Questions to Answers
A studied layman’s effort to explain bible criticism, offer grace to the guilt-ridden, and encourage faith, hope, and love.
A staff person for CFE, child evangelism fellowship, witnessed to me by demonstrating a bracelet she used with children. Green was God, who was good. Black was our sin that made us too dirty for heaven. Red was Jesus' blood that washed us. White were Christians clean enough for heaven. I wept. Emotion overwhelmed me for some reason I'm not sure of. Maybe i was a little upset for being being treated like a five year old. I have a Masters degree in Theology, and I was being lectured like I had nothing to say. Maybe I was sad for the seemingly impossibility of communication with someone with such credulity. I was not able to agree (or disagree other than in silence), but in my heart I believed only the green, God is good. A few years later I witnessed a puppet show at Christmas using color-coding again, only the coding was different. The thumb was gold, representing heaven. The index was black, indicating hell. Red was Jesus blood of course. White was washed clean, and green was now growth in God. A color was added and one was switched. But white was still highly regarded, black(negra) was evil, and somehow blood is able to unsoil and sanitize. I have changed my theology as well. I see God not as green, but as white. God like white contains all colors, and only our filters of reason and religion deflect the colors we see. Like a movie projector casts a drama onto the screen by filtering white light, God everywhere present as consciousness, manifests by the bending of the light in our minds. God is television broadcast and we are the TV set. Omniscience sometimes seeps through the doors of perception as mystical visions, clairvoyance, déjà vu, synchronicity, answered prayer, and madness.
This metaphor of creation by subtraction is handy when considering origins. If god created out of nothing, then what created God? Maybe God didn't create out of nothing, but created out of infinite potential, which is white light. All things are possible to God, so what we see only enters reality through a glass darkly. The evidence of the Big Bang is much more convincing then Genesis, the question now is what is on the other side? Gravity in a vacuum seems to be the answer. Einstein hinted at it with the cosmological constant. We now know about spacetime singularities providing the repulsive force for the primeval fireball. Like an out breath, the universe is not born but re-born. We are expanding for billions of years only to contract for billions of years when 'God' gets another opportunity. Is God the creator, or is God the creation of consciousness. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? According to quantum mechanics, the chicken crossed to the other side of the road to go through a wormhole. Reason suggests that the only process capable of creating God is evolution. Its time we let go of cosmologies invented out of deep recesses of our collective psyche as comfort for our soul. These world views squelch our imagination and censor saving discoveries. We can meet our emotional needs without embracing preposterous fantasies.
Growing up in a functional, religious family, I had no problem believing in the God served up to me at church potlucks. I learned to love Jesus over baked beans and 'deviled' eggs. Sumptuous casseroles validated for me the miraculous feeding of the multitudes. Challenging the Bible was always pointless to me, because I had no problem believing in miracles. I believed God could do anything. After all, that's what gods did. Miracles made perfect sense in the supernatural world of the Bible. I found comfort in an all-powerful deity that loved me. I could enlist his majestic powers in my humble endeavors. If our football team prayed to God, he would help us win. We didn't always win, so I just figured the other team prayed harder or was his favorite for privileged reasons.
My opinion was that other cultures just hadn't heard the 'good news' yet. As for the 'bad ' people, hell is what they deserved. You might say I was a 'good ole boy.' My faith, never tested, had a moral certitude. Being a curious and spiritually inclined, I was susceptible to the fundamentalist movement sweeping the country in the wake of the liberalism of the 60's. The 'second coming' was never preached in my Presbyterian church, and the 'late great Planet Earth' was a surprise when I read it in college. Shocked! My eyes opened to a whole another realm. Scripture not only predicted the future, but also could be used like the I Ching to plan my day. 'Speaking in tongues' was a sign of the ' Second blessing', and I wanted it all. I never learned to babble though I was prayed over and anointed with holy oil and laid on with hands. Someone with the gift of discernment decided I had a demon of lust. No doubt I did, I was 22 years old, but it could not be exorcised by any amount of bible thumping or otherworldly incantations. Eventually my faith faltered. My doubts first take root in the confusion I felt about my 'lost' friends and family, people I loved, who hadn't been born-again. I really couldn't believe they were going to hell. I prayed and fasted and read the Word and witnessed and never felt peace of mind. Maybe my faith was weak, or maybe I was not one of the elect! No less of a conundrum was the violent, unambiguous slaughter of innocent women and children in an ethnic cleansing of the 'holy land, countenanced by the Almighty. There was a too obvious disconnect between the golden rule and cruel and unusual punishment meted out by Jehovah. Bluntly stated, if the Bible is true, then God is a jealous, insecure, bloodthirsty tyrant.
