RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - THE RESURRECTION

 THE ALBATROSS OF THE RESURRECTION 

The resurrection an albatross?  For the ardent, literalist Christian that has to sound like pure heresy.  Even the most progressive Christian might find such a statement hard to swallow.  Most Christians, fundamental literalist, and progressive have been indoctrinated to believe that the resurrection is a factual event, even if there is little to non-existent historical evidence of such an occurrence. 

To show how much of an albatross the resurrection is today, one only has to listen to sermons or homilies on the various Easter readings from the Gospels.  It is either treated as a fact that one must believe or the Gospel reading regarding it, is treated to little commentary or is skirted by the preacher talking, instead, about one of the other readings appointed for the day.   The only thing in the resurrection story that might - just might - serve as some sort of evidence of its being related to an actual event is the possibility of the tomb empty.   Beyond that, the sightings of Jesus and the recorded conversations with him in the canonical Gospels are, at best, an inconsistent mix of spurious experiences that lack any credible evidence of ever happening. 

In all the differing Gospel accounts of Jesus's resurrection there is something extremely ephemeral about claims of Jesus appearing to his disciples.  He reportedly appears and disappears without warning, in spite of his disciple being in secure locked room.  In fact the Gospel of Luke addresses the issue of the disciples wondering if they were seeing Jesus' ghost.  To prove that he wasn't a ghost, Jesus tells his disciples to touch him and then asks for something to eat.  We don't know if any of the disciples touched Jesus, but we do read that he ate.  This of course was before the Ghostbuster movie came out and showed a ghost, Slimer, eating hotdogs.  In trying to debunk the debunkers in their audiences, the Gospel writers actually give some credibility to the doubts people had about the resurrection being an actual event and not some form of paranormal activity or some type of group hysteria.

The problem with the resurrection as a fact is that there is no credible explanation for it and, for all practical purposes, it seems in the twenty-first century, at least, an unnecessary story as it adds nothing to the teachings of Jesus.   Even the Gospels make no attempt to explain it, other than to say that he appeared to his disciples.  While the Gospels of Luke and John try to emphasize a real physical presence by Jesus eating  food or cooking fish for breakfast by the Sea of Galilee, the earliest New Testament commentary on the resurrection of Jesus by Paul doesn't.  He claims that Jesus died a physical body and was raised a spiritual body, which is mostly ignored in Christian theology, where the term "body" takes precedent over the spiritual descriptor of that term. 

* * *

The Cambridge dictionary defines resurrection as "the act or fact of bringing someone back to life, or bringing something back into use or existence."  This is a very helpful definition; in that, it offers a person two ways of understanding Jesus' resurrection story.  The first way is to treat it as an act or a fact of bringing someone back to life.  The second is bringing something (or in this case someone) back into use or existence.

For the most part all Christian denominations treat the resurrection story as Jesus being brought back to life by God as something necessary to be believed as a fact in order to be saved.  To require belief that this is a fact after Jesus not appearing in physical form to anyone for the past two thousand years raises the question why he didn't stick around and finish the job of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.  

The second coming of Jesus has lost most of its punch, nowadays.  At one time, Christians believed that being resurrected from the dead would occur at the end of the world or the end of time.  Over time, however,  people started believing that when a person dies they either go directly to heaven or hell where they will dwell for eternity.  Most Christians that I know look forward to seeing their dead loved ones again the moment they die, which further deteriorates the need of Jesus' second coming in which he judges the living and dead, as most think they will be immediately judged as to where they will spend eternity.  All of this pushes the issue of credibility.  

* * *

Believing something to be true does not make it true, nor is believing in the incredible a test of one's faith.  That's the bait of a snake oil salesman.  Paul sometimes fits that bill; especially when he says, "If Christ be not raised, then ... your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14)  Spoken like a certified snake oil salesman. 

While Paul side-stepped the need to prove Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead.  In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes, "It (the body) is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.  (1Corinthians 15:44). Paul does not specify what a spiritual body is, but then again, Paul never saw the physical Jesus prior to his conversion. As far as I can tell, Jesus' appearance to Paul was always of a spiritual nature.

Paul also uses a technique that one could describe as reversed-engineered logic regarding the resurrection of Jesus.  One would normally think that the resurrection of Jesus would serve as proof that there is such a thing as being resurrected from the dead.  Paul doesn't go there.  Instead, Paul says that if there is no such thing as resurrection then Jesus could not have been resurrected,  "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen"  (1 Corinthian 15:12-13).   (Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® )

What?

This is the kind of twisted logic that Paul uses from time to time in order to worry people into believing the incredible.  Paul continues, " For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: ...Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:16 & 18-19).

According to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter used guilt to convince people that Jesus was raised from the dead:

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. ... Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus."  Acts 3:14-15 & 19-20 NIV)

The irony is that the resurrection story of Jesus actually did not result in changing the course of human events.  It is neither a matter of fact nor is it a matter of faith.   Rather it is a matter of belief; that is, intellectual assent to an ideology or theological speculations about Jesus.    You either believe it as a fact or you don't. If you don't believe it, nothing changed,  and your are still in your sins.  Likewise, if you believe it as a fact nothing changes, you still need to repent of your sins in order to be saved.  That is the way it was before Jesus was crucified and that is the way it remains.  If Christ died for all, nothing changed as far as the course of human events is concerned.  There have been no direct historical results of his reported physical resurrection.

* * *

"Why then does the resurrection story resonate with so many people?   

Why do so many people believe it to be a fact?

To answer those questions one needs to differentiate between belief and faith, which brings to mind what I wrote about belief and faith when I started blogging.  From my post on "Belief" posted on December 14, 2014, I wrote:

The most enduring type of belief are those of an ideological (theological) nature. Most ideological beliefs were handed down to us, or we gave our assent to them because they satisfy an emotional or intellectual need.  Ideological beliefs are not dependent on empirical or fact-based knowledge and are less likely to change.  As such, ideological beliefs can be concretized to the extent that any change to the conditions upon which they were predicated will likely be interpreted in such a manner as to authenticate the original conditions on which they are based. As a result, conflicts can arise between those espousing non-ideological beliefs and those with strong ideological beliefs.

From my post on Faith posted on December 19, 2014, I wrote:

On the surface, faith can appear miniscule, weak, and a refuge of last resort, but I would suggest otherwise.  Faith appears gentle but exerts tremendous force. It can give one the strength to hold on through impossible situations.  It can allow one to let go of something thought impossible to live without.   Its impact on the lives of individuals, people in general, and the course human events has been and continues to be immense. Faith faces forward.  We are blind where the future is concerned.  We don't know what lies around the corner.  Yet in faith we face the future and turn the corners of life. Faith contends with doubt.  Where there is faith there is doubt.  Faith does not require certainty and certainty requires no faith.   Certainty is matter of one's perceiving a known outcome.  Certainty with regard to belief is a matter of holding  to concrete ideas in spite of  obvious contradictions. Faith does not require intellectual assent.  Faith is an action. Faith gives one the ability to let be or to let go in the midst of doubt.  Faith is a force.

