The Abrahamic Faiths
For the past several years I have undertaken a critical look at the three Abrahamic faiths. Needless to say, my views are quite controversial, but I believe my assessments to be objective and honest. I have many Christian friends, their beliefs and political perspectives range greatly (from Baptists to Presbyterians). I have a few Muslim friends (and I do call them friend), and I know a few Jews, though not as well as my Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters. There can be no question that these faith traditions have dramatically impacted the course of human history and culture. One of those impacts is rooted in the assertion that each hold an ineffable text that is in one way or another from God and that each tradition is the only true tradition of the only true god. When one group of people tell another that their traditions and beliefs are all false and wrong and that they should abandon them for another 'true' god it invariably drives a wedge between the two groups.
Luckily in our contemporary western culture we socially accept many faith traditions and belief systems. But in ancient times the rich culture and art of what we term 'pagan' traditions were lost, though not all (Roman, Greek, Norse, and even some Celtic endured). One might think that is a good thing on the surface, as those old pagans were into human sacrifice and devil-worship... right? Not so quick. The whole idea of Devil-Worship was anti-pagan propaganda invented by popes and bishops, while some "primitive" pagan sects practiced animal sacrifices let us not forget that so did the Jews of old and the Muslims of today. Most contemporary pagans (99%) do not, and those that do are derivatives of African-voodoo-Santeria systems. Some pagans of old did sacrifice humans, particularly in the central and south American lands before Columbus. Like most peoples life was precious to Pagans, they did not take life for granted. We must also put such practices in the context of the day. While a Celt may have offered a captured enemy as a sacrifice before battle to win some favor of their God, Christians were burning heretics and pagans at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Muslims were just as violent, perhaps more so (some still are). To be fair to all groups death was dealt often by all.
Jews
Abraham's son Isaac begot Jacob and Jacob wrestled and Angel and the Angel called him Israel. So first Israel was a man before ever becoming a nation. Israel's people ended up in bondage in Egypt for 400 years and upon their liberation they sought out the 'promised' land of Israel (Jacob). They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (40 being a number that signifies a long time , or 'as long as it takes'). When they found the Promised Land, there were already people there and so they took it by force. It was during this time in the wilderness and finding the Promised Land that Moses recorded the Law. After these 12 tribes of Israel (of the Promised Land of Jacob) established a kingdom (of Israel) a temple was constructed in Jerusalem by King David's son Solomon, this marked the beginning of the first temple period somewhere after 1000BC (~970-931). Sometime in the 9th century BCE a schism formed between the ten tribes in the northern part of Israel and the tribe of Judah in the south, and there was a split. From around 740-722 BCE the Assyrians invaded and sacked Israel(the Northern Kingdom of) and exiled all the elites/upper-class, priest, etc. forevermore(i.e. "The Lost Tribes of Israel"). Low class Israelites remained there and would later be known as the Samaritans. In 586 BC the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and in a similar way exiled the elites to Babylon. Several decades later, Persia warred with and conquered Babylon, the Persian King let the tribe of Judah return to Jerusalem and Judah became Judea and the temple was rebuilt around 520BC, thus begins the Second Temple period. Persia still ruled over Judea but allowed them to keep the laws of Moses and for the most part govern themselves. Alexander the Great came a long a couple centuries later and drove out Persia, ruling Judea in a similar manner as Persia did, then the Greeks gave way to Rome (after a brief period of liberation -see Maccabees) whom governed in a more harsh manner.
This is a very quick recap of the history of the Jews(Judean's) leading up to the first century AD/CE. An important distinction between Judah and Israel was that Israel permitted the worship of other gods (Inclusive Yahwehism) as they had a considerable pagan population whereas Judah did not, nor did Judea later(Exclusive Yahwehism). Both favored the God of Israel (Yahweh) as their national deity, but the northern nation permitted worship of gods like Baal in addition to Yahweh. At this time neither insisted that Yahweh was the only god in existence as the verbiage of the Ten Commandments did not say there were no other gods, it read, "you shall not have any other gods before me". Yahweh was the god of Israel. Most cultures and nations had a national deity, just as the Canaanites had Baal, or a 'god most high' as the Greeks had Zeus. This belief in the existence of only one God came about later, just before the time of Jesus and so it was the view of Christians and later Muslims.
If you have never heard this or understood this, you might be like "damn!" right?
In 70AD there was a Jewish revolt (a Jew would be a person of the Judean tribe) and Rome destroyed the second temple. Around this time more apocalyptic writings began to surface in Judea. It was also a bit after this time that the Christian Gospels Luke and Matthew are believed to have been written. I find it interesting that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple only in the gospels that were written after the destruction of the temple. Such a prediction is not in Mark which was believed to have been written by John-Mark in 65AD. Jesus did predict a "desolating sacrilege" in the temple, to be fair to Mark, but not the actual destruction.
