Saving Spirituality

Lately I have been reading Robin Meyer's "Saving Jesus from the Church" a controversial, but terrific book that echoes my own conscience. Along with Marcus Borg's the "Heart of Christianity" it should be required reading for all who call themselves "Christian".

Meyers argues that the church,  through hierarchal structures, has "stolen" the message of Jesus from us and turned the Christian religion into something it was never meant to be. I concur.

We have a sacred story that HAS BEEN STOLEN FROM US! We need to go back to the fork in the road and restore Jesus understanding of spirituality. Dwelling in the "Kingdom of God" as he put it.

We need to understand; that there is no conflict between science and religion. That science is part of the Natural Law that God created and that He cannot be in conflict with that which He creates;

                that  Sexual Orientation is an identity, not a curse, and that women are equal to men and worthy of everything men enjoy; that to keep them from the pulpit and pay them less is unacceptable to the Good News of Christianity and should be unacceptable to us.;

                that the earth, the creation of God, is an organism, not an object;

                that the Sermon on the Mount could save us but cannot be heard among the din of dueling doctrines and the curse of the "American Dream", modern "Rome's" euphemism for a bigger house, a bigger car, a litany of "things" and the trap of individualism and Meism.

                that Christianity as a belief system requires only acquiescence, but that Christianity as a way of life requires Love and Compassion, action toward others;

                that Christianity as a way of life requires rebirth and the conquest of ego, new eyes to see the world,  new ways to reject the kingdom of Rome and embrace "The Way" of Christ, the Kingdom of God, unlimited compassion.

                that Christianity as a belief system requires only intellectual assent  and acquiescence, but as a way of life, it requires action, compassion and love.

                that Christianity has declared war on individual morality but is remarkably silent about the evils of the system, especially corporate greed and malfeasance. 

We are embraced by a blithering array of assaults on our understanding of Jesus Gospel in modern America.  We have the prosperity gospel which tells us God wants us to be rich. We have the fundamentalist gospel that tells us only Christians can be saved, that spirituality is the sole purview of those who follow the human made structure of the Christian religion. We even have an interpretation of the gospel that claims God wants us to own a gun, presumably to put our first amendment rights ahead of scripture or somehow, within it.

These are patent nonsense, twisting the message of God through Christ in order to fulfill an agenda of our own design. It is reminiscent those structures iterated above, the paradigms of Rome.

Spirituality is not about your belief system.  It is about your relationship with God and each other.

Spirituality is not defined by a religion, by the "Law", but by what is in the heart of each of us.

Relationship with God comes from deep spiritual understanding, not adherence to a belief structure. The question the fundamentalist needs to ask is not "have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior"? but rather "now that you have accepted Jesus, how is your love and universal compassion reflected in your deeds"?

Christianity is a faith that was born at the margins of society.

Early Christians used their faith as a means of social transformation in the face of injustice. But the church has often recently become narrow, ugly and retributive. Jesus was never those things. Christianity has bought into the paradigms of Rome unequivocally.

We are all in competition in the "pursuit of happiness" It is a shame it wasn't called the "pursuit of contentment and peace and justice".  In everything we do today there is a frantic quality, even in how we worship. Get there, get er' done and get home in time for football.

We have substituted a "contractual agreement" with God for a "relationship". "I don't sin so I've fulfilled my part of the contract". It is so reminiscent of the Pharisees who were unable to accept Jesus fulfillment of their Law with Love. The goal of all major religions is unlimited compassion...except these days,  for Christianity. It's goal appear to be righteousness of the individual.  I submit that is a terrible corruption of the Gospels.

Discipleship is not about observance but obedience to God's will, following Jesus dictates about the Kingdom of God. It can only be expressed one way Love/Compassion.

The Six Line Invasive Narrative depicted below is what salvation and spirituality mean to the church today.  It is mired in a tale so far from Christ's Good News and so far from Loving each other because it is all about me and my personal transformation. There is nothing about you or the world in this narrative.

The narrative is where we are today as Christians. It is about my personal salvation through acceptance of a belief structure, and little about my transformation as  a human or humanist or Christian.

But where we should be is in tune with personal and social transformation. A gospel which changes the world through our love. Where we, through our local actions, effect change in our community which then effects change throughout the world.

As Brian McLaren states; "Our contemporary gospel in many churches is primarily

 INFORMATION ON HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN AFTER YOU DIE:

with a large footnote about increasing your personal happiness and success through God.

with a small footnote about character development

with a smaller footnote about spiritual experience

with an even smaller footnote about social/global transformation.

We are lost as a spiritual people until we start to REPLACE

The Law of Progress through rapid growth

with the Law of Good Deeds for the Common Good;

until we replace,

The Law of Serenity through Possession and Consumption

with the Law of Satisfaction through Gratitude and Sharing;

 until we replace,

The Law of Salvation through Competition alone

with the Law of Salvation through seeking Justice.

True spirituality is not about the ME.

Years ago, Elie Wiesel the holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate spoke at a ministers conference in Detroit about the book of Job. According to Robin Meyer, he said, "I am not going to try to convert anyone here to Judaism, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to convert me to Christianity. What I am trying to do is be the best Jew I can be so that you can be the best Christian you can be. Let us study together."

May we all study together in the spirit of God, and in the spirit of Love. That is what spirituality is all about.

John P. Middleton

October 2010

Atonement

Atonement

By Prof. John P. Middleton

We may have misjudged, mismanaged and misconstrued Christ’s role with regard to atonement.

First, let me offer the definition of atonement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. "For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, "who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered. "And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. For instance, in the words of Our Lord, "even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many" (Matthew 20:28); or of St. Paul, "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." (Colossians 1:19-20).

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point.

In order to deal with the doctrine of atonement, substitutionary or not, we have to acknowledge, as the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, that “that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer.”

Several allegations need to be excised.

1.      It is the work of reconciliation, a reversal of the Fall of Adam and Eve or “original sin”.

2.      The work is a deliverance from the “bondage”, we assume, only of “sin”, but could we also include “absence from God”?

3.       It represents the reconciliation of Man and God.

4.      It is brought to pass by the Incarnation, the life, the sufferings, the death of the Divine Redeemer, Jesus the Christ.

The question then arises as to what we have to believe as Christians in order to embrace this doctrine.

Regarding the first observation, it appears we should accept “Original Sin” not as metaphor, but as the exact fate of humankind resulting from the “Fall” as literally described in Genesis. Should we then accept the Genesis story of the Fall and disregard other “creation” stories in Genesis? Must we accept “the doctrine of “Original Sin” without question in order to call ourselves “Christian”? Can we consider the story of Eden in a metaphorical sense to describe human/God alienation? What happens to the role of Christ if we refuse to accept “Original Sin” as dogma?

