Blind Man's (Religious) Bluff

A long story on Jewishness and foreign wives, but it shows the contradictions in the bible that Fundamentalists say is without error, or inerrant, as they say. It is more, as I have stated, a mishmash obviously written, edited-redacted, by several different people or groups over different periods of time.

One does literally have to be blind not to see all of these errors, and the many more I have previously itemized in my other essays and stories. Or maybe willfully blind as some are known to be. As Bill Maher was recently quoted as saying, "These people really believe [what they say]"

More, it has been revealed that a person in Iowa sent a letter in late March of this year to a gay bar, also in Iowa, and said something to the effect that he hoped the anthrax in the letter did a lot of harm to them. He's admitted it and been arrested. We all have heard about the Evangelical preacher who tried to order a cake that said something to the effect that he was against gays.

Is it any wonder that these things are happening? Senator Cruz of Texas and Senator McConnell of Kentucky have both signed letter with others telling the Supreme Court that same-sex marriage is not a good thing. These men are not blind, they're not ignorant persons, but they are blinded by their faith in a religion that is full of errors such that it couldn't be from any god. They only follow rules that are like pet projects to them, and not all of those rules that set forth that they shouldn't do this or that or face death by stoning. Uh-uh, that's reserved for lesbians and gays only.

My, my, how they love to cherry pick then verbally assault others for not believing as they do.

Then there''s the new Catholic pope who said "Who am I to [say]" with regard to homosexuality, but is stalling giving his okay to an ambassador to the Vatican who is a homosexual. Talk about hypocrisy, but they're famous for it, as are the many other churches who say homosexuality is against the bible's dictates no matter how error filled the bible is.

Do they know that the bible is error filled? It's hard to believe that they don't, but then they're in the faith business, and faith doesn't need facts, only blind followers. Religion is good for them—it keeps the followers from asking questions via the logic of just believing.

* * * *

Okay, enough of this for now. On to an oddity. Ms. Lesley Hazleton, a former psychologist, has written an interesting book entitled Jezebel, The Untold Story of the Bible's Harlot Queen (Doubleday, 2007). In it, she paints a very different picture of Jezebel, and shockingly, cites the bible often for proof.

She cites Psalm 45, which my King James Version of the bible says isTo the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of Korah, Maschil, A Song of loves. A couple of Internet sites call it a musical direction to the leader of the temple choir, presumably a Jewish temple. A couple of others say it is unknown other than in the bible.

On the other hand, Korah was one of those with Dathan, who rebelled against Moses. He is also mentioned as being from the line of Esau. Maschil is said to denote a song enforcing some lesson of wisdom, etc. But what does all of this have to do with Jezebel. Maybe nothing, maybe something. Judge for yourself as you read verses 10 through 17:

Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

So shall the King greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worshi8p thou him.

And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favor.

The King's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold,

She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Daughter of Tyre? Jezebel? Sounds like it.

I kings, chapter 18, verse 19 further states:

Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel's table.

Prophets of Baal and the prophets of the groves? Jezebel had many maids, or so we are commonly told, but who are these prophets of the grove? Jezebel's virgin maids who serve her?

Some of this may be said to be far fetched, but the daughter of Tyre is not far fetched in any way, nor is the king's desire of her.

Her name to be remembered in all generations? Indeed!

The daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, Athaliah, married Jehoram, king of Judah (II Kings, chapter 8, verses 16-18). Chapter 11 of II Kings, tells of Ahaliah's reign over Judah. Warning: these chapters of II kings, can be very confusing what with Joram and Jehoram mentioned at different times (please try it and see what I mean). What is not confusing is that Athaliah became q queen of Judah for about seven years.

Another remembrance of Jezebel is the fact that Elitha, her grandniece, was the queen of Carthage who is best known and remembered by her Greek name, Dido. This grandniece also founded Qart Hadath, or Carthage.

Yes, it is odd that this queen is seen in a Psalm, and as Ms. Hazleton suggests, may be sung in Jewish temple.

Chapter 3

Having long left the Catholic church, I still yearned to find a church that really lived Christianity as Jesus was said to want us to live. Said was the operative word. Did he really say that? I may have longed for such a church, but I didn't know much about the bible and what it said. I had been to a couple of Baptist services, but some of the members seemed unsure of their church.

While still young, I thought I'd found a church that would surely fit the bill for my desires and perhaps teach me what the bible did say. I stayed with it for a several years, but I'd gotten wind of "The Church Fathers". Who were the church fathers? They were said to have come directly after the Apostles, first one, so to speak, then others. Why were they called church fathers. I didn't find out at that time.

Some years went by, and suffice to say, churches that looked promising eventually turned out to not be as advertised. There were lots of good people in them, but they were satisfied with the little they had. The little they had was a faith, but they could say only what everyone else was mouthing. It was all too robotic, not "living" as they say.

Again, some years went by and lo and behold, my work took me to a bible college that served churches that were based on "The Church Fathers", and nothing else. With an expectant heart, I went there and looked at The Church Fathers they featured. They were men of the 1800s. Hmm! Not even close to any real, original church fathers.

