An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XX - Dispensationalism

Many Christians would take issue with the fact that the Bible contradicts itself, not to mention historical and archeological records. Many others simply ignore the contradictions - or don't know about them because they don't read the Bible. But from the very early days of Christianity theologians have been aware of contradictions and discrepancies and attempted to reconcile them. (I'm mainly dealing with how Christian theologians addressed inconsistencies, I am not very familiar with how Jewish scholars approached issues in the Jewish scriptures).

The question of the nature of Jesus Christ - was he God, or was he a man? - caused a lot of ink to be spilled in the first centuries of Christianity. Even when they thought they had an answer - he's both! The minutia of how he could be both, as well as the ramifications of the various theories, occupied Christian leaders for centuries, when it could be argued that they certainly had better things to do. 

The problem that the Church Fathers identified was that there were sections of the gospels and epistles that very clearly indicated that Jesus was a man, a very holy man, a special man, but a man -  not God. There were also others which just as clearly came down on the side of Jesus being God. These second century scholars had a choice: they could ignore the question and focus what Jesus preached and encourage people to follow his example and live their life as he taught; they could decide that Jesus being a man made more sense and interpret the verses that suggested that he was also God in that light; or place their bets on Christ's divinity and interpret the verses that said otherwise in that light. What they did was decide that Jesus was man and God. They argued interminably about the details, but ended up with the conclusion that he was fully God and fully man. (The nuances of that stance take up fat volumes - check it out some time). They created a theological edifice to explain away a contradiction -  which cannot be found in any actual book of the Bible. 

A very large plot hole in the Bible is the stark difference between how God is portrayed in the Old Testament and the New Testament. (Other than the Apocalypse of John [Revelation] which reverts back to the wrathful, vengeful God imagery). In the 1800's there arose a theological position called "dispensationalism" which attempted to explain the differences. But long before that, Marcion, a second century Christian, came up with his own solution. Marcion took a blunt force approach to Biblical criticism and simply threw out the parts he thought made no sense. Observing that the vengeful God of the Old Testament bore no resemblance to the God of the Gospels he concluded that they weren't the same God. In Marcion's view, the Old Testament God was evil, while the New Testament God of Jesus was the "true" God. He threw out the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John and the non-Pauline epistles and heavily edited what was left. Say what you want, but Marcion took care of those pesky contradictions!

Nineteenth Century dispensationalists eschewed Marcion's approach. Rather than relegating the Old Testament God to second deity status, they arranged history as outlined in the Bible into a number of "dispensations". A dispensation, according to them, was a time period where God dealt with humanity in different ways from the other time periods. There were usually seven of these time periods, although I have seen eight listed as well. Since these dispensations were the opinions and interpretations of the theologians who came up with them, there were difference ways to divide them up. Here are a few ways that people have attempted to assign the breaks in these divisions:

• Innocence/Original Paradise/Garden of Eden - Adam and Eve before eating from the Tree of Knowledge
• Conscience - after "The Fall" - no rules, people followed their own conscience, ended with The Flood
• Human Government - From Noah to Abraham - not sure how this differed from the previous
• Promise - starts with Abraham and indicates God dealing with one specific group of people - ends with Moses
• For some, the previous three are grouped together, sometimes called "patriarchal"
• Law - the giving of the Law to Israel - different interpretations on when it ended
• Christ's Ministry - not all recognized this - some interpretations ended Law at Jesus' resurrection, some at the beginning of his ministry, some at the ascension, other at the end of The Acts of the Apostles. The Christ's Dispensation likewise had differing opinions on it's scope, or even if it is a separate time period
• Grace - this started whenever either the Law or Christ dispensation ended and includes the present day. 
• Tribulation - starts with the rapture and includes all the horrors of the Book of Revelation
• Millennial - ends with Christ's return to defeat The Beast and The Devil and initiates the Thousand Year reign of Christ on Earth
• Some combine the previous two
• Paradise - establishment of God's eternal kingdom on earth 

Despite there being disagreements among Christians on where these divisions should begin and end, the concept is logical. There's no question that God acts differently throughout different time periods as outlined in the Bible. But there are no bright lines delineating changes in God's rules - if there were, there would be no disagreement among the various advocates of dispensationalism. This is the problem with viewing the Bible as an inerrant and divinely inspired, it's impossible to accept that there are errors, discrepancies and contradictions and one has to sometimes tie oneself into knots to make it make sense. 

Transgender Bigotry

Let me start off by saying that during some periods of my life I have been a bigot. I was born in 1958 and the mainstream culture during my formative years was very much bigoted against...well anyone who wasn't part of the dominant demographic. For a long time I was part of a religious group that made homophobia their central emphasis. I wasn't shy about speaking up about it. I'm sure that there are family members who remember my foolish words and still hold it against me. Although there were also family members who held the same prejudices, but weren't as vocal about it. Cultural values and predominant attitudes undoubtedly shape one's attitudes, but we are not bound by groupthink, we all have the ability to change our minds. 

Many people who are prejudiced against another group of people often change their minds when they come in close contact with a member of that group. A homophobic parent who finds out that his beloved child is gay; the popular coworker who you find out is not the gender you thought she was; the guy on your sports team who is a member of a previously reviled racial or religious group. Of course not everyone acts the same. Some people double down on their bigotry - disowning children or refusing to associate with those who have been labeled as "other"; other people decide that their friend or coworker is "one of the 'good' ones", or proclaim that they love their child "despite" that characteristic that they hate. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" comes up in conversation. 

But should it take close association with another person to conclude that they are in fact a person? 

There's a a lot of different varieties of bigotry in the world, but the kind that lately seems the most virulent is against transgender people. And like every other form of bigotry, the bigots attempt to justify their bigotry. The favorite justification, just like excuses for racism, is the Bible, although cherry-picking science seems to have become popular. But the heart of opposition to transgender people's right to be transgender isn't God or science, it's hatred of the "other", with religion and biology a rationale to cover it up. 

I don't think that someone who objects to a trans woman or girl competing in woman's sports is necessarily a transphobe. There's a reason that men and women compete separately in sports - mainly due to the fact that the average woman is not as strong or fast as the average man. An objection to trans women competing against cis women is that someone who transitions after a certain point is essentially competing with a male body, with all the associated advantages. Although no one (or few) object to the advantages that money brings. In most sports the child of financially well-off parents has an almost unmeasurable advantage over someone from a family that struggles to pay the bills. Irreversible gender-altering surgery for minors is another subject that should not be off limits to discuss. The number of these surgeries, however, is statistically small, and mostly takes place with the support of parents and medical professionals, including mental health professionals. While I'm on the fence about these surgeries, I also don't want the government making those decisions.  Anti-transgender politicians claim to want to protect children, but are conspicuously silent when it comes to social programs that benefit children. 

One of the more visible battles involving anti-transgender actions is the crusade by Republican Representative Nancy Mace to ban transgender women from the public bathrooms in The Capitol. She is unambiguously targeting incoming Democratic Representative Sarah McBride, who is a transgender woman. Who does Mace think she's protecting? Other than the fact that Congressional offices have private bathrooms, I was under the impression that women's restroom toilets were all ensconced in enclosed stalls. There shouldn't be any danger of her espying McBride's genitals, or of McBride seeing Mace seated on one of the porcelain thrones. In all likelihood Sarah's presence wouldn't be noticed unless another woman's pre-loaded bigotry was on the scene. I have to wonder whether a trans man, who according to Mace's requirements, would be using the women's restroom, would cause more or less of a stir than McBride, especially if he was fully male presenting, including facial hair!

One statement you hear from anti-transgender bigots is the opinion that transgender people are some new phenomenon. Surprise! Trans men and trans women have always been here. What's changed is that they are tired of hiding in the shadows and hiding from the bigotry. People act like it's a terrible imposition to use a person's preferred pronouns. I worked with a trans man in the early 80's. No one at work had any issue referring to him with male pronouns, including the religious people. Same situation with a trans woman who worked in the bakery at one of the stores where I was a manager. 