Biblically speaking, especially with regard to the New Testament, faith is related to trust rather than believing in things.   Jesus appears to have been a person of faith, a deep faith that God was leading the way in his and our lives, a faith that allowed him to let go of his ego and his doubts, a faith that allowed him to challenge the religious authorities of his day.  In fact, according to the Gospel, Jesus was constantly challenging the beliefs of the scribes and Pharisees, which I see as trying to increase their faith as opposed to holding on to their entrenched beliefs about righteousness.  The Gospels comment on more than one occasion how Jesus marveled at the faith gentiles exhibited as opposed to his fellow Jews.  

My understanding of faith is directly linked to my understanding of Jesus as faithful Jew who loved God by loving his fellow human beings, something he grew into as he pursued his ministry of bringing awareness of the Kingdom of God to the people of Galilee and Judea.  

The story of Jesus' resurrection resonates with so many Christians because it offers hope that there is more to life than this life and because there are instances/occurrences in nature and in some human outcomes which seem to point that resurrection or experiencing new life in this life.  On the other hand many Christians profess belief in the resurrection story of Jesus because they want certified assurance that death is not the end to their existence and that a better life awaits them based on their ability to believe.

ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESURRECTION

This brings us to the second part of of the Cambridge Dictionary's definition of resurrection, "...bringing something back into use or existence."  This definition offers one a different understanding of Jesus' resurrection story, one that does not require believing it to be a factual event.  

One can only imagine the fear and the sense of loss those closest to him must have experienced.  While I don't consider the story of Jesus' resurrection to be a factual event, I can accept that those closest to him; those who loved him as they loved themselves experienced his presence in their lives.  I read somewhere that the historian, Flavius Josephus, who wrote about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, made an observation about the Church in Jerusalem regarding how much the followers of Jesus loved him. 

 If so, there was something about Jesus that people forty years after his crucifixion were enthralled by him and his way of living and his way of loving.  In that sense, they kept Jesus alive.   In that sense Jesus was brought back to life within their lives.  That too is resurrection and it is a resurrection that I can personally accept and understand. As such, I often talk about Jesus as not only the risen Christ, but also the rising Christ.  

The problem with the resurrection story is that it serves more as a distraction to the teachings of Jesus which, in my opinion, is the real saving act of Jesus' ministry.  It is what he taught by word and deed to the people of his day that show us a way if not, The Way.   His teachings have retained their relevance.

Unfortunately, for the last eighteen hundred years, Jesus' teachings have been put on the back burner of theology as the resurrection story has been been kept center stage.  I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus served to verify the truth of Jesus' teaching, but I am now inclined to think of the resurrection story as a distraction to what Jesus taught and what he was attempting to offer the people he knew and deeply cared about.  

* * *

If Christianity is to remain relevant, its relevance must be rooted in what Jesus taught, not in the Church's centuries old teachings about Jesus.   The story of Jesus' resurrection when treated as a fact cannot be proven and remains problematic; in that, it requires a person to suspend one's ability to reason and respond rationally to it.   One can say that all religions require a suspension of human reasoning at some point and to a certain degree, to which I will respond, "And in doing so, all religions harbor irrationality as a necessary facet of belief."   

There is another way in which rationality and reason can be introduced into religion, and that is by properly identifying what is fact and what is fiction and taking what is fiction and considering its mythical relevance.   Mythology is the primary foundation of any theology.  The resurrection story as myth, has relevance in exposing the resurrection stories that occur in our lives; that in giving up or letting go of something important can lead to a new way of life, that in the death of something, a job, a friendship, a marriage, an addiction, new life or a new way of life emerges.  This is the power of Jesus' resurrection story in which Jesus was brought back into the lives of his followers, as The Way to a better life through what he taught them.

Norm  

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - JESUS

IS CHRISTIANITY WORTH TRYING TO SAVE ?

There.  I said it.  It has been a question on my mind for some time.  I don't know why I was hesitant to articulate it.  It must be obvious to anyone who knows me or has read my posts that I, as a nominal Christian, struggle with Christianity; in particular, its teachings about Jesus and its insistence on believing the unbelievable as necessary for salvation.  

To be clear, I don't believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.  I don't believe that he was brought into the world as result of a parthenogentic  (virgin) birth or descended from heaven to earth nor more than you or I.   I don't believe he is some form of demigod (true man and true god) as a result of divine-human spiritual tryst between God and a virgin named Mary.  I don't believe that Jesus' crucifixion was a sacrifice required by God to pay the price sins of the world in perpetuity.  I don't believe that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead.  In essence, I don't believe in what most Christian churches insist that one believes in order to be a Christian.  

In addition, I don't believe that I'm the only nominal Christian sitting in the pew of a church who shares my list of disbeliefs.   Whew!  That's enough for now.  You get the point.   

If Christianity is worth saving, I believe Christianity need to be recalibrated to the facts regarding Jesus as best as we can determine them.  Who is Jesus has been a question that has never been answered definitively nor factually.  For the last one thousand years, orthodox/catholic understanding who Jesus is has reigned supreme without accepting Jesus as only being a Jewish man living Galilee in the first century C.E.   We need to start with that basic fact and stick with it.

JESUS

NOTE: As my regular readers know, I see two types of teaching in the New Testament.  The teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus.  I give more credibility to the teaching of Jesus which are rooted in the Torah and the Prophets of the Old Testament than I do to the teachings about Jesus which are rooted, for a lack of a better word, hearsay and theological speculation.   

Here I must be clear about my use of the word "credibility."  In my usage of the word, credibility is something that can be empirically proven as fact, replicated, verified historically by independent sources, and/or replicated scientifically.  Given that definition, most of the teachings about Jesus are not credible.  

This does not mean that the teachings about Jesus should be disregarded as having no value.  I openly treat most of the teachings about Jesus metaphorically or as a myth which, ironically, may have been the original intent by those who wrote them down.  I recognize that the term myth is controversial as implying something is a lie.  So let me be clear as to why I like the term.  

Myths are neither factual nor are they lies.  A story about something that cannot be proven as a fact can give to meaning to our experiences, much as Greek or other myths do.  The only way that a myth is a lie is by treating a myth as a fact.  Both the Old and the New Testaments are replete with myths from which one can deduce applicable meanings.

The teachings about Jesus is another topic that will need recalibration in other posts.  For now, the topic is Jesus, the man, the Jew, and his teachings.

* * *

To be honest, we don't know much about the historical Jesus, apart from what we have in the Synoptic Gospels and the sparse remarks by ancient historians outside of the Christian community in the 1st century CE.  In fact, we have very little information about the early formation of Christianity apart from the Book of Acts.   With regard to factual information, we have, at best, second and third hand information.

To identify the historical Jesus is what can be factually determined about someone born in Galilee in the first century.  Given what we know about the location, time frame, and what the Synoptic Gospels tell us, the safest thing  to say about Jesus is that he was a Jew.   

That may come across as something absurdly obvious.  I would agree.   Nevertheless, I feel it needs to be clearly stated because Jesus being a Jew is quickly lost in the New Testament.  To the indoctrinated Christian mind,  Jesus is perceived to be more than human and above and beyond being a devoted Jew. Therein lies the problem Christianity has with Jesus.   Christians believe that Jesus turned Judaism upside down.  I disagree with that assessment.

If one cannot understand Jesus as a devout and practicing Jew, one cannot understand Jesus at all.  Most of the New Testament narratives about Jesus tend to side-step his being a practicing Jew, as if his being Jewish was somehow beneath him or didn't apply to him.  A clear (non-editorialized) reading of the Synoptic Gospel depicts Jesus as deeply concerned about his Jewish religion and his fellow Jews.    