I was subsequently introduced to a country preacher via the mail service. I read his pamphlets, and though he spoke funny, he was the most sincere preacher I had ever come across. He preached simplicity, but he also did his own putting together of what the bible really meant. He was good for an uneducated man, and as I said, quite sincere, but as I studied his words, I found that he was sincerely wrong. What he preached as the word of God didn't match up with the intricacies of books of the bible like Daniel. I hadn't yet learned to make sense out of all that predicting that the book of Daniel made, but it sure was scary.

In time that led me to listen to some charismatic preachers who preached the "end times". That was both exciting and scary, and it was the rage among many Christians. My mind was into it, but it all still didn't give me any understanding. I think that is how many of today's Christians are: very excited, and very much into believing, but they also have no understanding, just that belief and excitement as the preachers emotionally pushed at them. Hands raised and "Hallelujahs" galore rang out with a chorus of "Amen"s. Many spoke in tongues too, and every now and then, in services, a "prophet" interpreted what was supposedly said while speaking in tongues.

Questioning anything though, brought very little in the way of accurate, and properly connecting scriptures—but their answers didn't hold up, though enthusiastically given. Some Isaiah was used, but there was Daniel along with some of what were supposed to be Jesus' words.

For a long time, I stayed away, my hungering becoming as a bad taste in my mouth, a taste of dissatisfaction. And then I lucked up on some serious books that questioned not only as I did, but also with knowledge of how to question, where to question, and what was wrong. More, I learned something about those very first Church Fathers that came after the Apostles.

Needless to say, with existence taking up too much of my time in providing all the things necessary to keep on breathing and be in good health, I slowly devoured some of those books. You'll find some of them in my last essay, as well as in my first story, "The Devil's Gateway".

The big question, apart from working to understand the scriptures, became : Why didn't anyone in the churches preach the original Church Fathers? In time, I found out; slowly but surely, and quite incompletely I admit, but I did find out.

There's a book that I haven't mentioned as yet, "The Deepening Darkness" (Carol Gilligan and David A. J. Richards, 2009, Cambridge University Press) that pretty much tells the tale of much of the patriarchy that found its way into Christianity at a very early date, much as it shows in the Old Testament.

Here, let's take a stroll through the past. Not much is known about Jesus. The gospels muddle up when his birth was, who he was descended, what he actually said and when, as well as what he did and when. Lastly, his date of dying is unknown with a certainty. According to all the information available, which is little, we can round out for the sake of ease, that he died about 35 C.E.

We're told what he supposedly said and did, but there's no accuracy one gospel to the other, some parts badly differing. One of the biggest and easiest differences is when he was supposed to have run amok through the Temple and given the money changers what for. In John, it's almost at the start of his ministry, and elsewhere, it's just before his last time in Jerusalem and his crucifixion.

This can all be attributed to the writers of the gospels who were of a certainty not the Apostles or Mark or Luke, but others supposedly writing in their name. More, if Jesus died at about 35 C.E., we pretty much know that the gospel of Mark was most likely, according to textual critics, written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Matthew came a little later as well as Luke, and John, about 90 C.E. or later. Also, the gospel according to Thomas may have been written anywhere from 90 C.E. to about 110 C.E.

One of the things that really matters here is the time frame: at least 35 years passed before the first gospel was written. Other than that, Paul's ministry is thought to have started at least a decade later. His known letters were to churches, and numbered about seven for sure (Ehrman, Forged, Harper Collins, 2011, page 93), and the rest are known forgeries. The gospels don't mention Paul at all, nor his letters. Were they unknown to the gospel writers? Or were they just not necessary? Probably both as information was slow in being passed around. Remember, there wasn't even a Pony Express in those days, and more, the letters were to specific churches for their purpose and instruction.

This lapse in time for information to be spread around is crucial. If any of Paul's letters came to be known outside of the specific church, they couldn't have been widely disseminated. For many years Paul wasn't accepted as an apostle of any sort, and after he was somewhat accepted, there were still problems. That only had to mean that the sporadic letters couldn't have been widely known.

Paul states in Galatians (chapter 1, verse 18) (one of his accepted letters) that after his conversion he was three years in Arabia, then Damascus). He is said to have died in the time of Nero, possibly 67 C. E. The Temple was destroyed in 70 C. E. by the Roman army.

With only seven of his letters extant, him dying before the Temple was destroyed, and the first gospel most likely written shortly thereafter, and no way to copy and disseminate it widely within any short time frame, we have a lapse of over thirty-five years after the death of Jesus, give or take a couple of years. Follow the above time frames of the other gospels, and you have a longer period with no way to widely develop many churches and converts to Christianity.

If any think so, consider Nero blaming Christians for burning Rome during his reign, and the death of many of the known Christians that ensued, as well as the fear of becoming a Christian.

Now here's another thing that really matters. Jesus is quoted several times in the gospels as returning and "...some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18), as well as again in Matthew, and again in Mark and Luke. Paul also expected Jesus to return from the dead (I Thessalonians, Chapter 4, verses 16 though 17.

