Merry Christmas-- Damn It!

Many of the residents of Jesusland seem to have a bit of an attitude this Christmas season. I notice people saying that they are sick and tired of hearing the phrase "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas". These same people assert that we ought to know the true reason for why we even have Christmas; Avoiding the very word Christmas is the same as being bullied by the proponents of secularism.

People in Jesusland have worn t-shirts admonishing people to not be afraid to say "Merry Christmas"-- as though they might possibly be persecuted or lose their jobs for keeping Christmas Christian. They make angry Facebook posts and tweets condemning anyone who says "Happy Holidays" in place of the mandatory phrasing for this time of year.

I submit today that people who share that sentiment wrongly believe that Christians should own the holiday season. I believe that such people unwittingly feel entitled to more rights than others. They assert there is a "war" on Christmas without realizing the irony of their words.

Let me explain.

My daughter comes home from school earlier this week (based on the time of this post) saying that Hanukkah is Israel's way of celebrating Christmas.

No. That's just not true about Hanukkah. But, this bit of misinformation shows how Christianity gradually absorbs so many non-Christian traditions over the centuries. Perhaps the teachers are unwittingly imposing their Christian bias onto others. But purposefully or not, they are slowly assimilating a Jewish celebration that has nothing to do with Christmas at all. As a rule of thumb, Jews simply do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Christmas in it's most strict religious form is counter to mainstream Jewish belief; Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School?

Why would an Reformed Jew celebrate Christmas, then? I think it's safe to say that they only celebrate Christmas for as far as the gift giving and the decorations go. You know-- just to enjoy the holiday spirit of giving and such. Can you blame any Jewish parents who might not want their children to feel left out when all their Gentile classmates and friends rave on and on about how the baby Jesus-- um . . . I mean Santa Clause-- er . . . I mean . . . their parents left tons of toys and gadgets for them under their Christmas trees?

Judaism is a good example of why greeting others with the phrase "Happy Holidays" as opposed to the phrase "Merry Christmas" is, in my opinion, simply being sensitive to others. But, just as I feel offended that someone would mandate that I only greet others with "Merry Christmas", I don't want to suggest that the greeting in and of itself is inappropriate for this time of year, either. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". And quite frankly as an atheist, I feel that way when people greet me with "Merry Christmas". I don't mind the greeting and I even reply in kind. But, for people to get an attitude because you don't say it . . . I begin to wonder if they even understand why freedom of religion is so special and important at all.

With much attitude, I hear people insist that Jesus is the reason for the season as they decorate their "Christmas" trees and plan to buy their "Christmas" gifts. No harm in having a Christmas tree or buying gifts. Hell, I have a Christmas tree up in my home and I'm an atheist for crying out loud! I just got back from Christmas shopping before starting on this post. But, the difference: I'm willing to accept the fact that a Christmas tree ain't got shit to do with Jesus; and if a Jew can buy Christmas gifts, so can an atheist. But more importantly, consider how this season as a whole seems to come more from the Yule festivals of the Winter Solstice. Think of how Christianizing other cultures has overshadowed so many festivals and traditions over the centuries and made them Christian. Don't believe Christians ever assimilated other traditions? It's happening now as evidenced by my daughter coming home and calling Hanukkah the "Jewish Christmas".

The sort of Christians who demand that we all use the phrase "Merry Christmas" feel entitled whether they realize it or not. And worse, when such people don't get their entitlement, they claim to be bullied by everyone else. It's as if Christians of this sort feel their rights are being stepped on if they cannot make everyone else participate in their Christian activities. Take prayer in school, for example. The law is not telling Christians that they cannot pray. The law is telling them that they cannot have teachers lead the class into prayer and mandate that each child takes on prayer. Would a Christian parent want a Muslim teacher mandating that their child prays towards Mecca daily?

But, the law does protect the right for children of any faith to gather together before or after school (or even during the activity period within the school day) and pray to their hear's content so long as the activity is student initiated. Also, no one can be forced to participate against their will, either. Our children still have that precious right because of freedom of religion (and freedom from it, too). Yet, certain Christians feel that if they cannot make your child pray in school, you are stepping on their rights. That's a sense of entitlement. That's the same reason why certain Christians feel they own the Yuletide traditions all to themselves; they feel entitled.

And with all of this assimilation and entitlement going on, how can Christians honestly assert there is a "war" on Christmas? There is no war. People are merely tired of being assimilated.