Regarding the second observation, Christ clearly seems to provide a bridge between God and Man by his own sayings, his life, his ministry, his presence or incarnation. That he “delivers” us from alienation into relationship, would be difficult to refute.  Every word he utters and the Gospels as a group reaffirm that deliverance, that bridge, that relationship.

Regarding the third observation, “reconciliation” implies restoration of something that was lost. Without Original Sin what was lost? When and how was it lost? Without a literal Genesis/Eden, what were things like before it was lost?

Once again we are sent to the literal meaning, the fundamental story of Genesis as the ONLY or at least MAJOR explanation for atonement.

For many practicing Christians, that is not sufficient.  Nor should it be.

If I were to avow that we have hitched Jesus star to an ancient, perhaps confused oral story, without much merit or proof; that we have limited his role to one of atonement instead of a more proper focus on “wisdom pathway or Jubilee” or “Good News”; that we have created a Calvary story that satisfies the indentured ignorance of the ancient blood sacrifice of the animals to appease an angry God; that by so doing we are perpetuating a focus that does little to help our theology and nothing at all to help us understand Christ’s real work, would you have issues? Yes, you probably would.

You might first say “Jesus knew he would die and asked God to take the cup from him and then became reconciled to his fate”.

I would answer “yea, verily”. But how does the fact that he knew he would die exonerate atonement?

“What would his death then be for?” you ask.

“Ah”, I say.  Exactly.

We are so focused on the death for atonement, we see nothing else.  How about some other possibilities?

a.       To indicate we die as all animals die, but it is not the end.

b.      To indicate God’s intentional plan for us that transcends all worlds and earthly domains.

c.       To reassure us that despite suffering we will end in glorification.

d.      To exemplify man’s perfidy and cruelty.

e.      To show the path of Rome/the world is flawed.

f.         To show we must die to “this world” to transcend.  

 

“But the blood and suffering….Mel Gibsons vision……!

What about it.  The Romans were cruel, death had been decreed, what else do we suppose might have happened? Is the torture of Christ necessary for relationship with God. Is pain a requirement for heaven/transcendence or is it a symbol of Man’s finite cruelty opposed to God’s eternal love? Did God decree the cruelty or did mankind? Must we humble ourselves before God in pain before we can have a relationship with Him?

“But substitutionary atonement….”, you say.

If you mean Christ’s finite suffering for a few hours/days before his death was somehow a sop to pay God for all mankind’s transgressions until then, I might ask what sort of motive God has to require that sort of cruelty? An object lesson?  A Blood sacrifice required in some pagan ritual as previously noted? Many prisoners of war have endured far more specific and heinous torture for far longer periods of time.  Is it really such a momentous physical sacrifice?

No!  While the death of Christ may have supernal meaning, the torture, blood and suffering have no meaning beyond human cruelty demonstrated.

Earlier, we noted that the Catholic Encyclopedia speculated atonement “-is brought to pass by the Incarnation, the life, the sufferings, the death of the Divine Redeemer, Jesus the Christ.

If we can use the word “suffering” in the same way the Buddha did, that all life is suffering because of our misplaced egoistic desires, we might have little argument with the above citation. But to offer Passion Week suffering as expiation for our sins is terribly limiting and not very much in keeping with our God of “Love”.

How do we define “sin”; as the agent for loss of the kingdom?  Christ does not seem to have described it that way.  He seems to indicate it is more “alienation” from God. We typically have seen Jesus death as “eliminating” Original Sin, but certainly not present sin. His role in expiating present sin is not one of expiation, but one of offering an alternative, the bridge to God.

Our focus is simply too limiting.  We need to see Jesus suffering as an example of how this life offers little deliverance and cloaks us in suffering until we enter the kingdom of God, not through death, but through our choices in this life. This revised view is much closer to the Wisdom tradition and tracks with much of the Old Testament.

As Harvey Cox says in “The Future of Faith”, “Creeds are products of their times. They are road markers of key points in Christian history. They provide invaluable indices of how some Christians thought, not all, responding to largely internal disputes in the past. But to make “believing” them a permanent feature of Christianity today misunderstands the valuable functions they can serve. The numerous creeds theologians have devised over the centuries enables us to glimpse the historical challenges they faced.  But their circumstances and ours are not the same. Only be seeing them for what they are, landmarks along the long path Christianity has trod and not walled barriers, can they help us face current difficulties and opportunities.”

I would want to add that this is not a call to abandon ideology or creeds, but rather A CALL FOR PERSPECTIVE AND FOCUS. Our faith needs to focus on, in and of the Christus, the word of God incarnate, the LOGOS of God, the pathway and the key and not on those creeds, ideologies and barriers that may help us define Godness or provide a lens with which to see God more clearly.  We ought to quit worshipping the lens.

The incarnation, Life and Death of Christ offer us more than great insights into God, great deliverance from evil and the bondage of this life. He offers us the MEANS of salvation, the LOGOS of God, the WORD incarnate, the PATH of righteousness through Grace and the KEYS to the Kingdom he spoke most often about.

Jesus Christ is not about atonement for Adam and Eve, he is about atonement for US, we here today, we here who are still lost, still searching, still confused. He says to us, “It is OK. God knew you then and He knows you now. His is waiting for you to accept Him with faith. Your ultimate death is a transition to a kingdom you can embrace today, now, in this life, with a change of heart; with my baptism of faith. It is a kingdom where suffering is endured, where cancer is not an end, where love abounds and where I always stand to greet you at the door.”

Prof. John P. Middleton

2010

An Open Letter to Christians Everywhere

An open letter to Christians everywhere.

In recent months we have seen a number of events that test our mettle as Christians. Floods, famines,  immigration, Haiti, there seems to be no end to the carnage. Then comes the circuit court's review of prop 108 and the gay marriage issue, and then the possibility of a Mosque within three blocks of the World Trade Center disaster, both of which provoked a response so divided and so deep that no amount of rhetoric can be salving.

As I have said in many previous essays the problem is that we are really not Christians in this country, we are Paulinists, separating  justice and mercy; worshipping Jesus but not following His teaching; creating doctrines rather than witnessing for love. For Paul, a big issue is who is worthy and who is not and what are we to do about it. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Rom 1:18)  Paul goes on to say all sorts of things about salvation through "Faith".  Those in the modern church seem to have taken him to heart in that they seem to believe "if I have faith in Jesus, I don't have to go out of my way to love anybody."

When people ask "have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?", our skin begins to itch because of the implications in the question. The questioner is really asking whether or not we have accepted a set of doctrines and creeds, a belief structure, rather than questioning whether we love our neighbor and what we are doing about his misery.