What is considered appropriate gender expression in clothes, grooming, interests, or even what toys a child prefers is entirely cultural. There is nothing intrinsically male or female about hair length. Or makeup application. Or clothing choice. Someone who is identifying as transgender is simply making the choice about what cultural expressions they most strongly identify with. Most transgender people made the decision to physically/surgically transition as adults. Most transgender people aren't competing in sports. Most transgender people are minding their own business and living their lives and require no special treatment from society other than being allowed to live their lives as they choose to live them.

It's not special treatment, or special rights, or an "agenda" to want to be treated as a person with the same rights as everyone else.

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XIX - No True Scotsman

In my previous "Agnostic's Look at The Bible", Christians Calling Other Christians Not-Christian, I discussed the phenomena of Christians deciding that other Christians weren't "real" Christians based on doctrinal disagreements. In this week's installment I'll look at how Christians behaving badly are dismissed by other Christians as "Not True Christians".

The classic example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, from whence it derives its name, is this: McBeth claims that a Scotsman will invariably eat haggis regularly. McDuff replies that he's a Scotsman and he never eats haggis. McBeth retorts "Well then, you're not a true Scotsman". The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a species of circular reasoning where the premise is redefined to exclude any inconvenient deviations and contradictions. This is a pretty common fallacy employed by Christians who by and large adhere to the "love thy neighbor" ethos against coreligionists who don't. When someone points out the horrible behavior of a group of Christians, you can be sure that someone will claim that "they're not really Christians because true Christians wouldn't act like that". 

Of course, Love Thy Neighbor Christians will argue that they're not the ones deciding who are true Christians and who aren't, God has set the standards in The Bible. The trouble with that, as I have pointed out many times in this series, is that the Bible isn't clear or unambiguous in what it has to say. In addition, "Christian" is as much a cultural identifier as a set of religious doctrines and behaviors. Anyone who says they're a Christian is a Christian. One might argue whether a particular Christian is living up to some perceived Biblical standard, but that doesn't make them Not A Christian, any more than abstaining from haggis makes an Edinburgh native whose roots go back many generations Not A True Scotsman.  

This doesn't mean that the Love Thy Neighbor Christians don't have a good reason to be embarrassed by the antics of their bigoted, hateful brethren. Like a family of cops who have that one sibling who just got out of prison, they think they're making them look bad. Guilt by association. But these hypothetical cops don't claim that their ex-con brother isn't their brother. But Christians are trying to boost their godliness average by eliminating their more embarrassing brethren from the statistics. 

This is by no means a Christians-only phenomena. Fundamentalist Muslims who require their women to wear a hijab look down on the Muslims who don't as not true Muslims and the burqa-wearing sects are sure the rest of the Muslim world are just as damned as Christians and Jews, maybe more so. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are pretty judgmental about their Conservative and Reform branches - some don't recognize weddings officiated by non-Orthodox rabbis. Heck, I've even encountered this tendency among pagans! But since Christians are the power wielding majority in this country, this is whom I'm focusing on. 

The truth is, that between Fundamentalist Evangelicals, Conservative Traditional Catholics, Mega Church Pastors and the like, cultural Christians who identify as right wing conservatives and espouse beliefs largely divorced from the Love Thy Neighbor morality are likely the majority of self-identified Christians in the United States. You can't just pretend they're not the face of 21st Century Christianity. 

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XVIII - Christians Calling Other Christians Not-Christian

Growing up I didn't think too much about other Christians and what they believed, or whether they were "real" Christians. I was raised in the Catholic Church, which definitely teaches that it's the "One True Church", but it wasn't something that came up in everyday conversation. In my teens I became aware of the Protestant Churches in my neighborhood and attended their services out of curiosity. This disturbed my parents, but I didn't detect anything very different. It wasn't until I got involved in The Way that I was exposed to the idea that some Christians didn't think some other Christians were...Christians.

I'm not talking about one Christian judging another Christian's behavior as unchristian, but a characterization of another Christian denomination as being fundamentally outside what the Bible would define as Christian. I've written much about The Way's cultishness, but their attitudes about how one would define a "true" Christian was right in line with conservative Protestant thinking. The thinking that fueled the engine of the European religious wars of the 1600 and 1700's had definitely not gone away. Catholics viewed Protestants as deluded schismatics and Protestants viewed Catholics as Mary worshipping papists. In the nineties my ex-wife and I were home schooling our children and purchased some textbooks from a Christian book publisher. I clearly remember the description in a history textbook of Catholics as a "false religion". 

I mostly hear these accusations of Christians not being real Christians mostly in a political context. Supporters of both major presidential candidates are sure that no Christian could truly support the other candidate. Abortion is a major theme in this flinging of heretical epithets, but even something as ordinary as clapping back at hecklers becomes "evidence" that a candidate hates Christians. In the political realm it's not so much suspect doctrine that gets one viewed as outside the pale, but the assumption that God is without a doubt on one side. 

This is not something new. The New Testament Epistles are full of references to "false teachers" who are accused of leading people astray and even being diabolic influences. Who are these allegedly false teachers? They weren't pagan priests or Jewish rabbis, they were other Christian leaders! Of course, since history is written by the victors, we don't see what the non-Christian Christians of the First Century had to say, but you can bet that they were writing the same things about the eventual authors of the epistles that the epistle writers were saying about them. Even past the era when what we now know as The Bible was written there was a constant battle among different factions of Christians to decide what the truth was. There was a constantly evolving opinion about various topics about which the Bible was unclear. Why? Because the Bible was unclear.

And other than politicians disingenuously promoting themselves as the only Christian alternative, the reason that regular Christians can confidently conclude that what they believe is the truth while other people are deluded fools or shills for Satan is that the Bible is (1) Unclear (2) Internally contradictory and (3) Not a concise doctrinal statement. The Bible is not a manifesto laying out a clear statement of beliefs and clarifying all manner of moral and practical conundrums, it is a loose collection of biographies (which contradict each other) and letters addressing behavioral problems in specific places. 

In order to make sense out of it a Christian is required to cherry pick, ignore the contradictions and parts that they don't like and interpret the ambiguous sections in a way that props up their own morality. Then decide that any other view is not just wrong, but inspired by The Devil. 

Rings of Power

I'm a Tolkien geek. I'm so deep into Middle-Earth minutia that I can tell you the names of the horses of the Rohirrim that Legolas and Aragorn borrowed. I just finished Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power - there's a lot that I liked and some things that I didn't. 

The following is written mostly for those who have watched the first two seasons, whether or not they were familiar with the source material.

One of things that I recognized early in Season 1 was that the timeline is off. Let me take a moment to give a broad out line of the Tolkien timeline, working somewhat backwards:

• Third Age: this is the time period in which the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) and The Hobbit take place. It lasted around 3,000 years. The main events of LOTR take place in the final 2 years of this period; the opening chapter around 17 years previous and The Hobbit around 60 years before that. 
• Second Age: this time period ends just as the Third Age begins. It lasted around 3,400 years. The events of Rings of Power (ROP) take place during this time period. 
• First Age: ends when the Second Age begins - different interpretations on how long it lasted. It's final 500 years consisted of a struggle by the Noldor, one of three main divisions of the Elves, to recover three magic gems stolen by Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. It ends when Eärendil, the son of a human father and Elven mother, sails to Valinor, the home of the Valar (pantheon of gods) to ask for their intervention. The Valar fight the "War of Wrath" defeating Morgoth. 

Second Age outline:

• Begins as Middle-Earth recovers from "The War of Wrath" 
• The Valar allow the Noldor, who had rebelled against the Valar to fight against Morgoth, to return to return to Valinor, the Undying Lands. 
• The Valar give the Men who fought against Morgoth the island of Númenor, halfway between Middle-Earth and the Undying lands, which becomes the pinnacle of human civilization
• Other than a few Elven enclaves, the Men of Middle-Earth were effectively abandoned
• Sauron, Morgoth's chief lieutenant, survived the War of Wrath and declined the opportunity to be rehabilitated, building a power base among Orcs and otherwise leaderless Men. 