One author, I can't recall which, said that Paul must have been very confused when he died for Jesus had not returned. His faith must have taken a hit, and that is another thing that leads to something else that matters. Paul preached faith and believing.

This is where we find one heck of a glitch in Christianity right from it's nascent days before Constantine. Jesus didn't come, but enough kept the "faith" alive, at least long enough for some to begin anew. They just wouldn't, couldn't, believe that Jesus hadn't come. Someone other than Paul wrote a II Thessalonians an epistle meant solely to prop up the faith, and they did so in the second chapter, verses 1 and 2. "Don't be shaken..." it said, and don't be deceived.

Along with the lynch pin of putting the resurrection from the book of Daniel in Jesus' mouth, as well as other verses associating him with Daniel, and changing the Old Testament god from a jealous, vengeful, capricious, and genocidal god to a "heavenly Father", the pushed having faith just as Paul did before the truth must have settled on him as he died.

The early, post apostolic fathers decided to accept how it was possible for there to be only one god, and man needing salvation, per the Old Testament's sin by Eve, then Adam, and they ran with it.

The "popes" of Rome, formerly called bishops, decided that they should have overlordship of the new church though most of the brains were out of North Africa, Alexandria, and the Middle East. They put on airs saying that Peter, having the "keys to the kingdom", and having been the first pope of Rome meant that the succession of pope-ship should be from the bishop of Rome—er, pope.

Peter, though, was considered the bishop of Antioch. Maybe the pope should have been the bishop of Antioch. No, none of this is factually known—not Peter in Rome, nor his death there, or even that he held the title of bishop of Antioch—it's all just what has always been believed. That kind of belief is not fact.

However, as I said, the real theologians of the early church were Ignatius of Antioch (supposed successor to Peter as bishop), whose claim to fame was being the first martyr to happily go to his death in the Roman arena, and espousing loyalty by Christians to their local bishop. He died somewhere in the neighborhood of 108 C. E.

One Rome bishop, Clement of Rome died about 99 C. E. He is known for some letters that were thought to have been canonical, but were omitted in the end.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was widely known in his day. He died about 155 C. E.

Justin Martyr died 165 C. E. He penned a defense of Christianity and sent his composition to the emperor and senate. His last name says it all. He died in 165 C. E.

Irenaeus became bishop of Lyon and died about 200 C. E. He was the first to write extensively, and his multi volume text on heretics is available on the Internet. He claimed the four gospels we now have to be canonical.

Tertullian was said to be considered the Father of Christianity, or the Founder of Western Theology. He wrote a lot too, and some of his works can also be found on the Internet. It is he who truly began the idea of the Trinity; said that the world was made of nothing; called women The Devil's Gateway according to one translation (and the title of my first story on Lit). However, he is not considered a saint; maybe that's because he switched from Christianity to Montanism for its practice of asceticism. I think that must have upset them.

Was Tertullian a misogynist? How can he be called anything else?

Along with those last two, came Origen, the boy genius who also wrote extensively, principally "Against Celsus", a pagan who wrote derogatorily about Christians, but we only know of Celsus because of Origen mentioning the points he was defending against.

Origen, though, took a supposed saying of Jesus literally and made himself a eunoch "...for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Matthew, chapter 19, verse 12). He was said to later have regretted doing that, but it was obviously too late to rectify it. Some things you only get to do once.

Origen's star later failed within the church hierarchy that was developing for his stated belief that human souls existed before taking human form; that Christ's sacrifice would be repeated in future worlds; and most importantly that Jesus was subordinate to the Father—that, those who fashioned themselves to be in charge of the nascent church, deemed heretical (Heretics, Jonathan Wright, hmhbooks, 2011). The Nicene creed made sure of it.

Speaking of the Nicene creed, the above mentioned book states that the Nicene Council was ill attended by Rome, the momentous decisions being made mostly by bishops of the eastern end of the Mediterranean (Heretics, page 69).

The last theologian of note is Augustine (354-430 C. E.), bishop of Hippo (North Africa). How he comes to light initially is a matter of posturing by opposing sides. When the new Catholic church took one side, it was still opposed by the other side. From this, Augustine said it was entirely legitimate to use coercion if all else failed. That became de rigur for the new religion.

It was bad enough that Priscillian, bishop of Avila, Spain, was executed for heresy in about 386 C. E., but to have "coercion" ratified as proper when needed to induce compliance was to open the door to many needless slaughters of peoples everywhere: supposed heretics, Jews, Moslems, Cathars, etc..

Augustine was also he who developed the idea of "original sin" that was adopted by the Catholic church along with other ideas that had been set forth by other "theologians" of the new church over several years. Pelagius, a British monk said people weren't born with sin, but he was hooted down. Of course, he wasn't made a saint.

He was a strong force in the new church writing a couple of books that are still popular in our day, but what was he like, what drove him? He was definitely troubled; he had a common law wife for many years, as we would call their togetherness today, and a child, but he left both. He was, as were the other church fathers I've mentioned, a highly intelligent person, but like the others, he was driven by his need to believe, and to be a force for the church whose doctrines and beginnings he apparently never investigated objectively. But was he a misogynist as Tertullian was?