Eddie 2Dogs "Monthly Eddie-Torial"

Left-click anywhere on a blank portion of the page for the menu!

Eddie 2Dogs

Monthly "Eddie-Torial"

Opinions expressed are not those of my internet provider
but are approved by Mikey and Minnie 2Dogs

To carry on from the May Eddie-Torial, the rest of 1999 will focus on our attitudes into the new millennium. This month we carry on in our dealings about the question of 'beliefs'. It has been approximately 2500 years since Gautama walked this earth (discussed in last months topic), 2000 since Christ, 1400 since Mohammed. In the history of the world only these three brought us a personal introspective type of belief in a power which rules us. Before and since we have had religions of community, organization and surrender, but these three preached a spirit of belief which is inward looking and personal. But of course, transcribing someone's thoughts and deeds will always bring about the inevitable organization with it's rules and procedures (dogma). We will try to get to the bottom of the original teachings, hopefully to see how have we fallen into the trap of organizing these free spirits, these freedom fighters who were actually rebelling against any organization of personal convictions within the sphere of the soul. In their day religions were already organized with their priests, sacrifices, offerings, votaries, and all religions were extremely hierarchical. It will be plain throughout these Eddie-Torials that the melding of religious thought, influences from earlier times is also at work. Although these three men threw off the old ways of belief it is plain that theocrasia has played a large part in what our religions have become, as all religions have this in common. I am only going to touch on the historical aspects, not on anyone's personal belief.

A tongue-in-cheek look at our convictions in the new millennium
or
Religion is not what it appears to be.

So I asked my friend Saul; "Just what is it that makes a good Christian?"
He thought for awhile and slowing drawing in his breath began his discourse. "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he sacrificed himself for the redemption of mankind. I also believe that all the matters pertaining to Jesus in the Bible are coded in symbolism, that it takes a divine mind to comprehend his teachings. I believe that those ordained have the power to guide us, to interpret for us what He preached. To be Christian is to be one of His chosen flock, to be a true Christian is to have the key to the door of Heaven. As a Christian I am convinced that through my fellowship with others that I can bring many souls out of Satan's grasp. I pray to Jesus everyday..I pray for his forgiveness, for his guidance, and for the courage to overcome my enemies."
I thanked him for his answer (while I thought to myself...'my friend, you have missed the point') and went on my way, never to return.

Part 1...'The Eddie-Torial Lesson..Theo-histor-ology 101'.

What needs to be discussed here is the possibility that theology and history can be viewed as one subject, a need to think on two levels at once to be able to meld these concepts into a real understanding of our religious history (and future).

Question: What is the Bible?

Bible comes from the Greek plural ta biblia meaning books. Latinized it became the singular Bible. It is more than a book, rather it is a series of different works collected together into several loose-fitting groups. The 2 main groups of course are the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The word testament is not what we in English mean a 'testimonial', a mistake made even by most pastors. It is from the Latin testamentum translating the Hebrew word for covenant. So we are looking at two libraries which are the covenants between God and His People. In the English speaking world we call these books 'the Scriptures' which gives these covenants the meaning that they are the words of God in writing and that it is also taken to mean the words of God not written but implied. This is what sets the historic Judaistic interpretation apart from our modern interpretation, that the old was a covenant written by God's servants for the people, and the new is set up and interpreted by many as the actual word of God, the 'I talked to God this morning and he said'... Perhaps this perception throws a curve into Christianity, as it allows for as many different interpretation as there are Christians and ipso-facto is the main cause of all the religious wars since the Christ was with us 2000 years ago. Differing interpretations create differing beliefs, each belief 'system' sets itself up as the one and only sanctioned interpretation of God's Word. Naturally, all sects believe themselves more righteous and 'Godly' than the next. Just so as not to pick on Christianity, Islaam (Islam) is also of the same bent, and has many sects within it as well.

Questions: Is it true? Is it exact?

