Thursday, February 7, 2008

Skeptical of “The Third Jesus”

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

A new "spiritual" book called “The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore”, written by new age mystic Deepak Chopra, is set to be released on February 19. According to the book description, the purpose of The Third Jesus is to provide “a challenge to current systems of belief and a fresh perspective on what Jesus can teach us all, regardless of our religious background.” In short, this novel is just another false revelation of the modern religion of pluralism.

This fact is further exemplified in the description of the third Jesus in contrast to the first two.

“First, there is the historical Jesus, the man who lived more than two thousand years ago and whose teachings are the foundation of Christian theology and thought. Next there is Jesus the Son of God, who has come to embody an institutional religion with specific dogma, a priesthood, and devout believers. And finally, there is the third Jesus, the cosmic Christ, the spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name. He speaks to the individual who wants to find God as a personal experience, to attain what some might call grace, or God-consciousness, or enlightenment.”

As we can see, the “third Jesus” is quite a bit different than the other two (which are one and the same). This newer model is more inclusive and tolerant, embracing “all humanity, not just the church built in his name”. The “third” Jesus doesn’t care what you believe or how you live, he wants you to simply have some sort of personal spiritual experience (not to mention that anyone who confuses “grace” and “enlightenment” is either dishonest or intellectually challenged in world religions.)

“Ultimately, Chopra argues, Christianity needs to overcome its tendency to be exclusionary and refocus on being a religion of personal insight and spiritual growth. In this way Jesus can be seen for the universal teacher he truly is–someone whose teachings of compassion, tolerance, and understanding can embrace and be embraced by all of us”.

Clearly, this speaks volumes about Chopra’s real theology of religious pluralism. Pluralism is simply the theology of unbelief. We are never told what the source of this “third Jesus” is in the book summary. Perhaps the book itself will tell us, but I doubt it. Therefore, I’ll take the liberty of doing so. The “third Jesus” is a vain invention of human neurons. Chopra created this Jesus out of necessity, for he knows nothing of the first Jesus, and obviously doesn’t think too highly of the second.


  1. I googled the author and read his bio. You are right on track!

  2. Hey dipshits, either read the book or don't talk about it like you actually have even the slightest idea of what you're commenting on. Haha. Seriously though, wtf? Do you have any grounds to stand on in your argument? I'm just saying that if somebody talked shit on the bible as a whole, but hadn't even taken the time to read more than an introduction someone else wrote for it, wouldn't you tell them what I'm telling you? You're lying if you say otherwise, and a book is a book any way you look at it; some more credible than others, but quit spreading/supporting the continuation of ignorance in society. I'm not saying one book is more or less important than the other, I'm just saying do you're homework before you decide to comment on things.

  3. Omid,

    I know the author and I can see his own description of the book above. What else is needed?

    I would read the whole book and comment if...

    1.) I thought it necessary to clear up anything I didn't know about Chopra, and

    2.) Someone lent me a copy, since I have better things to spend my money on.

  4. Omid,

    With all due respect, you need to take your own advice. I can think for myself. I can red what Chopra says about Jesus and compare it to what Jesus said Himself. Then I can decide who knows more about Jesus: Chopra or Jesus? I think we all know the answer to that question.