Jesus

by

The Spirit of Christmas


Once a year, on December 25th, about 1/3 of the world stops to recognize and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. The story of the birth is one of humbleness (The Three Kings kneeling before Him), giving (the gifts of the Magi) and family, Mary and Joseph. It is a tradition that began then and continues to this day.

Jesus was born into tremendous political discord and yet that merits only a sentence in His story because it is the story of something much larger. It established that on at least one day we put aside our labors, give thanks for our friends and family. It requires that we look upon one another with love.

For example, during World War 1, the British and German soldiers, who were of course mortal enemies, on Christmas day rose up from their respective trenches and walked towards each other bringing gifts to their enemy and celebrating this one day as tradition expected, as they expected. On December 25, 1915/6/7, they were brothers who had the strength of character to put down their rifles, if only for a day, and wish happiness and good cheer to those who shot at them the day before.

This year, in America, and in other countries, political discord and upheaval has brought out the worst in many. But on this day, I would implore all who find someone despicable, whom they say they hate, to look at that person and at the very least forgive them the perceived transgression and wish them happiness and good cheer, as is in keeping with the Christmas spirit. It is good to remember, you have a choice, you can be right or you can be happy, yours to choose, but you cannot choose both.

If you happen to be out on the street walking today, and there is a stranger walking towards you, just before they pass you by, say “Merry Christmas!” and keep on walking. You will most likely make their day and will have fulfilled our duty as human beings to love one another, wishing them the best.

by

A Challenge to the Christian Evangelicals


I read recently that most Christian Evangelicals are still fully supporting President Trump because he has made good on his promise to curb abortions.  But consider this:  I too am anti-abortion but I long ago recognized this as a moral issue, not a legal one, which each person must make for herself.  Please note that I put “herself” because it is not a decision any man ever has to make.  And so, even as much as I despise abortion, I believe in pro-choice.

What further galls me about what this administration has done is to sow the seeds of discord by singling out Planned Parenthood as just a bunch of abortion clinics.  The truth of the matter is, the Planned Parenthood clinics provide all manner of women’s health and the vast majority of their time is spent educating women on issues of health to include why it may be good to not terminate a pregnancy.  But the disinformation the Trump administration has proffered has made Planned Parenthood seem like something it is not.  Jesus believed in choice so why don’t you?

President Trump may just be the most immoral man ever to sit in the office of the President.  How can you look away from these things?  How can you ignore the teachings of the New Testament?

Let me refer you to Matthew 25:31-46.  Do not these verses count in your world, particularly when they are entitled “The Last Judgment”?

“I was hungry and you gave me no food.”  The reduction in support given to those organizations who help feed the homeless and hungry.

“I was away from home and you gave me no welcome . . . ”  Immigrants at our borders fleeing persecution and death are being denied entry or those who get to apply for asylum are made to wait so long that they are killed, raped or kidnapped.

And if you fully read that portion of Matthew and relate it to the world around you, how much of it are you not doing?  Are  you making excuses for your inability to keep the instructions of Jesus or are you finding ways to help?

Jesus said that if you find a man who is impoverished you should give him half of what you own.  I do not suggest that to be a reasonable demand but do you give to those non-religious organizations whose goal is to help as many of those in need as possible such as homeless shelters, battered women’s shelters, food pantries and the like?

Anyone can say “I believe” but the true believer does and says nothing.  Jesus also said something along those lines.

I am not suggesting that you support some Democrat but I am suggesting that you not support Trump who by his daily actions invalidates all Jesus has ever preached.  Support someone who meets the challenges Jesus gave us.

by

Why Has The Catholic Church Deserted Me And Millions of Others?


The Roman Catholic Church has to change, particularly in America. It needs to allow women to become priests and it needs to allow priests to marry. Up until 1139 priests were allowed to marry. The idea behind it was to separate priests from a sinful world. The hypocrisy there was that priests were, and still are, sinful themselves. They are human, they screw up, the have to go to confession. At the time it was meant to insure the morality of the priesthood.
That worked up until the mid-20th Century when those men entering the priesthood declined. And the decline continues. There are places in America where churches have no priest permanently assigned, the duties being taken over by a deacon or by a priest who travels from one parish to another.
The American Catholic Church is so arrogant that when Poland offered to send priests to cover parishes in American they were declined! Maybe they were embarrassed that the word would get out that most Sunday masses in America are only lightly attended.
This brings me to my issue with the Church. I am a divorced Catholic and have been so since 1988. Because I am now remarried I cannot receive communion, central to the Catholic service. Curiously, I have been told by more than one priest that were I to stand in front of him to receive communion, and he knowing I was divorced and remarried, he would not deny me. I mention that because there appears to be a large group of priests who believe the prohibition is ridiculous.
There is a remedy according to Rome. A divorced Catholic must petition the Pope to have his marriage annulled. Now understand, an annulment, according to Catholicism, means no marriage occurred in the first place. I have three beautiful children by my first wife. I refuse to insult them, or my former wife, by getting an annulment. But I want my church back.
I firmly believe that were Jesus to come back just to visit the Pope and his college of cardinals, he would have some very harsh words for them. I think they need to read that part of the Bible which speaks of the shepherd who leaves 99 sheep in search of the mission one.

by

New Pope But Same Old Church!


The Roman Catholic Church is the elder statesman of all Christian churches. Prior to the “church of Rome,” as it is sometimes referred to as, there was the Church of Turkey. Early Christendom was kept alive there before moving to Greece and then to Rome. Like every family, there were differences in beliefs even in those early days. The Eastern rite churches, Greek and Russian among others, broke from the newly formed Holy Roman Church with its Pope.

In those days, priests of either rite married and had children. In 1139 the Roman church decided celibacy was a more proper route for its priests. This position was reaffirmed by the “Council of Trent” in 1563. But by 1563 the Roman Catholic church was under fire. It had for centuries maintained its own army and fought wars, mostly within the Italian provinces but also with Spain and France. And the power of the Pope had at least twice been challenged, first by King Henry VIII and then by one of its own bishops, Martin Luther. Each in turn formed new Christian churches, Henry the Church of England, and Luther the Lutherans. The Roman Catholic Church dug in its heels proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope and by extension, his decisions. The infallibility remains and is referred to as “ex cathedra.” This means whatever pronouncements the Pope makes takes on the power of church law. Popes have been extraordinarily careful in their pronouncements.