.
Was the Bible accurately describing what the wandering Israelites believed about God, or were they adapting myths they picked up in Egypt for their own purpose of creating a national persona. If the O.T. genuinely reflects Jewish thinking, then their theology was woefully inadequate. If their purpose was to create a national myth, they did well. If the plagues were real, then God slaughtered innocent children. Jehovah's tactics were more sadistic then merciful and strategically abhorrent, using mass killings as a means to an end. If the exodus is an embellishment of an event in history, an exaggeration you might say, then Moses was the perfect character, almost a god himself. After all, he had a 'one on one' with the almighty. The first commandment reinforces Moses' power by authorizing his priesthood, “thou shall have no other gods before me.” Before whom? Before Moses' god!! Moses' lineage is claiming divine rights by fabricating these legends.
The Israelites were anxious to throw off their shackles, but they emerged out of Egypt having been influenced in not so subtle ways. They blatantly aired their religious baggage, as they backslid into nature worship, witness the 'golden calf'. Poignantly, it is idolatry that is God's pet peeve. Polytheism is at the top of his list of dont's. Nothing pisses him off like whoring after other gods. He admits to a murderous jealousy. According to the injunction against having any other gods before Jehovah, there are other gods. Moses' monotheism required that these gods be abolished. Egyptian legends were transformed by the Hebrews into stories glorifying a god of their own choosing by claiming he chose them. The patriarchs replaced the Egyptian deities as the heroes in these epics older than time. While the core of the myths survived in different contexts, the plot lines made heroes of different protagonists. Cosmic intervention was a writer's method that served to guarantee the righteousness of their tribal cause. Charismatic characters defined the destiny of the children of Abraham in divine drama, a historical fiction meant to validate heaven's favor and eternal privilege. The heroes of the O.T. compose a rouge’s gallery. Cheats, liars, cowards, murderers, and prostitutes are counted among the saints, but 'Woe' to anyone who creates a graven image. These people practiced human sacrifice, but they better not take the Lord's name in vain.
John 6:10 says that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes, whereas Mark 8:8 and Matthew 15:37 say it was 7 loaves, a few fish and 4,000 people. which of these different numbers is the word of god?. When did Jesus cleanse the temple? John says Jesus swept out the moneychangers at the beginning of Passion Week, while the Synoptics say he did it at the end. According to the logic of literalists, if the bible says it, then it must be true, therefore Jesus cleansed the temple twice. The Bible must be the Word of God, because it says it is.
I'm beginning to sound a little facetious I know, but I'm only trying to test your faith. What doesn't kill it will only make it stronger, right? Well, if your faith dies, but is resurrected, then it is stronger than ever. Consider my objective the rebirth of Christianity. Critical study of the bible can be a crucifixion of faith, if you take scripture literally. We shall take it seriously. Does saving faith depend on accepting Jonah's plight as fact? Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution? Read on! I've got lots of good questions. And you have the answer in your heart.
Once in the north frontier, a native asked a missionary if the natives would go to hell, if they had never heard the gospel. The missionary assured them god's grace extends to those who never have the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus. The native replied, “Then, why did you tell us?” To undo two thousand years of proselytizing and crusades is a noble goal I suppose. These ramblings are aimed at uncovering the doubts, fears, reservations, and uncertainties that clutter and cover our convictions and confidence like litter in an archeological dig. To get to the foundation of faith, we must sift carefully through the dust of centuries with a fine-tooth comb of scrutiny. What we find, what remains, stands the test of time.