Finally in 130-135AD Rome exiles the Jews and renames the region Palestine after the Philistines of an older time. Like previous exiles some Jews remained but these were the poorer, low-class Jews. This exile would last until the end of WWII in the 1940's. There were some smaller migrations back to Jerusalem over the centuries, but a State of Israel was not re-established until the late 1940's.
Hebrews became Israelites, then Judahites, then Judeans, then Jews, now Israelis -at least from the perspective of Jewish people living in modern day Palestine.
The Jews held the belief that God dwelt in the temple at Jerusalem (at least in this realm), well at least that was the claim of the Sadducees in the time of Jesus, the Pharisees thought a little differently. When the temple was destroyed in 70AD we hear no more of the Sadducees and the common belief is that the Rabbinic Jewish traditions that have endured since were inherited from the Pharisees. The religion transformed from a sacrificial-based tradition to a community-based tradition that moved away from stoning people for sins and transgressions and more towards one of atonement with those one has transgressed against.
Regarding the violent commandments in the Old Testament I want to note an observation that I believe is particularly important. The laws of Moses found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written after the exodus of the people of Israel (Hebrews) from Egyptian enslavement and after Moses was given the Ten Commandments. Many scholars today have serious doubts as to whether Moses was the actual source for these additional laws (as the author of Deuteronomy and Leviticus). Why is this important? I want to point out that the liberation of Israel from Egypt came not at the point of the sword but when Moses pleaded with Ramses to 'let his people go'. When there was enough misfortune (9 plagues) it was attributed to Moses's warning to Pharaoh and Pharaoh's reluctance to free the people of Israel. Moses rebuked Joshua when he wanted to take up arms against Egypt, liberation would not come by the sword, that would only bring more death. In my view, the pursuit of Israel to obtain the land promised by God (The Land of Caanan) was where and when Israel lost its way. Using the justification of divine providence to conquer such lands at the tip of the spear neglects the lesson of liberation and makes Israel no better than Egypt. The "Will of the gods" was again abused through human interpretation, just as it had been in Egypt. Islam made the same mistakes, back in the seventh century and even today in some sects.
Judaism has changed much since these times. Dave Rubin recently interviewed Rabbi Wolpe and they cover some of the contemporary differences between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism:
Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vwXlg1874
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKRUj13llE
Part3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2n0PE8VMUA
Christians
In studying the history of Israel and Palestine throughout biblical times I cannot help but notice that the birth of Christianity came about after a long history of a defeated and oppressed people. Since the liberation from enslavement in Egypt the descendants of Abraham through Jacob(Israel) have come under the rule of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and finally they were ruled by Rome until exiled from Judea/Palestine around 130AD. In the time of Jesus and Paul, the Jews were still under the thumb of Caesar.
My point is that their struggle against oppressors was part of their DNA, even though it could be argued that Alexander the Great afforded them many freedoms and allowed them to retain their culture, religion, and laws... which the Persians also did before him. The Jews were still ruled by some other nation to some extend for nearly all of their history outside the first temple period.
A result of this was a lot of apocalyptic prophecy among other things. Prophecies of someone that would free them from bondage, such things as recorded in scripture gave them hope for a future of liberation. This kept them going, allowed them to accept their temporary bondage with some measure of grace, though the power of death was always looming above them. Until one day a very wise Jew came along doing things and saying things with a boldness uncommon among the oppressed. This man seemed to have some authority over bad spirits and the illnesses of men that quite obviously came from the Divine. Was he this Messiah that the prophets spoke of? We could go into the details of the prophecy and how early Christians did well matching Jesus of Nazareth up to these prophecies (even the mis-translated ones), but the point I want to get to is that in the story of Jesus's resurrection the power of death (and therefore oppression) was defeated.
This was a game-changer, it meant that if you died as a martyr then you would likely have life eternal because death had no power. It may be important to note that not all Jewish traditions in Jesus's time believed in bodily resurrection, only the Pharisees and their philosophy/interpretation did. What I think I have realized about this is that a pacifistic sect of Judaism evolved out of centuries of weakness and defeat. If Jesus was not resurrected then these people had no hope, ever.
All great wisdom traditions believe that a path to peace is the path worth taking. But even Buddhist monks believe in self-defense (with a few exceptions noted).
Who was Jesus? If we look at just the Gospel of Mark and perhaps some of Acts and Paul's early Epistles we get a different sense of who Jesus is that we would if we include the rest of the gospels and some of the other writings of the New Testament.
For example, no where in Mark does Jesus or anyone claim that Jesus is literally the son of God. Jesus speaks of God the Father as a separate person, prays to him, tells his disciples that he is their father in heaven too. In Mark we do not have the baby Jesus story, which tells us of a Virgin birth and a census in Bethlehem. These stories about Jesus's birth in later gospels tie Jesus to the prophecies of the Messiah, the Anointed One. It was believed that this deliverer would be of the House of David and that he would be born to a virgin mother.