In Tolkien's books, Galadriel had four brothers, various cousins and uncles, all who were killed in the war against Morgoth. She and Gil-Galad are the only surviving members of the ruling family of the Noldor. They, along with many other Elves choose to remain in Middle-Earth

Gil-Galad, High King of the Elves along with the King of Númenor start to suspect that Sauron survived and was building his power base around 750 of the Second Age (SA 750) . As Annatar, he approaches Celebrimbor around year SA 1200, but the first 16 rings of power are not completed until 300 years have passed. Another 90 years elapse before Celebrimbor forges the 3 Elven rings. In ROP this seems to take place over several months. In ROP Pharazôn’s usurpation of the kingship of Númenor takes place contemporaneously with the creation of the rings, when in the books, Pharazôn, Elendil, Miriel, Isildur etc. all live during the final 3 centuries of the Second Age - 1700 years later! Regarding the Dwarves, the release of the imprisoned Balrog doesn't happen until 1980 of the Third Age (TA 1980) under Durin VI. Obviously you have to modify and compress the timeline in order to tell the story, since important events are separated by centuries, or even millennia. 

Overall though, I liked how the story progressed and portrayed the spirit of the Tolkien canon even though it changed up many of the details. Characters like Arondir and Theo are additions that fill in the gaps, obviously there must have been Elves who weren't kings and queens and Men who weren't great warriors. Adar, however was a major character in the first two seasons who moves the story along in significant ways, despite there being no mention of him in the books. He does present a way to insert an origin story for Orcs into the series in a believable, if not canonical, way. 

The crafting of the rings themselves was presented backwards from how they were forged in the books. Tolkien wrote that sixteen rings of power were made with Annatar/Sauron's help first, then later the three were created by Celebrimbor alone, that eventually went to the Elves. Sauron, after forging the One master ring, attacks Eregion and takes the sixteen and distributes them to Dwarves and Men. (No Adar, and the destruction of Eregion is after the One Ring is made) 

What made the rings magical was presented differently. Tolkien is vague when it comes to how magic works in Middle-Earth. It's fuzzily presented as something like an extra "something" in the creative process that Elves bring to the table. ("Angelic" spirits like Sauron and Gandalf too). The mechanics of how the rings influence or enslave people, and how the One Ring controls them, is never fully explored in Tolkien's works. The Seven and the Nine are not described as different in themselves, but have different effects based on who is wearing them. The Dwarves' rings effect them differently than Men's rings because Men and Dwarves are different, not because the rings are. Mithril in the books has no magical qualities and is simply the perfect metal.

ROP presents mithril as having a miraculous power to "preserve". It magically prevents the "fading" of the Elves so that they don't have to leave Middle-Earth for the Undying Lands of the Valar. This is why in ROP mithril is a critical ingredient in the rings. The Three, the Seven, and the Nine are all shown as being intrinsically different in their composition in order to explain the different effects, with the Nine Rings for Men even containing some of Sauron's blood. Initially I thought making mithril magical was pretty dumb, but to make the story coherent to television viewers, especially those unfamiliar with the source material,  there needed to be some kind of explanation to why they worked, and why they were different from each other. In the books the Three do have a power of preservation, and we see that in how Lothlorien and Rivendell are like the lands that time forgot, but it's not due to the inclusion of mithril, but an unspecified magical component. 

I thought that the portrayal of Sauron as a gaslighting, manipulating, deceiver, who nonetheless appeared as the charming Annatar, was brilliant. He seduced Celebrimbor, the people of Eregion, and eventually even the Orcs. But he seamlessly employed betrayal and cruelty when he thought it justified his goals. Celebrimbor's guards killing each other with just his thought showed his power was more than just talk. It's not evident in LOTR, but in one of Tolkien's letters he describes Sauron's motivations as a desire for order that was corrupted into a belief that he alone could bring that order and that the ends justified the means. 

The Númenor arc was disappointing. There is no rationale given for the political intrigue other than...political intrigue. There is little reference to what Númenor was, how and why it was established, or the reason for the antipathy towards Elves: generations of building jealousy of Elves' immortality and the fear of death. The Kings of Númenor (Westernesse) are all descended from Elros, Elrond's twin brother. (After their father Eärendil successfully sought the help of the Valar at the end of the First Age, the half-Elven were given a choice to live as Men or as Elves. Elros chose mortality as a king of Men, Elrond chose to live as an Elf.) The power struggle in Westernesse might as well be any succession crisis in late Middle Ages Europe the way it's scripted. And let's not forget that ridiculous trial by sea monster that supposedly vindicated Miriel and Elendil, but was apparently forgotten by the next episode. The added characters - Elendil's daughter and Pharazôn’s slimy son add nothing to the story.

And as happy as I was to see Tom Bombadil, did we really need to wait so long to find out that the Stranger was Gandalf? We followed him for two whole seasons and he didn't do anything. I guess all of Season 3 we'll be treated to hints on who the so-called Dark Wizard is. Not Radagast, that's for sure. He came right out and said that he was one of the five Istari, i.e. Wizards, so he could be Saruman, or he could be one of the Blue Wizards that we know very little of. Speaking of the Stranger, who we now know is Gandalf, the Harfoot (and now Stoor) episodes I could have done without, but they are trying to cram in as many origin stories as they can. 

I do enjoy the regular throwaway lines that Tolkien fans will get, but that those unfamiliar with the source materials will miss: the chants of Baruk Khazâd in Khazâd-Dum; the Dark Wizard mentioning Manwë; Elendil (finally) mentioning that he has a son named Anarion; references to Fëanor and the Silmarils; mentions of Tuor and Beren; Disa's mention of the Dimrill Dale and Zirakzigal (and Disa's name is similar to Dis, sister to Thorin and the only named female Dwarf in all of Tolkien's writings); the Doors of Durin crafted by Narvi & Celebrimbor; Pharazôn lamenting not being able to see Eressëa in the distance; the Palantir; Miriel giving Elendil Narsil, the sword that ultimately is used to cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand and is reforged as Aragorn's sword Anduril; the Stoors reference to a mythical home as Sūzat (the word that is translated "The Shire" in the appendices); Adar's mention of Melian...and some I may have missed...geek paradise!

I liked Season 2 much more than Season 1, and the ending was at the same time catastrophic and hopeful. The Elves, while defeated in battle, find refuge in what is surely the future site of Rivendell; the Stoors, accompanied by the two Harfoots are one step closer to founding The Shire (although that timeline will have to be off as well, since The Shire was founded in 1401 of the Third Age...and we still need to meet the Fallohides! 

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XVII - Christianity as a Cultural Identity

With the recent focus on the (White) Christian Nationalist Movement and its connection to right wing politics, one could be forgiven for thinking that this was a recent development. Christians completely ignoring the Gospel message in favor of an us vs. them mindset? We need to get back to Christians acting Christian...right? Not so fast. 

In our own lifetimes, and even going back to the days of Constantine the Great, people have always identified as Christians without having even a passing familiarity with The Bible. 

There's little objective information about Christianity in its first hundred years, but by the time Christianity became a recognized religion and later the official religion, it's evident that people were Christians because that's what everyone else in their culture was. Christian identity was inseparable from Roman identity. This tendency became more pronounced as the Arab Caliphate became a threat to the Empire's existence, since the Arabs very strongly identified as Muslims. Even within Christendom, the Western Europeans identified as Catholics and the Byzantines identified as Orthodox, both as intrinsic parts of who they were. 

Christianity splintered in the 1500's with the Protestant Reformation as different varieties of Christianity multiplied. But for the most part, individuals' religion was determined by their rulers and there were Catholic nations, Lutheran nations, Calvinist nations all warring among themselves for various reasons. As time went by there was more choice among various denominations, but for the most part the umbrella identity of "Christian" persisted. I'm not suggesting there weren't sincere Christians throughout all of these eras, or that no one studied the text of the Bible or lived lives according the teachings of Jesus, but that being a Christian wasn't something that you decided to become, but something that you were.

