.’

Yeshua echoed John’s teachings so much so that Herod Antipas thought he was the Baptist reincarnated, but he did not try to emulate John’s austere lifestyle. John lived as a hermit, but Yeshua lived among people, enjoyed a good meal and a cup or two of wine. John stayed in one place and people sought him out, while Yeshua went to them. Yeshua did not preach withdrawal from the world, but active participation in it. And while John spoke of hellfire and repentance, Yeshua emphasised forgiveness and love.

Yeshua was above all, like John, an eschatologist

Yeshua’s most passionate teachings were undoubtedly about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of G_d and what people needed to do to prepare for it. This was not some far-distant event; Mark’s Gospel tells us that he told his disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of G_d has come with power.’[4]

Paul of Tarsus said the same, and the early Christians certainly took him literally (and were mocked for it). Now, two thousand years later, it is clear that they were all wrong. We’re still waiting.

Most modern biblical scholars believe that Yeshua was primarily an apocalyptic prophet who was put to death by the Romans for sedition when he claimed he would be king of the Jews in a future kingdom. But this view has not reached the people in the pews because the clergy – who study this in seminary – do not share it with their parishioners.

We should have no problem studying Yeshua from a historical perspective. The fact that the early Christian scriptures are inconsistent and contradictory should not worry us if we realise we cannot take the words literally and instead seek the meaning behind the words. Those Christian denominations who argue for the historical truth of the gospels are skating on very thin ice.

Is it possible that if John the Baptist had not been arrested by Herod Antipas, Yeshua would not have taken on his mantel, and we would never have heard of him? I think it is!

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

[1] Matthew 11: 2-6 and Luke 7:18-23.

[2] Isaiah 35:5-9

[3] Mark 11:27-33

[4] Mark 9:1

What does it mean to be ‘spiritual’

Posted on July 20, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Spiritual means non-physical. Appearances are not our essence. We’re paradoxes – we live in visible, touchable mortal bodies and are at the same time non-physical. Something we can’t smell, taste, touch, hear or see brings life to our bodies. This is consciousness the only part of us that is real and unchanging.

Most science fiction fans are familiar with the notion of alien life forms that suddenly vanish into a point of light. Perhaps you would like to think of your spiritual essence this way.

Awareness of your spiritual nature makes a huge difference. When you consider yourself to be nothing more than a physical being, your identity is based on the body and its needs. Your self-image revolves around its size, shape, age and colour. You compare yourself with other bodies, categorising and labelling them. You describe yourself in terms of your roles. Your values are based on material things. Happiness is gained through material security and sensory stimulation.

Contrast this with how we feel about ourselves when we know we are spiritual beings. Now, we describe ourselves in terms of our character, aptitudes and talents. When meeting others, we look beyond appearances to the reality of who they are – spiritual beings just like ourselves. Above all, we don’t need to rely on things to be happy – we are happy just being.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Visit blog.davidlawrencepreston.co.uk

How to Books, 2007

Non-resistance

Posted on July 20, 2016 by David Lawrence Preston

Non-resistance is one of the greatest spiritual teachings. It is closely related to forgiveness. Yeshua bar Yehosef (later rechristened ‘Jesus’) alluded to it, but it is not unique to him – all the great religions teach the same.

According to one of the gospel writers[1], Yeshua said ‘You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ Obviously, he didn’t mean this literally – he knew how to use symbolism and metaphor to get his message across. He was simply telling his audience of poor and oppressed people, let it go; don’t meet evil with evil, instead – practise only good.

In saying this, he was reinforcing a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures[2]: “Do not say, ‘I will do unto others as they have done unto me; I will pay them back for what they have done.’”

Non-resistance is about replacing negative thoughts of judgement, blame and vengeance with loving thoughts of acceptance, harmony and peace, and then allowing our speech and actions to concur. Of course, this is not always easy to do, but it is the only way for peace of mind.

When we feel attacked, abused or insulted, we should let go and let higher forces handle it – which they will – through the natural Law of Cause and Effect. Others have to face up to their responsibilities and learn from them, just as we do. We need do nothing. Lessons will be learned. natural justice will be done.

In the greater scheme of things fighting evil with evil simply doesn’t work. As one of the greatest modern proponents of non-resistance, Mahatma Gandhi, put it, – ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.’ We all know revenge doesn’t change what happened and that anger merely clouds our judgment; it can lead to unwise actions which inadvertently sabotage our happiness and wellbeing.

I’m not saying it’s easy, but intuitively I think most people understand the sense of what I’m saying.

Some years ago I came across an idea which I’ve found very helpful in understanding and practising forgiveness and non-resistance. When we’re stressed, angry, fed up, facing tough challenges and finding it hard to see a way through, we should ask ourselves not, ‘Why did this happen to me,’ but ‘Why did this happen for me?’

Why is this so valuable? Because everything that happens does so for a reason. We may not see it at the time, but it contributes to the fulfillment of our life’s purpose. If we respond wisely, it contributes to our spiritual growth. We live in a world of appearances. Sometimes the things we get angry about happen specifically for our benefit, but we can’t see it. This is the real meaning of ‘Turn the other cheek’ – allow life to happen, stay centred, look for the benefit, and know that everything that happens, happens for you.

Follow me on Facebook and twitter @David_L_Preston

How to Books, 2007

[1] In the composite of Yeshua’s sayings known as the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 38-39.

[2] Proverbs 24:29

David Lawrence Preston

Dedicated to creating a kinder, happier, healthier world

Tag Archives: Yeshua

All reported speech in the New Testament is only an interpretation of what was actually said

A miracle is an event that cannot be explained

Why doesn’t the Church own up?

The clergy know, but the faithful don’t want to hear it!

Chinese Whispers

Until the early 19th Century few in the West questioned the Bible’s accuracy

Christian Baptism

John the Baptist and the Carpenter from Nazareth

Yeshua’s relationship with John the Baptist

The theological dilemma

Yeshua was above all, like John, an eschatologist

What does it mean to be ‘spiritual’

Non-resistance