In 1965, during the 2nd Vatican Council, several changes were made by Pope Pius XII and his successor, Pope Paul VI. No longer would the mass be given in Latin but in the native language of the attendees of the mass. Other lesser changes were also made but people looked at this as a new beginning for the church. Unfortunately, and predictably, that was a far as any pope wanted to go. The College of Cardinals, those in charge of electing a pope, has stayed very conservative in its general beliefs and ensured those beliefs would remain by electing very conservative popes. Cardinals elect popes and popes raise bishops to the rank of cardinal. It is a very self-serving process that insures a continued conservative control. As an aside, by Catholic law, any Catholic man can be elected pope, he need not be an ordained priest but that has not happened since the earliest of days.

We now have the relatively new Pope Francis. He is the first pope elected who was not born in Europe and because of that many of the faithful thought, hoped, this signaled a new order. Francis is viewed as being a pope of the people. That is, his closeness to the poor of Argentina, where he was a cardinal, allowed him to be viewed as something other than the regal previous popes. But in truth, that is mostly hype rather than reality.

Pope Francis has reached out to gay and divorced Catholics, inviting them to return to the church. It was hoped that he would speak ex cathedra and at the very least embrace gay love as equal to any other but he has not. It was hoped that he would do away with the prohibition of divorced Catholics who have remarried from receiving communion, but he has not. I asked a priest why I, a divorced and remarried Catholic, would want to attend church services and not receive communion. A politic man, he had not good answer and side-stepped the question. I do not blame him, he is, after all, answerable to the Pope.

The Roman Catholic mass, and I believe Episcopalian and Lutheran services as well, are centered around the reception of holy communion. What is going on is like having a cake and ice cream party and inviting people to join in on all the festivities but not the cake and ice cream. It is pure silliness.

The Roman Catholic church is stuck in the 16th Century and staunchly refuses to move forward. Most church laws are founded on Biblical teachings. In the 16th Century, when most people could not read and were extremely poorly educated, that worked. But the intervening 500 years have seen the education of most Catholics far beyond just the ability to read. Educated Catholics have learned to think for themselves and that does not sit well with Roman Catholic leadership.

Even 500 years ago, however, certain beliefs of the Catholic church were challenged by enlightened men, Copernicus, Galileo, and Michelangelo. The Popes of those days could not imagine that the earth was not the center of the universe and declared heresy any who said otherwise.

Today, scholars are at odds over not just the meaning contained within the four gospels of the Bible, but their validity. You see, each of the four gospels, it is known, is an almalgem of early writings with unknown, or at best, questionable authors. And those are just the four accepted gospels. In truth, there are dozens of gospels. There are the gospels of Matthias, Mary, Thomas, Truth, Judas, Peter, and Phillip, to name a few. Many of these gospels are fragmentary at best and of debatable origin. Still, this shows the difficulty in determining the authenticity of what is written. I mention this because the four accepted gospels are referred to as the word of God when in fact they are the words of men. I am not trying to demean the gospels but simply put some perspective on them. I believe the most honest depiction of the gospels would be to refer to them as being divinely inspired.

The New Testament Bible we have today was translated from the ancient Greek. Theologians are wont to explain the construction of each. The four seldom are in complete agreement about any particular event and sometimes are in obvious disagreement. Therefore, to base an entire large religion on these texts is of questionable decision. One of the places all four gospels are in total agreement is where Jesus teaches that prime of following him is faith, not just in belief but in works. He taught basics of humility, kindness, honesty, empathy, suffrage, and acceptance as being more important than position, money and even man-made law. The Catholic Church, however, has chosen to not follow all of His beliefs. Jesus accepted all who came but the Roman Catholic church picks and choses who it will accept. How is that following the most basic teachings of Jesus? I suggest it is contrary.

The Roman Catholic Church has things backwards. It tells its membership to do what it wants rather than serving them as it should. That is, the church says, “here, come do this for your church!” Instead, it should be saying, “how can we better serve you?” The reason is does not and cannot ask that last question is because it would be required to allow priests to marry, women to become priests, gays to marry, and remarried Catholics full participation in the mass. These conservative old men, who Francis leads, simply cannot imagine such a situation becoming a reality. But it is a reality they need to embrace or they will be burying the very church they claim to defend. The percentage of participation by those born into the Roman Catholic church is falling world-wide and will continue unless changes are made.

by

And God Spoke to me……


I get a kick out of people who love to quote the Bible and take particular pains to tell me exactly where what they are saying exists in the Bible, like that John 3:11 thing that pops up all the time.  And so, to find out what exists there, I dug out my handy dandy Catholic Bible.  It made me laugh, not because of what it said, but because whoever wrote the passage seemed to think that it must be put in quotes.  By definition, the use of quotes in such circumstances means you are relating the exact words which were said.  And so  you ask me, what’s wrong with that.  When Jesus was wandering about Palestine no one was writing down a single thing he said.  If they did, well, it got lost because not a single text of that sort exists anywhere in the world today.  Now that does not mean Jesus did not say words to that effect, but I find it a real stretch to believe that it is in fact a quote.

The four gospels were written no earlier than 37AD but more likely close to 100AD.  But even at 37AD there exists an obvious problem.  How good was the memory of the writers and who were the writers.  Now here comes the real problem.  In 2012 scholars made a claim they had found the oldest surviving text of the four gospels.  It dates to around 125AD but it is just a small portion of the Gospel of Mark.  The oldest for Matthew dates to 100AD, for John 137AD, and for Luke 200AD.  Worse, none of these gospels is complete.  They are fragments, literally.  Scholars have had to rely on more recent, circa 400AD manuscripts to compile a single Gospel.

The next problem is equally significant.  All four writers of New Testament Gospels were present with Jesus during his life.  And yet, you can easily find time and again a passage in one which seems to disagree with its complement in another Gospel. There exist other Gospels by other writers which the Catholic Church has never accepted.  One of the Gospels is the Gospel of Mary.