Regarding House David. It was well known that Jesus was from Nazareth in the biblical accounts of his ministry. What is not stated, but was know at the time, is that about 100 years before Jesus the region of Galilee was previously pagan and forcibly converted to Judaism. From what I know of culture and anthropology of that time/region it would have been very unlikely even 100 years later that individuals in Galilee were descendants of David. The story of Jesus's birth takes Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the Roman Census. This is where someone of the house of David would go for such a census, thus tying Jesus to House David. That would mean that Joseph was of House David, wasn't Joseph not Jesus's Father (i.e. The Holy Spirit/God was)? Maybe it didn't matter in that culture... more on this later. Then we have the virgin birth. Right. Let's back up a bit. These accounts were written in the 80's AD or later. A couple centuries before an Alexandrian Gentile in charge of the Library at Alexandria commissioned a Greek translation of the Jewish Law, which included the scripture of the Prophets. In the book of Isiah we have a prophetic description of the coming of the Messiah. In the Hebrew version the word used to describe the Messiah's mother translates to "Young Maiden" or even more simply "woman", virgin is a different word. In the Greek the word for 'Young Maiden' also can mean 'Virgin'.
Most of Jesus's disciples were poor Galileans and did not read or write, with the exception if Judas (a scribe) and we know what happened to him. Most of the disciples in the first century were Greeks (mostly due to the Apostle Paul), and they would have been readers of the Greek Translation if they could get their hands on any copy of the old prophecies that told of the Messiah. The one's that describe the Messiah's mother with a word that can also mean 'Virgin'. So we have an immaculate conception story and a virgin birth. It is also important to note that the dominant language in Jerusalem was in fact Greek. Many also spoke Aramaic but Greek was used by all.
What about Jesus being the 'Son of God'? There are a couple versus in the OT that would have given the Christians the idea that the messiah was to be the son of God. In the Psalms there is a verse where it basically says that the messiah will be of the house of God and be as a son to God. The temple was the 'House of God' so this is most likely what the psalmist meant, considering the perspective of the faithful in the time of the psalm's penning, the Messiah would likely be a priest in other words. A deliverer being fathered by a God sounds very, very Greek to me. This is most likely how Greeks would have interpreted this and this of course would have been a good conversion tool.
If the disciples of Jesus and those that came to the faith in the years immediately after his crucifixion believed Jesus to be the literal son of God, let alone God himself we would not have had the council of Nicaea in 310AD. After Constantine's conversion there was much debate regarding the divinity of Jesus so he asked for the bishops to all get together and come to some consensus. The debate was not so much whether Jesus was Divine, it was more about when he became so. Some say it was so before the beginning of time.. i.e. "Let us make man in our own image" the plurality here is God the Father and God the Son (Jesus). Some asserted it was at His crucifixion, or resurrection, or perhaps ascension... in these later cases Jesus would have been 'exalted', another very Greek concept. There were even some that asserted that Jesus was in fact a separate divinity. The problem with this is that, as detailed above regarding the Jews, the belief in only one god had become the accepted view, and this must be retained. So the three-in-one Godhead was agreed upon even though few claimed to understand what the heck that even meant. The third part of this Godhead being the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, which Christians often assert was given to us by Jesus, even though references to the Holy Spirit pre-date Christ (and that it makes no sense to a pagan such as myself, ahem, Nwyfre).
There is a lot more I could say that would eviscerate Christian theological claims further, but that is not really what I'd like to do. I will just say this; Jesus of Nazareth's message and movement got hijacked by the later church. What he taught was one of the most enlightened messages of human history. The tragedy in this hijacking is that many contemporary Christian traditions focus too much on the creed that came of the Nicaean Council, and not enough on Jesus's message. Fortunately for the world many Christians do get the message. In fact, of all three of the Abrahamic faiths, none provide relief and compassion to the world as do Christians. It is my wish that Christianity returns to this simpler message of hope, acceptance, forgiveness, and love with all peoples not just other Christians. Overly-merchandised, multi-million-dollar, gargantuan mega-churches are an abomination of the Christian faith in my view. Despite my objections to some of the dogmatic principals of Christianity I believe that at it's core it is a great faith, I don't know if a return to that is possible.
Jesus as a historical figure was an apocalyptic prophet that was also reputed to possess great healing abilities. That much we can be confident in.