What is called "Christianity" has become just that..... a belief structure.  Being a Christian means accepting certain tenets and constructs.  There are no options for acceptance of virgin births, sun "standing still" in the sky, biblical literalness and inerrancy, judgment of the "wicked", the eschatology of Revelations or the Blood Atonement for the sins of the world. Adam and Eve are real people and the devil is incarnate. And the whole shlamoozal is 15 thousand years old.  If you don't believe it you cannot call yourself a Christian.

Contrast that concept with the earliest followers of Jesus who were known as practitioners of "The Way". "The Way being a euphemism for the unbelievable love they showed one another; so profound that the Romans were amazed.  "Who are these people, they really LOVE one another", they exclaimed.

Their faith was simply to follow Jesus teaching as there was not yet a set of Biblical or church concepts other than the old testament to hang one's hat upon. Jesus teaching, his greatest commandments, had to do with Love of God and one another and dwelling in the "Kingdom of God".  This latter was identified in parables and can only be defined as reiterating the greatest commandments through action. So, these early Christians tried to Love "Everybody" including Samaritans (read Muslims) and Gentiles, Jews and pagans, Romans and everyone else to the point of distraction. They shared their food, their possessions, their money, their time and their love.

As I have often said, "scripture is the lens through which we see God and we ought not worship the lens."  But to even vaguely suggest that the Bible is not an object of worship in this modern Christian Church is to beg for something akin to vegetable pelting at the least. We will not abandon our cherished icons and idols but we have no problem judging and vilifying others. No regard is given for inconsistency in scripture, or simple scientific truth.

You will hear believers say, If God wanted the sun to stand still in the sky, he simply willed it and it occurred. We must suspend all belief in Natural Law. We must first avow it is the Sun moving in orbit and not the earth.  We must then believe God suspended the effects of gravity or lack thereof to achieve this desired result. In short we must believe God interferes in Natural Law when it suits Him.  No question is asked of why he interferes to help the woman lift the Buick with the child trapped underneath, but does not help the millions of starving African children? Is one child more privileged than another?  Was Calvin right and some of us are elect and others not? How can we seriously believe God interferes in Natural Law but still permits suffering. Is he evil? When we conclude God cannot interfere in Natural Law without violating his own creation, where does our belief structure then go?

If we continue to insist on a dichotomy between God and Science we are lost.  There can be no conflict or God's creation is at fault. How can God make a world where science is wrong? If He created Natural Law how can it be wrong? If science is wrong Natural Law is wrong.  Science IS the study of Natural Laws. If we need to claim all scientists are in error because the Bible says so, we are idiots who need to re-read some passages.

This is not some Liberal v. Conservative or Republican v. Democrat issue. This is an issue of a faith gone awry, wherein Christians do not act toward others with love, but hate. The use scripture to defend a set of un-Jesus beliefs that fit an agenda.

Gays and Lesbians are not welcome in this church because.......No Mosque may be built near Ground Zero ....but a Cathedral would be OK............We worship Christ and go to church every Sunday but won't lift a finger to help Haiti or our neighbor in New Orleans......

We have become a sad group of quasi-Paulinists.  To call ourselves Christians is disgusting. It perverts the teaching of Jesus in both Spirit and Law. In order to believe this modern dogma one needs to first believe in hell. But not just any old hell.  No, the hell of eternal burning punishment for misbehavior and unacceptance of dogma entitled "Belief".  Will a good Jew or Muslim go to heaven?  Hell no, he doesn't accept the same principles I do, so God will punish him. God's principle is Love and brotherhood for all. But our Christian principle sure as hell isn't.  Ours is all about retribution, punishment, sin payment and finite evil in an infinite universe. Our version of Christianity has God's wrath more powerful than his love, God's divine and infinite vengeance against little old finite man with his finite sin. His love doesn't overcome.  His wrath overcomes.

Even the cross has become a place for vampire Christians who want Jesus only for his blood. Without the blood sacrifice Jesus becomes nothing. Just human.  We see Jesus as suffering and dying for us but never see Him as living for us. The exuberance of his love is lost in the misery of his death.  It is a backward set of worship standards. All his teachings, all his words, all his love disappear in the passion play.  All that is left is the misery and suffering and none of the joy. 

We ignore his admonishment to the good thief even as he hangs there.  There is no room for love, only for judgment. His blood sacrifice is what we remember, not his words of love.

Even as Jesus says, He that believeth in me...becomes corrupted to " He that worships me but loves no one but himself and those who think like him."  

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:39 NIV.  What does belief in Jesus mean? Is it intellectual assent to his deity? Or is it emulation of his actions and his words? The two are sometimes not harmonious. Even if we acknowledge his deity, are we done? Are we great Christians who say "Here is what I believe" but I will do nothing to help our neighbor because he is .........................(fill in the blanks...Muslim...illegal alien....black...gay...lesbian...indigent...Hindu...Jew...creepy...smells bad  or looks and acts differently)?

We cannot have a Mosque near ground zero because we hate Muslims, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with what a few radical Muslims did to us or what they may still be trying to do with us, or else  all of Jesus teachings about "who is my brother"  and turning cheeks goes directly in the shitter. You cannot claim to be Christian while you hate.

This last few decades have perverted Christianity to the point that we must suffer the Abundant Life nonsense that Jesus wants you to be wealthy.  I have even heard a pastor extol why Jesus wants you to have a gun!  Pure and simple garbage!

To support this kind of belief structure one needs only a few well chosen scripture verses, and boy! They are sure in there. Leviticus teaches us God not only hates homosexuals, but it is ok to own slaves from a neighboring country. 

Lev 25:44-46 44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. NIV

But these are God's words inerrant and complete aren't they?  Canada here we come in the name of God!

We must stop this!

We must Stop! In the name of God! We must Stop!

There is no hope for the future if we hate. No hope for ourselves. Every time we say "I got mine now you get yours."; every moment we waste in failing to help those in need; every day we sit at home and ponder our devotion to God, how holy we are.......is wasted. It is wasted in pride and hate and sloth and envy and all of the things Jesus warned us of.

We as a Christian nation have embraced the pagan truths totally and utterly.  We are lost if we go on this way.

Prof. John P. Middleton

SUMMER 2010

Early Christian History and Inerrancy

The History of Christian Scripture 0 to 150 CE


Some of the recent comments I have heard regarding biblical inerrancy and other Christian issues, point out the woeful lack of knowledge about the early years of the church and what happened to Christianity in those early years.

According to the bible, Jesus died in AD 33 on the 14th day of Abib, (April), at about 3:00 pm, on Wednesday afternoon. But that is clearly in error.