Getting to know the historical Jesus requires stepping into the synoptic Gospels and being able to sift through its editorialized data and its mix of myth and fact to listen closely to what Jesus was saying in his "sermons," conversations, and his parabolic teachings.   

For instance, we know, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus could read because he read the scriptures in the synagogue.  That in the Synoptic Gospels he is called a rabbi by scribes and pharisees would indicate that he was recognized as a legitimate rabbi who would be able to read in a synagogue.  Christians tend to minimize that probability by saying anyone who preached at the time was referred to as a rabbi or was mockingly being referred to as such.  I don't think the scribes and the Pharisees would have referred to him as such if he were not recognized as a legitimate rabbi

With regard to being a practicing Jew, in the Gospel of Luke we have a story where Mary and Joseph presented him in the Temple according to Jewish practice at the age of twelve in order to prep him for his upcoming bar mitzvah when he turned thirteen from which we can deduce that he was brought up as a practicing Jew.   We know he visited Jerusalem on at least one occasion, but I think it safe to say he was there on more than one occasion throughout his life to observe Jewish holy days in which he would have made the journey to the Templed as a practicing Jew.  

As a practicing Jew who made trips to the Temple in Jerusalem, one can assume he, like his fellow Jews would have offered sacrifices at the Temple.  Unfortunately, the New Testament is mute on the subject.  I think most Christians believe Jesus didn't need to offer sacrifices because he was the sinless Son of God, which would have excused him from being a practicing Jew.  His parents obviously didn't see him that way because they offered sacrifices on his behalf when he was young (See Luke 2:22-24).

It is likely that throughout his life Jesus would not have understood himself as being anything other than a human being who was a Jew.  That Jesus was baptized by John could be factual, however, that God called him his beloved son does not have a factual reference that can be verified.  The Synoptic Gospels describes such an event as personal experience, a vision,  Jesus would have told his followers.  One has to set aside, the Gospel of John's saying that John the Baptist saw the spirit of God descending on Jesus.  

Jesus' conversations with the scribes and Pharisees reveal a person who reveled in discussions on the Torah and the prophets with them.  Unfortunately, the New Testament tends to cast the scribes and pharisees as always trying to trick Jesus and maliciously denigrating what he was saying.  I read those encounters differently.  Jewish rabbis vigorously debated the scriptures in sometime challenging and personal ways.  Like Jesus, they often resorted to parabolic stories to make their points.  Jesus was a master of this form of discussion and debate. 

 If we are to take his encounters with the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees as factual then Jesus was recognized by them as a practicing Jew.  It is clear that Jesus' views on the law and prophets were intriguing and different.  According to these Gospels, on more than one occasion Jesus was the guest of honor in a Pharisees' home.  I don't see them trying to trick him or make him out to be an apostate Jew.  If that were the case, I think Jesus would have been ignored by them, if not stoned long before he would have been crucified.   

* * *

A telling moment in the Gospel account is Jesus' reception at his hometown  synagogue in Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels of Mark and Luke.  These accounts offer some insight into how Jesus saw himself and his ministry.  The Lucan Gospel gives us more detail and is worth taking a closer look.

And there was delivered unto (Jesus) the book of the prophet (Isaiah). And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the (good news) to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:17-21

In both Luke's and Mark's account of this incident, Jesus' audience had a mixed reaction to what he said.  They were both amazed and furious with what he said.  In Mark, Jesus responds, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."  Mark 6:4

Jesus clearly was identifying with a prophetic role.  As I have mentioned in other posts, the prophetic role is pointing out the ignored obvious or, in this case, the forgotten obvious.  I believe Jesus saw his mission one of calling to mind who he and his fellow Jews were and whose they were.  Jesus was not thinking outside the boundaries of his Jewish religion or the borders of Galilee and Judea.  He wasn't thinking of gentiles when he was reading from Isaiah.  He was thinking of the people seated in his hometown synagogue and in every synagogue throughout the known world at the time.  

The selection that Jesus read from Isaiah 61 would have been recognizable to most of his audience in that synagogue.  It's a passage that would have brought to mind a messianic figure, someone who might take on the Roman occupation of their land.   It takes on a more militaristic tone as it says: 

... and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.  ... And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.  But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.   Isaiah 61:2b-6

This is the backdrop message to what Jesus selected.  If Luke's account is accurate with regard to what Jesus choose to read, Jesus was being very select in what he read.  His audience would have been aware of what he left out.  To stop after verse 2a of Isaiah and say, "This day the scripture has been fulfilled while you're sitting hear listening to me," had to leave his audience wondering what he was getting at.  

What did Jesus mean by that?   Was he claiming to be the messiah.    

As Jonathan Sacks point out in his book, "A Letter in a Scroll," every person who proclaimed himself to be the messiah, during the era in which Jesus lived was executed, including Jesus.  This is true and we need to stop there before going on to say, "Yes, but Jesus rose from the dead." Again, that is a teaching about Jesus that can neither be verified independently or replicated.  This will be addressed in another post. 

Jesus' synagogue audience, would have agreed with Rabbi Sacks.   Galilee was a known hot spot for  zealot activity.  The people of Galilee witnessed first hand what the Romans did to self-proclaimed messiahs.  The roads were lined with his crucified followers and a small village, like Nazareth would be at risk if the Romans thought they were colluding with a rebellion.  

But was Jesus identifying himself with being the Messiah?  If so, why did he, according to Luke, stop at Isaiah 61: 2a?  In what way was Jesus proclaiming the time in which he lived, a time in which all of Judea was occupied by a gentile empire and polarized by religious contention, as the acceptable year of the Lord?  

I don't believe that Jesus was trying to proclaim himself to be the Messiah.  Jesus ending with Isaiah 61:2a was doing something more radical and, in some sense, more difficult than trying to take on Rome.  He was trying to awaken his audience to what Isaiah had prophesied about, to preaching good news to the poor, healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming deliverance to the captives, restoring sight to the blind, and freeing the afflicted in spite Rome's oppression and the religious contention of the times.    

The Gospels  show Jesus treating the Roman presence with ambivalence.   A famous example of this is when asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to Rome, Jesus asks to see the coin his interlocutors paid taxes with.  Seeing the likeness of Caesar on the coin, he famously responded, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."  Jesus' focus was clearly on the present and on the cultural and religious disorder that afflicted his fellow Jews.  

Jesus appears to have modeled himself as the Son of Man, God's to identify the prophet Ezekiel.   Like Ezekiel, Jesus acted out his message.  But instead of acting out in bizarre, cryptic ways as Ezekiel did, Jesus acted in provocative ways to get to his target audience, the ultra-religious, by associating with those considered lost causes; the hated tax collectors, the unclean prostitutes, the lame, the blind, the leper, and the occasional gentile.  He not only talked to them, he touched them, and he ate and drank with them.  In short he celebrated life with them.  

Jesus appears to have been both generous with what he had and generous in receiving what was offered.  When others were trying to tighten their religious belts against corrupting influences,  Jesus was redefining the law by getting at the heart of what the law was saying to him and exposing the hypocrisy of those demonstrating personal piety while ignoring the plight of their fellow Jews who were living on the fringe of their society and were disenfranchised by the often wealthy ultra-religious (see the story of the rich man or the rich young man Matthew 19 and Mark 10).