Islam
Somehow Islam traces its roots to Abraham through Ishmael, Abraham's illegitimate son from his union with an Egyptian slave (Hagar) of his wife Sarah. Muhammad was orphaned as a child raised with his uncle for a bit whom also passed when Muhammad was young. (Islam to this day is very charitable towards orphans) He was not Jewish or Christian. Around the age of 25 he married a widow in her early forties and helped her run her business. Over the next decade or more he becomes a successful businessman in the city of Mecca. Muhammad was a spiritual person, frequenting a cave outside of Mecca to meditate, on one such occasion at the age of 40 he was visited by the Angel Gabriel whom told him three times to 'read'. Muhammad did not know how to read. Over the next few years Muhammad had many things revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel. Muhammad had followers that wrote these things down for him. These are the scriptures of the Quran. There were, in addition to the Qu'ran (Koran), many sayings of Muhammad that were written down, are known as the Hadiths.
During his time (the first time) in Mecca, he became an irritant to the merchant class, speaking against the pagan idols among other things, which was a source of revenue for the merchants. The famous black rock in Mecca was a destination for pilgrims of many Persian and Arab pagan religions, local merchants sold wares and religious merchandise to such pilgrims/tourists. The early Muslims spoke against such idolatry, eventually leading to their exile. After that they went to Medina.
In Medina, Muhammad eventually became a leader in defense of the city. After this success the warlord Muhammad took the fight to Mecca in a successful campaign that changed the course of history in the middle-east, and the world.
Over the centuries Islam spread through the expansion of the Caliphate. Make no mistake this was a nation like other nations and conquest was not above them. Many converted to Islam peaceably but many did not. Jews and Christians were considered 'people of the book' meaning that they were cousins in the Abrahamic traditions so they were called to be protected if they did not convert. Pagans were not so fortunate. Even under protection Jews and Christians were subject to special taxes and treatment that amounted to nothing less than an apartheid.
Christianity was founded as a peaceful, loving, non-institutional social movement within Judaism. It was centuries later that orthodoxy and the adoption of orthodoxy as a state religion transformed Christianity into something that I think Jesus would have been appalled to see. Islam was institutionalized from the beginning, likely deliberately to avoid the same sort of mess that followed Christianity, but I would argue that the first failing of Islam as a legitimate faith is that it did not shy away from the power of death or using that power as an instrument of conquest.
The Israelites failed their God when they brought the sword, Christians did the same, and Islam barely took a step before it made the same mistake. All three religions documented their religion and pointed to the text as a measure to judge others and therefore divide peoples, setting themselves apart as better or chosen. I know many Christians that still point to scripture in the NT and OT and use such text to illustrate how some behave badly and assert which actions and which worship is right.
Jews and Muslims teach that we can only be worthy of God by following commands or rules that govern our behavior and demonstrate fidelity to God. Christians believe that no set of rules that we can come up with will make us 'good enough' to be so worthy and that admittance to Heaven is paid by the blood of Jesus Christ, the only one that was ever 'worthy' as long as we have faith in that.
Between the three I would have to agree most with Christians, we are a noble species but often selfish and constantly destructive. Any set of rules that we suppose was handed to us by a higher power has succeeded only in dividing us and hypocritical judgement of one another. We are not very 'worthy' in my view, we use rules like a club to oppress, but I also do not believe that we are being cosmically judged. The Abrahamic God tells us what healthy and unhealthy behaviors are. Buddhist do this a bit more succinctly. The God of Abraham also tells us that one path leads to death and one path leads to life and so we reap the fruit of the seeds we sow. I think that this statement is essentially true, but I don't believe that there is a docket or an indictment that will be handed down by this God (or any god for that matter). I think our journey is more like the Druid's view.
Druids
Druids by comparison do not believe that there is a judge that will determine whether our eternal spirit goes to a place of reward or to a place of punishment and that it is utter silliness to believe that a cosmic architect would think in such small ways. Druids believe that our eternalness experiences many life cycles starting with simpler life forms and progressing to more complex lifeforms. Each incarnation helps this eternal self grow. To our knowledge, the Human life is the most complex of these. If we grow enough we move on from this reality to the next. In this way it is a natural progression, not the result of a cosmic judge. Some Druids believe that the next realm or reality is not the same as the realm that the creating power resides, rather it is another realm of growth. The simplest incarnation in that realm is higher than human incarnations in our realm. Such Druids would likely consider Jesus to have ascended to this realm. This might be the realm of the angels of all the angelic ranks, or perhaps the realm of ancient pagan gods. But no Druid will assert over another (anyone) that such concepts are an unequivocal truth, it is not our purpose to figure out what exactly is above us (spiritually), obviously this is a mistake as history has shown. They only assert that there IS something above us, that the spirit endures the death of the physical body and that there is a divine presence spiritually above that we can have some connection or relationship with. With regard to heaven, most Druids agree that another existence of growth is more likely than a reward heaven where there are no challenges to the individual, such a place would be a place of spiritual stagnation.