Paul mentions that Barnabas and Titus went with him to Jerusalem 14 years after his conversion (Gal.2:1). This could only be the trip that he took to Jerusalem with food supplies and money that is mentioned in Acts 11:30.

While Paul, Barnabas, and Titus were at Jerusalem, King Herod Agrippa died. His death is well documented to have occurred in 44 A.D. If we subtract 14 years from 44 A.D., it brings us to 30 A.D., which is the year of Paul's conversion and probably the year of Jesus death.

Agrippa who was a friend of Caligula, the Emperor of Rome, was made king of the Tetrarchy of his uncle Philip Techoritis and the Tetrarchy of Lysanias (Abla) a few days after Caligula's ascension to power in March of 37 A.D.. Agrippa went to his lands in 39 A.D., but almost immediately returned to Rome to bring accusations against his uncle Antipas to Caligula in 39 A.D.

Upon the assassination of Caligula on January, 24, 41 A.D., Agrippa encouraged Claudius to accept the rulership of the Empire. Very early in his reign, in February or March, Claudius confirmed to Agrippa all the gifts of land Caligula had made to him and added to them the rest of the kingdom of Herod the Great.

Josephus says that, after having reigned for 3 years (41-44 A.D.), Agrippa died (Antiquities XIX 8.2). Agrippa's death is also described in Acts 12:21-23:

"On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, 'This is the voice of a god, not of a man.' Immediately because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten of worms and died" (NIV).

Notice that at this time Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem:

"When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark" (Acts 12:25 NIV).





30 A.D.

Paul's trip to Jerusalem, which is noted in Acts 12:21-25, is the same one mentioned in Galatians 1:22; 2:1:

"I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: the man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And they praised God because of me. Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus also along" (NIV).

This trip to Jerusalem took place 14 years after Paul's conversion, which was the same year of Jesus' death (Acts 9:1-22). Paul's first trip to Jerusalem was three years after his conversion (Gal.1:18; Acts 9:23-30). This information clearly points out that Paul's second trip to Jerusalem after his conversion occurred in 44 A.D. Therefore the year of Paul's conversion and Jesus' death was 30 A.D.

It might be 31 or 29 depending on the time of year, but 30 is the accepted answer by most historians.

Since the work of Emil Schürer in 1896 most scholars have agreed that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BCE.

Further evidence is provided by the fact that his sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BCE., and Archilaus apparently also exercised royal authority during Herod's lifetime. Josephus states that Philip the Tetrarch's death took place after a 37-year reign, in the 20th year of Tiberius (34 CE). Since we have all heard the stories of Jesus birth resulting in an edict by the living Herod to kill the firstborn make sons of Hebrews, causing the Holy Family to flee, the supposition is that Jesus would have been no older than two at the time thus dating his birth to 4 or 5 BCE.

Since Jesus was born around 4 or 5 BC he would have been about 34 years old at the time of his death.

The first "scriptures" are Paul's letters to the various churches written around 49 to 67 A.D. Paul lists himself as the author of each of his letters. From the earliest references we have (early second century) until relatively modern times (nineteenth century) all of these letters were accepted as written by Paul. That is not the case today however, in the interest of not putting the reader to sleep we will forgo any discussion of Pauline authorship of the letters, because it is the dates of 49-67 AD in which we are primarily interested.





The probable history of the letters follows:

1 Thessalonians A.D. 49-51

Dating based on traveling companions and cross references between 1 Thessalonians and Acts.

Galatians A.D. 49-54

Dating based on when Paul visited Galatia and his anger at them for having quickly forsaken his teachings (Gal 1:6-9). This is complicated because there are two possible definitions for Galatia. That is, did he mean the Roman province or the region where the ethnic Galations lived?

2 Thessalonians A.D. 52-54

Based on the themes of the letter, it was likely written after 1 Thessalonians and before Paul's next visit to Thessalonica (in Macedonia) in 54.

1 Corinthians A.D. 52-54

Written from Ephesus. (1 Cor 16:8), probably during the lengthy visit from A.D. 52-54.

Romans A.D. 54-55.

Dating based on person names and cross references with 1 Corinthians and Acts.

2 Corinthians A.D. 55

Written after 1 Corinthians, based on the internal references and logical consistency between 1 and 2 Corinthians. It is likely that 2 Corinthians is actually several letters, which were combined, which complicates the issue. Because he had not yet been in prison, these letters were completed before his Caesarean imprisonment, which began in A.D. 56.

Philippians A.D. 58-60

One of the four captivity epistles (Phil 1:7,13,16). Generally, the imprisonment in Rome is considered the most probable (A.D. 58-60) for all of the captivity epistles. This is the traditional answer, and there is also a lot of internal evidence that suggests that this is indeed the case. However, the case is not airtight, so it is possible that some or all of the captivity epistles were written during some other imprisonment at some other time.

Colossians A.D. 58-60

One of the four captivity epistles (Col 4:18)

Philemon A.D. 58-60

One of the four captivity epistles (Phlm 9)

Ephesians A.D. 58-60

One of the four captivity epistles (Eph 4:1)

1 Timothy A.D. 62-67.

1 Timothy indicates events that have occurred after Acts, including substantial traveling. Allowing time for this traveling puts a minimum date of 62. The upper limit is his death in 67.

Titus A.D. 62-67

Same as for 1 Timothy.

2 Timothy A.D. 67.

Paul indicates that he is about to be martyred, so it was likely written in 67. If his premonition is false, it would have been written earlier, but certainly after 62, for the same reasons as 1 Timothy and Titus.

John Mark

Mark was not one of the original twelve disciples. Nor was he an apostle. He is first introduced to us in Acts 12. Historically the time was A.D. 44. His home was in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:12,25). He came from a well-to-do family. His mother, Mary, owned a large house in Jerusalem and had a servant girl named Rhoda. The followers of Jesus gathered there. It has been suggested that this house may have been the site of “the upper room”, as well as the place where the disciples gathered after Jesus' ascension (cf. Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13). There is no concrete evidence, however, to verify this speculation. Peter did go to this house, where Jesus' followers gathered, immediately after the Lord's angel saved him from martyrdom at the hands of King Herod Agrippa I by releasing him from prison.

Mark's Hebrew name was John (cf. Acts 12:12). It appears that he may have come to know and believe the gospel of Jesus through Peter, for Peter called him “my son” (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). In A.D. 44 Barnabas, a cousin of Mark's (cf. Colossians 4:10), and Paul took Mark with them from Jerusalem to be their assistant in the church of Antioch, Syria (cf. Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; 13:1). This led to Mark's future work as a missionary. In A.D. 46 he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:4,5). Shortly afterwards, however, he left them in Pamphylia to return to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 13:13). For whatever reason he left, Paul did not think it was appropriate and considered it a forsaking of the work before them. When Paul and Barnabas later prepared to make their second missionary journey around A.D. 50, Barnabas desired to take Mark along. Paul strongly protested. They then parted company over this disagreement. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Paul took Silas and traveled over land through Syria and Cilicia enroute to Galatia (cf. Acts 15:36-16:11).

