Table of Contents

MATTHEW’s story about Jesus
1  2  3  4
5.3-16 – The Trinity’s life-together has arrived: WOOHOO!
5.17-48 – Living greatly with Papa and Sarayu
6.1-18 – Let’s get sneaky
6.19-34 – Insider trading, the Jesus way
7.1-14 – Judge not, jerk
7.15-23 – Look for the fruit of Sarayu
8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23
24.23-51 – Chaos galore!
24.1-23 – Coming soon: The Age of the Messiah!
25  26  27  28

MARK’s story about Jesus
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

LUKE’s story about Jesus
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24

JOHN’s story about Jesus
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

13.31-14.11 – Papa is in me, and I am in her
14.15-31 – Sarayu with us forever
15.1-17 – Life in Sarayu’s garden
15.18-16.15 – The System hates Sarayu
16.16-33 – A new mode of presence
17.1-26 – That they may participate in our oneness
18  19  20  21

ACTS of Jesus’ friends
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28

The letter Paul wrote to the ROMANS
1.1-15 – Living fully in the real world
1.16-2.5 – Which part of ‘Judge not’ did you not understand?
2.6-29 – Religion does not exempt you from reality
3.1-31 – Rules diagnose disease, but can’t cause health
4.1-24 – Experience truth by believing it

5.1-11 – Jesus’ relationship with Papa is now yours
5.12-21 – Being human means being right with Papa
6.1-15 – The human race died and rose again
6.15-7.13 – Bound to Sarayu, not to words on a page
7.14-25 – Free your mind, and the rest will follow
8.1-17a – How Sarayu affects your behavior
8.17b-25 – The death of Entropy
9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

The FIRST letter Paul wrote to the CORINTHIANS
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

The SECOND letter Paul wrote to the CORINTHIANS
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

The letter Paul wrote to the GALATIANS
1.1-16 – Eating lunch next to people with non-surgically-altered wangs
1.11-2.16 – That time Peter wouldn’t eat with the nerds
2.17-21 – The secret of authentic living
3.1-18 – Please tell me it was a wizard…
3.19-22 – Moses was awesome, but not THAT awesome
4  5  6

The letter Paul wrote to the EPHESIANS
1.1-23 – Good news: You’re adopted!
2.1-10 – We’ve already gone to heaven
2.11-21 – The Triune life enfleshed in the world
3.1-20 – Children who know how loved they are
4  5  6

The letter Paul wrote to the PHILIPPIANS
1  2  3  4

The letter Paul wrote to the COLOSSIANS
1  2  3  4

The FIRST letter Paul wrote to the THESSALONIANS
1  2  3  4  5

The SECOND letter Paul wrote to the THESSALONIANS
1  2  3

The FIRST letter Paul wrote to TIMOTHY
1  2  3  4  5  6

The SECOND letter Paul wrote to TIMOTHY
1  2  3  4

The letter Paul wrote to TITUS
1  2  3

The letter Paul wrote to PHILEMON
1

The letter to the HEBREWS
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

The letter JAMES wrote
1  2  3  4  5

The FIRST letter PETER wrote
1  2  3  4  5

The SECOND letter PETER wrote
1  2  3

The FIRST letter JOHN wrote
1  2  3  4  5

The SECOND letter JOHN wrote
1

The THIRD letter JOHN wrote
1

The letter JUDE wrote
1

The REVELATION John saw
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22

Comments

  1. Manfred says:

    Repent of this none sense. God is not mocked. You are leading people astray with these fables and will be held to account by the God of the Bible – Who is NOTHING like the god of the Shack.

    1. Robin says:

      I totally agree with Manfred. You are heaping coals upon your head.

      1. Keith says:

        This is a valid and very necessary warning, and yet it makes me sad. Why? Because I have seen, elsewhere in this site the mocking references to the web-sites that purportedly contain “REPENT” in big red letters. The owner(s) of this site has(ve) seen the command and yet still has(ve) mocked it. As Manfred said, “God is not mocked”.

        “Repent” is a large part of the Gospel. It immediately follows realising God’s pure, holy standards and how deeply we have fallen from them. It implies a determination towards a 180 degree turnaround as we accept the sacrifice that Christ Himself paid.

        The fruit of real repentance is obedience. It is what sent Hudson Taylor to China to found the China Inland Mission at a totally sacrificial cost in his own life. It is what sent the 5 missionaries to Equador back in the 1950s, to their own deaths as they were speared by the tribe they were working with. It is what led their widows back to that tribe, in love and forgiveness to see God work the miracle of salvation through the whole tribe. And it is what has maintained many Christians in their faith, Christians like Pastor Richard Wurmbrand who was tortured for his faith over 14 years in solitary confinement in a communist gaol for refusing to compromise “the Gospel once delivered to the saints”. I could go on.