Did you ever see the movie “The Life of Brian” done by Monty Python?  It is a parody, not meant to be taken seriously or to be offensive.  There is one portion where a man, Jesus, is speaking to a large crowd.  A second man is standing at the rear of the crowd, is a bit hard of hear, and is constantly asking the man standing next to him what was just said.  Invariably  the man repeating Jesus’ words gets it wrong.  And that is in the moment!

Most people of the day were illiterate.  I suspect Peter was definitely illiterate because he was a fisherman and his father probably never saw the need for that sort of education.  I also suspect that was true for most of the other apostles too.  The solution was an easy one and one oft used in those days, scribes.  But scribes cost money and money for Jesus and his followers was probably something they saw very little of.  There existed a second choice, the “story teller.”  The story teller existed right here in North America among the Native Americans.  Most of them did not have a written language and needed their legacy remembered.  And so all tribes had a story teller who would remember events, messages, and everything else in very exacting language.  They would learn it so well that they could pass on these messages, stories, etc. to the next generation in perfect form.  Each word was remember in it precise location and proper meaning.  Such people existed at the time of Jesus as well.  Unfortunately we have no evidence that those who traveled with Jesus were given such a task.  But just to make a point, the Koran is extremely accurate from its most early days precisely because people were tasked with perfectly committing it to memory and passing on the exact language.

Jesus was literate.  The speaking in tongues, as related in the Bible, speaks to his ability to speak not just in the prevalent native language, Aramaic, but quite possibly in Egyptian, Turkish, Mesopotamian, and the dialects of the various tribes he visited.  His was a mission to deliver the “good news.”

Now if you look at the four gospels closely you will find that there are really only a very few principles He preached constantly: faith, love, good works, acceptance, understanding and forgiveness. And so I just ran across this passage, it is from Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 1: “If you want to avid judgement, stop passing judgement. 2 Your verdict on other will be the verdict passed on you.  The measure with which you measure will be used to measure you.”  My take on that, he new who the gay people were and loved them.  He knew who the prostitutes were and loved them.  He knew who the thieves were and loved them.

Consider this, Jesus never founded a church because he was both born a Jew and died one.  He only preached in the synagogues towards the end of his ministry.  I expect he did this because he felt he could reach a lot more people by mixing with them in their daily lives.  We have ample example of that happening.

But the most curious of all statements in the New Testament is where some theologian thought to put the phrase “I have not come to change the law.”  I do not believe for a second Jesus ever said that because that is exactly why he came when he did.  The law was imperfect and needed changing.  He even went so far as to say the “eye for an eye” concept of the Old Testament was changed to the New Testament principle of “turn the other cheek.”  Jesus was a radical, an extreme liberal of his day.  Those Jews who felt offended by His ministry and said such were really just revealing their own guilt.  Jesus ended the ancient Jewish custom of stoning by saying “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

I believe that Jesus purposefully made certain that no exact record of his adventures was ever made because as he said, “go in peace, your faith has saved you.”  He led by example and showed everyone the righteous was to act hence forth.  In the early days following the death of Jesus, His followers were of course outcasts of the Hebrew religion but the did not know what to call themselves.  The chose to say they were followers of “the word.”  That was good enough and said everything.  The apostles remembered well what Jesus had taught them and went about spreading “the way.”  But it was certainly by the year 100AD that they called themselves Christian for the first time.

I was talking with a priest recently and said to him that it is my belief if Jesus decided to come back, but not in a “second coming” sort of way, He would most certainly visit the leadership of all the various Christian churches to voice his displeasure in how they are acting and what they are saying.  I think he would start with the Pope and ask him why Rome has found it necessary to accumulate such large caches of wealth while millions of followers go hungry each night.  He would also question the need for all the pretense of the Pope and his selected cardinals.  He would certainly question their requirement of tending to the poor, the sick, and the poor in spirit.

He would like remind many of the conservative Protestant churches of what was said in Matthew that I quoted above.  He would ask about their pride in being intolerant and intractable.  We could use a little Jesus about now.  Christians seem to have forgotten what his mission was and have made it into something that serves their desires while ignoring the intent of the words as Jesus spoke them.

God once said to me, “How dare you question my love for any of mine!”  I had asked the question of what to do when I come into contact with those who condemn gay people and state that “God hates fags.”  And in that one little statement a great deal was said.  We cannot know the mind of God as we sit here on earth but we do know his intent, Jesus gave us the words.  God simply wants us to do our best, to be kind to anyone and everyone we meet, particularly those who would quarrel with us.  He wants us to love all people as if they each were a blood brother or sister.  He tells us not to fear sin, but simply to make our amends and change that which took us into that sin.  And God has no preference of religious practice, one is as good as another as far as He is concerned.  No one religion is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  And to put a point on that, He loves his Hindus, His Buddhists, His agnostics and His atheists.  He gave each person the right to be what he believes to be right.  He knows the best of Catholics or Jews is no better than the best of agnostics or atheists.

 

 

by

The Jesus I Know


The historical figure Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago. His public live lasted only 3 years. Prior to that we know precious little of his life. In his day Jesus was a religious leader and pointedly eschewed all things political. He rather pointed said that people should give the Cesar those things which are Cesar’s and to God those things which are God’s. That mean prior to people like John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and their peers, he had already separated the life of politics for the religious life.

But then he said something very curious, at least according to the New Testament. It is something I believe either translates very poorly or is otherwise poorly explained. He stated that he had not come to change the law. He was referring to the ancient Mosaic law, the laws of the old Testament. And yet, that is exactly what he did. He made the state that instead of an eye for an eye, the aggrieved person turn the other cheek. Is that not a change to the old law? He also said prior to the stoning of a fallen woman that only a man without sin could throw the first stone. Again, a long held Jewish tradition, he changed.

The Jesus I know was a man who was the penultimate radical of his day. He chastised many of the Jewish leadership for their preference of worldly things over heavenly. But once again we have a departure from the traditional belief. Jews historically do not believe in an afterlife and yet Jesus, a lifelong Jew, spoke frequently of it. What did he know that the others did not?

