The Bible and the 'Historical Jesus.'

To start off (and most likely piss off) a great many, let me say that I do not believe that the Bible is the 'inerrant Word of God.' The Bible to me (even the Title, 'The Book' means it was the only 'book' that many were allowed to read [if they could read at all] for almost the last two thousand years) is a 'religious' document. Religion being the parsing of 'That Which Is' (to those who believe that the "Judeo-Christian" 'religion' is -- pardon the pun -- 'fundamentally' the same thing on both sides [Judeo and "Christian"], the answer is a fundamental No), to conform to the Temporal Concerns of the Church or Priestly hierarchy. In other words, it's what keep them in business. Religion is Man trying His (and yes, for the last two thousand years it has largely been a His business) best to try and divine (again, pardon the pun) 'reality' in this world. And Man (especially The Church) is not inerrant. Far from it.

The Books of the Gospels (what are now accepted as such) are the Top Four Greatest Hits of Jesus history. They were determined by the Nicene Council of 345 "AD" which was 'convened' by King Constantin (as close to the original spelling of his name -- not 'Constantine') to 'determine' what this 'document' should hold "For All Eternity." It was the convening of all the 'Bishops' of the Church -- all the leaders of the already splintering 'Message' of 'Jesus' (Jesu Christos, from the Greek from which Paulus ben Tarkus [otherwise known as "Paul" to you later day folks]) , to 'determine' 'The Truth' from apostasy.  And basically any Bishop who didn't agree with Contantin about what this new Book would hold, were 'disappered' by one of his Roman Sicarii (assassins) and therefore, couldn't vote.

Now, "Jesus" said many things in the Bible, many of which are contradictory (depending on which 'Gospel' you read. What he said in Matthew, is different than in John). This is because each of the Gospels is the canon of a particular group; one for the Jewish followers (who believed that Jesus was teaching a Jewish theology), two for the Greek followers (again divided into one for the former Jewish believers, and one for the 'pagan' Greek new followers [to which Paul was writing in the 'Gospels of Paul' known as the Letters or the Epistles. 

And then there was John; written from the followers of the converted 'pagan' Romans (largely carried through the Roman soldiers who converted; for these, Jesus was refashioned into an amalgam of Jesus of the Jews and the Roman Patron god of war, Mithras ["I come, not with an olive branch, but with a sword to cleave the wicked from the Branch of Life."]).

And if you want proof, read all the Gospels. In three of them, the 'Clensing of the Temple' happened at the end of his ministry. In only one of them, it happens at the beginning. This is crucial for the reading of his mission, because in John, it happens at the beginning of the Mission to show that even the Romans were afraid of Jesus. This of course did not happen. 

If you want to parse out what The Real Jesus said, he spoke only of peace, love and forgiveness -- all those things that most Fundamentalists would like you to think of as the Pinko-Commie-Faggot Jesus. 'Our Jesus was a man, not a wimpy do-nothing, one of those... You know what I mean.' They speak of forgiveness, but it usually only applies to their own errant followers who publicly admit (after they are caught) to being 'Sinners.'  This is the 'edited for content' and Church Temporal Power "Jesus" who was re-fashioned as the Fire and the Sword 'Jesus.' "I come, not with an olive branch..."
And to top it off, the Bible was later fashioned as the Catechism of 'The Holy Roman Catholic Church'; the template for eternal forgiveness (where the Church solidified its position when  Jesus 'failed' to return "before this generation passes" (which originally meant 'within the lifetime of the listeners,' not two thousand or so years later.), where the Church would get all those Sinners to come to Mass three times a day (along with donating to the Church Coffers, which is how the Church grew into into the Temporal Empire it became), in order that 'thy soul should not suffer "the Fires of Eternal Damnation."  

All of this only goes to show that The Bible is a 'testament,' and not formal history. It is an agglomerate of all of the various Traditions (all of which which were not Jewish were 'pagan') and interpretations that were taken and sieved through, first by Constantin and later by the 'Bishops of Rome' and the Papacy, and were 're-interpreted' by many of the Protestant Traditions and Faiths later on.  

And yes finally, (and most crucially to our modern times), by the Fundamentalists, who have taken the 'Gospel of John' and Revelations to be whole of the Bible -- except for the portions where the Catholics had Jesus use the Jewish 'Old Testament' for 'signs and portents' that proved that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as well (The 'New' Testament, as in 'superseding' the 'Old' Jewish Testament) -- but conveniently discard when it comes down to it.

And yes, finally, to those who (mostly Fundamentalist or Orthodox Catholic believers) claim that they are "Biblical Scholars" let me say; that to be a "Biblical Scholar" is not just a case of 'studying' the Bible to learn what Your Church claims is the Inerrant Word of God as stated categorically from what Your Church, and what it has told you. It's a question of studying all of Church History, its underlying roots and traditions, and knowing where all the elements came from that go into that 'Church Canon' that began being shaped so long ago now by Constantin. It is not just the venerated 'quotes' taken out of context, that come at cross purposes (again, those puns!) to what you want Jesus to be and to have said. It is taking all  of it, sifting through to find the Real Jesus (the real Rebbi Yeshua bar Yosef), and what he said to those who were standing listening, not those whose 'telephone game' version was passed down (and majorly edited) through time. 

There is an historical Jesus in The Book, but you need to read between the Canonical Lines to find him. [And I do not capitalize the 'H,' as he did not really claim to be the only Son of God. But that's another blog for another time.] 