Can a novel be true? Yes, in the sense that you connect with it, but we know that it is a made up story. Yet it is a good reflection of life easily identified with. Did things happen exactly as is written? Perhaps, most likely not, but it doesn't really matter, for the meaning comes across in the way a lesson in school comes across. To make a point one might speak of a hypothetical situation, not true but could be. It gives us the power to debate, to come to a conclusion, to solve a problem. So is the Bible absolutely exact and historical? Of course not, but it could be true. (The sublime concept here needs to be understood to be able to understand the Books).

Question: Who authored the Books?

The authors are many, and it really doesn't make any difference who they were other than to recognize the historical setting. The best way to visualize authorship is to relate them as you would any modern day author. The time of the writing, the historical and political situation, the bias and ignorance of the time. But the author is only half of the story, the other half is us, the readers. Take for example the story of the shepherds in Luke. Did they come to adore the Christ? Many of us say yes, that is the meaning. But hold on...does the author not state on second reading that they came to witness what was foretold, and then to spread the word to the world about this event in conjunction with the message of peace on earth and goodwill? This is a common pitfall...it happens with clockwork frequency when one pulls a sentence out of context. Meanings become confused and sometimes the real meanings are lost. All articles we read have a deeper dimension than just the words, what really counts is how the words are arranged, what comes before and what follows. In music we have a saying to all new students...The spaces between the notes are usually more important..without them there is no composition. Extremely sad examples of the outcome of this type of concept and interpretation is mirrored in people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the leaders of the churches who preach crusades and holy wars against 'unbelievers'.

Three types of authors can be recognized, the prophetic, the apocalyptic, and the priestly. Each author's style is indicative of the times and the needs of the people.

The apocalyptic writers, much as our modern day angry poets, were concerned with firing up the population to action, to become righteous. These writers lived during times of hardship, of conquest, of the diaspora.

The priestly author is of course concerned with the laws of the church, the laws of God, and the exhortation to worship and honor, and the histories of lineages.

The prophetic writers are perhaps the most misunderstood. First, a prophet within the old context means one who gives warnings of what may be if...Those who wrote of how to realize the future of a people, concern over development of a nation and how to accomplish this goal. That these 'prophecies' are actual views of the future is a common misconception. It is rather a lesson of what could be if the warnings are not heeded, and usually portend great insight into the human condition of the time.

When reading the Bible one must take into consideration all of the points above, a tall order, but not impossible. So to warn all my friends who would have a dialogue with me: Never throw a sentence out of the Bible at me and run....it is tied to a preceding and following paragraph. If you can't defend your thoughts or have a discussion in the old sense of discovery then keep them to yourself...you have missed my point.

Question: In the beginning...?