Case in point: the office manager at my place of employment sent out a mass e-mail spreading the notion that Christians need to stand up against the secular bombardment upon their faith. In her thinking, she's got 100% support within the office and can send her message out in total confidence. Of course she won't be reprimanded or fired for circulating that e-mail to everyone in the office. Who in the world would object?

Never mind that the e-mail was a partially forged message attributed to Ben Stein. If integrity is so important to Christian faith, why go around spreading an e-mail that falsely attributes words to someone? I know we make mistakes, but I can't count how many e-mail messages I have received that spread fables in the place of truth only to make a an often unfair point.

Below, I'll share a portion of the e-mail I received. This portion below really was delivered in a commentary by Ben Stein back in the year 2005. But, it's being circulated as though he stated this during the 2012 Christmas season and extra paragraphs were added on by other authors. The message as a whole is made to look like it was signed as coming from Stein even though only a potion of the message in circulation comes from his original commentary:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees...  I don't feel threatened..  I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me.  I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu .  If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. 

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...  

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.  But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. 

Again-- my office manager can send this around the office with total confidence and not worry about losing her job. She can take for granted that she's sending this e-mail to an office full of supportive people who are undoubtedly in her corner and share this sentiment of entitlement.

However, should I talk too loudly about my atheism from behind my cubical wall, I feel that I could realistically put my employment status in jeopardy.

So then, tell me; who exactly has the upper hand in this supposed "war" on Christmas?

Look-- I don't feel pushed around when someone greets me with "Happy Holidays". I don't even feel pushed around when someone greets me with "Merry Christmas".

But, I do feel pushed around when I'm slapped in the face with a sentiment that basically and angrily says, "Merry Christmas-- damn it.". I'd rather be greeted with the infamous, "Bah! Humbug."

So much for making the Season bright with "Christmas" cheer.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part II

In part one of The Four Legends of Jesus, I stopped with the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. ending in massacre by the hands of the Romans. Shortly after the failed revolt, the gospel of Mark emerges as the first written gospel. Recall the possibility that Jewish Christians and mainstream Jews alike were expecting a Messiah to rise up and secure the new kingdom during the revolt against Rome. While Jewish Christians were possibly looking for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom, the mainstream Jews were probably looking for a different Messiah to rise up from among their ranks.

Either way, the revolt failed and Jerusalem was sacked; the Temple--so precious to the Jews of Jerusalem--was desecrated and laid to waste.

Mark

The "new Jews" probably needed new encouragement to help them endure the deep disappointment of an absent Messiah. But what could facilitate healing after such a brutal pounding from the Romans? The survivors lost loved ones in a bloody massacre as well as their central symbol of God's presence-- the Temple.

Many scholars of textual criticism point out that the gospel of Mark is short and abrupt relative to the other canonized gospel writings. Consider the original ending of Mark before it was edited. The women who want to anoint the body of Jesus with spices are last seen frightened and fleeing the tomb, telling no one what they saw. Also, we find that Jesus is absent from the tomb, said to be away in Gallilee.

Jesus was absent from the revolt, too. He didn't make his way back down from Heaven.

The traditional ending of Mark found in the typical bible was added on later. Mark actually ends in chapter 16 verse eight. Someone apparently didn't like how Mark originally ended and needed to smooth over Mark's bewildering ending. But in doing so, the editor of Mark may have covered up an intentional literary device by the original author.

The goal of Mark seems to be consolation towards the followers of Jesus after the failed revolt. Again, someone needs to smooth over the disappointment caused by failed expectations of prophesy. The gospel of Mark seems to depict Jesus as a reflection of the people who suffered through the horrors in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Also, Mark seems to reach out to the diasporic Jews who saw the outcome of the failed revolt from afar. Mark attempts to help the followers of Jesus feel as though he identifies with and knows their sorrows. For instance, Jesus falls prostrate in the garden before he is crucified, begging God to take the cup of suffering from him. He exclaims to his disciples that he is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death before he is arrested. Likewise, many of the people who endured the punishment of the Roman army no doubt fell prostrate, begging not to be slaughtered by the sword.

The women leave the tomb during the resurrection scene not knowing what to think and terribly afraid--wondering where Jesus could be. In like manner, those who endured the failed revolt were probably thinking the exact same thing. Those who were "new Jews" were probably afraid and wondered where Jesus could be. Why hasn't he returned like he said? Yet, the mysterious man standing at the tomb insists Jesus is alive somewhere. Perhaps Mark also attempts to leave a subtle glimmer of hope concerning Jesus. Maybe he's challenging the reader. Will you continue to look for and hope for Jesus? Will you go to Gallilee and find him? Or will you run away in fear, never reaching past his empty tomb?