* * * 

One has to consider why Jesus was an itinerant rabbi as opposed to one assigned to local synagogue; such as, Nazareth or Capernaum, his chosen hometown.  He obviously preached in their synagogues.  What one hears in his teachings, give us a clue to why Jesus treated the streets and the hillsides as an open synagogue.  Jesus was critical of the religious leaders of his day who practiced personal piety rather than humility and concern for the marginalized.  Jesus, on more than one occasion, stated that his mission was specifically to save the lost of Israel.  His method of doing so was far ahead of his time and was confusing to those who emphasized personal piety by keeping strict adherence to the law.  

Jesus' approach was first to accept the person as a child of God, like himself.  Forgiveness, not condemnation, of one's faults was not only his mode of teaching, but also his mode of healing.  It is interesting to note that in stories where Jesus healed someone, he often began by saying a person's sins were forgiven.  There is a psychological element to his doing so.  Often physical illness can be the result of severe depression and unresolved guilt or shame.  Jesus' initial act of forgiveness had to be a tremendous relief to many who sought Jesus for healing who saw their sins as a punishment sent from God. 

This was something that the scribes and Pharisees apparently had difficulty in grasping, according to the Gospels.  Jesus put forgiveness as his primary religious obligation toward his fellow Jews.  We also hear in these Gospels that Jesus couldn't heal those who couldn't forgive themselves or accept being forgiven.  This was often put in terms of whether one believed Jesus could heal; such as,  the father who brought his seemingly possessed son.  In Mark 9, Jesus' question of whether the father believed or had faith that Jesus could heal goes straight to the heart of the matter.  Did the father believe he was worthy enough to have a son who was not afflicted by something that the father or a member of the family had done?  Such illnesses were thought to be the result of someone committing a sin that God was punishing them for.  

It is clear Jesus did not believe God punished sinners, but more that sinners punished themselves because they were led to believe that all illnesses were the result of sin, which was reinforced by others who avoided them because of their perceived uncleanliness.   Jesus' ministry was shaped by the love of his religion, his God who he claimed not only as his father but the father of all humans.  His teachings reflect that understanding as does his activities among those who followed and sought him out.

* * *

Next time, the post on recalibrating Christianity will address, Jesus as Christ.

Norm

CHRISTIANITY'S INSTITUTIONAL SCLEROSIS

ECCLESIAL HEMORRHAGING

Christian churches, particularly, throughout Europe and North America, are hemorrhaging members where Christianity has dominated the religious landscape for centuries.  It is not the case that Christians are simply moving to different denominations within Christianity or being converted to other religions.  It is a growing phenomenon amongst the religious of all faiths to see an increase in their adherents to forego religion altogether and become what is known in the United States as a "None."

The question being addressed in this post is why this phenomenon is taking place within Christianity.  In my previous post on "Christianity -  A Hybrid Religion" in which Judaism and the polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire were blended to create a palatable narrative about about Jesus Christ in order to make Christianity more palatable to a broader gentile audience within the Roman Empire.  It is my premise for this post that what once attracted people within the Roman Empire to become a Christian, today, has become a distraction as historical and scientific discoveries challenge the credibility of entrenched Christian dogma that is foundational to the existence of Christianity.

INSTITUTIONAL SCLEROSIS

Christianity, throughout its various denominations, share common problems.   The longer a denomination or a church organization exists, it will eventually develop a form of institutional sclerosis; that is, long-held concretized of beliefs held by its members who are resistant to change.   Institutional sclerosis in the Church takes the forms of strict adherence to tradition, dogma, and the unquestionable authority of scripture. 

Some may question this assessment and point to a number of changes that have been embraced in recent years by some denominations; such as, the acceptance of women in the clergy, openly and active gay clergy, same sex marriage, updated liturgies ministries which address environmental and socials conditions beyond a church's wall.  Surely a more openminded Church should be an attraction, but the reality is they don't.

Some might point out that the few churches which are growing are doing so because they have "stuck to their dogmatic guns" and have "doubled down " on their long-held views; that a woman's place is in the home and should remain silent in the church, that homosexuality is not only a sin but an abomination, that social welfare makes people lazy (they that don't work, shouldn't eat 2 Thessalonians 3:10), and that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  

Still others of the mega-church moment might point to the success of a cafeteria style type of Christianity that caters to a variety of ecclesial preferences, traditional, evangelical, fundamental, progressive and conservative.  Who will point out that their appeal is to meeting the spiritual needs of their member but their social needs, and in some their economic needs.  Mega churches are generally found in larger urban areas and, for a lack of a better way to say this, run what is almost a Christian one stop shopping center.  

This is not to say that they don't engage in meaningful outreach, but their primary goal in outreach is to enlarge their consumer or congregational base.  They are often headed by a charismatic preacher who exudes a sense of personal confidence and success by being a part of a large and success-driven congregation.    While such mega-churches appear to argue against the notion of an overall hemorrhage of church membership, they are known to quickly fall apart when some sort of scandal in the institution  involve its charismatic leader.  The church of personality invariably stands on shaky ground.  

TRADITION 

Any group of humans who gather over a long period of time will develop traditions.  Just as individuals develop habits, groups develop traditions.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with traditions.  What makes traditions so appealing to the institution of the Church is that they are not only intoxicating but also indoctrinating.  Indoctrination is where things become problematic. 

On Instagram, the Roman Catholic Church has reels that promotes their liturgical traditions as being aesthetically appealing.  In those reels there is no mention of what they teach.  It is the aesthetic aspect of worship and ritual that is offered as an intoxicant to the viewer.  Traditions are intoxicating in that they offer a person a sense of belonging, comfort, and familiarity.  

Evangelicals are known to eschew the notion of traditional liturgical worship.  They promote the ideal of worship as something spontaneous and freeform.  Having experienced such settings, one can identify the idea of spontaneity as a tradition regarding how worship is conducted. Ironically, there is a tradition of  of how freeform worship is conducted; how prayers are said, how members are to vocally or physically respond to sermons and hymns; particularly, in Pentecostal churches.  Physical responses to worship is a form of indoctrination.  People know when to say, "Amen" "Praise God,"  "Say it preacher."  Such responses reinforce teaching and accomplish indoctrination. 

Praise music, in particular, is an intoxicant within an evangelical setting, which has now spread to many mainline churches.  As an organist, I am undoubtedly biased about praise band music, but I am just as leery of many traditional hymns that have been around for centuries.  Martin Luther is a prime example of a theologian who used hymns as a teaching tool to indoctrinate the uneducated.  Hymns are powerful reinforces of dogma.

All liturgical and freeform types of worship have this effect.  Worship is used as teaching tool as much as it is used to glorify God.  Repetition ingrains belief.  Over time, one doesn't need to follow an order of service in the missal, the prayer book, the bulletin or the large screen televisions.  Congregants know what to say,  how to say it, what to sing, and how to sing.  There is a sense of comfort and familiarity in being able to do so.  The problem is when the comfortable and familiar is based on a faulty premise.

 

DOGMA

Dogma is the bedrock of Christianity's theology and traditions.   They define God as a tripartite God of three persons in one Godhead (a perpetually confusing dogma).   God the Father is  the creator of heaven and earth.  The Son, Jesus Christ, was born of virgin and it both "true God" and "true Man  who was crucified (sacrificed) for us to pay the price of our sins.  Last, but not least, is the Holy Spirit, who inspires and reveals truth to us unworthy humans.  