But all those things are merely the lead-in for his more important message. The New Testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are filled with “parables.” The word parable is an archaic word for story. That means Jesus told a lot of stories. It is unlikely that most of the characters in his stories were people he had known, although that cannot be dismissed out of hand either, we simply do not know. Either way, Jesus told these stories to make a point. My favorite is the story of the good Samaritan.

In the day of Jesus, Samaria was a region in the Middle East. The Samaritans were a group of people the Jewish population felt ill towards. They simply did not like them. And what does Jesus do? He puts a Samaritan in a situation where that person’s actions can only be thought of as being highly commendable. He tells us that this is the type of person we all should strive to be like.

Jesus spoken in the language Aramaic. His words were first put into the printed work in Greek, as far as we know. The book of Matthew, for example, is not a single text but an amalgam of several ancient Greek texts pieced together to give us the best and most complete version. But we must remember, someone who spoke primarily Aramaic had to tell someone who spoke primarily Greek the actions and words of Jesus. How good are you at remembering something, particular the words, spoken to you 60 years ago or more. That is exactly the situation the early writers face.

I mention all this not to take away anything from the four Gospels but rather to suggest that the words contained within them are the very best version of what happened and what Jesus said that we have. Each is a book of concepts meant to guide mankind in the years after the death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, there are Christians who take each word at face value never considering them to be a list of ideas and ideals. They prefer exacting principles to interpretive ideas. Even more, they fail to recognize the historical setting within which these words were first said, and then translated. For example, Christians believe in the virgin birth. This concept actually did not come into being for several centuries after the life of Jesus when Rome was translating the texts, again, and struggle with the word for virgin. They knew it was synonymous in the days of Jesus for the word “young girl.” Their true struggle was the concept of sex coupled with the fact that a 30 or 40 year old man named Joseph could possibly have had sex with a girl who may well have been only 12-years-old. In today’s society that is unacceptable, of course, but in the days of Jesus, it was not all that unusual and well within the Jewish tradition of arranged marriages. This is my long was of referring you back to Jesus saying “judge as you would be judged.”

It Is not the truth of historical facts that hurts a person like Jesus but rather the half-truths and out right fantasies.

Jesus took on a very traditional and very conservative religious culture by giving them a new way of looking at things. He never shied away from taking a position which ran contrary to accepted beliefs. He was in his day viewed as a radical, a revolutionary. But more importantly, he was hugely popular with the common man, and his popularity grew as his ministry continued. And yet, he never claimed to be anything other than a Jew. Even at his death, the Romans, in what was meant to be derisive, condemned him as “King of the Jews.” Jesus never portrayed himself as being such, but he absolutely was the most charismatic figure of his day.

When Jesus died and the Apostles came out of hiding, they referred to their new form of Judaism as “The Way.” They never called themselves Christians. That was an appellation which took about 100 years to evolve.

“The Way” was quickly spread throughout the Middle East, Turkey and Greece, well before it arrived in Rome. The Apostles insisted that Jews was in fact a deity. But that did not sit well with everyone in the Middle East. In the year 610 and Middle Eastern prophet named Mohammed started a religion we know today as Islam. Mohammed was well away of Jesus, his follows and predecessors. Mohammed, like many others where he lived, saw Jesus as a prophet and so when he was tasked with how to refer to Jesus, John the Baptist and earlier Jews, he referred to them as prophets.

Jesus does have a prominent position in Islam but not as a deity. They acknowledge him as an important figure within their own religion. I think it likely that the writers of Koran used some of the principles Jesus proposed within the Koran and carrying great weight. Mankind has a long history of adopting the ideas and ideals of predecessors into their own tradition for simple reason that they are good and worthy.

The two principles Jesus espoused the most were peace and love. I think we he to once again walk the surface of the Earth he would be aghast by what he would see by those professing to be “Good Christians.” I feel he would have huge problems with the amount of wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church in Rome and by other Protestant religions at their headquarters. Jesus most certainly believed in the redistribution of wealth. He once told a man to give half of everything he owned if that man had hopes to enter into heaven. I really like Jesus the historical figure over the religious Jesus so many religions have made him into. I think the two are so disparate as to defy almost all comparison.

by

On Easter Sunday, I Give You the Real Jesus


Today is Easter Sunday which for Christians is the most holy day of the year.  But have you ever asked yourself what the word Easter means?  There is no apparent connection to Christian belief.  I had no clue either until a few moments ago when I looked it up in my handy dandy Webster’s.  It says: “word history:  The word Easter . . . had its origins in pagan times.  Eastre or Eostre the Old Germanic English spelling of Easter, was originally the name of a Germanic goddess who was worshiped at a festival at the spring equinox.  Her name is closely related to Latin aurora and Greek eos, both of which mean “dawn.”  Easter is also derived from the same root word as east, the direction of the sunrise.  The Easter Bunny is another story entirely and for another time.

Theologian scholars have provided us with a plethora of information of where modern Christianity formed its holy days.  Christmas is a fabulous example of this as those same scholars seem to universally agree that Jesus was born in the spring and not when we celebrate his birth.  Early Christians, the early Roman Church in particular, were wont to end what they saw as pagan practices, in this case the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.  I make mention of these two well-accepted facts as evidence the early Christian church was extremely interested in co-opting paganism, and thereby killing it off, than historical accuracy.

Conservative Christians of today have the unnerving tendency to use the Bible as their sole source for information about the ancients.  But the truth is, there exists far more than those texts.  For example, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which refer to daily life and customs at the time of Jesus.  Even though they were discovered in 1946, a complete and accurate description and final translation of them in far from finished.  Still, they provide us with a very different view from that of the New Testament.

And this brings me to the time of Jesus.  Was Jesus the son of God, something He never actually says himself but infers heavily, an angel of God, which would be very much in keeping with ancient Hebrew beliefs, or simply a great prophet?  Maybe He was all three.  But what we know of Jesus seems to fall far short of what we would like to know.  For example, he is born, secreted to Egypt for fear of his life, disappears entirely for 12 years at which time he shows up at a Temple and declared a rabbi.  Then he disappears again entirely for another 18 years for which we know nothing.  And even those final three years of his life the “facts” given are quite thin and many beg for clarification.

