Easter - A Debunker Debunked

One of the predictable elements of every Easter season here in Silicon Valley (and I'm sure we're not unique) has been our local newspaper publishing one or more articles "debunking" Jesus and/or the Gospels. Of course, the "experts" and "theologians" chosen as sources were exclusively (or almost so) of the viewpoint that nothing can be certainly known about Jesus, if He even existed, and that the Gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses, but were written a generation later. Known manuscript evidence is more consistent with the Gospels having been written during the first several decades of the church, but when the newspaper story writer picks only skeptics as “authorities”, readers (and possibly the writer) won't know that.

Anyway, in honor of this Easter-Debunker Season, I thought I'd have a little fun by showing how one of the common-debunker sneers falls apart when examined. My meditation for Easter written in 2011, http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/04/meditation-for-easter-sunday.html, looks at the events of that day and its meaning to Christians and the Christian faith. Today I thought I'd go lighter.

One very common claim made to dismiss and ignore the resurrection of Jesus is that the Christian account is merely a rip-off of other religions' resurrection stories. Very well, let's consider the three pagan “resurrection stories” of which early Christians might have been aware and from which they night have been able to draw.

Osiris - Egyptian; not associated with history; key players were gods or divine persons engaged in a power and family (Osiris had sex with his brother's wife/consort) struggle; Osiris' body was dismembered and distributed across Egypt; Osiris' wife Isis found all but one part; with the help of other gods, Osiris' body was preserved and Isis was able to conceive his son, Horus, who succeeded Osiris; annual death-renewal cycle associated with the annual flooding of the Nile.

Tammuz - Mesopotamian; multiple variants of the story; vague/legendary association with history; annual cycle of descent to and return from the realm of the dead (no clear death event) associated with annual season changes (6 months' livable, 6 months of deadly heat); Tammuz was a god (or divine), as was his wife/consort Ishtar; her plea to and a compromise decision by other gods are at the core of the story; this compromise time allowed Tammuz to split time, annually, between the realm of the dead and Ishtar; mourning for Tammuz mentioned briefly in Ezekiel and condemned.

Adonis - Canaanite-Greek-Roman; vague/legendary association with history in some variants; Adonis' parentage/birth may have been divine, involving divine personages or incest; annual death-return cycle associated with spring and emergence of plants after winter; each variant involved a goddess-lover or a love triangle with goddess-lovers and a plea a goddess-lover to and a compromise decision by other gods; this compromise time allowed Adonis to split time, annually, between the realm of the dead and the lover.

By way of contrast, the account of Jesus' life, death and resurrection are set in a very specific place (Galilee and Judea) and time (the reigns of the Roman Emperors Augustus and Tiberius), and include many other verifiable historic details. The Tammuz and Adonis myths (which have similarities substantial enough to suggest the Greeks may have drawn from the Mesopotamians) - some variants, at least - are set in quasi-historical legendary “times”. The myth of Osiris is not set in history.

The course of Jesus' life and death is that of a normal human being, His death happening just once, and his resurrection being a true resurrection to life, with encounters and associations with ordinary people. In the myths of Tammuz and Adonis only one of the two clearly died, neither are truly resurrected, both return only to their lover/consort, and both have to return again to the realm of the dead. Osiris is never resurrected in any sense, but remains in the realm of the dead.

In the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis, all the players are divine personages. Those around Jesus during His life and at His death and resurrection are all ordinary people.

In the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis, Osiris, et al, are in an annual and perpetual death-and-return cycle that is tied to the regions' climate and agriculture. Jesus' death and resurrection happened once, and its timing was a particular religious festival in a particular year. Good Friday, Easter and Passover celebrations remember historical events, and are not understood as recapitulations of those events.

In the myths of Tammuz and Adonis, those mythical personages' annual journeys to and from the realm of the dead occurred months apart (according to seasons of the year), and were celebrated/commemorated as such. Jesus' death and resurrection happened days apart and are celebrated/commemorated days apart.