One might say the three pillars of religion that endure among ancient relics are 'faith, hope, and love.' These virtues are a continuous motif in tabernacle, temple, church, and mosque. These highest of human qualities compose the essence of the soul. It is the image of god that allows us to love. Hope is the inheritance of creatures a little lower than the angels. Faith sets us apart from the animals. But the greatest of these is love, at least, so says the apostle Paul. Of course, today's churches put all the emphasis on 'faith'. It all depends on what you 'believe.' If you accept the gospel, then you'll go to heaven. And “accept', in contemporary terms, means believing in miracles; that is, insisting against unbelief that Jesus rose from the dead, and furthermore, that his blood was propitiation for your sins, and that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that the serpent beguiled Eve. People say they could believe that Jonah swallowed the whale, if the Bible said it.
What's really more important? Faith or love? I don't always agree with Paul, but he's right on this issue. Love is most important. Faith can never be proven. Faith is what sustains us when we are uncertain. Faith is our willingness to face the unknown and not be afraid. Faith is courage in the faint whisper from behind the veil, faith is trust in a benevolent mystery, and faith is an assurance in our own spirit. But love is greater.
Faith is basically confidence in god's love, despite the evidence. Is Jesus' crucifixion a sign of the son's love, or an indication of God's wrath? Or both as some would say. This schizophrenia is no inconsistency for the bi-polar god of the bible. Tough love you might think. Others might think the bible is an obstacle to faith. If you have to believe in 'Noah's Ark' in order to be on board the boat to heaven's shores, than I contend the Bible is an anchor. But if Noah's ark were never found, I would say, “Our faith need not be shaken. “ Maybe these are myths; I believe that they are legends, and that they were meant to be taken metaphorically. The artists tried to explain ultimate reality, in the limited fashion available before computers and scopes, both macro and micro, and the “Scopes’ trial. They weren't meant to convey history or science. We are going to take a look at some problems with inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible. Test the mettle of your faith. May it be refined in the fire? Toss yourself into the flames that consumed the censored books of the dark ages. What could we have learned from the library of Alexandria that the early church set ablaze?
There is so much we don't know. Good thing we aren't saved by what we know. Being right doesn't save us. It's not really whom you know either, but who knows you. God knows you and god loves you. You are saved as surely as you were born. We are born into god's family. Love is our birthright. Love is our essence. Love is greater than faith. Jesus is our embodiment of love. Whether or not he was incarnated is unknowable and ultimately inconsequential. Whether Jesus walked on water is conscientiously debatable by even the most saintly devotee. This story was common among deities as a sign of their divinity. The gospels were expected to be taken metaphorically by the intended audience, because the first century Christians were well aware of the parallel miracles performed by other saviors. There are dozens of similar universal themes found in the lives of Jesus and Krishna and Dionysus. The first pagan converts expected Jesus to be at least on the same level as Horus or Mithra. So the evangelists produced a biography of Jesus in accordance with the tradition of previous Christs. The Gospels contain many miraculous events that surely would have attracted attention, but there is no mention of Jesus or any of his signs by any record whatsoever during his lifetime. Consider an incident of obvious paramount importance mentioned in the gospels that fails to make the chronicles of the day. According to Matthew 27:52-53; dead people rose from the grave and walked the streets in burial shrouds like mummies. A non-virtual 'Night of the living dead', and it didn't get noticed by the historians of the day. Did it happen? I doubt it, but I still love Jesus. Jesus' resurrection didn't get mentioned in the current events either. You would think the first Easter might have made the headlines. Even if Jesus were a myth, my faith would not be shaken. Jesus is the symbol of God's love. Jesus taught and lived love. He taught mercy and grace, but he taught nothing about redemption by blood or salvation by execution. His resurrection is allegorical of the soul. The Son rises again as does the sun. The soul rises again as did Osirus and Horus and Mithra and Apollo and Dionysius. The Bible must be read metaphorically for it to have pertinent meaning. Faith in the Bible's inerrancy is misplaced and leads to loss of religion. We can deconstruct the bible and rebuild our faith on the Christ within, the hope of glory.