The assertion that there is a reward in heaven, a paradise, is the hopeful fantasy of limited thinking, and most likely an invention of the system of controls of organized religions. The next realm is a place of growth and admittance cannot be earned alone by keeping rules or by the judgement of God, the natural progression of ascension is gained through the growth of reaching the full potential of the human existence (which is varied from individual to individual).
Some variance of these basic assertions exist in modern Druidry, "ask any three Druids what Druidry means and you will get six different answers." -John Michael Greer, Archdruid AODA
Luckily in our contemporary western culture we socially accept many faith traditions and belief systems. But in ancient times the rich culture and art of what we term 'pagan' traditions were lost, though not all (Roman, Greek, Norse, and even some Celtic endured). One might think that is a good thing on the surface, as those old pagans were into human sacrifice and devil-worship... right? Not so quick. The whole idea of Devil-Worship was anti-pagan propaganda invented by popes and bishops, while some "primitive" pagan sects practiced animal sacrifices let us not forget that so did the Jews of old and the Muslims of today. Most contemporary pagans (99%) do not, and those that do are derivatives of African-voodoo-Santeria systems. Some pagans of old did sacrifice humans, particularly in the central and south American lands before Columbus. Like most peoples life was precious to Pagans, they did not take life for granted. We must also put such practices in the context of the day. While a Celt may have offered a captured enemy as a sacrifice before battle to win some favor of their God, Christians were burning heretics and pagans at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Muslims were just as violent, perhaps more so (some still are). To be fair to all groups death was dealt often by all.
Jews
Abraham's son Isaac begot Jacob and Jacob wrestled and Angel and the Angel called him Israel. So first Israel was a man before ever becoming a nation. Israel's people ended up in bondage in Egypt for 400 years and upon their liberation they sought out the 'promised' land of Israel (Jacob). They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (40 being a number that signifies a long time , or 'as long as it takes'). When they found the Promised Land, there were already people there and so they took it by force. It was during this time in the wilderness and finding the Promised Land that Moses recorded the Law. After these 12 tribes of Israel (of the Promised Land of Jacob) established a kingdom (of Israel) a temple was constructed in Jerusalem by King David's son Solomon, this marked the beginning of the first temple period somewhere after 1000BC (~970-931). Sometime in the 9th century BCE a schism formed between the ten tribes in the northern part of Israel and the tribe of Judah in the south, and there was a split. From around 740-722 BCE the Assyrians invaded and sacked Israel(the Northern Kingdom of) and exiled all the elites/upper-class, priest, etc. forevermore(i.e. "The Lost Tribes of Israel"). Low class Israelites remained there and would later be known as the Samaritans. In 586 BC the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and in a similar way exiled the elites to Babylon. Several decades later, Persia warred with and conquered Babylon, the Persian King let the tribe of Judah return to Jerusalem and Judah became Judea and the temple was rebuilt around 520BC, thus begins the Second Temple period. Persia still ruled over Judea but allowed them to keep the laws of Moses and for the most part govern themselves. Alexander the Great came a long a couple centuries later and drove out Persia, ruling Judea in a similar manner as Persia did, then the Greeks gave way to Rome (after a brief period of liberation -see Maccabees) whom governed in a more harsh manner.
This is a very quick recap of the history of the Jews(Judean's) leading up to the first century AD/CE. An important distinction between Judah and Israel was that Israel permitted the worship of other gods (Inclusive Yahwehism) as they had a considerable pagan population whereas Judah did not, nor did Judea later(Exclusive Yahwehism). Both favored the God of Israel (Yahweh) as their national deity, but the northern nation permitted worship of gods like Baal in addition to Yahweh. At this time neither insisted that Yahweh was the only god in existence as the verbiage of the Ten Commandments did not say there were no other gods, it read, "you shall not have any other gods before me". Yahweh was the god of Israel. Most cultures and nations had a national deity, just as the Canaanites had Baal, or a 'god most high' as the Greeks had Zeus. This belief in the existence of only one God came about later, just before the time of Jesus and so it was the view of Christians and later Muslims.
If you have never heard this or understood this, you might be like "damn!" right?
In 70AD there was a Jewish revolt (a Jew would be a person of the Judean tribe) and Rome destroyed the second temple. Around this time more apocalyptic writings began to surface in Judea. It was also a bit after this time that the Christian Gospels Luke and Matthew are believed to have been written. I find it interesting that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple only in the gospels that were written after the destruction of the temple. Such a prediction is not in Mark which was believed to have been written by John-Mark in 65AD. Jesus did predict a "desolating sacrilege" in the temple, to be fair to Mark, but not the actual destruction.
Finally in 130-135AD Rome exiles the Jews and renames the region Palestine after the Philistines of an older time. Like previous exiles some Jews remained but these were the poorer, low-class Jews. This exile would last until the end of WWII in the 1940's. There were some smaller migrations back to Jerusalem over the centuries, but a State of Israel was not re-established until the late 1940's.