"Should Bible Classes be allowed in public schools?"

This was posted by the novelist Anne Rice on her Facebook Page asking for opinions. This below is my response (expanded, of course).

Ms. Rice I'm sorry, but there's a very great distance between what this Governor is advocating (proselytizing Bible 'studies') and what you're advocating (the history of and discerning what/where/how the 'Bible' has influenced 'Western civilization'). This State Official is advocating the opinions of the most radically Reich in her state to influence any and all students about Das Book (which is really all "The Bible" means since for centuries it was the ONLY Book that was allowed to be 'read' [mostly taught, since only the most powerful could even read]).

This would be simple indoctrination and not anything approaching 'study' at all. This is not Constitutionally valid and therefore should not even be considered and should be struck down with all speed (if possible) by the Supreme Court (not that that's going to happen).

From the article in question: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law a bill that allows the establishing of elective classes that focus on the Bible and its influence on western civilization.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ariz-governor-signs-bill-to-allow-bible-classes-in-public-schools-73485/#2Rmb6bAVQOzeFMpi.99

"A teacher who instructs a course offered under this section in its [blogger emphasis added] appropriate historical context and in good faith shall be immune from civil liability and disciplinary action," reads the bill.

Ah, and here's the rub. "...in good faith..." There are so many small points of darkness in this potential 'teaching' that boggle the imagination. In bringing in this seemingly benign 'educational opportunity' a gaping hole is being introduced into the Constitutional fabric of the nation. Born-agains are shouting about 'Christian pursecution' while striving to back-door their particular brand of 'Christianity' into the Law of the land.

Never mind that most of the students who would be subject to whatever material that such a 'course' might bring are already 'of The Faith.'  So why can't they receive such information from their Church? Because that is not the intent of this 'bill.'

The insidiousness of this 'bill' would be the means of opening similar 'legislation' in other states. It would be a seemingly innocuous teaching of 'history' to any and all who 'wished to partake.' For now. 

For those of  us whose ideas and beliefs are different from those of the Far Reich, now is the time to speak out against this 'legal means' of 'teaching about "The Bible." ' I am not opposed to the ideas of The Man who they (think they) believe in, but I do oppose any means of further indoctrination in a country that is increasingly non-Christian. Even for those of us who consider ourselves "Christian" (and I count myself [in a qualified way] among those believers), this seems like a non-issue. But I assure you, it isn't.

Why 'Non-Christians' are persecuting (so-called) 'Christians'

[This was written on my facebook page in response to a video of some 'Christian' Preacher indoctrinating four- and five-year olds in how to 'refute evolution.' (I can no longer find the Post I reacted to.)]

First point: if you ask a Jew (who most of these so-called "Christians" say they believe are their direct religious 'ancestors') about the stories in the "Old Testament," they will tell you that they're mishnah -- allegories -- just like "Jesus" (Third Point) used to teach. They are not meant to be history, but lessons. These "Christians" teach however contrary to that point, that "every word in the Bible is true." Nonsense.

Second Point: Christianity (Roman Catholicism) is a mishmash of the original Judaic Tradition 'paganized' first by "Saint Paul" (a 'converted' Jew proselytizing to the early Greek followers), then The Romans (Jesus is a mishmash of Messianic Judaism and the patron god of soldiers we now know as Mars), and then all of the other religions that it sought to convert the followers of ("Mother Mary" being the Goddess transverted into a Virgin). Even the name "Jehovah" comes from the Babylonian Exile and the Babylonian god "Jah" (or "Yod") whose consort ironically was the goddess Astarte [the fertility goddess], or Oestre [from whence the name Easter came]-- or Esther, the goddess mother of Judaism).

Third Point: if you walked the streets of Yerushalem (The City of Peace) and you saw this wandering Jew we now know as "Jesus" and you called him that, he wouldn't even turn around. His name was Yeshua bar Yosef. The name of Jesus is a conversion from the Geek name Yesu (or "Ieose") Christos, and eventually into Jesus the Christ, "Jesus The Anointed One". Not Jesus Christ. Christ was not his last name (only a modern  invention, last names).

Forth Point: it does you no good to argue 'logic' with these people. It does no good to argue that science (even theory) relies on 'proof.' It does no good even to point to physical evidence ('Satan planted those bones there to turn you away from Jesus!'). Never mind that they get into cars. trains and planes that ride on those 'lies of Satan' (scientific principles) every day.  Science is still 'lying' to us.

This is indoctrination on the worst level, and terming it 'child abuse' barely covers it. These children can barely read, and yet they're already being molded to proselytize and spout 'rote' instead of right. You can't argue with a sick mind.

New Years Non-Resolution

I would like to make a New Years resolution to avoid/neglect/disavow anything having to do with politics. I rant, I rave, I get those of the 'other side' ready to bring out their fire arms. So I would like to not comment/hear about/ or otherwise have anything to do with politics.

That would mean stopping all conversations of political discourse. Not looking at any newspapers, periodicals, news reports, web pages that insist on having 'politics' to 'keep us informed.'

But then, I can be on a street corner, minding my own business when a car passes with some right wing idiot-logical claptrap on it and be set off.

My sister even has a "no politics" rule to be adhered to at holiday time with me and my brothers who have ideological viewpoints that are 180 degrees in opposition (doesn't work).

And that is why this is a resolution guaranteed to fail. We are political animals. I have spent all of my adult life involved in politics, on one level or another. I know it doesn't help my blood pressure.

But...