        I don’t know who is at the head of this “Shack Bible Project” web-site (I am unable so far to find a name). But they have been given the message to repent and have ignored it. That is so dangerous. I hope that God will break in to their senses in time and turn their lives around for His glory rather than the glory of a god who is the warm, fuzzy mental idol of a man’s mind.

  2. […] a perfect fit for their neo-Gnostic Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM). [3] Then under Table of Contents at SBP you can begin to get a bit of a look at what Stonecypher’s false Shack-ifyied […]

  3. Eli says:

    Good Grief. THese Shack-sters have no clue what authentic biblical Christainity really is. Rooted in ancient Christian teachings??? If that alone wasn’t so sad, it would be down right comical. The Shack is Universalism at it’s best. Those of you looking for the REAL Jesus, go somewhere else. This aint it people.

  4. Simon says:

    my word, I did not think the previous heresy could be improved upon. This is wrong on so many levels. Sheer Balsphemy

  5. Keith says:

    It is so good to hear folks who are not deceived by The Shack heresy in here! It undermines the Bible and the Gospel that untold millions have died for down through the ages. It reduces sin to little more than a mistake, and casts God in the mould of a super-woman and super-man. The Shack’s image of God is the “brazen image”, the idolatry of a man’s mind, a warm, fuzzy god who says, “I have no expectations”. Is it any wonder that those unwilling to bow before the holy God of the Bible
    who commanded, “be ye Holy as I am Holy” should be taken with this warm, fuzzy god who says, basically, “Its ok, you’re not really that bad. You just made a mistake in trying to live independently and I excuse you”?

    These people will never understand the depth of the deep, deep love of God (which they so dwell on at the expense of God’s total character and nature) until they begin to understand His deep hatred for sin, demonstrated when He poured out His wrath on the Lord Jesus Christ that day on the Cross. Sin isn’t the triviality that The Shack makes of it. See, we really ARE that bad and it cost Jesus infinitely; not in human pain, for many Christians have suffered longer and deeper physically in their executions, but in deep, spiritual anguish as the Father withdrew from Jesus and totally crushed His only Son so that you and I could be reconciled to God.

    Shack reader, the Jesus Christ of the Bible is your “Pearl of Great Price”. Please – do not cast Him aside for the “comfortable” image of another man’s mind, for this image will never, ever duplicate the depth of love that God, through His Son Jesus Christ has already demonstrated for you, no matter how much it talks of “love” and the “circle of relationship”.

  6. chialphagirl says:

    You seem to draw a surprising amount of venom in the comments on your site. I don’t view what you are doing here as making a “new translation” but more a commentary. This is your opinion of what the Bible is trying to communicate, which is no different than classic commentaries like Matthew Hennery’s. Perhaps you would get less blowback if you phrased it like that instead of as a new version of the Bible. Regardless, even if you are trying to write a new version, it should simply be read like anything else – with the prayer that the Spirit will guide us to the truth and protect us from the lies. There are nuggets of truth to be found in many places and often we have the responsibility of “eating the meat and spitting out the bones” so to speak. I have found some interesting perspective on this site and appreciate what you are doing here.

  7. Hey chialphagirl… Yeah, I noticed the high venom levels too. I used to be one of those guys myself, attacking the people who thought differently than I did. So I suppose I deserve it. 😉

    You are right about my intent; I am really just preaching a sermon disguised as a paraphrase: “This is what I think the Bible is saying…” I could make it clearer that I don’t intend it to go up the shelf alongside the KJV, NIV, NRSV, etc. I’ve had that suggestion a couple times before, and I’m getting closer and closer to taking that advice…

    Anyway, thanks! And BTW, I’m checking out your blog and enjoying it!

  8. Keith says:

    Chialphagirl

    Truth is to be found in a real bible. There are no “bones to spit out” therein. “Eating the meat and spitting out the bones is one of the most common excuses for allowing heresy into Christendom. Think about that: would you allow your toddler to eat meat with bone splinters or would you insist on the pure thing? We are all spiritual toddlers.

    The Apostle Paul would have been called “venomous” by many no doubt! He was very straight forward in his condemnation of heresy. It didn’t even depend on motive. If someone – even with the best of motives – spoke heresy, he came down on them like the proverbial “ton of bricks”. And yet, when someone preached the true Gospel, even if it were out of “strife and envy” you will recall he rejoiced in that Christ was being preached.