Nothing more is definitely known from Scripture about Mark's missionary work. It appears from Scripture that his work took him to the regions of what is now called Turkey, namely the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (Minor), and Bithynia. This would seem to be the case because, when Peter wrote his first letter to the Christians in these areas, he included a greeting to them from his son Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). This would suggest the Christians in these areas knew Mark personally. His work in these regions is further suggested by Paul's including a greeting from Mark to the Christians in Colosse, with the added note that they had received instructions regarding Mark and that they should welcome him if he came to them (cf. Colossians 4:10). Paul also included a personal greeting from Mark to Philemon, who was a member of the church in Colosse (cf. Philemon 24).

In addition to having been a co-worker of Barnabas, and working in the regions mentioned above, Mark became a close associate of Paul's and Peter's in Rome as well. Mark was with Paul in Rome around A.D. 60 to 61, the time of Paul's first Roman imprisonment, at which time Paul wrote his prison epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (cf. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24). This is made obvious by the greeting Paul included from Mark to the Colossians and to Philemon. During Paul's second Roman imprisonment, and not long before his martyrdom in A.D. 67 to 68, Paul requested that Timothy, who was in Ephesus, bring Mark with him to Rome. Paul wanted Mark in Rome with him, because Mark was of useful service to him (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11). It is possible, but not certain, therefore, that Mark was in Rome with Paul at the time of Paul's martyrdom. The greetings from Mark in Paul's letters and Paul's request for Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome clarify that whatever grievance Paul had had with Mark was by A.D. 60 cleared up and forgiven.

Mark was also with Peter in Rome around A.D. 62 and the spring of A.D. 64, which included a greeting from Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). Many theologians now agree that he became inspired by Peter's oratory and this is when and where he wrote the Gospel of Mark.

So we have the following dates and scriptures fairly well agreed upon.

From Jesus death in 30 AD until 49 AD Oral Tradition Only or Chiefly (No original records exist)



From 49 to 62 AD The letters of Paul and Oral tradition.

(No original Letters)



50 AD First use of the term "Christian"



After 62 or 64 AD Mark's Gospel, Letters of Paul and Oral tradition.

(No originals)



150 AD First surviving fragment of Mark's Gospel

(@ 150AD-Not an original)

This first period, from Jesus death until at least 49 AD and probably quite beyond that, contained stories and oral memories many of which, like all memory, were mistaken or edited, embellished or tarnished by human failing. Although that time, due to poor literacy rates (est. 3-5%), featured a well developed and reliable oral tradition, human nature, being what it is, prevented exactness. But what is clear is that the movement was a JEWISH movement until 50 AD when the term "Christian" began to be used.

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, which states "...in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replies to Paul the Apostle, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers, "...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name". Mattison suggests that "[The New Testament's use of this term indicates that it was a term of derision, a term placed upon Christ's followers by their critics."

The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him." So the period from Christ's death until 49 AD was a movement WITHIN and without THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUES but always in a Jewish tradition with all of the attendant reliance on the Old Testament AS THERE WAS NO NEWER TESTAMENT. Therefore, the early oral tradition was heavily colored by Jewish traditions, forces and biases.

Political forces were at work as well.

Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, in the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians"[9] and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.

According to Tacitus, Nero ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified or burned to serve as lights.[14]

He describes the event as follows:

"As a consequence, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but, even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. In accordance, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not as much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. "



If you are practicing a religion outlawed by the government, you are likely practicing it in secret, in basements and caves and hidden places where copying of any letter or message or gospel is likely furtive, with poorly literate people copying in a hurry in the dark. Can we clearly say no errors were made and nothing was edited?

Adding up what we have thus far from a historical and sociological perspective points us in the following probable directions:

1. Until 49 AD people knew Jesus by oral story or direct contact (up to 19 years before) only. These were primarily Jews steeped in oral and synagogue tradition since they were following a Jewish teacher. Mostly Jews and some early gentiles followed Jesus until 40-50 AD or so.

2. After 49 AD until approximately 64 AD the religion flourished orally and through Paul's letter to the mostly Jewish churches. How many outside churchers or gentiles heard those letters we don't know, nor do we have the originals. There is no record of any "Gentile Christian Churches much before 60-70 AD except as indicated in Paul's letters to one church which may have had a non-Jewish bias. The movement clearly grew however. And after 50 AD became more and more identified as "Christian". Many more gentiles joined the ranks at this time. And the first "Christian" only gatherings were made, although most followers were still from the Jewish tradition, steeped in that lore.

3. After 64 AD Christianity was an outlawed religion requiring followers to worship covertly until approximately 312 AD. This covertness took various forms depending on proximity to Rome, the vagaries of the local authorities and which Emperor or powerbase was in power. It ranged from outright murder/ jail to authorities ignoring the worship totally. Many Christians, particularly in Rome left the movement for protection.

4. The first Jewish-Roman War (66–70 CE), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of the Iudaea Province (Judea Province), against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117 CE; the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132–135 CE).

By 70 AD, now conquered, the Jews were heavily persecuted by the Romans and the temple had been destroyed.

What does this tell us about our early history?

Some deductions regarding biblical inerrancy stands out.

Any claim that the scripture was written by or dictated by God ignores all the years of oral history or must maintain that in all that oral tradition no errors or editing or political or religious bias occurred. And it must maintain that the period from 30 AD to 49 AD held no oral tradition CONTRIBUTING TO LATER SCRIPTURES. it must all be ignored.

Additionally, there are the issues of those scriptures written between 30 AD and 150 AD which did not make it into the canons such as the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary and others. All must be ignored due to a human vote to keep them out of the canon.

And we must ignore any scriptures written by the Gnostic movement which gathered strength during the period 30-64 AD and was in full flower by 150 AD.

The final issue is one of translation. The gospels are written in Greek. The spoken languages of the Hebrew area were Hebrew, Aramaic, Low (and High) Greek, common Latin, Latin, and many others such as Assyrian and Egyptian, for example. The chief language was probably Aramaic. The last three references in ACTS show that Paul understood Aramaic and that was the language Jesus spoke to him in his Damascus Road experience.