Hebrews became Israelites, then Judahites, then Judeans, then Jews, now Israelis -at least from the perspective of Jewish people living in modern day Palestine.
The Jews held the belief that God dwelt in the temple at Jerusalem (at least in this realm), well at least that was the claim of the Sadducees in the time of Jesus, the Pharisees thought a little differently. When the temple was destroyed in 70AD we hear no more of the Sadducees and the common belief is that the Rabbinic Jewish traditions that have endured since were inherited from the Pharisees. The religion transformed from a sacrificial-based tradition to a community-based tradition that moved away from stoning people for sins and transgressions and more towards one of atonement with those one has transgressed against.
Regarding the violent commandments in the Old Testament I want to note an observation that I believe is particularly important. The laws of Moses found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written after the exodus of the people of Israel (Hebrews) from Egyptian enslavement and after Moses was given the Ten Commandments. Many scholars today have serious doubts as to whether Moses was the actual source for these additional laws (as the author of Deuteronomy and Leviticus). Why is this important? I want to point out that the liberation of Israel from Egypt came not at the point of the sword but when Moses pleaded with Ramses to 'let his people go'. When there was enough misfortune (9 plagues) it was attributed to Moses's warning to Pharaoh and Pharaoh's reluctance to free the people of Israel. Moses rebuked Joshua when he wanted to take up arms against Egypt, liberation would not come by the sword, that would only bring more death. In my view, the pursuit of Israel to obtain the land promised by God (The Land of Caanan) was where and when Israel lost its way. Using the justification of divine providence to conquer such lands at the tip of the spear neglects the lesson of liberation and makes Israel no better than Egypt. The "Will of the gods" was again abused through human interpretation, just as it had been in Egypt. Islam made the same mistakes, back in the seventh century and even today in some sects.
Judaism has changed much since these times. Dave Rubin recently interviewed Rabbi Wolpe and they cover some of the contemporary differences between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism:
Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vwXlg1874
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKRUj13llE
Part3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2n0PE8VMUA
Christians
In studying the history of Israel and Palestine throughout biblical times I cannot help but notice that the birth of Christianity came about after a long history of a defeated and oppressed people. Since the liberation from enslavement in Egypt the descendants of Abraham through Jacob(Israel) have come under the rule of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and finally they were ruled by Rome until exiled from Judea/Palestine around 130AD. In the time of Jesus and Paul, the Jews were still under the thumb of Caesar.
My point is that their struggle against oppressors was part of their DNA, even though it could be argued that Alexander the Great afforded them many freedoms and allowed them to retain their culture, religion, and laws... which the Persians also did before him. The Jews were still ruled by some other nation to some extend for nearly all of their history outside the first temple period.
A result of this was a lot of apocalyptic prophecy among other things. Prophecies of someone that would free them from bondage, such things as recorded in scripture gave them hope for a future of liberation. This kept them going, allowed them to accept their temporary bondage with some measure of grace, though the power of death was always looming above them. Until one day a very wise Jew came along doing things and saying things with a boldness uncommon among the oppressed. This man seemed to have some authority over bad spirits and the illnesses of men that quite obviously came from the Divine. Was he this Messiah that the prophets spoke of? We could go into the details of the prophecy and how early Christians did well matching Jesus of Nazareth up to these prophecies (even the mis-translated ones), but the point I want to get to is that in the story of Jesus's resurrection the power of death (and therefore oppression) was defeated.
This was a game-changer, it meant that if you died as a martyr then you would likely have life eternal because death had no power. It may be important to note that not all Jewish traditions in Jesus's time believed in bodily resurrection, only the Pharisees and their philosophy/interpretation did. What I think I have realized about this is that a pacifistic sect of Judaism evolved out of centuries of weakness and defeat. If Jesus was not resurrected then these people had no hope, ever.
All great wisdom traditions believe that a path to peace is the path worth taking. But even Buddhist monks believe in self-defense (with a few exceptions noted).
Who was Jesus? If we look at just the Gospel of Mark and perhaps some of Acts and Paul's early Epistles we get a different sense of who Jesus is that we would if we include the rest of the gospels and some of the other writings of the New Testament.
For example, no where in Mark does Jesus or anyone claim that Jesus is literally the son of God. Jesus speaks of God the Father as a separate person, prays to him, tells his disciples that he is their father in heaven too. In Mark we do not have the baby Jesus story, which tells us of a Virgin birth and a census in Bethlehem. These stories about Jesus's birth in later gospels tie Jesus to the prophecies of the Messiah, the Anointed One. It was believed that this deliverer would be of the House of David and that he would be born to a virgin mother.
