Everyone knows that science and faith rule different realms, and that the two shall never meet. Well everyone is wrong.

Though the following exposition is scientifically irrefutable it will remain nonetheless beyond belief and imagination for almost everyone. Like all science, it is not dependent upon opinion nor wishful thinking. What it is dependent upon however, is hard, cold evidence obtained from rigorous experimentation.

Let us begin with the observation that if we sort all the verses of the Gospels by topic then we can see that by far and away the greatest number of verses are devoted to the topic of the denial and rejection of Jesus as the savior of the world: his own prediction of this denial, and from others, the disbelief, doubt, hostility, betrayal, desertion, accusations of blasphemy, execution, and through to the disciples' lack of recognition of Jesus after his resurrection. This cannot be refuted; it is only a matter of reading and counting verses. Time consuming yes, but nonetheless very easy to do.

Now based on this observation, let us make the hypothesis both that any statement reflecting the real teachings of Jesus will encounter this same denial, and likewise then that anyone proclaiming the same as Jesus will get the same as Jesus. Here denial is explicitly defined as the obliviousness of the obvious, - that we haven't been seeing what for so long has been staring us right in the face.

To begin to prove our hypothesis we will use two expressions of Jesus' gospel which have long been accepted as the heart and core of Christian doctrine:

- Christ's blood on the cross washed away the sins of the world;

-  Christ paid for our sins with his death on the cross.

Can you see anything denied here, - anything obvious but nonetheless which we have been oblivious to for the last two thousand years? Anything here which Christians might experience as the most caustic blasphemy?

According to the science of the meaning of the English language, isn't it so that if Christ’s blood washed away the sins of the world, then this should mean no more sin? After all, if the sins of the world have been washed away, doesn’t this then leave the world without sin? If I said that the laundry washed away the dirt of the sheets, then wouldn't it be immediately self-evident that the sheets are now free and clean of dirt? Two sentences virtually identical in structure and dynamics with the only real difference being in vocabulary, so why do we see the sheets free of dirt, but not the world free of sin?

Likewise if I said that Joe Shit the Ragman paid our bar tab, then doesn’t this obviously mean that we now have to pay nothing for our drinks? So when we are told Christ has already paid for our sins why don't we then understand the same: now there is no cost to us for our sins? A bit irrational, isn't it, to tell us of the good news that Jesus did pay for our sins while in the same breath, telling us that we still have to pay for our sins???


Can you think of any reason or rationale to explain why the world has been so blind for so long to the obvious meaning of the plain, simple English of these two statements? And just why is it that Christians run around professing that which they certainly don't believe and actually find very objectionable? There’s no technical vocabulary here. No esoteric logic. Is there any excuse, any explanation for this not seeing of what is right in front of our eyes? Welcome to the inexplicable, to the messianic mystery of Jesus Christ.

No more sin? No cost or payment for sin? Could there be any worse news for Christianity than that its dogma says what it means and means what it says? Unthinkable blasphemy for most Christians, eh? For if these two assertions of Christian doctrine do indeed reflect the actual good news of Jesus Christ that he did indeed sacrifice his life in order to pay for our sins, then doesn't the last twenty centuries of the church with all its popes, priests, pastors and preachers warning of the dangers and abomination of sin, reveal that for the Christian Church Jesus' atoning sacrifice was actually meaningless? - that Jesus died for nothing? - that the church’s stance against sin reveals that the history of Christianity is the history of the denial of the gospel truth of Jesus Christ?!

Unbelievable? Jesus certainly understood this to be the case. In Matthew 9:5, Mark 2:9 and Luke 5:23 isn‘t he essentially asking, "What is easier to say in order to be believed, that I can forgive/remit sins or that I can perform miracle cures?" Isn't the history of Christianity up through today the history of the belief that Christ did indeed perform all sorts of miracle cures like healing the blind, the insane, the paralyzed, the lepers, resurrecting the dead as well as he himself being resurrected, while being at the same time the history of the denial Jesus' own testimony that the sins of the world are to be forgiven/paid through the shedding of his blood (Matthew 26:28)?

