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.

Why the Big Bang Ain't So Crazy of an Idea

The prospect of an explosion happening from out of nowhere while creating all existence sounds hard to believe.

And it should be. That's your skepticism kicking in . . . and that's a good thing.

Yep. I said it. Skepticism of the Big Bang is a good thing.

Don't simply believe in the Big Bang. Understand the premise and then make a judgment for yourself.

So, why do so many scientists buy into such a strange idea?

Well . . .

The light our eyes see is not all there is to light.

When light goes through a prism, it is dispersed into a spectrum. And the spectrum of light can revel the chemical elements found within the source that is emitting the light.

Still with me?

Spectral analysis of stars show that all the elements found on Earth are also found in Sol, our sun.

Nearly all of us have heard about E = mc², which is Einstein's famous equation. But what about the implications of this deceptively simple, yet powerful equation?

Matter can be turned into energy, and energy back into matter. Stars compress hydrogen gas so much that they smash into each other at nearly the speed of light. This causes the hydrogen to fuse together to form helium. As this happens, immense energy that gives off a bright light is released. And then the helium atoms are further fused into heaver elements, producing even more energy still. The hotness and luminosity of our sun (and any other star for that matter) comes from this constant reaction of nuclear fusion.

Through this process, stars create the elements found all around us.

When a star experiences a supernova, all those elements get scattered throughout the cosmos. The released gases also tend to spark off the formation of a new star.

When one star dies and another is born, the elements of the Universe are formed. When planets, asteroids, and comets formulate out of the gaseous eddies left over from star formation, all the elements of the periodic table will already be in place.

If a star can form the elements from scratch, what could an infinitesimal release of energy produce?


Bell Labs back in the 1960's was working on a project with satellite transmissions. But, they had a nagging problem. They kept getting static interference which they couldn't explain.

And that static was jackin' up their experimentations and stuff.

Simultaneously and serendipitously, a pair of scientists had a conjecture that if a star had the ability to form the raw materials of existence, then perhaps the Universe itself came forth from an immense release of energy. In that release, the building blocks of matter could have formed. The mathematics (which I'm sure I couldn't understand) added up-- with the exception of one major problem. An energy release that big would not have cooled down completely-- not even after billions of years. So, the mathematics predicted that some sort of background radiation should exist.

But, they don't see none.

Oh well, time to move on to another hypothesis.

That is until these scientists happened to hear about out what was going on at Bell labs. That static that was jackin' up the Bell Labs experiments-- that was the cooling radiation from a really big release of energy. Something like a . . . um, how would you say . . . a Big Bang?

Those guys got a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Hey, it's still okay to be skeptical. It's okay to remain skeptical about the Big Bang.

But at least realize the Big Bang ain't so crazy of an idea-- even if one day physicists realize the idea was completely wrong.

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

A member posted an interesting link on a message board that I follow. I felt that the link would nicely follow my previous post concerning Uganda.

The piece seems anecdotal, and I tend to shy away from anecdotes as proof of anything. But the point made is quite worth considering.

Here's the link below:


Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

Uganda

Much of Africa is plagued by the ramped spread of AIDS. World Bank data indicates that Uganda has seen the best improvements in the fight against AIDS within much of Africa.

This improvement in Uganda has been credited towards a mixed effort of promoting condom use and abstinence.

But worse than when the Pope went to Africa and discouraged condom use, a bill in Uganda has been introduced back in November which will turn homosexuality into a crime punishable by life imprisonment. Furthermore, a homosexual with HIV could be given the death penalty if caught having sexual relations with other homosexuals.

Can you imagine what would happen with the HIV situation in Uganda if every homosexual was targeted by the government?

The claim is to protect the traditional family. The traditional family is not in danger. I have a traditional family. It stays together because we work at it. Homosexuals aren't tearing my family apart. My family unit isn't in danger of anything. People just want to enforce their religious beliefs with punishment of death-- and that's a shame.

The logic behind the bill also seems to conclude that punishing homosexuality will curb the AIDS epidemic.

A few religious radicals in the United States and within Uganda urge the parliament to accept the bill into law. Hopefully the Ugandan parliament is too progressive to make such a despotic decision.

I wonder if supporters of the bill even realize that Uganda is one of the few places in Africa that seems to be doing the right things to bring HIV infections down in their country.


Yeah, that's right. Threaten homosexuals with the death penalty. Then watch the HIV infections go down with the homosexual population as they all turn straight again.

Ridiculous!

They will either leave the country or stay in the closet. Then, they won't be open about their sexuality. They won't go to the doctor to be tested. And AIDS, in my view, will spread worse than ever in Uganda.

Another Reason Why We Need Skepticism

A phrase is often repeated in the United States:

A person is innocent until proven guilty.

In the past, I've found myself guilty of taking that sentiment and generalizing it to mean that all ideas or notions deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In other words:

Any given idea should be considered creditable until proven ridiculous.

But that's not quite how "innocent until proven guilty" generalizes.

"Innocent until proven guilty" really means:

The prosecution bears the burden of proof.

A prosecutor cannot simply claim that someone has committed a crime. The prosecutor must support the allegations with evidence and then argue his or her case in the Court of Law.

All claims have the same burden: an idea or a notion does not inherently receive the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, a claimant must carry the burden of proving any claim in the same way that a prosecutor must prove the guilt of a defendant.

That is why a person is innocent until proven guilty. A person should not be punished until a thorough, justifiable argument has been made which is supported by verifiable evidence.

This is nothing more than another flavor of skepticism.

This form of skepticism is designed to deter anyone with great authority from whisking you away to some cold dungeon or tying you to a stake and burning you alive.

This mechanism prevents someone from making frivolous claims against your person-- claims which could easily condemn you to a tortuous end-of-life. All because you were simply accused.

Skepticism allows the questioning and challenging of ideas. Skepticism is simply freedom of thought. But this simple-- yet powerful-- ideal works towards protecting us from being constantly bullied by people of higher authority.

And where there is freedom of thought, freedom of expression tends to follow. These two principles serve as the vertebrae of any free society. The United States was born out of a movement of enlightenment and skepticism.

Here then, is another reason why we so desperately need skepticism. A tyrant desires an society that subscribes to unthinking belief.

But where there is skepticism, liberty is not too far behind.