Jesus did not start his 'prophetic' (in the old sense of warnings and exhortations to righteousness) lifestyle until he was about 30 years old and taught (not preached) in the old classic fashion and tradition of the reb. In his day and previous all those who spoke or taught about God (like our fire & brimstone preachers) were called prophets, not because they could foretell the future (soothsaying was against the Law) but because they were professing knowledge about the Holy Laws and the possible effects on a person's or nation's welfare if they were not followed. We in our day see prophets as those who divine the future which guides the Bible and the meanings within into a whole new direction, giving it a surreal and 'foreknowing' flavor. To quote probably the most important statement Jesus was purported to have said...
Matthew 5, 17..."Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fullfill...
(most Christians would now quit, but that is not my way, because there is much more which cannot and should not be taken out of context)...
For I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled....
(and as yet not quitting)...
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven....
(and as all lessons have a counterpoint to drive home the point we close with)...
except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven".
Now then, what was He actually talking about...could it be that He was not about to set up a brand new kingdom of heaven on earth, but to fulfill the teachings of previous writings about how to get to that point. He states he is here to fulfill and not to destroy...so then why are the covenants of old thrown out the window, he certainly never negated them ('until the heavens and earth shall pass', which up to now has not happened). What he was trying to teach was the error of some old man-made laws which were not of 'God' but were written as doctrine/dogma. (Certainly the Sabbath was ordained by God and kept by him in the proper sense which someone after his death threw out of the window on us. It certainly was not repealed by God or by Jesus.) The praying in groups or the praying in public, much after the fashion of those who like to draw attention to their good deeds, was absolutely abhorrent to Him. He taught that prayer is a private matter between God and the individual. He told us about the Lord's prayer (which does not include any mention of Jesus) and was to be done 'in thy closet'. Open discussion and argument was invited (as it took the power of the priests away and allowed the common person to claim God for himself). Each point of discussion could be counterpointed by his teaching, it was never frowned upon. From his demeanor however, discussions between the authorities and Him in public could get a quick angry reaction, as He had no love of the church priests (Pharisees) and by deduction priests should already know the answer. Jesus was obviously a teacher of the common person and had been educated as a Rabbi because He was allowed to speak in synagogues. He also knew the lessons, being able to teach with authority. You see, as a conscientious Jew He would have been brought up very devout, and all Jews have to overcome many tests of faith.
Of his childhood very little is known and what had been written of it was done long after his death. If you are of the impression that even from birth He was considered a holy personage by ordinary people and neighbors you are laboring under a mis-apprehension. The views on having no father were probably stronger in those days than they are today, and public scorn would have forced the family into hiding or to move away...which reportedly happened but under the guise of having to flee for the life of the child because of Herod's edict. There is absolutely no proof of any of this, and proof would have been ample because the Roman form of government was built upon documentation of everything. Documents to support any of Jesus' life over His 30 years are non-existent, which is absolutely unbelievable. Could every document be destroyed? Could all the correspondence from Rome's outpost in Galilee be missing? How about all the scribes who actually lived in the area?
It is very convenient that nothing at all remains of his words and direct teachings except for the 4 gospels, of which some parts are plainly legends, having been written about his boyhood at least 60 years after the episode of his disappearance from his parents as a child (being found discussing rabbinical ethics), or his birth and escape from Herod's decree. Trying to get at who this man, Jesus, was is no easy matter, and one must wade through the hearsay, just as one would have to discount it in our modern courts of law. I am only here speaking to the man, not the belief that most have by way of everything else in the Bible. 'Just the facts ma'm' as was the line in Dragnet...So let us drag the net...

Just the facts ma'm...

First, a picture if I may, of a man of delicate stature (witness the quickness by which he died on the cross, crucifixion was a long 2 or 3 day ordeal). He was a man with an extremely magnetic personality, a penniless teacher and wanderer, casual gifts of food were his mainstay, and not the cleanest man on this earth. The unintelligently devout Christian always sees Christ as a surreal gliding figure of immense peace, white, aglow in Godly aura, who apparently has just stepped out of the bath, and bending over backwards to forgive all and sundry. This artist's view of Christ has done him a great dis-service. In reality he was quick to anger, had no love of authority but did respect the apartness of religion from state. He openly preached sedition against his own religion and its leaders with an earnestness and passion of epic charismatic zeal. More than once he was reprimanded for his hygiene habits. He disavowed knowledge of his family as we understand family, and termed all relationships as within the family of God. Temporal concerns were gladly handed over and not worried too much about...see 'that which is Caesar's or 'who is my mother and my brother' discussions.

This Kingdom of Heaven idea was not just Jesus' idea. Others at the same time or before him taught the same. John the Baptist was perhaps the best known, and Jesus and John knew each other quite well. This concept went against all that Judaism stood for, that all men were equal, that God was a God of love, not one of hate, retribution and revenge. God is incapable of showing favor between people for if he is a Just God he cannot favor one over the other. The traditional rabbis taught that God was a bargainer, a trader, a wheeler-dealer, a God of covenants. Jesus was harsh in his teachings. God was not a bargainer, that there was no chosen people as all people were sinners. The good samaritan parable conveys the scorn that Jesus showed against our natural tendency to glorify ourselves and our beliefs and minimize everyone else. He threw out the notion that some people have a special claim on God, and turned it around to mean that God serves all people alike. You are either worthy of the Kingdom or you are not, and as God's love is without bounds there cannot be degrees of his love. There are no excuses, no rebates, no coupons, no dispensations. All this that he taught was seen as seditious, and traitorous to religious and political leaders of his day. The fact that he was executed for his views is not surprising, then or even now.

was the life of Jesus foretold?...