We also have references from Josephus and five or six others that indicates that the Jews of that area in the first century spoke Aramaic as their primary language. Whether Aramaic, Hebrew or some version of Latin, translation to Greek must be done and was done! Then through all the historic middle ages versions of Latin and Greek, then English and German until finally in 1609 culminating in The King James Bible with 80 books!

The first shocking fact to some KJV supporters is that the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version contains the (Catholic) Apocrypha. (80 Books) That is, there are more than the 66 books found in modern KJV editions. It was not until 1644 (because of the objections of the Puritans) that an edition omitting the Apocrypha was issued and not until the late 19th century that the British Bible Society stopped publishing editions containing the Apocrypha. Note: copies of the 1611 edition are widely available from sources such as Christian Book Distributors, lest anyone doubt the truthfulness of these statements. Nevertheless, the King James Only supporters criticize certain modern translations because they publish editions with the Apocrypha.

The other surprise is that the text of today's KJV is really not that of the 1611 edition. Here is a selection from a real 1611 edition (Isaiah 27:3-4)

(3) I the Lord doe keepe it; I will water it euery moment: lest any hurt it, I will keepe it night and day. (4) Furie is not in mee : who would set the briars and thornes against me in battell? I would goe through them, I would burne them together.

Perhaps that citation gives a better look at how distant the KJV translation really is from modern English. Today's KJV editions smooth over the difficulties by modernizing the spelling. It leaves the reader unwary to the changes in word meaning between 1611 and now.

And these changes are profound even though we are talking only 400 years within the same language. In separate papers I have indicated how the King James authors changed Paul's letter to the Romans in Chapter1 from the word "justice" to "righteousness" largely due to Luther's Tower Experience in 1519. "Justice" and "righteousness", however close, are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination.

So translation errors, copying errors, editing and all of the aforementioned oral tradition and persecution issues must be considered when we declare the bible inerrant!

It is a monumental task to hold on to Biblical inerrancy in the face of History and Sociology.

For someone alleging that he accepts inerrancy as a matter of FAITH, the ball is then put into an entirely different court. As a matter of Faith we can accept anything, that the moon is made of green cheese (until recently). that the sun revolves around the earth (until the middle ages) or that the world is flat (until modern times). No one accepts these statements as true any longer since science has proven them erroneous. But to accept biblical inerrancy we must disavow all science as erroneous. We must also allege God is at war with His creation and Natural Law since those are the purview of science.

Students of History and Science are not fools nor are they at war with God. They simply try to worship a God who is not at war with His/Her creation, His/Her Natural Law or the History and Sociology or Sciences of mankind. It can be done, but to do so requires a metaphorical and sacramental reading of scripture, not a literal one.



John P. Middleton

Sept 2010

The Mistaken Structures of Christianity

Yesterday Brian McLaren offered the following in a post.

"Call me cynical, but here’s my suspicion: adjectives in front of theology are deceptive. Yes, they’re needed; no, I’m not against them, but still, they’re deceptive. Here’s how.

By distinguishing some theology with a modifier – feminist, black, Latin American, eco-, post-colonial, or indigenous, we are playing into the idea that these theologies are special, different – boutique theologies if you will.

Meanwhile, unmodified theology – theology without adjectives – thus retains its privileged position as normative. Unmodified theology is accepted as Christian theology, or orthodox theology, or important, normal, basic, real, historic theology.
But what if we tried to subvert this deception? What if we started calling standard, unmodified theology..............chauvinist theology, or white theology, or consumerist or colonial or Greco-Roman theology?

The covert assumption behind the modifier thus becomes overt, although it is generally more obliquely and politely stated than this:
Standard, normative, historic, so-called orthodox Christian theology has been a theology of empire, a theology of colonialism, a theology that powerful people used as a tool to achieve and defend land theft, exploitation, domination, superiority, and privilege.

If standard Christian Greco-Roman theology has indeed been colonial, then we would expect it
to have certain characteristics, perhaps including these:

A. It would explain – historically or theologically – why the colonizers deserve to be in power –
sustained in the position of hegemony.
B. It would similarly explain why the colonized deserve to be dominated – maintained in the
subaltern or subservient position.
C. It would provide ethical justification for the phases and functions of colonization – from
exploration to settlements to land acquisition to minority marginalization to segregation to
hegemony-maintenance, even to ethnic cleansing.
D. It would bolster the sense of entitlement and motivation among the colonizers.
E. It would embed the sense of submission and docility among the colonized.
F. It would facilitate alliances with political and economic systems that were supportive of or
inherent to colonialism.
G. It would camouflage or cosmetically enhance its ugly aspects and preempt attempts to expose
them.

If standard Christian Greco Roman theology were determined to be essentially colonial by these and other standards, a natural question would arise: must the Christianity of the future forever maintain this colonial bias? Is an imperial or dominating mindset inherent to Christian faith, for better or worse – or can there be a newer and different kind of Christianity?

In answering that question, other questions would arise. Is a new Liberating Theology mindset resonant with or in conflict with the life and teaching of Jesus? Is it resonant with or in conflict with the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures? Is it resonant with or in conflict with the life and teachings of the apostles and early church?" (edited)

The truth is that Greco-Roman Theology, traditional theology can not only be enchaining of the poor and disadvantaged it can also subvert and twist Christ's teaching until it is virtually missing.

In addition to its enchaining effects, Greco-Roman Theology also engenders the paradigms of stultified conservancy as opposed to Christ's liberating theology:

Greco-Roman Paradigm Liberating paradigm of Jesus
The Bible's Origin- Divine Product with Human response to God
Divine Authority

Biblical
Interpretation- Literal-Factual-Infallible Historical and Metaphorical

Bible's Function- Revelation of Doctrine Sacramental/Metaphorical/
and Morals Spiritual

Christian Life
Emphasis- Afterlife-the Salvation Train Transformation in this
life through close
relationship with God.....

with all of the attendant and resultant emphasis on belief STRUCTURES rather than actions.

Christ's message to love one another becomes buried in a quagmire of Power Bases, entitlements, and the Gospel of Sin Management. The message from the Male ONLY, all white non-gay pulpit becomes a good Ol' boys club of gaining reward methodology chiefly through:

The Six Line Narrative.

1. We were born into Perfect Eden but the devil coupled with woman's basic perfidy
made us
2. fall from grace
3. So Today we live and have two choices
4. We either get born again or do not.
5. If we do we go to Heaven.
6. If we don't we go to Hell.


This ubiquitous six line narrative becomes....................

The Greco Roman Gospel of Sin Management

Information on How to Go to Heaven after you die (if you are Christian)
a. With a large footnote about increasing your personal happiness and
success through God.
b. With a small footnote about Character development
c. With a smaller footnote about spiritual experience.
d. With an even smaller footnote about social-global transformation.


