Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 4, sect. 1310

1310. The whole gospel of "The Old Testament" is thus the revelation of one particular section in the cycle or evolution of the beings. It was therefore never intended to be valid for all eternity. In reality this gospel thus expresses only a particular stage on terrestrial mankind's path to the Godhead, to perfection, and to the absolutely true, complete happiness or joy in existing. The truth of this is established through the fact that "The Old Testament" had to be replaced later by "The New Testament". What then do we find in this "testament"? In this testament do we not in fact find the diametrically opposite gospel? While the essence of "The Old Testament" was "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", that is a one-hundred-per-cent defence of "ownership" based on the superstition or the illusion that one was "God's chosen people" and was superior to all "heathens", the principle of "The New Testament" completely removes "the right of ownership". The following are all emphatic words and sentences that in no uncertain terms do away with the feeling of the "right of ownership" and the "violation" of this right in the form of "evil": "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"; "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword"; "It is more blessed to give than to receive"; "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". There is nothing in the gospel of "The New Testament" that inspires people to fulfil the law of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". On the contrary, it shows that such an attitude of consciousness is the very root of all "evil". Nor is there anything to stimulate the belief in being "God's chosen people" in preference to all others, or the idea that these people are "heathens" who, with full right, can be oppressed, exploited or taken advantage of. On the contrary does it not say "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"? And does it not go on to say: "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven", and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"? And is it not precisely so that all these divine doctrines are not merely linguistic turns of phrase, but are actual facts, constituting, as they do, a living being's specific attitude of consciousness and practical mode of existence that once existed in physical matter, that is to say, a mode of existence that is a historic fact for every advanced, evolved researcher and a living reality for the being initiated into "cosmic consciousness"?