What impels this adventure into the realm of spirit and dusty archives? Well, what drives the seed towards the sun? We seek the light! Love is our source, our guide, and our reward. Truth is our beatific vision! Let's explore the metaphysical landscape. My ambition is to guide seekers clear of theological quicksand and emotional angst. My hope is to open a vista where we may gain a new perspective. My hope is that the Bible makes more sense, and that Christ is revealed in your heart.
No one's integrity should be questioned because they put a local face on the numinous. We worship the only god we are accustomed to, and rightly so. And in keeping with the logic of love, there are saints in every religion. People have an innate spiritual longing, and that longing is spirit calling unto spirit. The image of god, our conscience, is in every human.
Desiring god is having god. Desire is an attribute of God as is fulfillment. Longing is the essence of love. I hope that the singing and dancing going on in the mega - churches and holiness tabernacles continues when they realize their object of worship is only a metaphor for the divine spark that animates each of us. All people feel close to god and can verify god's presence by sense or some scripture. There is no denying at least the 'god gene' in all people. The feeling of intimacy someone might have with Jesus is no different from another having spiritual intercourse with Krishna.
There's no reason to be afraid if your idea of god dies. Gods die and rise again. And your essence, the soul we share with god, will never die. Hallelujah!
Paul announced the god worshipped in ignorance. People have a god locket in their heart that only spirit unlocks. Yes! Like C.S. Lewis said, birds have wings because they are meant to fly. People have an impulse that fulfills itself in worship. Worship is god expressing itself, not an attempt to reach god. Worship is an indication that spirit is real. Worship is a symptom of god intoxication; worship is not a therapy to gain healing. We all worship in ignorance, because god is a mystery beyond our knowing. Jesus personifies god inasmuch as he loves, and people honor god inasmuch as they love. It is not believing that Jesus is god that matters; it is loving like Jesus did. We all speak in tongues, so to speak, gibberish to god, but acceptable because it comes from the heart.
What did the sign above the cross at the crucifixion say? It differs in all four gospels.
MATTHEW 27;37 'THIS IS JESUS KING OF THE JEWS'
MARK 15:26 'THE KING OF THE JEWS'
LUKE 23;38 'THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS'
JOHN 19;19 'JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS'
Who has the right version? Did the crucifixion really happen? Obviously, we are not expected to believe the exact words are important. What is it that the writers want us to believe is important? That he was crucified. Mark's narrative actually ends after the crucifixion. There is no resurrection in Mark. Mark was the earliest gospel; did the earliest Christians believe in a bodily resurrection? The other gospels want us to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection was a signature attribute of gods, but they got their stories mixed up again. Compare the gospels and try to decide who arrived at the empty tomb first and what the angel looked like and what the angel said. We are given variations that don't mesh.
Matthew and Mark report one Angel at the tomb and Luke and John report two. John steals the prestige from Mary Magdalene of being the first witness and gives it to Peter.
Imagine a cult of Elvis a thousand years from now refusing to believe he really died, or that he remained in the grave. Star Wars might be the holy Book for our great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.
Is it important that we accept each syllable of scripture as veracious in order to glean meaning? There are roughly 5,400 ancient Greek manuscripts of the new testament that are used to piece together an English translation. There are roughly 30,000 significant variations within those manuscripts. What are the odds that god is involved in the syntax of our modern text? It is no longer disputed that the final 11 verses of Mark were a late addition, yet how many people have tested their faith in the word of god, spelled out in the verse found there about handling serpents and surviving, and lost their life betting on this spurious passage?
Test your scholarship. Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfill a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13. What is the question to the answer? John tells us that Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover; Mark says it happened the day after. Why didn’t an early editor, say the Holy Spirit, catch such contradictions? Maybe time and setting were beside the point of the story? What is the “Gospel Truth”?