People my age remember that one of the bloodiest religious conflicts of our lives was not in Israel or the Middle East, and didn't involve radical Muslims, but was the Catholic-Protestant "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. For many reasons economic and political divisions also broke along religious lines. The poorer Northern Irish, who also favored union with the Republic of Ireland in the south tended to be Catholic while those who wanted to remain part of the U.K. and were of higher economic status, were usually Protestant. There's a lot of reasons for why this split developed, but people didn't spend a lot of time thinking about which version of Christianity they followed, it was just who they were. 

Even in my own youth, my neighborhood was made up of mostly Catholics, children or grandchildren of immigrants from Catholic countries. There wasn't violence or strife between Catholics and the few Protestants, but it was unthinkable that one would convert from one to another. Being catholic was what you were. My own generation was a bit more fluid. The so-called Jesus Movement was making inroads, and young people were more willing than previous generations to explore other traditions or join new religious groups. When I decided to ditch Catholicism and join The Way, (which was, as far as they knew, Christian) my parents' reaction was similar to how I imagine it would have been if I had announced that I had embraced Satanism. Milder, but still disapproving, were their reactions when my brother married an Episcopalian or when my niece was married in a non-church ceremony. In all of these cases, most people, no matter what denomination they identified as, would be hard pressed to articulate how their religion was substantially different that the other guys' faith. 

My point in bringing up these examples, is that identifying as Christian without any connection to actual Christian theology or principles is nothing new - it has a long history. Today's White Christian Nationalists are part of a long history of weaponizing religion and using it to "other" those they don't like. They have allies in Congress and in the courts. The Supreme Court majority has deferred to Christians in First Amendment cases and their doctrine of shaping opinions based on whether similar laws existed historically should scare anyone who believes that government should be neutral with respect to religion. 

So, You Want to Be a Manager While in a Cult

One of the hallmarks of cult involvement is obedience to authority. If you're a cult member you're expected to obey, no matter what, and if you're a cult leader you expect unquestioning obedience all the time. Deviation from this standard is seen as no less than sin. How does this translate into the non-cult world? As it happens I was first attempting to climb the management ladder while still involved in a cult.

I was 19 when I first became involved with The Way International, and in my early twenties when I first became a manager. Add to the mix having grown up in New York City, where being direct is valued more than being "nice", contrasting me with the people I was managing. 

The structure of The Way International was a multi-level hierarchy with leaders at the top and the ordinary believers at the bottom. In the United States where most members lived each local fellowship was overseen by a coordinator. Each state had its own coordinator, possibly with intermediate levels of leaders between the local group and the state leader. The state leaders answered to a regional leader who reported to headquarters. Many leaders were graduates of The Way's leadership training program, the Way Corps, in which the expectations of unquestioning obedience to leadership was much greater than with the rank and file. The framework where leadership was never questioned was based on the belief that leadership was basing their decisions on godly inspiration, or even direct revelation from God. It was stated clearly that you couldn't be wrong if you were carrying out the instructions of your leader...even if it later turned out that they were wrong. This meant that you couldn't ever question what leadership was telling you because obedience was more important than being right and you were somehow "protected" from any consequences of bad leadership simply because you were a good little follower. This was so effectively hammered into people's heads that it seemed that it was the only right way to lead.

The Way underwent a "civil war" during the late 80's after the death of its founder. His replacement had to deal with dissension amongst upper leadership and when the dust settled the organization had splintered leaving a stub of its former membership and leadership. This caused the new Way president to conclude that any questioning had to be the result of demonic possession. After all, he was the anointed (he was literally anointed by his predecessor in an installment ceremony) as the leader of God's people and any dissension had to be rebellion against God. He adopted a "yelling" style of addressing the membership and became even more insistent on unquestioning obedience. While not universal, his style soon became the norm among subordinate leadership and his harsh methods of communication became the standard and influenced any Way men and women interested in becoming leaders. 

It also influenced me. 

I didn't finish college. I didn't have any technical or vocational skills. In order for me to make a living wage at any job that I had, management was the only realistic path to make more money. Eventually I became good at it, but I first had to unlearn my cult's attitude toward management. 

Of course in the real, non-cult, world, you can't claim divine favor in order to get people to listen to you. Nonetheless, I had internalized the idea that my job title entitled me to lord it over people. Even in the non-cult world this is not uncommon. There are several sources of management power: 

1. Legitimate Power: The ability to influence other due to one's position, office or formal authority
2. Reward Power: The ability to influence others by giving or withholding rewards such as pay, promotions, time off, etc.
3. Coercive Power: The ability to influence others through punishment
4. Expert Power: The ability to influence others through special knowledge or skills
5. Referent Power: Power that comes from personal characteristics that people value, respect or admire

Many managers, especially inexperienced ones, lead with a combination of numbers 1-3, while effective managers lead from number 4 or number 5. As a new, inexperienced manager I not only harbored the misconceptions about leadership that most rookie managers entertain, but I had the additional burden of years of examples of poor leadership from cult leaders - including the way that information was conveyed - by yelling. Even after I left The Way, the ingrained habits that I had developed didn't disappear. I gained a reputation for being rough on people and stalled in my advancement in the company. It didn't help that my immediate supervisor was a "nice guy" (not necessarily an effective manager - just very likable!) and the contrast between us made me look even worse. Not to mention my very East Coast personality! 

As time went by the template of dictatorial leadership started to fade. What really changed my outlook about leadership was a change in my immediate supervisor. The new boss was most assuredly not the same as the old boss! Not a "nice guy" at all. He was convinced that he needed to restore order to a lax work force after the benign leadership of his predecessor. He wasn't all wrong in his assumptions, but he came down hard on the managers and employees. We also got a new Human Resources Coordinator, a former school principal who was every bit as tough as our new boss. The change in circumstance - observing the affect the new guy had on morale, allowed me to see just how toxic my own approach had been. I spent a lot of my time talking people out of quitting in response to the manager's style and the rest talking my boss out of firing good people. Within a short period of time I became the "good cop". 

In response to seeing someone else as the "bad cop", I began to reevaluate my own approach, putting my Way-influenced management style behind me, revisiting the management lessons I learned from "Managing Management Time". By the time I was transferred to another location a few years later I had completely rehabilitated my reputation among the managers and employees. Unfortunately corporate management still saw the "old me" and it was a long time before I saw a promotion. 

Cult involvement can be all-encompassing. It can affect everything you do. Even when you get out, it can take a while to flush the toxins out of your mental and spiritual system. What had been impressed upon me as godly leadership poisoned the career path that I had taken. 

It could have been worse - I eventually changed course. 

Your Favorite Band Sucks

Taste in music is subjective. Of course we all believe that the music that we like is good music and what we don't like is bad, it comes down to a matter of opinion. For most people, the music which they listened to in their high school years tends to define their musical tastes. Every generation thinks that their music is great while what came after is crap. Even within that window, the musical tastes of those around you influenced what you listened to. Kids in the same high school would be listening to different bands depending on what clique they were part of.  Attempts by others to introduce most people to different artists is usually ignored. Loyalty to specific bands often transcends enjoyment of the genre. 

A phenomenon that I have observed many times: two people are having a discussion about music. Person "A" mentions a couple of bands that they like. Person "B" recommends a band that they feel is similar to Person "B"'s tastes. Person "A" nods politely and never investigates Person "B"'s recommendation. I see this a lot with intergenerational musical conversations. Younger generation person forms an opinion about the older generation's music, sight unseen (or maybe it's hearing unheard?) even though if the exact same music came from a younger artist they'd love it. It goes the other way too - Boomers or Gen X who are convinced that anything that came after their generation's music is garbage - by definition! I'm convinced that this is true of every generation and will continue to be true. I have a vivid memory of my grandmother griping about my father's "crazy music" that he listened to as a teenager (it was Dixieland Jazz) and of course my own dad expressing his negative opinions about what I listened to. 