    Talking of “venom”, it is a totally inadequate and, dare I say “slanderous” term to use when used alone, without explanation to express disagreement with the detailed discussions in this thread. I have, in fact said nothing “venomous” (venom = poison) or ungracious. If you are going to disagree, let’s see your arguments, rather than just feel your displeasure. In the day we are living in, there is far too much of this kind of invective which, without proper reasoning actually accuses others of what it, itself is doing!

    There is a deep deception that causes many Shack readers to spend all their time talking about the love of God, while expressing spite and even hatred toward those who try to show where they are wandering from the “Gospel once delivered”. You only have to go to the official Shack book site to witness this.

    Your spelling of “Matthew Hennery” (Henry) implies that you may not be very familiar with his or other classical commentaries. With regard to this, please see my comment to John below.

  9. Keith says:

    John

    Please read my reply to Chialphagirl, because the same comments apply. Rather than attacking you personally, we have straightly criticised your behaviour based on scripture itself.

    Why is it that people these days immediately take the attitude that disagreement is a personal “attack”? I’ll tell you why I think it is: It is the easy way to avoid defending ones position with logic and with fact.

    If you want to disagree with my theology, I’m not about to accuse you of “attacking” me. Instead, I’ll respond according to my understanding of scripture. There is so much in these posts that you have totally ignored! WHY?

    Finally, on your comments re: style. Clearly, your verse-by-verse presentation of historical events and what was purportedly said is far from being merely a commentary. A commentary is an aid to understanding the actual text giving factual lingual, cultural and cross-referencing information. It is not a reinterpretation and is not written in the voice of the authors themselves.

  10. chialphagirl says:

    Keith,
    Thank you for your response. I would love to address some of the things you presented and asked.

    You said “Truth is to be found in a real bible.” What exactly do you consider the “real” Bible? The Jewish Bible (the Torah) – that is the “bible” Jesus read, or maybe the Catholic Bible or are you strictly referring to the Protestant Bible? If so, which version is your “real” version? King James, NIV, American Standard… etc? And whose interpretation are we considering to be the “real” one? The Baptist, the Lutheran, the Pentecostal Holiness…etc?

    There is not a “real” Bible. There are a bunch of people who love God who are reading different versions of his written words and interpreting them different ways based on their various personal and cultural confines. Because of that, in any spiritual discussion, there are always some “bones”. There are some errors in every version and translation of the Bible because man’s opinion is interjected into every one of them.

    You also said that “We are all spiritual toddlers.” This is not true. Hebrews 5:13-14 “For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” This tells me that there are those who are not “spiritual toddlers” and that if we are mature in Christ we are able to discern good and evil which is what spitting out the bones is about.

    Concerning my use of the word venom: I was speaking more to the way you presented your ideas than the ideas themselves. For instance, in your reply to me you said “Your spelling of “Matthew Hennery” (Henry) implies that you may not be very familiar with his or other classical commentaries.” You do not know me at all and yet have no problem assuming that I am ignorant and accusing me of being ignorant based off of nothing more than the fact that I misspelled a word. I actually am very familiar with the complete and concise work of Matthew Henry, as well as the work of John Gill and John Darby and John Wesley. I have read all of their commentaries. I simply misspell things sometimes.

    I also was not referring to your comment alone but the collective feel of all of the comments that had been made (which were all negative, could find no good in what the author was trying to do, and made him out to be an idolater destined for judgment.)

    I’m sorry if there are other Shack readers who express spite and hatred towards you and others who are opposed to the Shack. All I can say is that we all need to fight the temptation to make assumptions about the character and intent of those we engage with on the internet as well as the temptation to be rude to others with whom we disagree. I’m sure you are genuine in your concern for the readers of the Shack; chances are though, if they are drawn to a book because it is heavy on the love of God and light on his wrath, they are not going to respond well to warnings from others that are full of wrath. Maybe a different approach would be more effective.

    1. Keith says:

      Hello Chialpagirl,

      That was a well thought through response, and at the risk of sounding condescending, I commend you for putting the time into it.

      REAL BIBLE: A real Bible is a translation that doesn’t wander from the authors’ original writings by adding or deleting concepts. Early Christians even prior to the Council of Nicea knew what was genuine and what wasn’t (hence, eg rejection of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas). They weren’t prepared to risk their very lives for possessing a fraud. The Council of Nicea recognised what the churches were already using and regarding as genuine Scripture. There have been a number of corruptions over the centuries and I won’t get into that debate here, except to say that the voice of the main translations are unanimous on core doctrine. Salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

      Whose interpretation? Well, to answer simply, just read the text. All core doctrines are very plainly stated. Its only when you get into eschatological material and prophecy that they become less straight forward, yet the message is the same: The Lord Jesus may come like a thief in the night, just when we are not expecting and we should be ready.