In science irrefutable proof is dependent upon at least three things: the first involves observation, that you and others can see what I see; the second is how accurately hypothetical prediction is confirmed by experimental results; and then that the same experiment, when repeated over and over, always gives the same results.

So can you see what I see? Do the two statements of Christian dogma, - that Christ’s blood washed away the sins of the world and that Christ paid for our sins, - actually tell us in plain simple English that thanks to Jesus Christ sin is no more, is without cost to ourselves?  

After questioning a number of people about this observation, can you begin to confirm the predicted response of denial? In fact can't you see not just some generalized response, but that the denial ranges from polite evasion and rationalization by liberals to irritation and even acute hostility from conservatives? (Ironically while Jesus speaks so directly of love and life, it is those self described as pro-life who, like the Pharisees, will experience as an unbearable blasphemy this notion that because of Jesus we are no longer subject to condemnation for our sins.)

And when you’ve performed this little experiment lots of times, do you always get the same results? During the last twenty years I have ask several hundred people from all walks of life about these two expressions of Christian doctrine. Literally less that ten have been able or willing to admit the obvious.

Of course not just unbelievable, but in all reality, utterly unthinkable that through Jesus there is no more sin/no cost or divine consequence for sinning, - absolutely impossible to even consider believing that for two thousand years Christianity, with its ongoing insistence of the danger of sin, has in all reality existed as the institutionalized denial of the teachings at the heart of Christ's ministry. Such notions clearly contradict a huge part of our shared and fundamental understanding of the only world we've ever known.  But what about the evidence? Does one now take refuge in the comfort and safety of orthodox belief, or can one push aside blind belief just enough to allow for following the trail left by the evidence of those things which for so long haven't been seen?

Nothing demonstrates all the above so well as what Jesus himself tells us in the two verses John 3:16-17. For Christians, while John 3:16 is the most beloved and well known of all verses of the Bible, it is the very next verse, John 3:17, that is for those same Christians perhaps the least seen and most objectionable verse.

If you'll take a quick glance at these two verses, don't you see that John 3:16 and John 3:17 form an indivisible unity? Doesn't the former tell us of our reward for believing in Jesus, while the latter tells us exactly what there is to believe about Jesus in order to receive this reward. Taken together isn't Jesus telling us that because God so loved the world he sent his son not to judge but to save the world, and whoever believes this will have everlasting life?

Ask around about this. It's interesting and so revealing how many seemingly sweet and sane people will react so angrily to any suggestion that there is actually no divine judgment/condemnation of the world. Why, oh why, is the good news of Jesus Christ such bad news for so many people?

The messianic mystery is not just some mere little misunderstanding, some little historical oopsie, but rather as the Bible reveals to us is essential to God‘s plan of salvation for humankind. Note that the atoning sacrifice was absolutely dependent on this very rejection and denial; and moreover it is then this ongoing denial of Christ's gospel that creates the need for the Second Coming, - dialectics both divine and sublime!

Well enough for now. Only the barest beginning has been made, but there's no point in going on until you begin to learn from your own experimental questioning. Should you do some such questioning and again and again encounter this denial, this inexplicable messianic mystery of Jesus Christ, then perhaps your eyes and ears will start to open and you'll begin to make the rare and difficult transition from believer to seeker. Perhaps you'll become more sure of having questions than you are of the certainty of your beliefs. Perhaps you might even begin to wonder about the Bible itself, about the most well known and studied book in the history of the world. It just couldn't be, could it, that after all these centuries the truth of the Bible still remains hidden? - that when Hebrews 11:1 speaks of faith in the evidence of things having not been seen, it is referring to faith in the evidence of the denied truth of the Bible?

Amen,

dipstick