I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to a variety of musical styles over the years. Until my junior year of high school I mostly listened to Top 40 AM radio, but then I started hanging around with a group of guys that included some garage band musicians. Black Sabbath, Yes, Rush, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP are bands I started listening to then and still enjoy. I worked with a guy who was into Southern rock and started listening to The Allman Brothers, and The Outlaws. At another job I worked with a guitarist in a jazz fusion band who introduced me to Weather Report, Return to Forever and Mahavishnu Orchestra. When I moved to Lincoln I stumbled across a jazz fusion show on KZUM radio one morning while trimming lettuce and became familiar with other forms of jazz, as well as blues and folk music. I was a deejay/programmer throughout the late 80's and early 90's and played jazz fusion, blues and even surf guitar on various shows that I hosted. Streaming services, while arguably unfair to musicians, offer a window into a wide panorama of musical styles. I've found many "favorite" artists just by listening to a random playlist.

Does this mean I'm immune to the tribalism inherent in most people's musical tastes? No, I'm as bad as anyone else. There are genres I don't seek out - mainstream country, most hip-hop, show tunes, Yoko Ono. I'm a bit of a musical snob in that I enjoy listening to those bands that "no one has ever heard of", and shy away from the popular, arena-filling bands of any genre. I love the Blues, but don't seek out the bluesmen who sound like every other bluesman. I still like the hard rock of the 70's, but can't see myself going to see one of the old guard bands that has no connection to the band that I listened to in my youth other than the name. 

Fortunately there's enough music out there for everyone, and enough variety in styles. 

Even if your favorite bands sucks.

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XVI - Agreeing to Disagree...Or Not

One of the problems in looking to the Bible as a rulebook on how to live life is that it's not arranged in any easy-to-access order. There's no index, it's not arranged by subject matter and there seems to be a lot of areas that simply aren't covered. The true believers will tell you that's because it's not supposed to be accessible to the disbelievers, but that if you have the Holy Spirit within you, understanding will flow naturally.

How convenient. 

Of course, I'm one of those disbelievers, and this series is about how I, an agnostic, look at the Bible. I don't believe that it was dictated, or even inspired, by God, or any other permutation of the idea that it's "The Truth". I'm just looking at it like I'd look at any other piece of literature. Viewed in that light, it's confusing. 

One of the sources of confusion is the dichotomy between the "Old Testament", aka The Hebrew or Jewish scriptures and the "New Testament", aka the Gospels and the Epistles. The Old Testament is without question written for Jews. The New Testament is more universal in who it's intended for. The Old Testament describes God in starkly different terms than does most of the New Testament. Most Christians ignore this difference, pretend that it's not there. Although there is a subset of Christian theology called dispensationalism which explains the difference by theorizing that God has different "dispensations", or administrations, where the rules of the game change. It's obvious that the institution of the Law of Moses changed the ground rules that existed before, and that Jesus' life, death and resurrection represented a further change. The Book of Revelation is without question a different milieu than the world as we know it, ending with a still different new Heaven and Earth. Dispensationalists can be thanked (or blamed) for the popular belief in "the rapture". An early Christian movement, founded by Marcion, believed that the differences were so great that the Old Testament God was a different God than the God of Jesus. So it comes down to either explaining away the differences in a pretzel-like manner, or just not thinking about them. 

The biggest dichotomy in the New Testament is between the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul. Jesus was primarily concerned with action, while Paul was mainly concerned with belief. Even though each of the four Gospels has a different emphasis, and even contradict each other, Jesus isn't telling people to simply believe, he's always talking about how one should behave oneself. Paul on the other hand, while he does touch on a few things to do and not do, it's all in the head - it's believing in Jesus, believing that he was raised from the dead and so on. 

The epistles of Paul are not an instruction manual on how to be a Christian, they're mostly in the form of letters addressing specific problems that various church communities were having. There's not a lot of internal inconsistency within the Pauline letters, but there's no definitive listing of doctrine and practice. The Catholic/Orthodox traditions tell their people to not worry about it, the leaders will tell you how to act and think. The Protestant traditions do that too, while maintaining the illusion that their people can see what the Bible teaches for themselves...as long as it agrees with what the leaders say it means. For any doctrinal position it's typical to jump from section to section and book to book putting together a supposedly coherent position, because you won't find it clearly delineated in any one place. 

What about the Ten Commandments? Isn't that a list telling us how to act? Yes and no. Yes, in that it's a list in the Bible. No - for several reasons. If we're taking the dispensationalist position that the Old Testament was for the Jews and not written to The Church, why would we pay it any attention? If we are supposed to heed the "Ten Commandments", why not the other hundreds of commandments? Like the ones involving dietary and grooming rules. Or the ones that allow slavery or that a woman marry her rapist. Quite a quandary. But what most people do not realize that no matter what position you take, there are two contradictory versions of the Ten Commandments (or Ten Words) in the Book of Exodus:

https://contradictionsinthebible.com/2-ten-commandments/

Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17)
1. I am Yahweh your god; you shall not have other gods before my face!

2. You shall not make for yourself a statue or an image.

3. You shall not swear falsely by the name Yahweh, your god

4. Remember the Sabbath day.

5. Honor your father and your mother.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet you neighbor’s house.

 

Ten Commandments (Ex 34:14-26)
1. You shall not bow down to another god; for Yahweh is a jealous god!

2. You shall not make molten gods for yourself.

3. You shall observe the festival of Unleavened bread.

4. You shall redeem every first born of your sons!

5. You shall observe the Sabbath.

6. You shall make a festival of Weeks.

7. Three times a year every male shall appear before Yahweh, god of Israel.

8. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice on leavened bread.

9. You shall bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh your god.

10. You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.

So, which version do you want to follow? Or post in your classrooms? 

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XV (What Difference Does It Make If it's True Or Not?)

If Jesus didn't really exist, would it make a difference? It depends on who you ask.

Some might say that as long as you follow what most of us think of as Jesus' teachings, it wouldn't matter at all. As long as you're on track with loving God and your neighbor, feeding the poor, treating others as you want to be treated, you're good to go (to heaven that is). Those in the 'doesn't matter" camp maintain that it's his teachings that are important, and that those teachings are just as important if they were put together by fiction writers than if the Biblical Jesus was an historical person who is accurately portrayed in the Gospels. 

Other, more literal-minded Christians hold the opposite view: that if Jesus, as presented to us in the Bible, didn't exist, then there is no point to life...and they certainly aren't "saved". To them, Jesus wasn't just some guy who spouted self-help advice, but The Son of God who "died for us". Without getting into the nuances of what specifically the death and resurrection of Jesus meant to the writers of the Bible (and it's not precisely the same from one author to the next) suffice it say that his death and subsequent not being dead accomplished something that wouldn't have been accomplished just by preaching sermons on the mount or multiplying bread and fish or walking in water. Or so many Christians believe. Not that most of them could actually explain it. 

There's a metaphysical aspect to Jesus in the minds of the true believers that goes beyond what he is reported to have preached about in his alleged time on earth. By believing in him you get a free trip to heaven when you die. Although there's disagreement about just what "believing in him" involved: "confessing that God raised him from the dead" or "accepting him as Lord" are two that I have heard. In short, for a lot of people it matters very much whether Jesus existed - it's literally a matter of life and death. 

As someone who now views Christianity, Judaism and the Bible from the outside it just doesn't matter to me - it's nothing more than an intellectual exercise to speculate upon the likelihood that there was an historical person upon whom the Biblical Jesus was based. Some of what he taught was definitely words to live by. Yes, just some. Jesus, as presented to us in the Gospels, was very much a believer that the world was ending in the short term. As such, he was very much concerned with people as individuals  getting their acts together so that they would be worthy to enter the soon-to-be-established Kingdom of God. He was not concerned at all with family ties - he even told his potential followers that they had to reject (many versions use the word "hate") their parents and family to be his disciples. Not to mention his admonitions to followers to jettison all worldly riches. What do you need a bank account for if the world is about to end? 