A bone of contention on this topic. The old testament alludes to a messenger. Malachi is the clearest on this, who wrote about 400 years before our modern era that a 'messenger of the covenant' would appear to prepare a way before the Lord of Hosts (God). He would be a spiritual reformer before the day of the Judgment should come. He is one who reforms the laws, one who sets God's people on the right path. Keeping in mind our modern Christian upbringing one wonders why we open our hearts to this concept but close it to the covenants. The worship of other Gods other than the Lord of Hosts is strictly forbidden in Jewish, Christian and Islamic law, and was expressly touched on by Jesus as one of the laws which would not be reformed. So he was a reformer for sure, as to him answering prayers or being an intermediary is another matter. The Awful Judge will come, but according to the law no one I know as a Christian is worthy to receive the honor to enter the Kingdom.

the Pauline doctrine...

In the four gospels we become acquainted with Jesus and his utterances. But the Christianity we now embrace grew mainly out of the writings of Saul (Paul). To get at the truth we must, I am sorry to say, discount as we do in our courts, all second hand utterances and accounts. What we need are witnesses only. Visions are also not entertained, and those who would set themselves up as interpreters of the meaning of the teaching by Jesus must then also be ignored. I realize that most Christians revere Paul as an apostle (as Paul himself writes that Christ had appointed him as an apostle) and the greatest and most prolific writer on Christ's life. The funny thing about Paul...He never knew Jesus, he persecuted the Christians, then had a revelation and became a Christian himself. Being a scribe and publican, and also being well versed in Judaism and Mithraism he saw the need to put his spin on Christ's teachings, and thereby created the 'Pauline' doctrine/dogma (the laws of a church) and at about 70AD Christianity as a Church religion was born, incorporating aspects of several other popular religions into it.
There is a natural flow together of theologies...this is called theocrasia...where one religion blends with another, which then effects others in turn. The most outwardly are the ceremonies and expressions. Paul did nothing to enlarge the teachings of the Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus taught, he was much more like a child coloring the Kingdom of Heaven coloring book. Christian church hierarchy was preached by Paul, that of the shaven heads, the blood sacrifice, death as a sacrifice for the redemption of the human race. All these outward signs of religion go back at least 5000 years, and are burned deep within the human psyche. The altars, the offerings, the chantings and images, the phrases, the mother and child cult were all from the old Alexandrian/Egyptian/Mithraistic/Babylonian faiths. The Osiris evolution, of God dying to rise again thereby proving immortality is a direct transfer from the Egyptian Pantheon of Gods. You see, Paul found out early in his conversion that converting others was a problem without all these commonly held ceremonies to welcome the converts 'home'. But this is diametrically opposed to Christ's teaching, but never mind, after all, Paul saw his calling in a vision (and if he says it is of God, then he also impresses on us his divine right). Paul knew how to work the system, remember his training in life? That a power struggle was developing in the early church is obvious, and that Jesus said about Peter..'upon this rock I will build my church' he knew that Peter had taken to heart the teachings and would have passed them on in the true sense. But it is Paul who set up the church, and it is Paul who is thought of as the great constructionist. It is obvious that Paul never heard a word that Jesus taught, for by the time he was done the church gathering was made as the ultimate homage one could pay to 'our Saviour', and of course the praying in public, the teaching of legends (as truths) really took off. Believers in Christ were now taught what Paul thought Jesus meant to say, instead of letting Jesus speak for himself. Paul also had his disagreements with a couple of the real first-hand disciples. Christ taught that his message was for the Jews only for the fulfillment of the Jewish Laws, yet Paul wove his particular tapestry of understanding and drove it home by the claim that he himself personally knew Jesus (in a vision) and brought his views to the other writers as well, giving a couple of the epistles a certain 'Pauline' flavor. In his letter to Timothy (a new priest he ordained under his guidance) he calls him 'my son in the faith'...(didn't Jim Jones demand of his followers to call him father, and that he spoke for God, no...that he was God?)...move over, Paul just set himself up as the original 'father of Christianity'...Up to then all the gatherings of the Christians were Jewish in origin, and needed setting right as all were found wanting. By the authorities of Rome and Judah for about 3 hundred years they were but 'lamentable Jewish sects, this Christian cult'. Now Paul had his own disciples, and he taught them to accept Jesus as a continuance or metamorphosis of the older religions. Little is known of this split in the very early church, but several of Christ's apostles went their own way. It is through Paul that we face the dilemma of the trinity of the Godhead, and there are as yet factions of those who believe in the trinity, those who believe in the divinity of Jesus but as distinct from God the Father of Mankind. And then the Sabellians who believe that Jesus is just an aspect of God, they are one and the same (without the trinity aspect). There are a couple of Paul's interpretations which really go against the grain of all that is Christian, The over-importance of ceremonial observances written obviously by men, and the practice of 'divine oath'. But in his turn Paul sets up his perception of the church hierarchy, that of bishops, deacons, priests, and the belief in martyrdom as divine redemption, (the blood sacrifice) and the old belief of 'divine oath', meaning that those so ordained under this concept may make laws which are of 'God', in this case 'Jesus' as God. Not that any of this is bad in its own right, however, one wonders if Paul wasn't stuck in his own limited circle of understanding. He certainly was able to see far enough to realise that the church needed a leader and set himself up as the temporal head of his organized church. Among some Christian churches he is known as the great Usurper.