Maybe the story was familiar as myth to the intended audience, and it was assumed that the historicity was inauthentic. The ‘Greatest Story’ ever SOLD was given new form in a context appealing to the Hellenistic world, particularly the ignorant and poor. The ‘Initiated’ understood the halo bestowed on Jesus was borrowed from Mithra and handed down from Horus. Only later, as Knowledge, in the form of Gnosticism was eradicated, did the esoteric truth of the Cosmic Christ disappear. Those who knew Jesus of Nazareth understood his resurrection as symbolic and the miracles as attachments to his sayings as a stamp of approval. The stories of turning water into wine and feeding the thousands were common endorsements for competing deities.
There is a way the bible will not let you down. The gospel writers borrowed old mythologies and gave them new life in Jesus. Legends of rebirth abounded in early recorded history because every religion was nature based, thus they all had similarities. Death and rebirth as revealed in nature! A universal transcendent experience culminated in common rituals among different cultures. The Egyptians were the first to rituallize the afterlife. They understood the mystery of the descent of spirit into the human plane as death and the physical death of the body as the rebirth of the soul. Death is not the opposite of life, but of birth. Birth and death are both a part of life. The soul descends into humanity at the autumnal equinox as the sun begins is descent on the horizon. At the winter solstice, when the sun is in the balance and begins its turn upward, the Christ is born as spirit begins its transformation of our animal bodies into spiritual beings. We grow into god when we die. The miracle stories attributed to Jesus were meant to be taken symbolically when they were written. Everyone was familiar with these anecdotes from the fanfare of other deities. Walking on water was expected to be one of the qualifications for deification. Bacchus turned the water into wine before Jesus, but Jesus up staged him by saving the best until last. Jesus was a charismatic teacher and a saint, but words were put in his mouth and deeds attributed to him that were made famous prior to his Christening by earlier legendary gurus who had already become accepted as avatars. We can get the original meaning of scripture by reading it metaphorically.
Consider that early Christians were illiterate and contemplate the irony that Christianity was founded on a book. Pagans had no doctrine or holy books, but the early church adopted the dogmatic attitude from the Jews. How dogmatic can you be when your manuscript was written without punctuation or spaces? The New Testament was written something like this 'ihidtheearringbehindthedoordidyouhaveawindowseatontheairplane'
How do you exegete?
'godisnowhere'
'God is now here' or
'God is no where'
Consider Psalm 104 and it's implication that the earth is the center of the universe. '…earth, that it not be moved forever.' We know now that the earth moves at astonishing speed around the sun, but this verse was enough evidence for literalists to stop the advance of science for centuries. In 1 Kings 7:23, we read that 'the circumference shall be 3x the radius squared. Should we accept Pi as exactly 3 instead of 3.1414?
We must wonder if we have the original words written by the original authors anyway. Early church leader Origen conceded the problem with authenticity. “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others: they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Copyists were amateurs. They were only local literates without training. Not until the 4th century were there professional scribes. In Galatians, Paul makes the admission that his letter is dictated. Can we even be sure that Paul's words were copied with 100% accuracy? Maybe the original manuscript itself has wrongly transcribed Paul's words. Our oldest surviving manuscript of Paul's writing is from 150 years after Paul. What are the odds of every jot and tittle being exact? Remember that early Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions. There was motive to falsify texts in order to make them say what the scribes already thought they meant. The book of Acts is obviously an effort to smooth over the dispute between Paul and Peter and to make orthodoxy appear uncontested. Another motivation was to lay the blame squarely on the Jews for Jesus death. The Romans were exonerated, because by the time of canonization in the 300s, the Roman bishop had the power and authority.
We know that there were many Christian sects competing for dominance in the first century, not because of extant sectarian writings, but because of polemics by proto-orthodox rebuttals. So-called heresies were some of the earliest versions of Christianity, but zealous Catholics destroyed their teachings. . The many polemics we have record of pre-suppose the pervasive influence of alleged 'false-teachers.' These lost Christianities came to light when the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts were unearthed. We can see theology develop through the New Testament if we follow a time line. Jesus did not teach the Nicene Creed, but its tenets were a response in order to contradict other popular assertions. In 1827, ovum was discovered, and women were proven to contribute an egg to conception. The Catholics were once again forced to renovate doctrine. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was conceived to deal with the possibility that she passed on sin to her son.