There are good arguments on both sides of the "did Jesus exist?" argument. There are some, also on both sides that I reject:

Con:

• The Romans kept scrupulous records of all legal proceedings and there is no record of Jesus' trial and execution
• This is a myth. The Romans in some jurisdictions, like Egypt, kept voluminous records, which still exist because the papyrus was preserved in a dry environment, but there is a lack of evidence for similar records in Roman Judea. There's no Roman records of Jesus' trial because there were no records of anyone's trials
• There are no contemporary references to Jesus. Even the first Gospel wasn't written until at least 40 years after his purported death.  
• Very few historical records from Classical times were contemporary. Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars is a notable exception. There are dozens of Roman emperors for whom we have no reference to them in their lifetimes. For some, we're not entirely sure if anything that was written about them is true. Lack of references in or right after his life are perfectly normal for that time period.
• The qualities ascribed to Jesus mirror the lives and missions of many other gods and saviors in the Mediterranean and Levant, including Osiris and Mithra.
• It would take too long to quote and debunk all of these comparisons, which crop up around Easter and Christmas each year, but in general they make false comparisons and misrepresent the stories around some of the other pagan deities. 
• Debunking aspects of the Bible don't necessarily eliminate the possibility that a "Jesus" lived and preached and was executed in Judea around the beginning of the common era and that myths and legends attached themselves to him

Pro

• "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" is more an argument in support of the objective truth of what Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels rather than a strict argument in favor of his existence. It also ignores the alternative, that he was simply mistaken.
• Would the Apostles have risked everything, even their lives, for a myth? 
• To be persuaded by this argument you have to assume that everything written about the Twelve Apostles in the Acts of The Apostles was true. Acts, like the Gospels, was written to tell a certain story and is no more verifiable than are the Gospels. The existence of the specific twelve men known as The Apostles is as difficult to verify as the existence of Jesus himself. The names, even, are inconsistent from one Gospel to the next.
• Even assuming that the apostles and other, later, followers of Jesus risked martyrdom, this is a weak argument for the historiography of Jesus. There are many, many examples of people going to theirs deaths for beliefs that were demonstrably false. I'm sure Christians would consider Islam false, yet there's no shortage of Muslims who have died for it over the centuries.
• References in Josephus, Tacitus and others.
• None of these were eyewitness accounts. Most are referring to Christians, not Christ.

I lean toward the opinion that there was someone upon whom the Jesus of the Gospels was based. He had a loyal cadre of followers who became convinced, for whatever reason, that he was resurrected after being crucified. Stories circulated and were passed by word of mouth and grew in the telling. Different factions had their own ideas about what he taught and what his life and death meant. Eventually people started writing down these stories, some of which have survived to modern times, four of them incorporated into The Bible. These biographies are historical documents and hold as much weight as any other historical document from that age - in other words we consider the source, consider biases and take it all with a grain of salt. I find it unlikely that these myths and legends were created and only later did his followers insist that he was a real person - I find it much more likely that the myths and legends were pasted onto to the fairly unremarkable life of a real person. 

The existence of the "Apostle" Paul confuses things a bit. By his own admission he never met Jesus. Everything he claims to know about Jesus and God's purpose for Jesus and how Christians should conduct themselves was received in visions. If you didn't know how the story eventually turned out you might suppose that Paul was a faker who attempted to hijack the nascent Christian movement and mold it according to his own views. And many thought just that! In many ways Paul, whose mission was to non-Jews, taught a Christianity that was very different than what was being taught by Jesus' original followers. According to Paul's own letters the original apostles were teaching that converting to Judaism was a prerequisite to becoming a Christian, which Paul vehemently opposed. He claimed that it was God's will that pagan converts not be required to conform to Jewish law. 

There is an argument to be made that Paul created the story of Jesus out of thin air - why else would The Twelve had allowed him to become as influential as he did with resisting him? The argument assumes that neither Jesus nor The Twelve existed. I find this argument unpersuasive. Paul refers in his own writings to Peter/Cephas and to James, Jesus' brother as well as to "The Twelve". (Was "The Twelve" a generic reference to a ruling body? Was it literally twelve guys named in the Gospels? I don't know) So they presumably existed. I don't find it plausible that they created the Jesus character, or that Paul created them just to give himself an antagonist. No, I view Paul as someone who always thought he was the smartest person in the room. I'll assume for the sake of discussion that he had some kind of vision and ran with it. So, if their were original followers of Jesus still around, how did he get away with it?

It is an undisputed fact of history that there were multiple varieties of Christianity a generation or two after Jesus' time. We have Paul's testimony in his letters that already 20 years after the crucifixion there were multiple factions. Is it unbelievable that Paul's faction, based as it was on converting the more numerous Gentiles, would outcompete the groups that maintained adherence to Jewish practices, including circumcision and complex dietary laws?  The fact that he never met Jesus and converted before ever meeting a real follower of Jesus (except to persecute them, by his own admission) apparently was no bar to his version of Christianity becoming the seed around which the dominant Catholic/Orthodox churches grew. 

In one of Paul's letters he makes the point that if Jesus didn't really live and die and rise from the dead, then our faith would be in vain. So he at least believed Jesus really existed! A counter argument can be made that Paul, in his epistles, makes no mention of any details of Jesus' life that we later read about in the Gospels (Gospels first appear around 70 CE, Paul began writing around 50 CE) and for that reason was making it all up. Of course, Paul didn't live in Judea or Galilee, but in what we call Asia Minor, modern Turkey. It's not inconceivable that while he was familiar with Christians prior to his conversion, he wasn't in a circle where the oral stories were circulating, or just didn't think the biographical details were all that important compared to the fact of the redemptive nature of his death and resurrection. 

At any rate, there are good arguments pro and con and bad arguments pro and con for the existence of Jesus, or at least someone upon whom the Biblical Jesus was based. However, I long ago found the reasons for going beyond that and accepting the supernatural, spiritual, aspects of the Bible to be unpersuasive. 

An Agnostic's Look at Another "Sacred Scripture"

Taking a detour from my exposition on my view of The Bible to take a look at a devout Muslim's favorite book, the Quran. Not so much the theology of the Quran, but whether anything about it, or the life of Muhammed can be considered historical. I know considerably less about Muhammed and the Quran than I do about Christianity and The Bible, so this post will be considerably shorter than my normal exposition.

Most people, probably even a lot of Muslims, believe that Muhammed wrote the Quran, whatever they believe about the "truth" it. Even those who know that Muhammed was illiterate believe that he at least dictated it. They assume that this gives it a reliability that the Gospels, written a generation after Jesus lived, don't have. But this reflects a misunderstanding of how the Quran came to be written. None of the Quran was written during Muhammed's lifetime. His various followers would repeat what they remembered about his preaching, different people would be supposedly entrusted with different sections. I think you could see where this could be a problem. How do you guarantee that Muhammed's word are remembered correctly. Short answer? You can't. 

After his death his successors as leaders realized that, with some of the original adherents dying off, mainly due to the continual wars they were waging, they needed to have things written down. At that time "the Quran" was a scattering of remembrances by followers and scribblings on palm leaves and stones. So the caliph ordered that all the various written scraps be gathered together, and authorized a committee to sift through them as well as the many oral accounts to put together a definitive version. They were tasked with "monitoring the text" and resolving discrepancies - when they were done the caliph ordered that all other versions, personal copies etc. be destroyed. In that sense they were a step or two ahead of the Christians. The Muslims had a central authority who could require such a move, and they were smart enough to have competing versions destroyed. They did not have to deal with the multiplicity of letters, gospels, epistles, apocalypses and acts of every Tom, Dick and Harry nor the fact that most copying in the early decades was done by untrained copyists, many of whom had their own agenda. Once the authorized version was done, it stayed that way for centuries. 

There is a scholarly consensus, even among non-Muslims, that Muhammed was an historical person, although there are minority theories that he is a mythical figure. There is also broad agreement apart from Islamic scholars that we know almost nothing about him. There is disagreement, even among Muslims, regarding the dates during which he lived. But just as I can believe that there was a real person upon which the Jesus of the Bible was based, there can certainly be a real Muhammed upon who legends and hagiographies accreted. As an agnostic I can surely disbelieve the story that he received the Quran from an angel. 