It almost seems superfluous, at this point, to state it in simple terms, but the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis differ so substantially and systematically from the account of Jesus' death and resurrection as to render skeptics' sneer that Christians ripped off pagan resurrection myths absurd.

As a bonus, being slightly related, I will add that the claim by some who are or claim to be Christian that “Easter” (and therefore the celebration thereof) is pagan, “Easter” being derived from the name of the Mesopotamian Ishtar is also false. The word “Easter” is of Germanic etymology, not Mesopotamian. And the name for what Anglo-Germans call Easter in Romance languages is entirely different, derived from the Latin word for Passover. Similarly, the timing of celebrating Easter is tied to the Jewish religious calendar, not the Mesopotamian religious calendar (is such a calendar even known?).

Saturday Before Easter: More on Christian Unity

I thought it might be good, on this day between Good Friday and Easter, to explore a little further what Jesus prayed for in John 17:22-23: Christian unity. I wrote about this topic at some length back in 2011:

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-thoughts-on-christian-unity-from.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_25.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_27.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_03.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_08.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_24.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_31.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_20.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_21.html

Summing it all up briefly (but barely scratching the surface), there is much common ground among Christians, and there are definite boundaries. The immediate context of the verses cited above confirm that there are boundaries - this Christian unity pertains to those who truly are Christian believers. Members of other religions are not bound by Jesus' teaching. That doesn't mean Christians should be hateful or rude to them; the command to love others applies. "Garage Christians" - those who say they are Christians because they attend church but don't really believe in Jesus or what He taught - are not bound by this either, but are to be loved by Christians.

BUT with other Christian believers, I believe Jesus' meaning is that I am obligated to accept and fellowship with another believer to the degree possible. Put another way, the limits should be the circumstances in which we meet and limits set up by the other believer. In practice, at the outset I ask and listen, and I observe. Does a person say that they believe in Jesus? What do they say that means to them? From what can be seen of their behavior and speech, are those consistent with what they say they believe? I don't do it like a lawyer questioning a witness in court, but just in the normal course of conversation and getting to know the person.

What kinds of things would lead me to conclude some one claiming to be a Christian is not, or would preclude or limit fellowship?

• Some one who claimed to be a Christian but rejects the basic teachings of Christianity is not a Christian, and there is no basis for Christian fellowship. As noted above, that's no reason to be hateful or rude; it's just an honest assessment. Depending on circumstances, I may, lovingly, try to share the Gospel with them.
• A person claiming to be a believer, but is unrepentantly living a lifestyle contrary to the basic morals taught in Christianity is some one with whom I cannot fellowship. I may try (with the same qualifications as above) to show them from the scriptures how their lifestyle is contrary to Christian belief and practice and their need for repentance (and possibly for genuine faith).
• The beliefs of a person from a group that believes they are the only true Christians prevent me from having Christian fellowship with them. They think I'm not a Christian. I may try to show them from scripture that all believers, regardless of denomination or affiliation, are Christians.
• The beliefs and pride of a person from a group that believes they are a spiritual elite or in some way better than or superior to believers not in the group place limits on our ability to fellowship. I may try to show them that their feeling of elitism is contrary to scripture.
• The beliefs of a person from a group with peculiar (i.e. special, not necessarily weird) teachings may impose, “don't go there,” or, “go there carefully and respectfully,” limits, but I try to focus on the core that we have in common.

The bottom line for me is that unity and fellowship with fellow Christian believers is not an if-I-feel-like-it option, it's an obligation. Boundaries are where scripture places them; limitations should not originate in me.

Good Friday: Why Did Jesus Do It?

I need to start this off right ... "My name is PeteS, and I am a Chronic Over-Explainer." I'm a life-long member of Over-Explainers Annoymorous, but I'm going to try to hit the key ideas briefly.

The basic answer to the title question is found in the natures of God and man. God is righteous, just and love; God is a Creator. In saying that God is a Creator, I mean more than that He created our universe. It means that the universe was an expression of God being a Creator.

God created man with the ability to choose - to obey or disobey, to love or not love - his Creator. Those choices would have consequences, and with the first man's choice to disobey that changed his and his descendants' nature from good to not good, i.e. sinful.