On a side note: the prophesy of the demolished Jewish Temple was added in hindsight in my opinion. If the disappointed early Christians can be persuaded that Jesus predicted this, they may very well accept that he has a higher purposes and meaning to his words than they could have possibly understood. But if none of this was divine to begin with, the only way the "prediction" of the Temple could appear in Mark is for if the revolt happened first.

Matthew

Matthew seems to work towards depicting a new kind of Jesus-- Jesus, the King of the Jews. The dating of Matthew is debated (as well as Mark), but many think Matthew was written next. In this gospel, Jesus often speaks of fulfilling the law and acts as a literary type of Moses by going up into the mountains and coming back down to the people with a message or miracle from God. Jesus has a pedigree that links him directly back to Abraham. The actions and words of Jesus are quite often a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophesies (many of which Jews contest or claim to be gross misinterpretations by Christians). The author of Matthew is attempting to attract mainstream Jews into accepting Jesus as the real Messiah. I suppose the first failed revolt left a bitter taste in their mouths and Jesus' promise needs to be fulfilled soon. In the meanwhile, an appeal needed to be made to the rest of Israel to rally behind their soon to return Messiah.

Luke

Later comes Luke. Again, the dating is debatable. But since so much of Mark is contained in the other three Gospels, Mark is considered a literary source. Unlike Matthew, Luke is written largely to a pagan audience. Luke takes time to explain Jewish laws to his audience, which wouldn't be necessary with a largely Jewish readership. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam-- who is the son of God. Luke alludes to the divinity of Jesus in somewhat of a pagan manner-- reminiscent of mystery religions in my view. Jesus is the son of God, much like Caesar was probably seen as the son of God. Human, yet divine.

Luke also tried to stress to the Greeks that one could still be safe under Roman rule while converting to Christianity.

Honest. The Romans won't become suspicious of you if you openly became a Christian.

Honest.

According to many scholars of textual criticism, the gospel of Luke is written with pristine Greek-- the finest of the whole New Testament canon. Luke is said to write on the level of a Classical Greek novelist. I'm sure this helped to hold the attention of his sophisticated, Greek audience. Also, many people forget that the book of Acts was part of the gospel of Luke. And with Paul often depicted as a missionary to the Gentiles, he appears in Acts. Paul's "Roman" citizenship is played up a few times in Acts. His citizenship even prevents Paul from getting flogged or mistreated by Roman guards when he's arrested. The Book of Acts even ends with a "happily ever after" feel as Paul preaches the gospel in Rome unhindered.

But secular history tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem just before his arrest-- years before Luke and Acts were even written. The Romans arrested Paul as a rebel rouser and executed him. Likewise, the Romans went after Peter and the other leaders as well because they suspected this fringe movement of Judaism was creating dissension towards the Roman government.

Yeah, being an early Christian in Rome was really safe.

John

In the gospel of John, Jesus is sometimes depicted as a superman. Jesus embodies the full divinity and majesty of God. Contrasted with Mark-- Jesus delivers a beautiful prayer in the presence of his disciples before he is arrested (John 17). When the Roman guards finally come to arrest Jesus, they inquire of his whereabouts. When Jesus responds, all the Roman guards fall back onto the ground! To me, this expresses that Jesus willingly goes away with his captors. These guards clearly didn't have the power to apprehend Jesus; he is only letting them take him away and nail him to the cross. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Compare the story of Jesus' arrest with all the other gospels within the context I've presented so far. Do you still see four people telling different angles of the same event? Or do you see four different "Jesuses" pitched to four different audiences, written by four different authors who have four different religious or political agendas?

Another fascinating feature of John (and perhaps found in the other gospels) is the constant rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees. They argue with Jesus constantly when he claims authentic Judaism. But . . . if Pharisees were truly Abraham's children, they would love Jesus-- not hate him. But the Pharisees don't love Jesus at all. So then, the Pharisees cannot be the real Children of God-- but rather only the Children of the Devil.

But according to some historians, Pharisees weren't prominent until years after the Temple fell and synagogues became more important than ever. Interestingly, this phenomena seems to match the time that John was probably written-- decades after the fall of the Temple. So then, Pharisees seem to become some sort of anachronism within the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . .

As the synagogue and Pharisees became more important in Judaism, the mainstream Jews were finally making a full split with Christians as John was being written. The gospel of John was the final cry of an outcast group demanding to still be called Jewish as they were being thrown out of the synagogues. By now, the mainstream Jews had a new Messiah by the name of Bar Kokhba and strong tensions for a new revolt were forming again.