As a degreed historian, I can say with authority that such books as the Gospels are to be placed in the category of folk lore.  And this is not to say that folk lore in either unreliable or untrue, but as folk lore exists, it must be, in this case, assigned to stories of faith.  The veracity of such stories must be questioned.  But as with anything of the sort, there is likely truth to them as well.

Many books have been written about the “Historical Jesus.”  I have seen a few and as books go they vary in veracity.  That is, the ability of the author to keep his personal views and his prejudices apart from his writings is not always complete.  Even so, they are attempts to find the real face of Jesus.  In this respect I will add my own perspective which I can guarantee you are entirely prejudiced by my own views and are only my own view of this great and historic man.

One final thing; we also know for certain that the Gospels of the New Testament date back, at best, to 60 years after the death of Jesus.  They are also written in Greek, not the native tongue of Jesus which was Aramaic.  This means, just on the face of it, that a translation was made from one language to the other. And regardless of whether it was translated from one written language to the other or, worse, one verbal retelling to the other,  translations from disparate languages speak to the astuteness of the translator to understand what he is translating.  Historically, societies kept people who were customs keeper, story tellers, to insure a record of their being and beliefs was passed forward.  Such existed even to the early parts of the American experience in the 17th and 18th century.  The most valuable, and recognized as likely to be correct, is the first hand eye witness account of events.  But these stories were usually, and at best, second hand.  With regard to the life of Jesus, those original stories are second hand at best.  But people of faith with tell you, rightfully so, that his was a mission of faith and thus the stories of his life must be viewed in the same light.

I find it curious in the presentation of the Gospels the claim that Jesus said he had not come to change the law, the ancient Mosaic Law is what he was referring to.  But soon after when He is questioned as to the “eye for an eye” taken of the Old Testament, he responds with “turn the other cheek.”  It seems to me that is a direct contradiction and changing of the law.  I think the New Testament is replete with inconsistencies in logic, sometime from one verse to the next.  There exist too many mixed messages and incomplete thoughts.  Did Jesus actually expand upon such thoughts at much greater length?  I think it reasonable to say that He most certainly did, and probably many times over.  But such lengthy, and probably more enlightening thoughts, are lost to the ages because they were not transcribed as they were being pronounced.

Jesus was by all accounts a radical of His day.  He struck fear into the established religious leaders of the day.  Why?  He was, contrary to what the Gospels claim, turning old Jewish law on its head and providing His followers with a completely new way of looking at things.  He advocated peace.   He was the first historical figure to suggest the separation of church and state when he said to give to Rome which is Rome’s and to God which is God’s.  He advocated for the poor suggesting in his story of the good Samaritan, that those of means give half of what they own to the poor.  He very pointedly stated that man was by his very nature a sinner and that time best spent was that in bettering himself rather than pointing out the shortcomings of another.  And to that point, Jesus never once condemn anyone to hell, as modern evangelists like to do.  For that matter, he never mentioned the place which would have been in keeping with Jewish tradition which had, and still has, no heaver nor hell.

His actions suggest that He actively sought to modify ancient traditions.  Baptism, as He underwent with John, was nothing new.  It was the symbolic cleansing of the spirit.  It also was not done with children but with adults who were ready to admit their sins and ask to be cleansed.  But if Jesus were God it is impossible that He had sinned so why do it?  Quite simply because he understood extremely well the role of the leader.  He knew that charisma, which He had in spades, was the manna which fed the souls of those who chose to follow His teachings.  I think it entirely possible that Jesus was proposing the ideal of spiritual health over religious dogma.  He did, after all, seek out the dregs of his society and only asked of them that he believe in His teachings.  Not once is he heard to say that a man must attend the temple and must contribute monies to keep His church healthy.  Why do you suppose that was?  Is it possible He believed a church was truly inside a man and not within four walls?

In the time of Jesus, and for most of the centuries which have followed, women were second class citizens relegated to the rear of the temple and denied any say what-so-ever in its conduct.  Unfortunately too much of that exists today.  And so enters the most misunderstood character of the New Testament, Mary Magdalen.  The early Christian Church had absolutely no idea of how to handle her existence in the presence of their messiah but she was mentioned in the Bible so they also could not ignore her.  Certainly, they thought, Jesus looked upon this woman as they did, a woman of low moral character who only came to beg for forgiveness and her penance was to wash His feet with her hair.  The problem with such a telling is that it bears no relationship to the truth.  That truth is theologians have never found a woman of that name or conduct.  But they have found a similar woman, or possibly several women, who can account for that personage.  Likely Mary was a woman of means who had been moved by Jesus’ ministry.  Maybe she was a woman from Samaria, people seen as only slightly better than the brutal Romans and equally hated.  But for her to seek audience with a rabbi, a man of such stature and position was unthinkable at that time and for many centuries to follow.  But Jesus, being who He was, denied no one for any reason.  And I suggest, and I think it likely, she, along with several other women, became one of His Apostles.  Remember, at the end of His crucifixion it was only the women who saw to His removal from the cross, transportation, preparation, and final burial in the tomb.  No man, certainly no apostle, was anywhere to be found.  You ask, if they were truly Apostles why not mention it?  Simple, it was an “inconvenient truth.”

A rather famous atheist, Dr. Isaac Azimov, most well-known for his science fiction writings, but also a professor of bio-chemistry at Boston University, made an interesting observation about the writing of the New Testament.  He noted that the Aramaic language in the day of Jesus had around 5000 words.  Today’s English language, in contrast, has over one million.  He observes that the Aramaic word for virgin is identical for the word for young girl.  Does this suggest the early Christian Church’s aversion to the discussion of sex?  I think it extremely likely.  How would the historical figure of Mary as something other than a virgin square with the telling of the birth of Jesus?  It would have necessarily meant that Mary had engaged in sex with Joseph.  I think it likely the church desired nothing less than something which could be passed off as miraculous.  And a virgin birth suited their interest.  They also do not mention Mary’s age, which could have been as young as 12 and Joseph as a man who could have been well into his 50s.  Not unusual in those days.