With that choice made, God's justice would not allow Him to allow or force mankind to spend eternity in the presence of the God mankind had rejected. God's righteousness would not allow Him to tolerate sin in His presence. As Creator and One Who loves His creation, God would not do nothing, a this would consign all His human creatures to an eternity separated from Him.

The "something" God did was Jesus. Fully human, yet still God; truly good, yet sadistically punished as the worst of criminals; Jesus life and death satisfied God's righteousness and justice for as many as believe in Him. Persons who acknowledge their need before God and put their full trust in what Jesus did are forgiven and will be with God in eternity. Jesus' life, sufferings and death were substitutionary. That Jesus was at once human and God is essential. Jesus led a sinless life while subjected to all the temptations humans face, but was nevertheless punished as if he were a sinner - human for human substitution. Jesus was also God, making the "value" of that substitution, and extending it to, as many as believe. God's love is proffered. This why why Hebrews 12:2 says of Jesus, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame." Believers being redeemed so that they could be with Him in eternity was the "joy" Jesus had in prospect.

Bible "Heroes"

I've been reading recently in Genesis and Exodus. People like Abraham and Moses tend to get portrayed a bit unrealistically. To be sure, they were men of faith, used by God. They were also normal human beings, with quirks and faults. Abraham was so fearful of being one household sojourning in a larger nation that he had Sarah tell people he was her brother. This led to a serious mess ... twice! Later, Isaac, Abraham's son did the same thing, with much the same result. Isaac's son, Jacob, was a deceptive, weaseling, wheeler-dealer. Two of Jacob's sons wiped out all the men in a small town in revenge for the son of the town's chief having raped their sister. Jacob's oldest son slept with one of Jacob's wives. Ten of Jacob's sons sold their half-brother into slavery. Moses was a fearful conflict avoider.

Taken together - their faults and their faith - maybe there's hope for me!

Maundy Thursday: Servant Leaders, Unity, and the Holy Spirit

Passover eve must have had a lot of mixed feelings for Jesus. He knew this would be His last such celebration with these 12 men with whom He had shared the past 3 years. Jesus knew what agony was ahead of Him. Jesus knew He was about to be betrayed, and by whom. Jesus knew there still were important things to teach His disciples, and some reassurances He needed to communicate. All in just a few hours!

As an aside, if it isn't already obvious, this is not going to be a normal Maundy Thursday message. But I wanted the meditations for this year to look at what Jesus was thinking, and that is what I will try to do do in this.

These men were to become the leadership core for the church - His body. Jesus knew that the type of leadership with which they were familiar would not be right. The world around them had leaders that ordered around and kept above those they led. Taking advantage of their host's lapse in proper hospitality, Jesus showed His disciples what spiritual leadership should look like. And then He taught them.

Unlike "normal" leaders and rulers, leaders in the church are to serve those they lead. The purpose of church leadership is not to sustain and grow one's own authority or to support and perpetuate an institution. The purpose of the church is to make disciples, to enable new Christians to grow so that they become disciple-makers and leaders. Leadership that helps believers learn and grow spiritually means working with them and serving them, not aloofly lording it over them.

Jesus was also trying to prepare His disciples both for His death, which, for a few days, would feel to them as if He were gone, and then His ascension to heaven, when His presence with them would be less obvious and visible. Toward these ends, Jesus tried to let them know of His coming death, and promised that they would not be alone, but that the Holy Spirit would be with them, dwell in them, teach them, and empower them when Jesus would no longer be visibly present. They probably didn't understand at that point much of what Jesus was telling them, but He knew they would recall it when the time came.

John 17 is commonly called Jesus' "High Priestly Prayer", because Jesus was interceding, as their leader, for His followers, present and for all time to come. One thing for which He prayed was that His followers would be in unity. It's not exactly a brilliant observation that Christians, for more than 14 centuries, have not obeyed this imperative. Personally, I think many believers (past and present) have a skewed vision of what Jesus meant.