      TODDLERS: You put a good, concise argument here – perhaps the best I’ve seen in support of your viewpoint. But let’s put the question right on the knife edge (rhetorically): Do YOU claim to be spiritually mature? You see, maturity is a relative term to us, as indeed it was to the Apostle Paul. He was a spiritual giant – mature – compared to, say, Hudson Taylor who founded the China Inland Mission. Hudson Taylor was a mature, spiritual giant compared to me. And yet even Paul lamented in his weakness, that he did that which he shouldn’t do and left undone the things he should have done. Paul even had to publicly expose the Apostle Peter for his act in withdrawing from gentiles when the jewdaizers arrived on the scene, and that was long after Pentecost.

      Heresy is a very subtle thing. Jesus and His Apostles were very strong on warning about this. Jesus foretold that it would be so deceptive that “if possible even the very elect might be deceived” by signs and wonders. At very best, very few of us are immune, and that is why we shouldn’t expose ourselves to spiritual bone-splinters.

      “VENOM … the way you presented your ideas”

      The word venom – which means poison – is not a good way to get that message across *friendly smile*. I guess it demonstrates that we can all be insensitive to others while being overly sensitive ourselves. I’m certainly not immune, but I was very careful how I worded the “Hennery” comment. By very deliberately saying “implies” and “may not” I was simply drawing your attention to what your own wording suggested, rightly or wrongly about you; not claiming that it was “saying” about you. It didn’t even occur to me to say something like, “you don’t know what you’re talking about”. By raising it, I even gave you the opportunity of reply, which you wouldn’t have otherwise had. And you have replied.

      I was brought up to always regard “feelings” as the “tender”, and “fact” and Scripture as the locomotive. We live in a time when that has changed. Feelings have become the loco and the Bible is the tender, or even the caboose, trailing after all else for some. The expression, “he stands by the courage of his convictions” has turned into “he is a bigoted individual” (the polite version) and the only people who are to have “tolerance” (ie “keep quiet”) are the Christians. But I digress. Being familiar with commentaries you will know that my comment to John concerning them is correct.

      “warnings from others that are full of wrath”: I can only speak for myself. Giving a warning is not wrath but the expression of compassion. If your younger sister was just about to (say) unravel all your mother’s knitting out of spite or anger, would it be compassion either for her, or your mother to (1) just smile and say, “thats ok she’ll get over it, Mum will put it right”, or (2) to warn your sister that your mother will be very hurt, upset and probably very angry? Would the latter to be expressing your wrath?

      I too was condemned. I have no reason to express my own wrath. I have every loving reason to warn others that God is not mocked. He Himself said so.

  11. Keith says:

    Chialpagirl, by the way, the reason Paul exposed Peter publicly wasn’t just because Peter had been a coward, but because his cowardly act of withdrawing from the uncircumcised undermined the Gospel of salvation by Grace, “not of works lest any man should boast”.

  12. Keith says:

    oops… “Chialphagirl” 🙂

  13. chialphagirl says:

    Keith,
    That was a really long response and I’m not going to write back an even longer one in reply. I think that there is more to reading the Bible correctly than just reading the “plain text”. I think one can be mature without being flawless. Paul and Peter were both mature, they were not perfect, they still sinned, but they were mature. I think that feelings matter because they effect receptiveness to the message. If I speak to you in a way that hurts you then you will not readily accept what I am trying to say. No matter how right you are, if the other person feels offended they will not hear you. Since I believe you are genuine in wanting to warn others of potential danger I just thought you might also want to be aware of how your warnings come across.

    I am happy to discuss any of this at length with you over e-mail but I feel like we are starting to clog up the comments section of this table of contents and thus will not be responding any further here. My e-mail is vfyouth@gmail.com if you wish you contiune discussing any of this.

  14. tcb2006 says:

    Keith,

    Holy Cow!! You are so wrong on so many levels. And, yes you do sound very condescending and a bit pompous. I am an educated man and a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. He has saved my life and showed me his path to salvation. I cannot quote scripture as you or any of the other angry Christians here on this thread can, but I do study different books & chapters from time to time. I will tell you this: THE SHACK IS FICTION, THE BIBLE IS NOT. That should end all arguments. Many hundreds, if not thousands of people around the world were inspired in a very personal, spiritual way. Many people turned to their Bible as I was inspired to do. I would wager so. If that is the case, then I applaud Paul Williams and the author of this site for sharing their spiritual inspiration. The Lord knows this world needs more spiritual awakening and inspiration. Does it matter if it comes from a website or a book? If either of these venues can turn ONE person to Christ, God & The Holy Spirit – why spit at the feet of them? Why not thank them? Your doomsday warnings do nothing but attempts to spread the evilness that is fear. Shame on you!

    Mike

Leave a Reply