But back to Jesus.  To the established high ranking Jews of the day, Jesus appeared a threat to their power.  We know for fact that Rome had absolutely no interest in the crucifixion of Jesus, to the contrary.  The ministry of Jesus had suggested radical changes to long standing beliefs of the Jews but never once challenged the power of Rome.  And the ultra-conservative Jews of the day simply could not stand for that.  I am suggesting that this ancient Jesus was in fact seen as some sort of liberal reformist who was bringing needed change to old conservatism, a conservatism which was contrary to the best interest of the Jewish masses.  But that would have meant the illuminati of the Jewish religion would have had to accept changes.  That is something to this day conservatives find difficult if not impossible.

When Jesus died his Apostles and other disciples were at a loss for what to call themselves and they saw themselves, justifiably or not, as out-casts of accepted Jewish society.  For a long time afterwards they simply referred to their religion as “the way.”  The idea of calling themselves Christians had not yet formulated.  Those early follower quickly moved away from Israel, a place they knew they would be persona non grata, first to Turkey and then to Greece and finally Rome.  But it is also likely that these early leaders of the church were illiterate.  The only formal education of the day existed strictly for the rich and those who devoted themselves to become Rabbis.  Scribes were probably the only exception that, they being drafted into such a career by the ruling class.  The Apostles could neither read nor write but such was not a part of their mission.  None had come from background of what we might see as middle class.  All are shown as being from the most humble of means.  And a few, like Peter, were shown to be fairly rough and tumble.  It is my belief that scribes were at some point enlisted to write down what had been witnessed by the Apostles, and others, as custom dictated.  But the scribed did not write the New Testament!

When eventually these people arrived in Greece, a truly enlightened and literate society, those Greeks who embraced this earliest form of Christianity, ensured the survival of the faith buy putting it into print.  But whoever they were had to immediately been confronted with the problem of the translation from Aramaic to Greek, which is where we derive our present day texts.  If in history there ever was a more meaningful time for the expression “lost in translation,” this was it!  It stands to reason that certain words either translated poorly or not at all from the original Aramaic to Greek.  I can almost hear the conversation of the person from Israel trying to explain the concept, the word, he is expressing to his Greek counterpart, and finally the two agreeing upon a word the more or less expresses the thought.  There is no way to know how much of that happened but it is a certainty that it did.  And furthermore, what if one Gospel, say that of Matthew, had very differing views of events from that of Luke or John?  How would they deal with that.  Could it be that they simple chose the one which showed Jesus in the most favorable light?  Or could it be that they allowed their own prejudices in and chose the one which most suited them.  We will never know but it can help explain how four men who supposedly witness the life of Jesus gave differing versions.  If I were a man on that day and was sitting down to lunch with Jesus, at some point I would certainly ask what he did before he started his ministry.  Such a story would be immensely fascinating.  Was such a story told but the early authors could not see the value of including such references?

But does this also explain the large gaps which exist from one Gospel to the next.  This birth of Jesus is related at length in only one, so why not the others?  Were they simply edited out?  Did one story contradict the other leaving the Greek and Aramaic writers left to choose one telling of the other?  The same thing happens at the death of Jesus.  Also, were there records of Jesus’ ministry that were viewed as uncomplimentary which were left out for that reason?  Remember, Jesus did have a fit of violence when he threw the money men from the temple. Which bring about the question as to why that is the only story from his birth to age 30? Also, did Jesus’ retreat to the desert for reflection really last for 40 days or was that a number of convenience because it squared with other 40 days incidents of the Old Testament, Noah in particular.  And remember, the time from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday is also 40 days.  Forty was a magical number in those days as was the number 13, the 13 generations of the house of David being one.

Modern day Christian fundamentalists have co-opted Jesus to their own selfish beliefs.  They love literal translations and have little problems chastising anyone who suggests anything different.  Today’s compelling argument for them is their anti-gay theme comes from Jesus saying that a man should not sleep with another man.  They have not considered the fact that it was common practice in those days for men who led caravans to take along with them young boys with whom they would have sex and feel they have not violated their marriage vows.  Could this have been what Jesus was speaking of and that He, being God and being fully aware of the gay people of his day, had been referring to pedophilia and not homosexuality?  I think that to be much more likely.

I absolutely believe that Jesus would have a lot of problems with those who use their religious beliefs in the conduct of their political desires, ergo his give unto Rome that which is Rome’s admonition.  I suspect the writers of our Constitution felt the same.  I also believe that Jesus would have serious problems with the top 1% of wealthy today.  He might refer such people to his saying what profit a man who gains a kingdom and loses his soul.  He might ask them if they believe that what they practice is what He taught.  And while I am certain he understood that wealth had its place, he repeatedly spoke of being generous with such wealth.  He spoke of casting the first stone, turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, judging as you would want to be judged, and absolute kindness and understanding.

If I were a part of the conservative right in this country, I would fear His saying to me, “you have already received your reward and now you will be judge harshly just as you did the least of my brethren.”

by

Science Proves God Exists!


My title, of course, is fictional but I firmly believe that one day it will be science that definitely proves, or disproves, the existence of God.  The best of all possible outcomes would be a theologian, who is also a scientists, is the one who finds that proof.  It is not any religion’s task to prove God’s existence, theirs is one of providing faith to their followers.  But faith, by definition, is a philosophical belief system which works in the absence of proof.  That is a good thing.  But some religions, the more conservative, seem to believe it is their job to proclaim that certain theories and facts of science are nothing more than the work of the devil, or that such science is in direct contradiction to either the teachings of God and Jesus, or contrary to what is said in the Bible.

It seems that the Bible, of all things, is the root of some problems between certain religions and science.  Those people who believe that the Bible is the source of many absolutely which man needs to accept, fail to allow for certain conditions that must exist when dealing in absolutes.  That is, when someone, in this case the writers of the Bible, declare something to be true it is their responsibility to offer either empirical or first hand proof.  The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.  Moses’ only first hand experience appears in the book of Exodus.  He certain lived long after the book of Genesis as he relates it and offers no proof.  The rest of the Bible was written by at least 40 different people none of whom claim first hand experience.  This includes the New Testament.  Theological scholars have dated the earliest New Testament documents having been created at least 60 after the death of Jesus.