Regarding House David. It was well known that Jesus was from Nazareth in the biblical accounts of his ministry. What is not stated, but was know at the time, is that about 100 years before Jesus the region of Galilee was previously pagan and forcibly converted to Judaism. From what I know of culture and anthropology of that time/region it would have been very unlikely even 100 years later that individuals in Galilee were descendants of David. The story of Jesus's birth takes Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the Roman Census. This is where someone of the house of David would go for such a census, thus tying Jesus to House David. That would mean that Joseph was of House David, wasn't Joseph not Jesus's Father (i.e. The Holy Spirit/God was)? Maybe it didn't matter in that culture... more on this later. Then we have the virgin birth. Right. Let's back up a bit. These accounts were written in the 80's AD or later. A couple centuries before an Alexandrian Gentile in charge of the Library at Alexandria commissioned a Greek translation of the Jewish Law, which included the scripture of the Prophets. In the book of Isiah we have a prophetic description of the coming of the Messiah. In the Hebrew version the word used to describe the Messiah's mother translates to "Young Maiden" or even more simply "woman", virgin is a different word. In the Greek the word for 'Young Maiden' also can mean 'Virgin'.
Most of Jesus's disciples were poor Galileans and did not read or write, with the exception if Judas (a scribe) and we know what happened to him. Most of the disciples in the first century were Greeks (mostly due to the Apostle Paul), and they would have been readers of the Greek Translation if they could get their hands on any copy of the old prophecies that told of the Messiah. The one's that describe the Messiah's mother with a word that can also mean 'Virgin'. So we have an immaculate conception story and a virgin birth. It is also important to note that the dominant language in Jerusalem was in fact Greek. Many also spoke Aramaic but Greek was used by all.
What about Jesus being the 'Son of God'? There are a couple versus in the OT that would have given the Christians the idea that the messiah was to be the son of God. In the Psalms there is a verse where it basically says that the messiah will be of the house of God and be as a son to God. The temple was the 'House of God' so this is most likely what the psalmist meant, considering the perspective of the faithful in the time of the psalm's penning, the Messiah would likely be a priest in other words. A deliverer being fathered by a God sounds very, very Greek to me. This is most likely how Greeks would have interpreted this and this of course would have been a good conversion tool.
If the disciples of Jesus and those that came to the faith in the years immediately after his crucifixion believed Jesus to be the literal son of God, let alone God himself we would not have had the council of Nicaea in 310AD. After Constantine's conversion there was much debate regarding the divinity of Jesus so he asked for the bishops to all get together and come to some consensus. The debate was not so much whether Jesus was Divine, it was more about when he became so. Some say it was so before the beginning of time.. i.e. "Let us make man in our own image" the plurality here is God the Father and God the Son (Jesus). Some asserted it was at His crucifixion, or resurrection, or perhaps ascension... in these later cases Jesus would have been 'exalted', another very Greek concept. There were even some that asserted that Jesus was in fact a separate divinity. The problem with this is that, as detailed above regarding the Jews, the belief in only one god had become the accepted view, and this must be retained. So the three-in-one Godhead was agreed upon even though few claimed to understand what the heck that even meant. The third part of this Godhead being the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, which Christians often assert was given to us by Jesus, even though references to the Holy Spirit pre-date Christ (and that it makes no sense to a pagan such as myself, ahem, Nwyfre).
There is a lot more I could say that would eviscerate Christian theological claims further, but that is not really what I'd like to do. I will just say this; Jesus of Nazareth's message and movement got hijacked by the later church. What he taught was one of the most enlightened messages of human history. The tragedy in this hijacking is that many contemporary Christian traditions focus too much on the creed that came of the Nicaean Council, and not enough on Jesus's message. Fortunately for the world many Christians do get the message. In fact, of all three of the Abrahamic faiths, none provide relief and compassion to the world as do Christians. It is my wish that Christianity returns to this simpler message of hope, acceptance, forgiveness, and love with all peoples not just other Christians. Overly-merchandised, multi-million-dollar, gargantuan mega-churches are an abomination of the Christian faith in my view. Despite my objections to some of the dogmatic principals of Christianity I believe that at it's core it is a great faith, I don't know if a return to that is possible.
Jesus as a historical figure was an apocalyptic prophet that was also reputed to possess great healing abilities. That much we can be confident in.
Islam
Somehow Islam traces its roots to Abraham through Ishmael, Abraham's illegitimate son from his union with an Egyptian slave (Hagar) of his wife Sarah. Muhammad was orphaned as a child raised with his uncle for a bit whom also passed when Muhammad was young. (Islam to this day is very charitable towards orphans) He was not Jewish or Christian. Around the age of 25 he married a widow in her early forties and helped her run her business. Over the next decade or more he becomes a successful businessman in the city of Mecca. Muhammad was a spiritual person, frequenting a cave outside of Mecca to meditate, on one such occasion at the age of 40 he was visited by the Angel Gabriel whom told him three times to 'read'. Muhammad did not know how to read. Over the next few years Muhammad had many things revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel. Muhammad had followers that wrote these things down for him. These are the scriptures of the Quran. There were, in addition to the Qu'ran (Koran), many sayings of Muhammad that were written down, are known as the Hadiths.