Mark did not know the Old Testament very well, or he did not worry about quoting it mistakenly. In chapter one, he attributes a citation from the Book of Malachi to Isaiah. In chapter two, he indicates Abiathas as High Priest when David ate the showbread, but I Samuel says the High Priest was Ahimelech. What's up with that? Mark doesn't know or doesn't think it matters. What's important for him is for people to believe Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus 's divinity was sharply debated, and manuscripts were sometimes manipulated to erase any doubts. For instance, Jesus' cry from the cross, 'why have you forsaken me?’ has been changed to “why have you mocked me?” The idea of Jesus being forsaken creates qualms, so a particular scribe or school of copiers saw fit to give the passage their own slant.
The gospels them selves were more commentary than history. The virgin birth was as controversial then as it is today, and Luke wanted to leave little room for argument. In Luke 2:33, “father” was changed to “Joseph” in later manuscripts to eliminate the suspicion that Jesus had an earthly father. A few verses later, in the anecdote of the temple visit, “parents' is changed to “Joseph and his mother” for the same reason. “Your father and I” has been changed to “We”. All references to Joseph as father have been redacted.
Another contentious topic was Jesus' divinity. When did he become god, or was he equal with god? Some contended that Jesus assumed fullness of the spirit at his baptism when the dove alighted on him and a voice form heaven announced, “Today I have begotten you”. Luke contended that Jesus was born equal in the godhead and changed his version to read, “You are beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” Luke adds the line 'he was taken up to heaven' to his source text to stress the physical ascension of Jesus, but contradicts Acts1; 1-11 where the ascension takes place 40 days later. If Jesus went straight up at the speed of light, he is still traveling within our known galaxy. If the authors of the Bible thought Heaven was up in the sky, then I'm not going to trust their cosmology.
The place of women was being established and the evangelists wanted to keep them in their place. Subtle shifts in syntax attempt to do just that. In Acts17: 4, 'prominent women' is changed to “wives of prominent men' in some mss. Romans 16:3 has “Priscilla and Aquila” changed to'Aquila and Priscilla' putting the man first. The verse forbidding women to prophecy is inserted after verse 33 in some mss. of 1 Corinthians and after verse 40 in others. It contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where women are allowed to prophecy, so it is suspected of being a later addition in the opinion campaign against women. Jesus freed women and broke down barriers while his followers were quick to mend the walls of prejudice.
Other alterations were made to fight pagan tendencies. Matthew 24:36 says that no one knows the time, “not even the angels of heaven nor even the Son, but the Father alone”. The phrase “nor even the Son” is left out of many mss., so that one doesn't get the idea that Jesus was not omniscient. “Wine” in Matthew 27:34 has been edited to read “vinegar” to conform to the prophecy in Matthew 26; 29 that Jesus would not drink of wine again until in the kingdom. Mark 14: 62 is changed to omit mention of Jesus imminent return. This was after the expected return was overdue.
We get the idea that scripture has been tinkered with in order to further points of view. Anti-Semitism was fostered as a political tactic for establishing better conditions for missionary activity by shifting blame for Jesus' death from Romans to the Jews. John mentions the Jews 78 times, always with the clear connotation of 'the enemy.” In John 4: 22, 'salvation comes from the Jews” is changed to” salvation comes form Judea.” Matthew 1: 21 has “save his people (Jews)” changed to 'save the world” in an attempt to discount the Jews. The Jews have suffered persecution and prejudice for centuries because they have been made the guilty party. Pilate was reported for dramatic effect to have washed his hands. Who was there to witness this, since all of his followers had fled?