The New Testament is full of quotes attributed to Jesus.  It is my belief, however, that most of those quotes are truly paraphrases.  The most basic problem of that day is the extreme lacking of literate people at the time of Jesus and for many centuries following.  By tradition, stories of family, history, and religion were passed along by story tellers.  These story tellers can be compared to today’s television news reporters.  They take a story reported to them and pass it on to others.  The story tellers of Jesus’ day were paid to do their job, just as news reporters are today.  The Hebrews, Romans, and all other civilizations required such people to maintain their traditions from one generation to another.  A scribe was a rare person who was usually connected to persons of political position or wealth.  The population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was approximately 50,ooo.  The number of scribes in that one city likely did not exceed 10, most of whom would have been assigned to Roman politicians.  And in looking at who the 12 disciples of Jesus were, it is unlikely any were literate, to include Jesus himself.  Scientists today know that human memory of any particular incident is accurate for about 48 hours.  After that, without a concerted attempt to remember, our ability to recall details quickly diminishes.  This is not to say that people living at the time of Jesus could not have remembered with great accuracy what he said it did, but that it would take much effort to do so.

Theologians know for fact, for instance, that Moses actually brought in excess of 500 commandments to his people for his supposed meeting with God.  This, of course, raises the question of what to believe.  The Bible says there are only 10 commandments, but theologians know there were truly at least 500.  Jesus lived 1500 years after Moses.  Unfortunately, whatever progress there was in creating the Bible was insignificant if you want to use it as a document for historical fact.  More moderate theologians will tell you it is a book a faith.  What is certain, in this case, is that it cannot possibly be both a book of fact and faith.  Either the “prove it” or “disprove it” argument necessarily win out.  It is best left as a book of faith to be interpreted by each person according to his own conscience.  Left in that sphere, it is an exceptional book worthy of much study and faith.

Most scientists do not deny that certain aspects of creationism have associate truth.  But conservative religions fail to give that same respect to science.  What they fail to realize is that their most basic belief, that God created everything, necessarily means God created science, and with it all the laws of science.  In His creating the universe, God created all the laws of science which scientists use every day.  God gave man the blueprint to find Him, but only if man choses to look.  For reasons which confound me, it seems conservative religions do not care to see God.  Science named the Higgs Boson as the “God particle.”  And Steven Hawking has stated that when we figure out the “big bang” we will see the hand of God.  These are not idle comments made by extremely intelligent people to poke fun at religion.  It is their true belief.

Recently, astro-physicists have offered pictures of the universe as it existed about 250 million years after the big bang.  In astronomical times, that is very close to birth.  The truth is, scientists have absolutely no desire to disprove, or prove for that matter, the existence of God.  Their job is to tell us, in as exacting terms as possible, why things are happening, and how they happened in the past.  That being the case, like a good detective novel, you eventually find and prove “who done it!”

by

Christmas Reconsidered


I am going to start this with a disclaimer.  I have absolutely no intention of saying Jesus was not the Messiah or the son of God.  Those things are a matter of faith.  And faith is something you have particularly when science and logic fails you.

The world 2000 years ago was such a different place from now.  That is not news.  But it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of people were illiterate.  Until the invention of the printing press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1450, history was largely kept by story tellers.  In the day of Jesus it was an actual job that people paid for.  These people could also be traveling musicians, merchants traveling to buy and transport goods, and, of course, military men.  For those most important events, leaders in the world at the time of Jesus employed scribes to write down things such as contracts, messages, and in the case of the Jews, the Bible.  It is likely this latter form of communication was used in the writing of the Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  These men were themselves likely illiterate but they recognized the importance of communicating what they saw.  And even so, the earliest writings of these Gospels in our possession today was not written for at least 50 years after the death of Jesus.  That means the likelihood of a witness passing of first-hand knowledge is quite unlikely.  But does that mean the information is unreliable?  Of the four gospels only two deal with the birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke.  Is is curious that Mark and John did not write on this subject.  Or is it a case where their transcription of the event have been lost?  It would seem a very important event that all proponents of the new religion would relish and talk about at some length.  But nothing should be implied from this lack of information.

The answer to that is a qualified no.  The qualification goes to the language of the Jews of that day, Aramaic.  The Aramaic language had roughly 5000 words in its entire lexicon.  Compare that to the roughly 250,000 words in today’s English language and you can begin to understand that there were innate limitations to the descriptions offered.  One such limitation comes with the use of the word “virgin” when referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  The word is “almah” which in the Hebrew tradition meant “a young girl worthy of marriage.”  It was the Greeks who translated that version into their word “parthenos” which means virgin.  I am not suggesting that Mary was not a virgin, but simply the liberal translations that were made from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek.  Another such example exists relative to Mary’s husband, Joseph.  He is referred to as a carpenter but considering the lack of wood in the area he was more likely a mason, or some similar trade.

No one knows from certain how old Mary was at the time she was pregnant but Hebrew theologians suggest that she was between 12 and 14 as those were the years fathers married off their daughters.  This was a matter of financial expediency as women did not help keep the household clothed and fed.  That practiced was continued even into 19th Century America when New England farmers sent their daughters to work in the textile mills and send money home.  But fathers of those days in Israel were equally interested in a son-in-law who might help provide for the family.  This usually meant the daughter married a man considerably older than she.  Again, this is thought to be the case for Joseph.  He was an older and successful craftsman.

Theologians and historians generally agree that Jesus was likely not born in December but more likely in the late winter or early spring.  The reason for this is the mention of there being lambs at the birth.  Sheep bear their lambs in the later winter and early spring.  But also, it is known that Cesar Augustus had called for a census which happened in the early spring of the year Jesus was born.  Likely the early church did not like having Jesus being born and dying at the same time of year, so they co-opted the Roman holiday of Saturnalia and assigned it to the birth of Jesus.  There are numerous occurrences of this happening in the history of the Christian church.