Eventually, Bar Kokhba was believed to be the true Messiah and lead a second Jewish rebellion that was also smashed by the Roman government.

The "new Jews" sat out on this failed revolt. By now, they were too Christian to be Jews and were too smart to be creamed a second time by the Romans. Christians now have their eternal, divine Jesus as their Messiah. His return is still soon, but he is otherworldly now and can flutter down from the Heavens to establish the kingdom whenever he sees fit. At this point, many first generation Christians were passing on. So then, the return of Jesus and the establishment of God's kingdom finally needed to transcend time and place so that Christ's followers could still maintain hope in rising above any political situation that kept them oppressed.

If it had not been for Constantine, Christianity would perhaps be regarded as nothing more than a myth or legend by now. Probably not too different from the ancient mystery religions or the ancient religions of Greece and Rome that finally fizzled out from that time period. And if Christianity did hang on without Constantine, I have a feeling the believers would only make up a very small religious order.

With this new perspective, I don't see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four gospels any longer. I now see them as the Four Legends of Jesus.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to become a fundamentalist Christian again.

Just so you know I didn't make all of this up on my own, you can see the documentary that inspired this post:

From Jesus to Christ

DISCLAIMER

I also want to stress that I'm mainly stating my opinions based on what I've understood from the documentary, some extra reading, and a few suspicions I've held in the back of my mind since my deconversion. I don't make any claims at being a biblical scholar and I understand that my analysis could be wrong in many places. But, I personally feel like my presentation is a rough idea of how Jesus evolved from a Jewish political rebel, to the Messiah, and then into the very person of God in the flesh.

I believe the followers of Jesus changed who he was over time-- from a fringe group's Messiah to the Christian's Jesus Christ.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part I

For all my life, I understood the gospels to be four harmonious accounts of the same events. Even after becoming an atheist, that idea remained uncontested in the back of my mind.

Not anymore.

First, let's apply the context that has shaped my new opinion.

The earliest of Christians (You know, Peter . . . Paul-- those guys) probably saw themselves more so as enlightened Jews rather than "Christians". And like most mainstream Jews in the first century, these "new Jews" were eager for the re-establishment of their former Davidic kingdom which was to be accomplished by the Messiah. Thus, the kingdom of God was initially an exclusive desire of the Jews. The first Christians, then, are best viewed as newly enlightened Jews who would follow along with their newly realized Messiah (Jesus) who will bring about the establishment of the Davidic kingdom of God. The establishment of God's kingdom would require the overthrowing of Roman rule. A defining quality of the Messiah is to accomplish the resurrection of the kingdom; mainstream Jews reject Messianic claims from anyone who accomplishes less than that.

So, these "newly enlightened Jews" believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the real Messiah. They trusted him and expected him to fulfill the required work of the Messiah by saving Israel from Rome.

But before anything significant happened against Rome, Jesus was executed.

No revolution. No Davidic kingdom. No overthrowing of Roman rule.


No Messiah.

So, now what?

I suspect that the words of Jesus suddenly needed new interpretation as his followers struggled to understand why he died without even sparking a revolution. They eventually rationalized that Jesus must rise from the dead; after which, he will return to Earth from Heaven and establish the new kingdom of God.

But, this peculiar fringe group of Jews were probably dwindling fast after the death of Jesus. And the truest followers who invested the most into Jesus were probably dealing with cognitive dissonance. Once they saw that Jesus did not immediately fulfill the required role of the Messiah, the key followers of Jesus rationalized that he would return to fulfill his Messianic requirements after making certain preparations in Heaven. In the meanwhile, the "new Jews" needed to recruit new followers. However, the Jesus-movement couldn't seem to bring in very many mainstream Jews.

Why not?

Because mainstream Jews were looking for a living Messiah who would establish the kingdom presently. Right then. Jesus did not fit that description. The mainstream Jews were not going to follow a "failed" Messiah. And as the decades turned into centuries, this "new Judaism" evolved into the familiar Christianity of today. And this Christianity is quite opposed to Judaism concerning the nature of God. Not only do Jews reject Christianity because of the failure of Jesus as Messiah, but Jews also reject Christianity because most (not all) Christians understand Jesus to be more than just the Messiah; Jesus is divine. Jesus is God. For many Jews, the Godhead has no room for Yahweh and Jesus, too.

Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one LORD.

So then, the new Jews had little choice. Go ye therefore and teach those pagans!