It has often been said that Islam, and its prophet Muhammed, emerged in the "full light of history", suggesting that the historical basis of Islam is somehow more dependable and concrete than other religions. It is true that many of the actions of the Arab armies are historically attested. There is no doubt that Arab armies first subjugated the various tribes of the Arabian peninsula and soon after, Persia, Syria, Palestine and North Africa. Roman sources confirm that these Arab armies existed. Why have I been putting "Arabs" in italics? While there is no doubt that these were Arabs, there is little to confirm that it was Muslim religious fervor that motivated these armies, at least not initially. Wars were fought almost continually in the seventh century C.E. - there was almost non-stop conflict between the Roman Empire (especially the eastern remnant at Constantinople) and the various Persian Empires. Peripheral nations and tribes took their shot at the big boys and sometimes succeeded. That's how the Western Roman Empire eventually fell - it was defeated by "barbarians" who existed on the borders and were able to capitalize on Rome's weaknesses. The Arabs were another of those peripheral "barbarians", this time to the east. After consolidating their power in Arabia, they were able to pick off the border regions of the Eastern Roman Empire. These were provinces that had often been the battleground for Roman-Persian conflict, and now the Arabs moved in. It's not too difficult to imagine political and economic power being the main impetus and religion being retconned into the narrative as the caliphate started to become stretched thin and more non-Arab peoples became part of it. At any rate, eventually the struggle between Rome and the Caliphate became characterized as Christianity versus Islam. 

In the end, it's neither more nor less a man-made construct than any other religion, despite its claim to an historical basis.

Part XV

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XIV (The Old Testament aka The Hebrew Scriptures)

The Hebrew Bible consists of three major parts: The Law, The Prophets, and the Writings (or Other Writings). There are, of course, unofficial subdivisions - The Major Prophets and Minor Prophets (distinguished not by the importance of their messages, but by the length of their books), the Books of Poetry and the Books of History. Christians consider the Tanakh, which they call the Old Testament, part of one unified revelation. The traditional Jewish position is that the whole of the Tanakh is divinely inspired, yet there is little if any parts of it that contain dialog unambiguously from God. In contrast it's a collection of books about God, prayers to God, praises of God, as well as warning to the people who reject God. Christians, at least conservative, fundamentalist Christians, believe that both the Old and New Testaments are inspired by God and contain no internal contradictions. (For the rest of this post I will be referring to what the Christians call the Old Testament as The Tanakh)

All people have a creation myth and all people have origin or founding legends and the Jewish people are no exception. In general creation myths come about in pre-scientific times and tell a story "explaining" how the world and its people came to be. They don't have to make sense in any kind of logical, let alone scientific, way, but usually contain an underlying moral message. The Biblical creation story can be found in the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis. God creates the world, the sun, the moon and the stars out of nothing. (I personally prefer the Norse creation myth where things are created out of the body parts of gods who themselves somehow sprung from primordial cows.) God then populates the world with animals and plants, and finally, humans. Humans disobey and there are consequences. Generations pass by without incident until God gets fed up and kills off all but one family - more consequences. Again, this is a creation myth, a story like any other story, yet religious absolutists insist on viewing it as fact. 

Following the creation myth, Genesis follows up with the beginning of the "origin of the people" story, starting with Abraham and his immediate family and following up with the escape from slavery in Egypt and the conquest of "The Promised Land". There is no historical evidence that any of it happened or that any of the people in these stories existed. Although it's not at all surprising that an insignificant  pastoral clan would attract anyone's attention. But, like all national origin stories it doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny. At some point someone wrote down what he had heard from oral tradition. Or more than one someone. Biblical scholars have long established that, contrary to being written by Moses, as tradition claimed, the Torah (The Law) showed signs of being written by at least four sources. They were initially called JEPD, for Jehovist (where God is called Yahweh, sometimes mistranslated as Jehovah), Elohist (where God is called Elohim), Priestly (for the laws regarding the priesthood in Leviticus) and Deuteronomist (for the largely separate Book of Deuteronomy - a second stating of The Law). This has led to identification of numerous other subdivisions, with the conclusion being that far from being a unified history of the creation and of the origins of the Jewish people, it is a collection of various versions that a later editor put together. You can see this even in early Genesis where there are two divergent versions of the creation of humans and contradictory accounts of the Flood. 

The national origin accounts continue in the Books of Joshua and Judges (after break to enumerate the various laws, commandments and prohibitions mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) which purport to document how the Twelve Tribes conquered Canaan - again with many contradictions. The Book of Ruth serves as an end to the "Judges", i.e. pre-monarchy, period with the Books of I & II Samuel, I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles (Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are all one book each in the Tanakh, but have been divided in the Greek translation and hence the Christian Bible) presented as a history of the monarchy beginning with Saul, David and Solomon and continuing through the destruction of the Kingdoms and the reign of the Persian Cyrus the Great. There are other books on various topics: Job, on the question of suffering; Esther, the story of a Jewish Queen in the Persian court; the books of "poetry", including Psalms and Proverbs; and finally the prophets - variations on a theme of "get your shit together!". 

As an agnostic I have no reason to believe that these creation myths, national foundation legends, genealogies and tales of divine favor are any more true than the myths and legends of any other culture. It is in the best interests of both fundamentalist Christians and nationalistic Israelis and their allies to view these Biblical stories as true however. For Christians it provides an ancient pedigree to their own  beliefs; for some Israelis it supports their belief that the modern nation of Israel is not merely the creation of the United Nations or a "colonizing entity", but the fulfillment of promises from God to his people. This is the explicit rationale for the Israeli Jewish Settlers who have been moving into the West Bank, ostensibly Palestinian land. 

There is a story in The Bible about the Judean King Josiah who, in II Chronicles was said to have banned the worship of Baal and other gods throughout his kingdom and renovated the Temple. Some workmen supposedly found, hidden in The Temple, "The Book of The Law". There's scholarly disagreement about what this was, but my opinion is that Josiah, or his priests, had created the Torah, which had not previously existed, making a big deal about "finding" it, using it to justify Josiah's reforms. There's a lot of evidence that the religion of the Jewish people was a creation of the late monarchy period and the post-exile leadership among those who retuned to their former land. There's kernel of truth in Biblical accounts, but also much retroactive myth-building. But a major point that most Christians choose to overlook is that the Tanakh was not written for Christians, but for Jews. It was not meant for the Romans, the Greeks, the Hittites or the Americans. The only point of connection is that Jesus, the apocalyptic prophet of the End Times, was Jewish. 

Not all early Christians agreed about what that connection or continuity between Judaism and Christianity was. Some viewed Christianity as just the next step in Jewish religion, others saw a complete break. The prevailing view was that the Tanakh was the Old Testament that had been supplanted by the new. Hints about Jesus the Messiah (i.e. the Christ) could be found throughout the Jewish scriptures, much to the surprise of any Jew.

Bonus Content - The Quran

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XIII (More Alleged Prophecy)

But all those Old Testament prophecies came true! That's the proof!

Let's say I'm going to write about someone I met in 1994. I'm writing in 2003. In my hypothetical biography I "quote" my subject as saying that the World Trade Center towers will each be hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001. Amazing! How did he know that? Let's further speculate that my biography is quoted by several other authors and eventually it becomes "common knowledge" that my subject prophesied the 9-11 attacks seven years before they happened. I'm sure you see the problem. Since I wrote my biography after the allegedly prophesied events it's obvious that I inserted words into my putative prophets mouth based on my own knowledge of events in my own past. 

Or take another scenario. Maybe my subject actually did make a statement that was interpreted as predicting the 9-11 attacks. His prediction was along the lines of: "From the heat of the day the adversary will fly upon the king and humble him, incurring his wrath". Of course "the heat of the day" refers to the Middle Eastern, "desert" origin of the hijackers, the king is obviously the United States and the incurred wrath after being humbled can only refer to the Iraq and Afghan wars...right? Of course not! A statement composed of nonsense is twisted to fit what the listener wants to believe. 