It seems the questions were never asked, much less the answers ever given. For instance, the 'Magnificant of Mary' raises some serious questions even to a little child, maybe, especially to a child. Who was there to write down what the angel said and what Mary answered? Who was the eyewitness, or the ear witness? Mary's exaltation is anything but what something coming out of a little girl's mouth would sound like. Girls weren't allowed to read or study. How could she quote a passage from the scripture? Was she inspired to say that and the author of Matthew inspired to recreate the scene literally? It makes much more sense to many scholars that the words were put into Mary's mouth in order to fulfill a so called prophecy. The virgin birth was not mentioned in Mark, the earliest gospel. “Mark and John appear uncomfortable with accusations of Jesus' illegitimacy, but never mention his miraculous origins. Paul refers to Jesus as being 'born of the seed of David according to the flesh' and 'born of woman,' without referring to Mary's virginity at all.
Divine heritage was a legitimizing myth applied to various saviors in other rudimentary religions. Based on the same legends traced back to Egypt, incarnation and resurrection are ultimately ritual symbolizing nature. Branches of Sun-God religion flourished throughout the ancient world.
Christianity traces its roots to Osiris as does Krishna and Buddha. Mohhammed is a late bloomer and his miracles are a little harder to believe. Of course you'll always have your Joseph Smiths and Moonies, but for most people it's easier to believe in miracles if they happened long go and far away.
Why didn't Mark write about the Resurrection? Mark's theology preceded the theory of atonement by blood. Jesus' teachings were the core of the earliest churches, not his crucifixion. The Essene sect of Christians followed Jesus because of his morals centered in mercy. They knew nothing of a sacrifice for sins. They understood Jesus as a divine human by virtue of his evolved consciousness. He demonstrated that we are all begotten of God and share the Spirit. His message was 'Original Blessing' not 'Original Sin.' Grace is our birthright, not the exclusive fortune of the virgin born. Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi indicate there was not consensus about the divinity of Jesus, rather there was widespread differences regarding the person and work of Jesus. Consider that the selection of the Canon grew out of dogma. The Nicene Creed in 323 precludes what was allowed into the sacred book and considered the Word of God. The Pope decided once and for all, even for Protestants what was considered Holy and true. Dissenting views were burned and banned, but passages from so-called heretics survive in the apologetics of the proto-orthodox.
John seems to poke fun at people who take Jesus ‘literally.’ The woman at the well is made to appear naive when asking about ‘living water.’ Nicodemus is rebuked for wondering how one is born again. Even the disciples are chastised for taking Jesus’ literally in John 4:33 when he offers food they know not of. They expect wheat for the stomach, but he spoke of nourishment of the soul. It seems that Jesus himself meant his teachings to be taken metaphorically. Why should anyone demand or insist each syllable carries only concrete meaning as if written in stone?
Perhaps we are well meaning but afraid. After all, God struck dead Ananius and Sapphira, though they were acting legitimately and legally. Don’t cross the Boss! He’ll send a bear to cross your path. Jehovah has a history of human sacrifice, Ex. 13:2,12, 13, 22-29. Jeptha sacrifices his daughter and is praised by Judges. God is the “Destroyer of the Firstborn”. Heb.11: 28. With redemption by execution, atrocity becomes good news. This hangman’s theology where human cruelty is falsely considered God’s will has promoted inhumanity. Would Christianity be as glamorous if Jesus died by guillotine or needle or noose?
There is something wrong with god not us, if he demands slaughter. That GOD IS DEAD! That 1960’s headline convinced few people, because people are still afraid, and the new, more improved Jesus was more palatable to the public. The mainstream is fed a pabulum diet to keep them happy and quiet. A taste for truth is developed when we rid our diet of junk foods. I’m speaking with double meaning now. Get junk food out of your diet, and you will make better use of your brain. We are what we eat. Fast and pray, try being a vegan for a day, and you might understand the evil that permeates our factory farms and raises a stench unto heaven! Our food is not blessed, if it comes by way of suffering animals and spoiled land. There is no righteousness in the way we transform giant trees into toilet paper . Its not a question of whether Jesus ate meat or not, the question is what is causing mad cow disease? Is it yet safe to say that the Church has failed our society by patronizing the rich and sanctifying selfishness? Meditate on the Crucifixion. Imagine pulling out the nails in empathy with Jesus’ suffering, instead of shouting ‘Crucify him for me! Make him suffer, so I can go to Heaven!”