Er, I mean . . . teach all nations . . .

The "new Jews" invited Gentiles into this new flavor of non-exclusive Judaism. Paul seemed to be the greatest champion of this cause. And as the Gentile base grew within the "new Judaism", it slowly became less Jewish and more Christian.

Keep in mind that at this point in history only the letters of Paul where being circulated. No gospels seem to have been written at this point. Perhaps a general document containing the sayings of Jesus was floating around, but the gospels as a literary work do not seem to be in circulation just yet.

While the "new Jews" were growing, tensions grew between the Romans and Jews of all flavors. This tension built up over decades until it finally exploded in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. The Jews in Jerusalem staged a revolt against Rome.

And the Romans responded with hot and heavy-handed anger. They brutally crushed the attempted rebellion of the Jews.

Many of the "new Jews" were probably expecting Jesus to return during the revolt to finally establish the kingdom. But instead, the "new Jews" and mainstream Jews alike were burned, maimed and killed in the streets. Those fortunate enough (unfortunate, maybe?) to survive these horrors fled out of Jerusalem for their lives.

Shortly after the revolt, the gospel of Mark appears-- the earliest of the four main gospel writings.

In my opinion, the historical context that I just presented sheds light on the true purpose behind each canonized gospel writing. I think this context also provides a better understanding of who Jesus and the earliest Christians truly were.

And with that, I will conclude part I of this post.

In the meanwhile, you can see where I'm coming from and where I'm going with this post by visiting the link below:

From Jesus to Christ

Stay tuned.

The Tight Rope Act

How many people truly believe in god?

Polls say that among the US Population, 10% of the country is non-religious. Of that 10%, only 3% will label themselves as atheist.

But of the other 90% . . . do they really believe in god? Really?
I know they make the mental ascent. But, do they believe to the point of action?

When I was much younger and a fervent believer, I heard a neat little anecdote:

Crowds gathered at the Grand Canyon to see the great spectacle of a man who had wired a tight rope across the great expanse. He fearlessly and skillfully cross the rope, drawing awe and thunderous applauds from the fixated audience. He could traverse from one side to the other, effortlessly and skillfully. The people that continually gathered were utterly amazed.

When everyone thought they had seen the height of his performance, he wowed them even further.

He produced a wheelbarrow and nimbly drove the one-wheeled vehicle across to the other side of the canyon along the treacherous tight rope. He turned around and came back with the same ease.

He then faced the amazed crowd and cried, "how many think I can do it again?!" The crowd roared with excitement and cheered him on to another performance. He took his wheelbarrow and pushed it along the tight rope again -- turned around and came back without once seeming to loosing his balance.

Upon his return, he looked out at the crowd and exclaimed, "And now, I will load my wheelbarrow with bricks and carry them across! Can I do it? Will I make it?! Who believes?"

The crowed hushed with amazement as he loaded bricks into his wheelbarrow. After he stacked the bricks high, he started his journey. As effortless as before, he transported the cargo across the abysmal canyon without losing a single brick to the abyss below.

The crowed greeted him with ecstatic praise as he returned from the other side, every brick still in place inside the wheelbarrow.

He motioned with his hands to calm the crowd. After a few moments, he regained their attention. They now eagerly waited to hear his about his next performance stunt.

"You've seen me cross the canyon effortlessly", he cried. "You've seen me take a wheelbarrow across just the same. I've even taken bricks and filled my wheelbarrow and did not lose a single one! Now, for my next act! Who will volunteer and let me carry you across the Grand Canyon as a passenger in my wheelbarrow?"

At this, the crowed gasped and murmured. The man attempted to convince anyone he could from the audience to step out into his wheelbarrow. But before too long, the man was accompanied only by his wheelbarrow.

That anecdote was about contrasting true Christan faith with lip-service. If you truly had faith, you'd get inside the wheelbarrow. For faith was not just the mental ascent to an idea -- but the following through of it's implications.

Why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?

With an angry God starring down at you and with the blood of a gentle Jesus upon your hands, why don't you follow his commands?

I'm not talking about omitting the "sin nature" and "nobody's perfect" clause; I'm including that into the equation.

Even considering that issue, why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?

For example:

If Jesus fulfilled the law and has freed us from following the letter of the Law of the Jewish people, why do so many Christians churches demand tithes? (You know, that 'Paul' guy in the New Testament . . . he talked about being free from the Law a whole bunch).

If Islam is about peace, why do so many ex-Muslims fear for their lives when they leave the faith?