Dogma is the result of trying to figure out who Jesus was and establishing a consistent church doctrine that the both clergy and the emperors of the late Roman and Byzantine Empire could promulgate as the true faith of the church.  Remarkably it continues to enthrall some the faithful to this day, but it is struggling to maintain its hold on people in a fast changing world that eons different from the time when Christian dogma was formulated. 

For centuries dogma has dictated what is moral by elucidating what is specifically immoral.  Throughout the centuries sexual behavior has been rigidly controlled by Church leadership under the ancient religious premise that who controls the bedroom controls the culture.  This has been effective for most of human history.  

It is only recently that this has been in any way been significantly challenged. Nevertheless, the jury of history is still out as there is a re-emergence fostered  by the Roman Church and Evangelical Churches in the United States to once again control the bedroom, deny women control over their bodies and lives, and push homosexuals back into the closet.   

Dogma is entrenched in the minds of Christian as being the result of divine revelation given to the Church, based on a reading of Matthew 16:18-19  where Jesus, after Peter declaring Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God,  says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It is doubtful that Jesus said this about Peter. The Gospels of Mark and Luke tell the same story  Jesus saying he would build his Church on Peter.  Nevertheless all churches from the Church in Rome to the Church of the Latter Day Saints believe they have been given a divine mandate to speak on God's behalf when it comes to matters of faith and morality. 

Overall, Christian dogma is chiefly concerned with defining what is necessary in this life to ensure one's salvation in order to obtain eternal life in heaven.  On the surface that sounds good, but what becomes necessary to obtain salvation in this life is to first and foremost recognize one's unworthiness and inability to ensure salvation on one's own; that one must submit to the order of the Church, which is the Body of Christ on earth, to be constantly repenting if not consistently repentant, to receive the means of grace as offered in the sacrament and lead, to the best of one's inadequate abilities, a humble and blameless life by keeping one's body as temple of God; avoiding sex outside of marriage, gluttony, drunkenness, etc., and caring for one's neighbor, the poor, the homeless, etc..    

While more progressive churches are less concerned about condemning people because of their inadequacies, what is listed in the preceding paragraph is still on the books and in the The Holy Bible.  Forgiveness is very much a part of Jesus' teachings and all denominations recognize this, but given Jesus' comment to Peter in Matthew 16,  the Church (all denominations) believe they hold the keys to the Kingdom and thus forgiveness is contingent on the dictates of the Church (or so Matthew would have it.)  

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

While Christian dogma is believed, in part, due to revelation by the Holy Spirit.  Such inspiration comes through the inspired scriptures of the Holy Bible.  While a growing number of Christian denominations are stepping away from the idea that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it  remains for most Christian denominations the authoritative Word of God that reveals God's will for humankind.  Even those who consider themselves Progressive Christians refrain from questioning the scriptures from which dogma is derived.

For example, the accounts of virgin birth of Jesus, the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion, and his resurrection in the Gospels are treated as authentic events that give authorization to the dogmas based on them.  Likewise, the Epistles attributed to Paul are also considered authoritative.    

While the Old Testament is considered superseded by the New Testament in Christianity, it remains authoritative; especially, where Jesus is silent on a given subject and gives authority to the teachings of and about Jesus in the New Testament.   The doctrines, dogma and traditions of the Church are deeply rooted in the Holy Bible, which in the current century and the last century is proving to be problematic.  

The Holy Bible is an amazing collection of writings that reflect an evolving understanding of God against the background of human history.  This is particularly true of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures.  As discussed in my previous post, the New Testament, the uniquely Christian Scriptures reflect both a monotheistic and polytheistic understanding of God and Jesus set against the background of the conflict that occurred between Jews and Christians during the time of Paul's ministry, and more importantly the split between Jews and Christians that occurred after the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.  The authority of Holy Bible has largely remained unquestioned for eighteen hundred years. 

Christian denominations of every stripe consider the Holy Bible the bedrock of Church doctrine and dogma.  Therein lies the challenge the Christian Church of today is encountering.  Apart from religious institutions, I am not aware of any institution that relies on the absolute authority of documents that are thousands of years old which are not verifiable today.  

BLEEDING OUT

Jesus said,  " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35 and Luke 21:33) .   Perhaps Christianity will continue till the end of time, but the hemorrhaging of church membership calls to mind another saying in the Bible, Ecclesiastes 3:1 where we read, 'To everything there is season."  The notion of a Post-Christian world exists.   Religions can die and  Christianity, being a religion can die.  Yes, Jesus' words may not pass away, but the religion that bears his name may very well do so.

Christianity is losing authenticity and credibility among its followers.  The institutional church can no longer whitewash its history or impose unbelievable as fact or truth.  Salvation theology and dogmas based on the doctrine of original sin are not tenable in the nuclear age.  Sacrifice as the means of saving people from their unavoidable sins is wrongheaded.  It is no longer tenable to require belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his sacrificial death on a cross, his resurrection and ascension as historical facts which have only served to occlude the message of Jesus' teachings (his sermons and parables).  

There is a deep vein of hypocrisy associated with the institution Church.  Being reliant on scriptures that are two to three thousand years old has turned theology into a navel gazing activity.  The polarity of differing perspectives of Christianity by differing Christian denominations cannot stand, as Jesus himself remarked, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (See Matt. 12:25, Mark 3:25, and Luke 11:17).   

Christianity needs to stop insisting on believing the unbelievable as sign of faith.   This is not to say the the Bible should be ignored, but rather that it should be understood as work of human ingenuity.  Christianity has done little to advance an appropriate understand of its scriptures in the light of today's world.  Christianity struggles with this because so many Christians are convinced that belief in the unbelievable is necessary in order to have eternal life.  This is not something Jesus, as a Jew, would have taught.  In this regard the New Testament is proving to be harder to believe than the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.  

At the present time, a number of Christian denominations are doubling down on their traditions, dogma, and the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.  They seem to be winning in the United States with overturning Roe V. Wade, and rolling back protection on LGBTQ rights and the rise of White Christian Nationalism being serious contender in U.S. politics.  Winning in these areas is not helping Christianity as a whole.  They have become a reason for disengagement for many one time Christians and is and will continue to cause Christianity to hemorrhage members along with insisting on belief in the unbelievable.

* * *

Next post: Recalibrating Christianity. 

Norm 

CHRISTIANITY - A HYBRID RELIGION

In this post, I will attempt to gather my thoughts (some of which I have already expressed in past posts) on Christianity as a hybrid religion.  To anyone who has followed my posts, it should be clear that my views on Christianity are changing.  Naturally, I am influenced by what I read.  All of which contributes to my evolving understanding of Christianity.   

THE WAY

Christianity began as a sect of Jewish followers of Jesus who identified themselves as "The Way."  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his informative book on Jewish life, "A Letter in a Scroll,"  explained that the term, "the way," was an ancient Jewish term regarding the study of Torah as journey of faith throughout one's life.  Rabbi Sack's definition of "the way" gives us some insight on how the earliest followers might have perceived Jesus' teachings.  "The Way" originally could have meant for the earliest followers of Jesus, what Rabbi Sacks says it means for all Jews, the study of the Torah, albeit for Jesus' earliest followers, in the light of Jesus' teachings about the Torah.  