Taking the New Testament as a whole, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament neither prescribed institutional authority structures nor proscribed spiritual authority entirely. The church the New Testament reveals was, to use a modern term, a network of relationships and giftings, with authority structure that was local and as needed. To use Paul as an example: most of his letters were to people he had worked with and churches he had started (direct relationship); two of his letters, Galatians and Colossians, were to churches in cities he had never visited, but the authority of his letters rested on their recognition of his being an apostle (his gifting, Ephesians 4:11); Paul's MO in ministry was to come into a town, evangelize, organize new believers into a congregation and teach them their faith, appoint leaders in the congregation, move on to the next town while keeping in touch with the church he had started, and keep repeating. When a church in a city grew large enough there would be multiple congregations whose leaders had relationships with each other, usually with a leader who was apparently called a bishop. But regional, national and church-wide structures came later.

Getting back to Jesus' actual point, He wanted believers to minister (serve!) and fellowship in unity. This is far more difficult, meaningful and powerful than having a single authority structure. It requires people of different giftings, personalities and cultures to learn to get along and work together, using those differences for ministry rather than for carrying on personal squabbles. Think it can't be done? The church in the New Testament exploded in the Roman Empire, reaching and uniting peoples of multiple languages, cultures and economic status. Many para-church ministries today unite the efforts of believers of similar diversity and denominational background. It can be done today. It is powerful! It is what Jesus asked for in prayer!

Wednesday Before Easter: Looking Toward the Near and Distant Future

Looking Forward, and Really Forward

 As they left the temple area, Jesus' disciples indulged in a bit of sight-seeing. The temple of Jerusalem, as rebuilt by Herod the Great, was reputed to have been magnificent. That a monster like Herod could create such beauty shows that creativity and moral excellence have no necessary connection. At any rate, there was much beauty that could be admired, but Jesus responded to them in a way they may not have anticipated. Jesus informed them that the time was soon coming that the temple would be destroyed, and even the stones would be pulled apart. This latter was literally fulfilled by the Roman looters, who were after the gold that had melted in the fire and flowed between the stones.

At this, the disciples asked Jesus about the time of the end, the time of His coming and when the things He had just spoken of would happen. Whether and how they understood what they were asking is an interesting question. And Jesus' answer has been a center of much disagreement as to how much of what He said referred to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (then some 45 years in the future) and how much was about what we sometimes call the "end times". I don't have anything profound or insightful to offer on those issues. It's in God's hands, and I trust him concerning those matters. It's pretty clear to me that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 mixes elements that pertain to both time frames, and some elements may pertain to both.

In Matthew 24, Jesus is at least partly concerned with the safety of His people, those who would become believers soon after His resurrection and ascension. He did not want them to get caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem. He also wanted believers in the distant future to know what kinds of things to expect so they also could act wisely.

Prepared, Engaged and Serving

Though delivered as parables, Jesus' thoughts in Matthew 25 are a bit more clear. In the parable of the lamps and oil, the message is that believers must be prepared for Him to return at any time. In the parable of the talents, Jesus is instructing believers to use their talents - risking them in the marketplace of ideas and people, as it were - rather than hiding those talents and keeping them "safe". And in the third Jesus pointed out that believers are to serve, to extend God's love to people, to be Jesus' hands and feet in this world. Where Matthew 24 was about things Jesus followers could and cannot avert, Matthew 25 has to do with how we choose to live.

Put together, Matthew chapters 24 and 25 show that Jesus was concerned for His followers' safety and that they be in this world what a believer should be. And as for prophetic speculation, besides Jesus stating that no one knows the time of His return, I think "just" being faithful to Him and being what we should be as believers is quite enough without diving into date setting or charting out just what God "should" do in the "end times". We should entrust to God those things we cannot control or avert and focus on what we should be.

Tuesday Before Easter: Challenge and Counter-Challenge; Bible Jeopardy

First Century Jewish culture had several subcultures, and we see a least three in these challenges. The Pharisees were ultra-orthodox, with many additional traditions that were intended to make breaking a law "impossible". The Sadducees were less orthodox, did not recognize the writings of the prophets as having authority equal to the Law of Moses, and were willing to accommodate (sometimes a euphemism for "compromise") Graeco-Roman culture. The Herodians were politically aligned with the family of Herod, and through them, with Rome. The Pharisees believed the Jews should be independent and a regional power, so they and the Herodians would have clashed as political opposites.
 