During his time (the first time) in Mecca, he became an irritant to the merchant class, speaking against the pagan idols among other things, which was a source of revenue for the merchants. The famous black rock in Mecca was a destination for pilgrims of many Persian and Arab pagan religions, local merchants sold wares and religious merchandise to such pilgrims/tourists. The early Muslims spoke against such idolatry, eventually leading to their exile. After that they went to Medina.
In Medina, Muhammad eventually became a leader in defense of the city. After this success the warlord Muhammad took the fight to Mecca in a successful campaign that changed the course of history in the middle-east, and the world.
Over the centuries Islam spread through the expansion of the Caliphate. Make no mistake this was a nation like other nations and conquest was not above them. Many converted to Islam peaceably but many did not. Jews and Christians were considered 'people of the book' meaning that they were cousins in the Abrahamic traditions so they were called to be protected if they did not convert. Pagans were not so fortunate. Even under protection Jews and Christians were subject to special taxes and treatment that amounted to nothing less than an apartheid.
Christianity was founded as a peaceful, loving, non-institutional social movement within Judaism. It was centuries later that orthodoxy and the adoption of orthodoxy as a state religion transformed Christianity into something that I think Jesus would have been appalled to see. Islam was institutionalized from the beginning, likely deliberately to avoid the same sort of mess that followed Christianity, but I would argue that the first failing of Islam as a legitimate faith is that it did not shy away from the power of death or using that power as an instrument of conquest.
The Israelites failed their God when they brought the sword, Christians did the same, and Islam barely took a step before it made the same mistake. All three religions documented their religion and pointed to the text as a measure to judge others and therefore divide peoples, setting themselves apart as better or chosen. I know many Christians that still point to scripture in the NT and OT and use such text to illustrate how some behave badly and assert which actions and which worship is right.
Jews and Muslims teach that we can only be worthy of God by following commands or rules that govern our behavior and demonstrate fidelity to God. Christians believe that no set of rules that we can come up with will make us 'good enough' to be so worthy and that admittance to Heaven is paid by the blood of Jesus Christ, the only one that was ever 'worthy' as long as we have faith in that.
Between the three I would have to agree most with Christians, we are a noble species but often selfish and constantly destructive. Any set of rules that we suppose was handed to us by a higher power has succeeded only in dividing us and hypocritical judgement of one another. We are not very 'worthy' in my view, we use rules like a club to oppress, but I also do not believe that we are being cosmically judged. The Abrahamic God tells us what healthy and unhealthy behaviors are. Buddhist do this a bit more succinctly. The God of Abraham also tells us that one path leads to death and one path leads to life and so we reap the fruit of the seeds we sow. I think that this statement is essentially true, but I don't believe that there is a docket or an indictment that will be handed down by this God (or any god for that matter). I think our journey is more like the Druid's view.
Druids
Druids by comparison do not believe that there is a judge that will determine whether our eternal spirit goes to a place of reward or to a place of punishment and that it is utter silliness to believe that a cosmic architect would think in such small ways. Druids believe that our eternalness experiences many life cycles starting with simpler life forms and progressing to more complex lifeforms. Each incarnation helps this eternal self grow. To our knowledge, the Human life is the most complex of these. If we grow enough we move on from this reality to the next. In this way it is a natural progression, not the result of a cosmic judge. Some Druids believe that the next realm or reality is not the same as the realm that the creating power resides, rather it is another realm of growth. The simplest incarnation in that realm is higher than human incarnations in our realm. Such Druids would likely consider Jesus to have ascended to this realm. This might be the realm of the angels of all the angelic ranks, or perhaps the realm of ancient pagan gods. But no Druid will assert over another (anyone) that such concepts are an unequivocal truth, it is not our purpose to figure out what exactly is above us (spiritually), obviously this is a mistake as history has shown. They only assert that there IS something above us, that the spirit endures the death of the physical body and that there is a divine presence spiritually above that we can have some connection or relationship with. With regard to heaven, most Druids agree that another existence of growth is more likely than a reward heaven where there are no challenges to the individual, such a place would be a place of spiritual stagnation.
The assertion that there is a reward in heaven, a paradise, is the hopeful fantasy of limited thinking, and most likely an invention of the system of controls of organized religions. The next realm is a place of growth and admittance cannot be earned alone by keeping rules or by the judgement of God, the natural progression of ascension is gained through the growth of reaching the full potential of the human existence (which is varied from individual to individual).
Some variance of these basic assertions exist in modern Druidry, "ask any three Druids what Druidry means and you will get six different answers." -John Michael Greer, Archdruid AODA
Comments
Post a Comment