As I have mentioned in other posts, Jesus' teaching were nothing new to his Jewish audience; in that, they are rooted in the Torah and the writings of the prophets.  What was new was how Jesus taught and applied them through his sermons (his collected sayings) and his parables. According to the Gospels, his manner of teaching was, to some of the rabbinical scholars of Jesus' day, a new teaching, which Christians have misinterpreted as something entirely new, but as Rabbi Sacks suggests, a "new teaching" was a term of interest in that it introduced a new interpretation of scripture, which rabbinical scholars would have been interested in and would have debated - something which most Christians are not use to when it comes to their understanding how the scriptures should be treated.   

According to the Acts of Apostles, the earliest followers of Jesus lived communally, giving up their personal property and wealth. This was likely based on Jesus' parables like the rich young man in which he was told to sell all of his property and give the proceeds to the poor and then to follow Jesus, when he asked how he may obtain everlasting life.   Following such mandates from Jesus was seen as " the way."  In was in this communal soup of Jesus' earliest  followers, that those who personally knew Jesus, shared their stories and what those stories meant to them.  It was in that community that Jesus was kept alive, was resurrected, if not in body then in spirit, as Paul described the resurrection in his first letter to the Corinthians.  Flavius Josephus, who knew of this community of Jesus' followers commented on how much they loved Jesus, which undergirds the notion that their love of Jesus did not permit him to die.

PAUL

The earliest followers of Jesus continued to worship in the Temple, which is largely ignored by Christian theologians.  It begs the question, did they continue to offer sacrifices or did they merely go there to pray? 

In his letter to the Romans Paul writes this, 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.  Romans 5: 8-11

A most telling event regarding whether Jesus' earliest followers continued to participate in offering sacrifices at the Temple is found in the Acts of the Apostles.  

When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, he is brought before the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem and James the brother of Jesus.  There he is questioned about converting gentiles without following the rite of circumcision (to become Jews in order to become Christians) for which Paul and those accompanying him are required to do a form of penance in form of following the Jewish rite of purification.  In Act 21:26 it states, "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."  

Obviously, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem continued to worship and offer sacrifices in the Temple. Paul obviously felt compelled to acquiesce to the the church's leadership, which also raises a question as to whether these earliest followers of "The Way" thought that Jesus death on the cross was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, thus no longer seeing the need for further sacrifices which later Christians.  Obviously the Jewish Church in Jerusalem continued to participate in the rites of Temple worship and maintained their adherence to the Torah, the law, which Paul from time to time repudiated through anxiety ridden, convoluted arguments that the law was fulfilled by Christ's atoning sacrifice and no longer requires strict adherence; that those who follow the law are condemned by it, and those who don't are not (or something to that effect.) 

Paul of Tarsus was a controversial figure in the early church, which is clearly identified in Luke's Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles that Paul wrote.  His an appointment as an apostle to the Jewish communities in Asia Minor and Greece was not without dissension on the part of leadership of the Church in Jerusalem.   While he was sent to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the Jewish communities in the Greek-speaking world of the Roman Empire, it was the Greeks more than the Jews who became attracted to what he said.  While early Christianity identified as a Jewish sect who followed Jesus' way of being Jewish, expansion of Christianity among the  gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece saw Jesus as a liberator from imperial domination and civic duties, which were deemed pagan.  

Since Paul was having better success in converting Greeks than Jews to Jesus' way, he considered circumcision to be an obstacle to conversion and he unilaterally decided it was unnecessary for male gentiles to become Jews before being baptized into the church.  As noted above, this caused great concern amongst the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem.  The foremost of whom was Jesus' disciple, Peter. (See Galatians 2 to read about Paul's view on circumcision.)  While a controversial figure in the early church, Paul becomes a pivotal figure in Christianity becoming a religion in itself.

As I have pointed out in several other posts, the greatest historical event that impacted both Christianity and Judaism was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.  As Rabbi Sacks points out, the destruction of the Temple eliminated the Sadducees and destroyed the Church in Jerusalem.  The result was that the Pharisees remained the primary Jewish group whose worship had been primarily centered on the synagogue. With the destruction of the Church in Jerusalem and its leadership, the only authoritative voice that guided the Christianity became the epistles attributed to Paul.  In fact, the Synoptic Gospels were likely written after Paul's time and were greatly influenced by Paul's epistles.  The only other theological work that greatly influenced Christian thought and theology at the start of the 2nd century C.E. was the Gospel of John in which Jesus is raised to being God incarnate through whom all things came into being. (John 1)  

THE HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE

Christianity is largely is formed by and reflects two schools of theology; that of the letters attributed to Paul and the Gospel of John.  The significance of this reflection is that these two schools move Christianity beyond its Jewish roots to a particularly significant Hellenistic influence and dare I say to a polytheistic perspective while casting it in a Jewish hue.  In fact, I would go so far to say that Christianity adopted where it could the polytheism of the Roman Empire of the time while ambiguously retaining the Jewish concept of one God.  As such, Christianity claims to be part of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism.  The reason for this adoption and adaptation of Hellenistic polytheism is simply to make Christianity more appealing to the people living within the broader Roman Empire.  

As a whole the canon of the Christian New Testament is overtly geared to an Hellenistic understanding.  Thus we have the virgin birth story of Jesus, the institution of Holy Communion, and the physical resurrection of Jesus.   Given these articles of Christian doctrine, one can trace which school of thought they proceeded from.  The virgin birth story and physical resurrection of Jesus are theologically rooted in the Gospel of John, while Holy Communion and Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world is established in Paul's epistles.

Biblical scholars and theologians will be quick to point out that all of these doctrinal teachings are supported and rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.  If they are honest, however, they will have to admit that the virgin birth of Jesus and physical resurrection are read back into selected Old Testament scriptures as what those scriptures were foretelling, not necessarily what they mean to the Jews of Jesus day or for Jews today.  

Jews would have been and are extremely skeptical about such a thing as God causing a virgin to become pregnant and thus permit God to become incarnate in a demi-god son, Jesus.  In a like manner, Jews would find the notion of Jesus claiming to offer his flesh and blood in the rite of Holy Communion repulsive as the Gospel of John notes in chapter 6.  There we are told a number of Jesus' disciples no longer followed him when he told them that unless thy eat his flesh and drink his blood they could not have eternal life.  Interestingly, there is no Old Testament scripture that supports what John is saying.  There is, however, a polytheistic connection to Holy Communion.  

The Gospel of John,  in many respects, presents Christianity as mystery religion in which one can enter into eternal communion (life) with God through participation in the mystical body of Jesus. There is an obvious connection with the mystery religions of Ancient Greece.  Most notably what comes to mind is the Eleusinian mysteries which also deal with death and resurrection, in the story of Demeter and Persephone, who annually returns from underworld.  Bread and a wine-based drink would be offered to a successful initiate that would ensure freedom from the fear of death and a beneficial afterlife. 

It is interesting that the oldest mention of the rite of Holy Communion is recorded the 11th chapter of Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthian where Paul states, "I  received from the Lord (Jesus) that on the night he was betrayed he took bread... ."  It seems obvious that writers or later editors of the Synoptic Gospels borrowed and inserted what Paul received into their versions of the Gospel.  The writer or writers of John does it one better, he or they created a Gospel that in essence is all about a journey from Holy Baptism into Holy communion with God through Jesus.   Water, bread and wine play a significant role in this Gospel.  