Carl Jung said, “When one person says he talks to god and sees angels, they call him crazy; when a group makes the same claim, they call it religion.’’ So what are we to make of the Bible? This troubled interplay between a lonely god and a homeless people. Books in the bible, like Hamlet and King Lear, invoke fictional characters to tell a story. Ellsinore Castle is historical but Hamlet is not. Did Jesus walk the streets of Jerusalem after his crucifixion, or was it another Elvis sighting. The human tragedy is god making man in his image. We only want what God had deemed ‘very good.’ Being like God, obedience is not a divine virtue, nothing less than desire for knowledge should be expected. The highest drama that could be imagined is unfolding. It is a comedy of survival, and the laugh is on me, and the laugh is in you. We write the play with our prayers. We decide our furure. Will we create heaven with love, or will we manifest hell through fear? If love is true, hope is as sure as the Sun, though faith as uncertain as the rain! From stardust we come, and to stardust we return. If grace is true, peace passes understanding.
Where are we to go from here? What are we to make of faith and the bible? How are we to understand mistakes in scripture? Luke mentions that Quirinius was governor of Syria when the first Christmas census occurred. That census was in 6 C.E. (common era), but Herod died in 4 B.C.E. Luke didn’t know his history or didn’t care. Should we be concerned about historical flaws? Are we being honest to suspect that the census was a literary device used by Matthew to place the nativity in Bethlehem and thus appear to fulfill prophecy? Maybe a more pertinent question would be, is there a message that comes across despite or rather regardless of historicity? The universal appeal of the bible story is salvation. The question to the answer, so says Jesus and Buddha and Plato, is that we were never lost. We are partake in the divine as sparks of the godhead. god is the ground of being, in whom we live and move and have our being.
Enlightenment more accurately describes the experience when we come to the realization that there is no separation from God. This is the Perennial Philosophy accepted by Gnostics, people in the know, of all ages. What about the undeniable, existential reality of being born-again? You might say, 'But I know in my heart...". Consider Paul’s conversion as related in 3 contradicting accounts. In one account, the men with Paul heard the angel but saw nothing, in another narrative, the men saw the angel but heard it not. They all remained standing, but in the third rendition, the men all fall down. I say take your pick. Fall down if you want. Hear the angels, or not! Paul visualized a Hellenized Christ in the tradition of Serapis, Seth, and Hibil. Jesus claimed to only have been sent ‘for the lost sheep f Israel. The great commission was put in his mouth later as missionary activity began after Jerusalem’s fall. Christianity shed its Jewish cocoon, and Jesus metamorhped into an avatar. No church father denied that communion as holy Eucharist was a sacrament in Mithraism, but they argued that pagan similarities to Christian rituals were demonic imitations designed by the Devil to delude the infidels. Just as God had supposedly created fossils to fool the curious, we are taught not not trust our common sense. Faith against reason is a dubius virtue. The vast majority of sayings attributed to Jesus are from earlier Judean wisdom literature, or Pagan and Greek moralistic and philosophical beliefs. Jesus was first revered for his wisdom and mercy. Apocalyptic expectations transformed the sage into a prophet, the teacher into a warrior. Would you still love Jesus, if he were only a man? If Jesus were merely a spirit filled human and not the eternal arbitrator, would you follow his example? The first Christians were inspired solely by Jesus’ life and teachings. They deserve better, than being tagged heretical by the emerging Christ cult who insisted on his divinity. We would do well to emulate their allegiance to principle and not a super- person. Miracles need not be a component of your faith. Love is the greatest evidence of God, and love survives the rubble of temples and rises from the ashes of ancient religions. By universal consensus, the Word of God is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Isn’t this what your own heart pleads? Let this be my dogma, let this be my creed. Of books and saviors and preachers and popes, I have no need.