the Nazarene....

So who was this Jesus of Nazareth?
One can say that he was a man with a great understanding of his time in history. As a child he appeared to be a rebellious youngster. He was brought up to be a rabbi with authority, and by that he was a great teacher and clarifier, and himself quite doubtful of who he was. His relative and fellow prophet was John the Baptist, of whom was thought that he was perhaps the Messiah, even by Jesus. He was sure of what he represented, and He and John preached the same Kingdom of Heaven, yet each thought the other to be the Christ. He was a Jew, and had no intention of starting a religion in his name, he just wanted to clean up the Jewish faith. He brought all his teaching together under only two of the old commandments, from which all other rules of life are extractions. Which rules?...quoting the verses from Matthew 22,37..

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God (this is the first and greatest commandment, and the second is like unto the first)...

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets).

the New Christian...

Now if anyone thinks I have overstepped my bounds, or that my slant on the dogma surrounding Jesus is blasphemous I must concede to you that perhaps I am less righteous than you, but also remember what Jesus said about people finding that He was more righteous and good than the next man....'Why callest thou me good...there is no-one good but The Father'. Now why would he say such a thing if he was God incarnate. I am the light and the way...(the trap here is that He is not meant as 'he' the person, but as 'he' (the teacher)). So for further convenience, the Jews are as yet waiting for the Messiah, and Christ's followers figure him as the one who is to come as the Messiah a second time. Did he ever himself teach that there are two Messiahs?

Once again, and perhaps only a few people have it right...that Jesus was our example, our pointer back to the truth, which sadly had been bent out of shape shortly after his time by hearsay and gossip, legend and myth. And if he came back today just for a look he would probably see things as they were in his day, without change; the idolatry, the Pharisees re-incarnate, and all those who are devout church members lacking all the things which were the shortcomings of all the churches (sects) within his Jewish traditions. And he may just stumble upon a small group of people who read HIS teachings within the four gospels without the dogma and subsequent interpretations and who live by them daily, and say..."At least not all is lost".

Well, don't know if you agree or disagree, or just find this a bunch of bunk, feel free to respond to the writer.
The Eddie-Torial Message/Discussion Board is closed until further notice.
So until next month, play safe, surf wisely, and help yourself to a cookie
(make sure your dog gets one too).

*smiles*, Eddie

Previous Eddie-Torials
May, 1999
April, 1999
March, 1999
February, 1999
January, 1999
December, 1998
November, 1998
October, 1998
September, 1998
August, 1998

Eddie Dog²
Box 1353
150 Mile House, BC
Canada, V0K 2G0
[email protected]