As one of several mystery religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity would have been appealing to a wider and more diverse audience.  That Christians in Rome had to hide in the catacombs of Rome to escape notice from the Imperial police is, in part, probably true. It is more likely, however, that they met in catacombs as a sort of death and resurrection cult.  It is known that Holy Communion was performed in the the catacombs with libations of bread and win poured into holes drilled into the coffins or sarcophagi of Christians who died.  Such a hole is reported drilled into the tomb of St. Peter under the high altar of the basilica where he is buried for this very purpose for the purpose of such a libation, a noted in "The Immortality Key -The Secret History of a Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku).

Like many mystery religions of the past, the early Christian church utilized initiation rituals.  Catechesis (instruction) and baptism, which remains in many mainline churches today, was required for full membership in the body of Christ.  Perhaps the most appealing aspect of Christianity at the time was that it was open for anyone to be initiated, slaves, women, nobles, and eventually Roman soldiers.  Even in the time of Paul, it was noted that members of Caesar's household (most likely trusted imperial slaves or clientele of the imperial family) were baptized.  

THE PAGAN CONTINUATION HYPOTHESIS

"The Immortality Key -The Secret History of a Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku, like Jonathan Sack's "A Letter in a Scroll" has led me to reconsider the origins of Christianity.  I highly recommend to my readers that they read both Sacks' and Muraresku's books.  What Brian Muraresku has led me to consider is that Christian theology regarding who Jesus and who God is may be more rooted in the stories and cults of Greek polytheism than in the Hebrew Scriptures.  In the "Immortality Key," the archeologist Kaliiope Papangeli, who continues to work on the archeological site of the Eleusinian Mysteries is quoted, "Whatever they (Christians) cannot extinguish, they keep."  

The question this poses is how much of the polytheism of Greece has made it into Christianity?   I personally have come suspect that the "mythic" beliefs and rites of the ancient Greeks have had a greater impact on the teaching about Jesus found in the Gospels than the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.  As mentioned above,  the birth of Jesus, his being declared the "Only Begotten Son of God," the Last Supper, the meaning of his crucifixion, and his resurrection and here I would add the doctrine of the Trinity are rooted in polytheism rather than Hebrew Scripture.  

Gods like Zeus having trysts with women they desired often led to demi-god offspring like Hercules and Achilles.  The god, Bacchus, was believed to have been born from the thigh of Zeus.  Jesus, in the Gospel of John 1:18 was born or originated from the "lap" or bosom of God.  Most modern translations gloss the original meaning of the ancient Greek text. The cult of Bacchus or Dionysus places the birthplace of Dionysus in Nysa a city that was part of the ten cities know as the Decapolis in the New Testament. Nysa is approximately 30 miles from Jesus' childhood home of Nazareth.  

As mentioned earlier, rite of Holy Communion which Paul claimed occurred at the Last Supper where Jesus offers bread and wine to be or symbolized his body and blood has no corollary in the Old Testament or Jewish thought. While Christianity has cast this event as being associated with the Jewish Passover and thus remake of the spreading of a lambs blood on the lintels of the Israelites homes in Egypt. The Passover and Holy Communion do not correlate beyond theological speculation.    

Resurrections occur in many polytheistic religions at the time Jesus.  The mythic story of Prometheus comes to mind when it comes to the crucifixion.  Prometheusis literally nailed to the side of a mountain for saving humankind by giving us fire.  In fact, in some myths Prometheus is actually credited with creating humans from the dirt of the earth, something the Olympian God found rather disgusting.  In giving us fire and the knowledge to use it result in Promethus being eternally sacrificed for his sin by daily having his liver eaten by an eagle. 

Persephone comes to mind with regard to the resurrection, that one confined in the realm of the dead is allowed back into the land of the living. Again, her story is entwined with that of her mother, Demeter who pleads with Zeus to have her released from Hades once a year.  One cannot help but see in Demeter the template for Mary the mother of Jesus.  Of course, there are other polytheistic stories that correlate the stories about Jesus found in the canonical Gospels.

The doctrine of the Trinity, although derived from constant references to God as Father, as Holy Spirit, and Jesus as the Son of God. The idea of three persons or personification in and of one God is more polytheistic than monotheistic.  I am skeptical that Jesus of Nazareth, a devote Jew, would have entertained, much less,  approved of such an understanding.  Jesus might have thought himself in terms of being a messiah, although there is considerable evidence in the Synoptic Gospels that he rejected that notion.  That Jesus thought he was God was never expressed in the Synoptic Gospels.  That doctrine is clearly an afterthought and supported by the theological Gospel of John. As I have suggested in other posts, the idea that Jesus being the only begotten Son of God was intended to be a poke in the Imperial eye of the Emperor being the Divine Son of God.  

With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, the polytheists of the Roman Empire would not have found it scandalous at all.  In fact the Triune God, Jesus as a demi-god, and the concept of saints being intercessors would not have required much of an intellectual leap as it would be for Jews.  Once Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire and 381 CE, the empire felt secure enough to rid itself of the divine blessings of its ancient gods and goddess and replace them with one religion that had one God in three persons, a new order of priesthood ,and new hierarchal system in which the emperor as the "Pontiff Maximus" became the vicar of Christ which, in essence, made him more divine than any of the past emperors and more godlike than any of the old gods of the Empire.  

THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

The non-canonical Gospel of Thomas gives further evidence that the canonical Gospels are heavily influenced by the polytheism of the Mediterranean.  The Gospel of Thomas contain only the saying of Jesus.  There is no birth story, no death story, no resurrection story.  Miracles are not mentioned, only his teachings.  Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas may, in fact, be one of the earliest Gospels as it shares the same source of the Synoptic Gospels.  In my opinion, that it didn't make it into the canon of the New Testament is simply due to its being void of any mythic qualities that would have appealed to the those living in the first four centuries of the Roman Empire.  In some sense it was probably perceived as being too Jewish to be Roman.

Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, is said to have established Christianity in India around 52 CE  We don't know much about the earliest followers of Jesus other than what can be gathered by legend, which tells that Thomas converted a royal household.  Around 600 C.E. Indian Christianity followed the Syriac Rite and were considered Nestorian. 

The point that I feel is relevant to this discussion is that the Gospel of Thomas, being void of all references to Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection, is probably the most unedited Gospel in existence. It may have originated in India, but it found its way back to Egypt were it was found among the Nag Hammadi scrolls  in 1945.   Even the early Gospel of Mark, which does not include the birth of Jesus was subject to editorialization; such as, its inclusion of Paul's concept of Holy Communion and later additions regarding the resurrection of Jesus at the end of the Gospel.  

With that said, it is time to restore the Gospel of Thomas to a place of prominence in any Christian discussion.

WHAT NEXT?

In my next post, I will explore what all of this means to Christianity today.  

How does Christianity deal with such information?  

Does it ignore it?  Does it embrace it?  

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

EPIMENIDES' UNKNOWN GOD

As a way to introduce this post on Epimenides' Unknowable God, I am beginning with a portion of a homily I delivered on May 21, 2017 at Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton, South Dakota.  What follows provides the legendary history of Epimenides connection to the altar of the Unknown God, which the apostle Paul obviously knew very well to the point of being able to repeat the same phrases Epimenides used in his poem, "Cretica" and comments Epimenides made about how religious the Athenians were.