Yet Christ's most prominent preaching was about dwelling in the Kingdom of God. And that can only be characterized as loving one another to effect social/global transformation. There were no boundaries. No one was excluded. No one could be disenfranchised, dominated, specially rewarded or entitled to a better seat at the table.

It was the second half of His greatest commandment. It was loaded with social transformation messages. stories of rendering to Caesar, Good Samaritans, Identity of my brother, necessity of forgiveness, spirituality, seeking God, mustard seeds and camels through the eyes of needles.

It was about personal transformation, peace through Love, about the Baptism of the Heart; about the change from mine to thine and about the peace of God which comes with our commitment to that kingdom. It is not about Mosques or Temples or the man made trappings of religion. It is not about Pharisees and Elders and the privileged and unprivileged.

It is a peace which surpasses this life and the next. A peace that knows not boundaries of sexuality nor gender, nor riches, nor hate, nor entitlement, nor judgment, nor time and space. A peace which simply Loves.

That, my friends is heaven, here, now and tomorrow no matter which life we are in.

John Middleton
September 2010

Does God have an Adversary

Does Evil pre-date Mankind?

I have seen Evil….close up. As I lay bleeding and cut on my Father’s porch one evening, after two older teenagers had beaten me badly, it showed clearly through his eyes when he said, “ If they used their fists then you must get a stick. If they used a stick, then you must find a knife. If they had a knife then you must find a gun. But somehow you must find them and then………in the dark of night…….. when least expected……..you must exact a full and final retribution.”

Evil was reflected in my first wife’s eyes when the doctor told her that at age 28, she had no time left. It dogged her as she took several years to die. It took my relationship with her down a dark path which left me at its end, gasping for breath, unsure of myself, my life, what it had done to me and what I had done……to her.

It is there in the memories which shall remain nameless, hidden and shameful, of my darker sins. My human foibles and mistakes of purpose, my sins of omission and commission, some dark enough to render me helpless to ask forgiveness of my victim and terrified to ask forgiveness of God, as I sense my lack of worthiness of this thing called forgiveness.

Am I so uniquely evil?

There was evil in the teachings of my grammar school nuns and priests who taught me that God must be feared and that His punishment for sin was damnation for eternity. They would not have called it that. They would have called it “goodness”. But it was evil nonetheless, in its effect on a young boy, who found no love for God without attendant fear.

I am a simple man whom, those who know me, call “Christian”. What does that mean to them I wonder? Are they as I am? Are we, all mankind, sinners, carrying such a load of guilt, that need be hidden lest we show our awfulness in a cruel light of day, and public flogging? Evil?

It took my father into the darkened corners of the living room late at night, alone, with his full 12 ounce glass of bourbon; a cheap whiskey, no ice. Evil was his companion in these evenings, as palpable as the smoke from the glowing end of his cigarette as he smoked silently alone. It was clearly evil that took him there…alone with his devils in the corner of the darkened room late at night; estranged from his family and his life. His employers would not promote him in the end. They would not say why. He had worked his adult life for them. He knew nothing else but that company, that job. But they would not promote him any further. The bottles piled up behind the storage bin. Most smuggled out to the grocery store’s dumpster so the neighbors would not know. Never see. Were they evil? Was he?

How do we define evil? Sin? To cite the sage, “the mass of men have committed adultery so often in their own mind, the fact is simply a matter of circumstance.”

Some say the absence of good; or the absence of God defines evil. But who created evil? Did God?

My theologian colleagues may cite three main possibilities:
a God created evil for some purpose. ( Probably to test us; an Augustinian view)
b Evil has always existed as an opposing force to God (Dualistic View)
c. Evil was created by Mankind through its sinful ways.

There seem to be no other reasonable possibilities.

Of the three main possibilities offered, Dualism offers the least substance. The idea that there is a dark force as powerful as God and opposing Him, was long ago, dismissed by most legitimate western theologians, but not all western philosophers. Eastern philosophies would have a much harder time dismissing this idea as it offers a “yin” to the “yang” and an eternal cycle of conflict, both of which appeal to eastern philosophies.

“In the west, the more modern versions of dualism have their origin in Descartes' Meditations, and in the debate that was consequent upon Descartes' theory. Descartes was a substance dualist. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks. Descartes' conception of the relation between mind and body was quite different from that held in the Aristotelian tradition. For Aristotle, there is no exact science of matter. How matter behaves is essentially affected by the form that is in it. You cannot combine just any matter with any form — you cannot make a knife out of butter, nor a human being out of paper — so the nature of the matter is a necessary condition for the nature of the substance. But the nature of the substance does not follow from the nature of its matter alone: there is no 'botttom up' account of substances. Matter is a determinable made determinate by form. This was how Aristotle thought that he was able to explain the connection of soul to body: a particular soul exists as the organizing principle in a particular parcel of matter.

There is an argument, which has roots in Descartes (Meditation VI), which is a modal argument for dualism. One might put it as follows:
It is imaginable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
therefore
It is conceivable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
therefore
It is possible one's mind might exist without one's body.
therefore
One's mind is a different entity from one's body”.1

“Our belief in the existence of other minds is an inference from their bodies. Consequently the denial of an external material world involves the rejection of all evidence for the existence of other minds, and lands the idealist in the position of "Solipsism".

Physical science once assumed the existence of a material world, existing when unperceived, possessing various properties, and exerting various powers according to definite constant laws. Thus astronomy describes the movements of heavenly bodies moving in space of three dimensions, attracting each other with forces inversely proportioned to the square of the distance. It postulates the movement and action of such bodies when they are invisible as well as when they are visible through long periods of time and over vast areas of space. From these assumptions it deduces future positions and foretells eclipses and transits many years ahead. Observations carried out by subsequent generations verify the predictions. Were there not an extramental world whose parts exist and act in a space and time truly mirrored by our cognitions and ideas, such a result would be impossible. The branches of science dealing with sound, light, heat, and electricity are equally irreconcilable with idealism.

The teachings of physiology and psycho-physics become peculiarly absurd in the idealist theory. What, for instance, is meant by saying that memory is dependent on modifications in the nervous substance of the brain, if all the material world, including the brain, is but a collection of mental states as a post-modernistmight testify?


Psychology similarly assumes the extramental reality of the human body in its account of the growth of the senses and the development of perception. Were the idealist hypothesis true its language would be meaningless. All branches of science thus presuppose and confirm the dualistic view of common sense.

Ahriman is the principle of darkness and of all evil. In the third century after Christ, Manes, for a time a convert to Christianity, developed a form of Gnosticism, subsequently styled Manichaeism, in which he sought to fuse some of the elements of the Christian religion with the dualistic creed of Zoroastrianism.