Quite Nostradamusesque. 

Both scenarios roughly describe prophecy fulfillment in The Bible. 

Prophecy in the Gospels is mostly referring to Old Testament prophecies about Jesus that supposedly came true. One prediction that Jesus made about the future was that the Temple would be destroyed. But us it really a prediction when the person who wrote the "prediction" wrote it after the Temple had been destroyed? Even the scattered references that Jesus makes in the Gospels to his own death and resurrection that are very specific as to how long he will be in the grave were written down a generation after the events supposedly happened. Funny how no one focusses on Jesus' prophecy that the world would end and God would initiate the Kingdom of Heaven before the current generation passed away. Which didn't happen. Twenty years later Paul evidently thought the same thing and incrementally adjusted his views on the subject throughout his career. 

Scattered throughout the New Testament are references to things that were done "so that the prophecy might be fulfilled".  As I've stated before, I believe that a person existed upon whom the Gospels is based, "Jesus", and that there is a core of truth to be found in the four Gospel accounts, but that by the time the Gospels were being written myths and legends had arisen around Jesus' life and message. Some of these came about because early Christians were scouring the Old Testament looking for hints that prefigured Jesus' life in the ancient texts. Sometimes they found something that seemed to match a fact of Jesus' life in greater or lesser detail, in other cases "facts" were invented in order to match a given prophecy. Some of them are based on mistranslations or misunderstandings of what the relevant passage was saying. 

One prophecy, from Isaiah, is quoted as saying that the Lord will give a sign, a virgin will give birth and his name will be called Immanuel. There's quite a lot about this passage that debunks the idea that Isaiah was talking about the messiah being born of a virgin or that any of it referred to Jesus. Firstly, the writer of the Gospel of Matthew is quoting from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was available during this time period. (Most Old Testament quotes in the New Testament use the Septuagint wording, rather than the Hebrew) The Greek word in Isaiah is parthenos, which means "virgin", but the original Hebrew word is almah, which could refer to a virgin, but simply means "young woman". The second significant issue with using this verse as a prophecy of Jesus' birth is that it does not indicate anywhere in the text that it is referring to the future messiah, let alone specifically to Jesus. The verse says only that the birth of a child will be a sign. A sign of what? Subsequent verses say that before this child is old enough to differentiate good from evil both kingdoms, Judah and Israel, will be "laid waste". It further indicates who the foreign powers that will do the wasting will be. There's a few possibilities for how this verse came to be associated with Jesus. One is that there was by the time Matthew was written stories circulating that Jesus' literal father was God. By the time Matthew was written the idea that Jesus was the Son of God had well established itself. Christians, maybe even "Matthew" himself, dug up this passage in Isaiah to show how this "virgin birth" was predestined. Or, the Isaiah verse was noticed first, and the whole virgin birth scenario was created in order to make it look as if a prophecy had been fulfilled. At the very least, the alleged event, Jesus' virgin birth, was not prophesied, and at worst was cobbled together based on a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek. Not to mention that he never, in his lifetime, called "Immanuel". 

How about the prophecy that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 mentions that one will go forth from "Bethlehem Ephrathah" and will be a a "ruler in Israel". This one at least has indications that it might be referring to the future messiah. But was Jesus a "ruler in Israel"? Sure, he said (or his biographers said) that he would be, but 2000 years on we're still waiting, aren't we? It's not impossible, or even improbable, that "Matthew" knew about this passage in Micah and created the whole story of Bethlehem, throwing in the census to provide a pretext for Mary and Joseph to be there. (Kind of an implausible pretext - what possible reason would there be for people to return to a village their ancestors had lived in a thousand years previously?) Some commentators speculate that the verse is not referring to the messiah's literal birthplace, but to his descent from King David, who according to the Books of Samuel, was from Bethlehem. And speaking of descent from King David - we all noticed that the two genealogies are different, right?

Some of these prophesies are so generic that they could apply to anyone, here are 47 of the more popular ones. If you're a believer, these will convince you that everything about Jesus was predicted thousands of years before his birth, if you're an agnostic, or a disbeliever, you'll scratch your head wondering how this would convince anyone. 

Part XIV

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XII (Revelation Decided By Committee)

How did The Bible become The Bible? Did a committee of early Christians get together, divide up the responsibilities of what to cover? "Paul, we need you to cover some of the doctrinal issues, and address the fact that Jesus hasn't come back yet; James, your assignment is to balance up Paul's focus on faith with an alternate focus on works; John, lay off the magic mushrooms for a bit and write up an end of the world scenario, and Matthew, Mark & Luke, can you guys do some biographies, and damn it, keep it consistent we don't want a bunch of contradictions". No, as we've seen, a number of Christians took it upon themselves to write letters to other Christians, pen biographies of Jesus, compose "apocalypses" describing the end times or the heavenly realm, or just put together a little something to let people know that those other guys weren't "real" Christians. There was an incredible number of these writings circulating around Christian communities. Different churches favored different books and for three centuries there was no widely agreed-upon canon (i.e. the authorized, divinely-inspired collection of books of The Bible). 

One of the reasons there was no consensus canon of the New Testament was that for the first three centuries, and possibly after, there was no central authority. The various cities and regions operated more or less autonomously. As a virtually illegal sect, Christians weren't building big, beautiful buildings, but were meetings in homes, likely led by whomever owned the house they were meeting in. Eventually leadership became institutionalized and overseers (the title "bishop" comes from the Greek episkopos - i.e. "one who watches over") came to hold authority over whole cities. In the early days there was a many varieties of Christian. The previous installment listed a few "heresies regarding Jesus' nature, but there were many more regarding the purpose of his death and the kind of life a Christian should be living. Local leaders early on attempted to define Christian doctrine, meeting in councils to reach consensus. Eventually that consensus began to resemble the main doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the minority opinions were pushed out and suppressed. As Christianity became legalized and preferred, not only did Roman Empire-wide councils become easier to hold, but the Bishops of the main cities of the Empire as well as cities important to the early Church, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria in Egypt, viewed themselves as "leaders of leaders" and attempted to exercise authority over the assemblage of bishops. Finally there was something close to a central authority and and the work of deciding what would be considered divinely inspired began. 

Occasionally you'll hear talk about some nefarious plot to "take out" offensive books from The Bible, to remove anything that elevated women for example. The other day I heard somebody talking about how the Emperor Constantine edited the Bible at the Council of Nicaea to conform it to his beliefs. None of that is true. There was nothing to "take out" of The Bible because there wasn't a Bible! There were decades of arguments about what was to be considered inspired "scripture". Some books that most of us have never heard of, like The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache were in the running for years while others that are in our Bible, like I & II Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, I & II Peter, all three Epistles of John and Jude were all considered to be not in The Bible. The book current day fundamentalists love so much, Revelation, was a long shot and was the last one to be canonized. Centuries later Martin Luther re-examined some of the canonical books and had his doubts about some of them. 

One of the doctrines of the early Church that horrifies Protestants is Apostolic Succession, the doctrine that Jesus passed on to his apostles his spiritual authority and his true teachings and that the apostles in turn passed those things on to their successors, who passed it on to their successors all the way to the present. The reason a Protestant would be horrified is that the core doctrine of the Protestant Reformation was "scripture alone", that the opinions of Church leaders must be subordinate to the Bible. Remember that in those early days not only was there no Bible, but there were dozens of competing "scriptures". Somebody had to decide what Gospels were the Gospels, what Epistles were the Epistles etc. In order to have a unified Christian Church somebody had to take the bull by the horns, claim the authority to decide (whether that authority was real or not) what The Bible would be. As it is there are numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in what we have, imagine if all those apocryphal books were held as equal to the canonized books and there was no "written in stone" scripture? We think that we have a confusing multitude of denominations now? Christianity would never have survived without a central hierarchy. 

Christians today like to believe that today's Bible was without controversy accepted by the early Christians, that its divine source was obvious while the apocryphal books were just as obviously not inspired. 

The real story is a lot messier.

Part XIII