                                                                                 * * *

[Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being.’ From Acts 17]

It’s not every Sunday one can give a homily based on Greek legend, Geek mythology, and the New Testament. So I couldn’t pass up this opportunity to do so. 

In order to fully appreciate our first reading from Acts 17, we need to know why Paul addressed the Athenians at the Areopagus and why he cites two poems about the Greek god, Zeus. The author of Acts, Luke, likely assumed that everybody of his day, two thousand years ago, would have known why, but knowledge can get lost in two thousand years.  So let’s take a moment to rewind and review:

The Areopagus is a rock outcropping in Athens that was used in Paul’s time for conducting public trials. Here the Athenians wanted to discern if Paul was introducing a new religion into their city as Paul’s preaching about Jesus and his resurrection seemed to indicate.  Introducing a new religion was considered corruption, a serious crime in ancient Athens; a charge that resulted in the death of Socrates in 399 BCE.  

On his way there, Paul passes an altar to “The Unknown God,” the history of which Paul uses in his effective defense, along with citing two early Greek poems to support the premise that he was not preaching something new. 

The poet cited is Epimenides who wrote a poem called, "Cretica." In "Cretica," Epimenides argues with his fellow Cretans that Zeus was very much alive as evident in our being alive after they had built a symbolic tomb declaring him dead:

They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,

                        Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. 

                        But you (Zeus) are not dead: you live and abide forever,

                        For in you we live and move and have our being[1]

 As a side note, the line about Cretans being liars is cited, verbatim,  in Paul’s letter to Titus (1:12) and is the basis for Epimenides Paradox which states if being a Cretan himself, Epimenides, in calling Cretans liars is also a liar by telling a truth applicable to himself.

In fact, the altar to The Unknown God has a close connection to Epimenides:

During the time of the great Athenian law giver, Solon, the Athenians suffered a horrendous plague attributed to an act of treachery on people who they granted asylum and then killed. To rid themselves of the resulting plague, they tried appeasing their gods through sacrifice, but nothing was working.  

So they approached the Oracle at Delphi who informed them that there was a god they failed to appease.  When they asked which one, she said she didn’t know but they should send for Epimenides, a prophet in Crete, who would help them.  So they did.

When Epimenides arrives in Athens he comments that they must be very religious because of the many gods and goddesses they have. He told them there is a good and great unknown god who was smiling on their ignorance but was willing to be appeased. When they perform the proper rituals throughout the city, the plague is ended and they erect altars to this unknown god throughout Athens. [2]

* * *

In recent times, Epimenides' definition of Zeus as that "holy and high one" in which "we live and have our being" is becoming popular with Christians as a general definition of God.  I see it as a bridge between God, as understood in religion, and God, as understood in science.   God in religion is largely understood as being primarily concerned with us humans living on this planet. As such, God in religion is portrayed as being concerned with our moral behavior and incentivizing good behavior  by rewarding it and punishing bad behavior.  

On the other hand, God in science, if and when the term is used at all, is understood metaphorically to identify the laws that govern the physical universe or the currently nebulous, but hoped for, Theory of Everything.  What God becomes in this sense is the totality of all that is, which relates well with Epimenides' unknown god, the being in whom "we live and have our being" and who "smiles on our ignorance."  God in the scientific use of the term is not concerned with our moral behavior, but rather represents the laws (the forces) of nature which control cause and effect within nature and to that extent explains our life experience as also being a result of causes and effects.  While one might be tempted to claim that such causes and effects belies a universal moral code, the universe does not reward or punish moral behavior.   Behavior is simply behavior.  

There is something personable about a god who "smiles on our ignorance."  This unknown god is not presented as a capricious god, such as the Olympian gods.  This god is approachable at least to the extent that this god wants to be approached.  

Epimenides' unknown god is both nameless and imageless, and yet, to stave off the plague devastating Athens, this nameless and imageless god required recognition through ritual, which the Athenians perform and after which the plague is ended.  In everlasting gratitude, the Athenians built altars to this god, and Paul, like those ancient Athenians is saved by acknowledging this god and equating it as the one god above all others.  Paul goes a step further than Epimenides in attributing a line from Epimenides' poem on Zeus, "For in you we live and have our being" to this unknown God, which Paul claims to have knowledge of as being the one God Paul claimed as a Jew without directly making such a claim.   

* * *

Epimenides' unknown god undoubtedly raises some questions.  Where did Epimenides come up with such a concept?  Was it divine revelation or a theological deduction that such a god existed?  Or was some sort of intuition, some insight into an obvious problem the Athenians were blind to?   Remember the Oracle at Delphi told the Athenians to seek as prophet fro Crete by the name of Epimenides.  If there is one thing we know about prophets, it is that they are good at exposing the ignored obvious. 

What catches one's attention in this legendary story is the observation that Epimenides made regarding how religious the Athenians were because of the the many gods and goddesses they worshiped.   Where there were many gods and goddesses there were undoubtedly many temples.   Temples were and are places where people gather, especially when there is trouble afoot that people do not know how to respond to.  

Given the experience those of us living today have had with the Covid pandemic, we know something about the effect that large gatherings had on spreading the Covid virus.   It is more than likely that the Athenians were filling the temples with the sick, pleading for divine intervention, which ultimately led to more deaths.  This would help explain why they thought they were being punished by the gods.  

It is interesting that when Epimenides told the Athenians about the unknown God who would help them,  he instructed them to go out into the fields and where they found a sheep laying down, that was spot where the Athenian were to offer that unfortunate sheep to the unknown god, as a sacrifice.  In essence, what might have saved the Athenians was getting them out of the Petri dishes that was their temples and into the fresh air. 

Of course this is all speculation on my part.  One can't be certain what went through Epimenides' mind when he was summoned to Athens.  Did he invent the idea of an unknown God or was it an intuitive revelation?  We will never know.  The bottom line in this story is that it worked, whether by getting the Athenians outside of their city and temples or because there is such a god who smiled on their ignorance and saved them.  

* * *

In my opinion the story of the unknown god represents the nexus of the two version of God that I wrote about in previous two posts, God in Religion and God in Science.  In a sense Epimenides' unknown god, led the religious people of Athens out of their temples and their gods to experience god in science, an unknowable god that nevertheless exists in the background of our existence, that embodies us in the parental way that Epimenides spoke of in his poem "Cretica."  Although, Epimenides was speaking of Zeus, he changes Zeus from an immortal god living on Olympus to a universal being that generates and embodies our being. 

 

Most theistic religions get to the point where God becomes a paradox who is both one (the totality of all that is) and a multi-dimensional, who is both intimate with creation and other (holy) than creation.  God is ultimately inscrutable whether in religion or in science.  Perhaps the best understanding of such a god iswhen God in the story of the burning bush explains to Moses, "I am that I am (I will be what I will be)" or when Epimenides described the unknown god as one "who smiles on our ignorance. "

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

[1] Translated by Prof. J. Rendel Harris in a series of articles in the Expositor (Oct. 1906, 305–17; Apr. 1907, 332–37; Apr. 1912, 348–353;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides

[2] “To An Unknown God,” Christians in Crete, Connecting God’s Family http://christiansincrete.org/news/to-an-unknown-god/