Christian philosophy, expounded with minor differences by theologians and philosophers from St. Augustine downwards, holds generally that physical evil is the result of the necessary limitations of finite created beings, and that moral evil, which alone is evil in the true sense, is a consequence of the creation of beings possessed of free wills and is tolerated by God. Both physical and moral evil are to be conceived as some form of privation or defect of being, not as positive entity. Their existence is thus not irreconcilable with the doctrine of theistic monism”. 2

In RELIGIOUS Dualism, Evil, to have a chance at triumph, should be equal to God. Some might think of Satan, but Satan, in most western theology was:
Created by God
Has lesser powers than God.
Cannot ultimately win the battle.

True Religious Dualism does not exist in most Western Theology and offers little to our western understanding of evil.

What are Evil’s attributes? Evil is/has;
Probably finite and not eternal?
A purpose?
Probably created by Mankind or God?

Many of us reject the idea that God created evil. We find it hard to use the words “God” and “Evil” in the same breath. We cannot conceive that a GOOD God could create evil.

Yet, if God is all powerful it is possible.

The Biblical version of evil has God creating the beasts including the serpent and concluding that “it was good”. He then creates Mankind and gives him dominion over the beasts. The serpent, “was the most subtile” of beasts, but is still a beast over which Mankind has dominion. It is the serpent/beast which tempts Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus introducing evil into the world. One asks, “was good also introduced at that eating”? Presumably not, except perhaps as counterpoint to evil. It is safer to assume that good has always existed as God has always existed.

Adam hides due to his “nakedness”. God sees him and asks, “Who told you that you were naked?” Gen 3:11

The biblical version seems, at first glance, to put evil into the purview of Man as creator and architect.

But consider the following.

Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
KJV
.
Clearly…US…already knows both Good and Evil.

We can conclude, biblically;
a. Evil predates Mankind
b. At Least God knows Evil
c. It is implied someone or something else knows evil. ( The Angels? ?)
Biblically then, evil is not from Man.

Why then would God create evil? To test us?

I have often referred to Martin Luther’s Tower experience when Luther rages against the perceived “injustice” of God. God has stacked the deck against us, Luther surmises. We are created as imperfect sinning creatures and are then judged by our sins. How can we win? (In fairness to Luther he concludes that “God’s Justice” means something different to God than it does to us. It is not an active justice, judging “right and wrong”, but rather the actions by which we are justified, chiefly through faith.)

Biblically, God knows about evil before Mankind’s fall. If the purpose of evil is to test mankind, three questions remain;
1. Why test us when we are predisposed to fail?
2. If evil exists to test us, why did it pre-exist us?
3. What was the purpose of evil before Man existed?

One will not find answers to these questions.

Concluding that evil is the absence of Good/God solves some of this dilemma. In that where there is good, there must be bad. An all good God must know of or “have” Evil in order to offer Good. Good has no meaning without evil.

I would caution against any literal interpretation of Genesis. However, literally from Genesis. the Garden had neither good nor evil until the eating of the fruit, as far as Man was concerned. God knew about evil, but Man did not.

Biblically then, God created Mankind without knowledge of Good and Evil. Does that sound like heaven? Man discovers evil on his own without interference from God, although God has, presumably, created it.

One must, therefore, suggest Man is not the architect for evil. God is. His purpose is unknown. But evil predates Man.

What is particularly interesting, biblically, is the next line of scripture. Gen 3:22-24

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
KJV

For the Bible, for Religion, Evil is not just in us. Although it is there….hidden in our hearts; crouched in anticipation of our stumbling attempts at mercy and goodness. But it is alsthere. He will not stop it. It can become palpable….take form….take substance….and rise up in the darkness…..more powerful that we can imagine.

Apparently, the Tree of eternal Life also existed in the Garden, but Man had not been told to avoid it. God appears concerned that now, with Man as “one of US” possessing knowledge of good and evil, Man can also inherit eternal life by eating of this second tree. God wishes to prevent this and ejects Adam and Eve from the Garden and sets a guard at the east gate.

God wishes to prevent us from having eternal life if we possess knowledge of good and evil. Interesting. It is as though we cannot enter into heaven possessing knowledge of evil. How about knowledge of Good?

These scriptural passages seem to indicate that with eternal life there can be no knowledge of evil (or good). Mankind possessed no such knowledge of good and evil in The Garden of Eden until the serpent incident. Mankind was not created with knowledge of good and evil, but NOW POSSESSES IT!

Both good and evil predate Man. Good is explained by the presence of God. How is evil explained?

It is not explained scripturally other than the use of the word US in Gen 3:22. US knows evil. Is God using a “Royal US”? It would not seem so. In fact, the word SEE is used at the beginning of the sentence, clearly indicating that God is addressing someone other than Himself. Whom is He addressing?

We have no reference to the creation of Angels in Genesis 1, 2 or 3, but they clearly exist, as Cherubim were set to guard the east entrance to Eden after the fall.

God must be addressing angels as we have no other biblical indication of entities except beasts, which predated Man. It is unlikely beasts had knowledge of good and evil. Angels are the only reasonable possibility. Therefore, Angels possess knowledge of good and evil before Mankind, according to reasonable scriptural interpretation. Scripturally Satan, the Fallen Angel, looms larger and larger as the force of evil, if not as its creator.

There are 201 references for “Angel” in the King James Version, 11 in Genesis alone.3
There are 71 references for “Cherubim”. Some have concluded that Col 1:16 indicates angels other than Cherubim. A whole hierarchy of them classified as Thrones, Powers and Dominions.

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
KJV

Evil, scripturally then is there, lurking there outside of us………in the bushes behind God’s back. He knows it is there..

No matter what we choose to believe, Scripture clearly indicates that although Man may succumb to evil he is neither its creator, its benefactor, nor, perhaps, its sole agent. Man has knowledge of evil AND GOOD, and the free will to choose either.

What of taking Genesis metaphorically rather than literally? Well, we are then in a world of wonderful interpretation, where much is possible, but evil apparently still predates Man, no matter how we interpret Genesis, either literally or metaphorically.

I ask you, DOES GOD HAVE AN ADVERSARY? If so WHOM or WHAT?




Bibliography
1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#1
2 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm
3
Genesis 16:7
7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
KJV
Genesis 16:9
9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
KJV
Genesis 16:10
10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
KJV
Genesis 16:11
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
KJV
Genesis 21:17
17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
KJV
Genesis 22:11
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
KJV
Genesis 22:15
15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
KJV
Genesis 24:7
7 The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence.
KJV
Genesis 24:40
40 And he said unto me, The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house:
KJV