Why do so many Jews follow the writing of Rabbis when the Old Testament is clear that God's law is all they need? Why all the extra commentary and tradition heaped on top?

Why do hate groups in the US tend to default to a pseudo Christian faith? Maybe they recognize the inequities in the scriptures and truly want to follow through on them. Maybe they are the true believers in Christianity? (Ouch!)

But should these type of things be said . . . the believers of their various faiths get offended.

I don't think they really want to get into the wheelbarrow because deep down inside, they don't really want to take that trip across the Grand Canyon.

But they are happy just standing there, cheering on the mythical man who can effortlessly keep going across.

I think more than 3% of us are atheist.

I think more are atheist than any of us are willing to admit, I'm afraid.

Archaeology – the CSI of the Past

I'm astonished at how science and logic enables someone to piece together clues that can unveil the unknown. I started trusting science much more after realizing this. Upon this realization, I also began to notice a correlation between my level of trust in science and the weakening of faith concerning my religious beliefs.

Years ago, I saw one of the many episodes of America's Most Wanted where a man had avoided the law for quite a while. The FBI only had very old photos of this certain fugitive. This fact contributed to the fugitive's success in staying on the run. Since law enforcement couldn't post current images of the fugitive's face, the public wasn't able to contribute any tips to the FBI or police.

But, guess what? The FBI put together a team that examined the skeletal structure of the man's face from the older photos. Then, they applied age progression techniques to figure how he might look in the present. With these techniques, the experts generated a photograph and a bust to present to the public.

When the man was finally captured, I was utterly shocked at the resemblance between the fugitive and the bust made by the FBI. Experts seemingly predicted how he looked in the present by using pictures which were decades old.

The bust pinned him down with razor accuracy.

So, when I saw Nation Geographic do a bust of King Tutankhamen, I trusted the work. I couldn't forget what happened on America's Most Wanted; I was too impressed by the previous work from other experts to believe that King Tut's bust was a sham.

Then, later, I saw a bust of Queen Nefertiti done by Discovery magazine online. I will point out however that this bust does looks quite different from ancient busts made long ago. Then again, the mummy found may not actually be Nefertiti. But still, I'm fascinated at how today people could make a life-like bust from the bone structure of a photograph or from ancient remains.

Here's a question . . . if you walk into any given room in your home and find red marker scribbled all over your wall . . . and let's assume you have children living with you . . . who did it?

Well, you should look at the evidence before jumping to conclusions. I did say children . . . so you have to conclude which child did it – or if all of them were in on it.

One child blames the other sibling(s) and boldly proclaims he or she isn't guilty.

However, the child who is proclaiming innocence has red marker smeared all over his or her hands. The other child or children don't, however. Also, the marker gives off a distinct fume that is all over only one child – the one with marker smeared on the hands; however, still claiming innocence.

So then, who “dun” it?

The little lair standing in front of you.

The more I watched shows on the Discovery, Science, and History channels, the more archeology started reminding me of the CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I enjoyed watching people from the world of archeology take bits of evidence and piece together the past and uncover more realistic ideas about what really happened in history.

I started respecting archeology.

So, then, I wanted to read more about it concerning my faith. Surely, if my faith is true, archeology will prove it. Especially since my Thompson Chain Reference Bible had that huge archeology section in the back.

So, I started with a title that I hoped would really prove it all for me – The Bible Unearthed.

I won't dare try to review The Bible Unearthed here. Check out reviews on Amazon or better yet, buy it and read it!

I'll let you decide for yourself if you trust it as a scholarly work.

But for me, that book shattered my faith into splinters. It was the final blow that penetrated my hard shell religious beliefs.

The Bible Unearthed demonstrates through archeology that Israel's Judaism evolved from other ancient folk religions. Israel never left Egypt to come to Canaan according to The Bible Unearthed. The Israelites developed as a people and culture from and among the Canaanite culture already surrounding them.

Follow the implications of that idea and you can see why my faith failed under a crushing, fatal blow.

If Judaism never happened like the Bible says it did, how about Christianity?! After all, Christianity is deeply rooted into Judaism – why it hinges on it!

Oh man, the thought! You mean to say that Yahweh did not personally hand Judaism down to Abraham and Moses?! You mean that Judaism evolved from the Canaanite culture instead?!

If this is true, then the Bible is nothing more than a series of literary works by mere men – so much lower in status than being the inerrant Word of God.

Would an inerrant God issue out his Word in a text that contains errancy, myths and legends?

If God would do something like that, please explain to me how or why.

Such an explanation would clear up a lot of important things for me.