Another tradition that was adopted by Christianity was that of lights being an important part of the Christmas tradition.  In Roman times, as Saturnalia was celebrated, they lit candles to symbolize the coming of more light at the darkest day of the year.

And so Joseph leaves Nazareth for Jerusalem with his pregnant wife Mary in tow.  These people were absolutely poor.  It is unlikely they had any intent of paying for a place to stay in Bethlehem, if such a place even existed, it was there for people of greater means than Joseph.  That Augustus had called for a census made available lodging extremely rare and undoubtedly Joseph knew he would need an alternative, but what was it?  That he may have tried to find room at an Inn only to be turned away is quite understandable under the circumstances.  Joseph, being an attentive and a newly wed too, likely desired the best for his new wife but knew his attempts would fail.  He likely noted where herds of sheep or goats were kept and knew he could likely get out of the elements with people of a social standing similar to his own.

If you look at a map you will discover that Bethlehem is a little south of Jerusalem.  But where were Joseph and Mary coming from?  Nazareth?  Nazareth is almost 70 miles from Bethlehem, a journey that would have taken several days at least, and particularly in Mary’s condition.  It is not a reach to consider that this great distance travel, and on a donkey as some like to view, would have been particularly hard on Mary and could possibly have induced her into giving birth.  The fact is, we do not know if Jesus was born immediately upon their arrival or a week after their arrival.  Remember now, this story could only have been related by Mary and Joseph, undoubtedly illiterate, to the story tellers to pass it through the ages.  But this also means that time elapsed time between the birth of Jesus and the earliest telling of the story is at least 100 years, probably more.  Like any event, the first retelling of the event is the most important as that is when it is freshest in the mind.  It is likely the first retelling of the story did not happen until Jesus started his ministry, some 30 years after his birth.  This is supported by the fact that we know virtually nothing of those first 30 years of His life.  There is only a single mention of him as a young boy, and even that is very short on detail, Jesus talks with the rabbis.

Scientists believe the “star of Bethlehem” was actually a comet, misinterpreted by an unsophisticated people as a star.

And what about the three wise men, the magi?  Sometimes they are referred to as the 3 kings.  But what is generally agreed is that they were likely astrologers from Persia and had come to Jerusalem to sell their wares, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  They may well have been wealthy merchants who would have seemed like kings to the Jews of the day.  Their knowledge of astrology translated as wisdom.

That the actual events surrounding the birth of Jesus likely are vastly different from what was written does not diminish from the story as told at all.  My guess is that the actual story is likely far more interesting and lively from what we have today.  An a historian, I am compelled to question source material.  That we have no first hand accounts of the birth only serves to reinforce the impact the birth of Jesus had on the people of the day.  The absolute charisma and importance of the man makes the case for the miracle of just how much was related for future generations.

by

How Are We to Take the Birth of Jesus?


I recently watched a documentary on the history of Christmas.  Little was said about the actual birth of Jesus in this program as it was more dedicated to traditions of the past 400 years or so.  But they did point out that there are two versions of his birth in the Bible, one in Matthew and a second in Luke.  Here is what it says in Matthew: Chapter 1, verse 18 “Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the power of the holy spirit. 19 Joseph her husband, an upright man unwilling to expose her to the law, decided to divorce her quietly.  20. Such was his intention when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream and said to him: “Joseph, son of David, have no fear about taking Mary as your wife.  It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this child.  21 She is to have a son and you are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”  But Matthew fails to give us any details whatever about the time and circumstances of the birth.

Now in Luke, Chapter 1, verse 26 “In the sixth mont, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth.”  Gabriel tells Mary directly that she is pregnant via the Holy Spirit with Jesus.  This announcement is made in the “6th month.”  Now if that is the beginning of her pregnancy, as it sounds, the birth could not have happened before March, when many theologians speculate it actually did happen.  But, if its meaning is that Mary was already in her 6th month of pregnancy, then we are again left asking when the birth actually happened.

One thing most Historic Theologians seem to agree upon is that the birth likely happened in the early springs because of the reference to lambs being nearby.  And lambs are usually born in the spring.  But Luke tells us also that Caesar Augustus made a decree ordering a census be taken.  This too lines up with the springtime as historians have been able to date just such a census in the spring of that year.

Jesus is often referred to as “the light of the world.”  The early Christian church was renown for co-opting pagan holidays into one of its own.  The Roman holiday of Saturnalia, along with several other cultures, celebrated the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, as the beginning of the return of more light to each following day.  Out of the darkness and into the light, as we like to say.

One Christian tradition has a visit by “the Magi.”  Who were these people bringing gifts of all things?  The Magi were a well-known group who belonged to a religious following called Zoroastrians.  The word magi is Greek for magician.  We refer to them as the wise men but more likely they were performers of some sort, men who read the stars, practicers of Astrology and Alchemy.  In this sense they were thought wise.  Today, we would think of them just a bit differently.  They are also sometimes referred to as the three kings, though it is unlikely such was the case.  Tradition has it the brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  It is likely they were travelers from Persia carrying such goods as a normal part of their trade.

Jesus was born in a manger, or so it is said.  A most humble place as manger is a French word referring to the place where cattle and sheep eat.  But its structure would certainly have lent it to usage as a place to bed a newborn.  But more like, then as today, Mary probably held the new-born close to her own warm body for quite some time, not just to keep him warm, but also to feed him.

But firmly within the story is the tradition of gifting.  The Magi, whoever they were, are said to have left gifts for Jesus which is a strong statement unto itself.  It says; this is what a person should do.  The great thing about this tradition is there is absolutely no requirement that you are a Christian or need to believe in Jesus at all to do it!  It is the simple idea of giving without expectation of return.  I give something to you because I think it will make you happy.  And seeing you happy is reward enough for me, I need no more.  I really feel that, more and more.

How do we take the birth of Jesus?  The angel in the Bible, who announces the birth of Jesus, wishes peace to all men of good will.  I think that is a marvelous starting place for everyone regardless of religion.  While O. Henry’s short story, “The Gift of the Magi” has a new take on the original act, it does teach us something very valuable for this time of year.  We give what we can to those we love because we love them, and in return we only want their love.  And that is the meaning of Jesus, plain, simple, and easy.