Pharisees' & Herodians' Challenge, Matthew 22:15-22 
This challenge was fishy on its face. To be sure, the issue they posed to Jesus was one over which they would have argued, bitterly. But that they came to Jesus together, so that the opponents of what they thought were the only two possible answers were both present suggests some pragmatic collusion (both parties saw Jesus as a threat).
 
Jesus' answer reflected that He understood what they were up to, yet He still answered their question. And His answer - that God and government both have valid, non-conflicting, claims on people living under them - satisfied neither party, yet left them no room for retort. In delineating the proper, scriptural, relationship for a follower of God with God and government, Jesus answered the challenge, demonstrated that He understood the scriptures, and gave a clear principle to follow for believers in centuries to com.
 
Sadducees' Challenge, Matthew 22:23-33
The Sadducees came with a challenge that they thought showed that the idea of a resurrection (which they denied and Jesus had taught) conflicted with the Law of Moses. Evidently they thought they could confuse Jesus with a nitpicking, detailed, hypothetical situation. Instead of being confused by or entangled in the details Jesus showed them that they didn't understand the very scriptures they claimed to believe. Jesus' directness in pointing out their ignorance suggests to me that Jesus knew they didn't really care to understand the Law, except as it suited their purposes - following it outwardly when convenient, weaseling it when not, and using it as a clumsy weapon when faced with some one who disagreed with them.
 
Pharisees' Second Challenge, Matthew 22:34-40
The Pharisees' second challenge puzzles me. This was a very basic question, one a very young student should know how to answer! Did they think Jesus too educated to know? Did they think He was so deep into subtleties and details that He would not recognize the question as basic? Had they run out of "tough" questions but were not ready to beat a retreat? Regardless, Jesus gave them the correct answer, demonstrating both His knowledge and presence of mind under pressure. And Jesus used this and the previous questions as a springboard for his counter-challenge.
 
Jesus' Poser, Matthew 22:41-46
At least part of what the religious leaders had been doing had to do with their idea that Jesus was just a semi-educated bumpkin. The Jews in that day had a very rigorous process for selecting and training youth so that those who became teachers were the best of then best of the best. Jesus hadn't made the grade. Jesus had already turned this image against them in His responses to their questions, and now He put these "educated" leaders on the spot. Jesus had hit them in their public image, for the hypocrisy in their lives, and for their real heritage and character. Now Jesus hit them in what was supposedly their area of expertise, their knowledge and understanding of scripture.

His question was deceptively simple, in a couple of ways. The particular scriptures were very familiar, but they probably had never noticed - or just didn't bother to think about. Worse still, the answer to Jesus' question, the meaning of the two scriptures didn't fit their image of the kind of Messiah they wanted. And was consistent with things Jesus had claimed about Himself.
That shut the leaders up! What they imagined they could do to Jesus, He had done to them! And Jesus wasn't done with them!
 
Jesus' Condemnations: Religious leaders, Matthew 23:1-36; Jerusalem, Matthew 23:37-39
Jesus! Lit! Into! Them! He called them hypocrites, children of hell, blind guides, white washed tombs, descendants of murderers, brood of vipers! Do I need to say what He was thinking? He said exactly what He was thinking! Jesus told the religious leaders exactly what they were. Jesus warned the people just who they were following. And Jesus warned his disciples what dealings with those leaders would be like. Jesus ended this drama with a lament over Jerusalem and its looming fate, and then He left the temple.

All in all, this shows us that Jesus wasn't the dreamy idealist flower-smeller some imagine Him to have been. One can believe Jesus to have been a religion-crazed semi-lunatic (you have to ignore large parts of the Gospels), or one can believe Jesus acted in righteous and just anger (which is consistent with the rest of the Gospels), but dreamy idealist flower-smeller is excluded by Jesus actions and words on this day.