I am not a prude or a wowser by any gauge but I have got to tell you I find it repulsive the way the children of our “civilization” have been bombarded with uncensored images of war. The warnographers of this world have been given carte blanche to pervert the minds of our most vulnerable, while they diverted our attention away from the foulest of human behaviour and focused it on a campaign against the lesser of two evils pornography. The “god-fearing” leaders of the Judaeo-Christian and Muslim nations have consistently ignored the effect, of their insane lust for war, on the innocent and chosen instead to demonise anything vaguely associated with sexuality outside of the accepted norms. On a scale of one to ten how do you rate the amount collateral damage caused by war verses porn?

If we rate the billions of people who have had their guts ripped out by war as a ten, then I would suggest by comparison the victims of porn would be less than one percent. Why are we not as outraged at finding our youth splattering heads on the internet as we would be if they were digitally engaged in on line sex. Responsible adults would understand the irony of this and no matter what your particular brand of belief is, collectively pray that the incoming new world order gets it’s priorities in place and doesn't continue on with the insanities of the outgoing warnography criminals.

I have recently had my eyes opened to statistics of current importance; Less than 50% of Americans pay more than 90% of the taxes (conservative estimate). Now I don’t claim to know a lot about the U.S.A’s business but considering I have just had it rammed down my throat for the last two years, I feel qualified to make a few comments or observations (depending on which way you look at it).

Barak Obama (BO) has risen to the top of the pile, on a groundswell of public opinion, by representing the views of the of the united minorities who felt disadvantaged under George W Bush’s (GWB) reign. He made it his position to associate himself with the descendants of the slaves who were ‘liberated’ by the results of the Civil War and his children bare that distinction. John McCain (JMC), by comparison, failed in his attempt to become ‘fearless leader’ because less than 50% of voters, who previously had more than 90% of the influence, failed to convince the now united majority that BO was really a closet Muslim.

Now I wouldn’t be surprised if less than 50% of disgruntled, tax paying, voting, gun totting fundamental patriots started to aim their criticisms towards the “fact” that the funding for BO’s social policies (spreading the wealth) is going to be coming out of their taxes. If I had to address their concerns, I would point out that when slavery was in fashion none of the slaves paid any tax at all but they did all the work.

Don’t be blindsided by the rhetoric of the “right”; the largest tax payers sit on the shoulders of the ones who pay the least. Undermining them will only bring down the whole structure, as apposed to supporting them and strengthening them, which can only be for the benefit of the whole.

We here, down under, tend to follow the leads of our mates in the northern hemisphere, so it is with apprehension that I comment on the approaching new world order or coalition of the willing and pray that we don’t make the mistakes of the past by buying bi-polar policies of good guys and bad guys, tax payers and dole bludgers, Christians and Muslims and more to the point Slaves and Masters.

The funny thing about beliefs is there’s a lie at the centre of it; now I don’t know about you but I think that's ironic. If a con-man, or to be more politically correct a con-person, wants to successfully sell you a lemon on the pretence it will ripen into an orange, they lie and you believe. If you have been unfortunate enough to purchase a load of lemons and intend to hand them out at half time at the footy on Sunday, then all is not lost if I can convince you of the lie in your belief; you can still turn them into lemonade. If you refuse to admit you have been conned and want to continue on believing the lie, then you are heading for a showdown.

When those who promote belief systems have a serious challenge aimed at them, they tend to hide behind the skirts of little old ladies saying" How can you shake our belief, when if what you are saying is true, then these little old ladies will be upset because they have lived their entire lives believing the lie”. This is were the ‘f’ an faith comes into it, fundamentally, they say: “Our oranges may look a little yellow and taste bitter but we have faith on the day they’ll be sweet, fu.” So how can you win against that type of dogma, the bigger the falsification, the bigger bad guy you become when you point out the truth. Now I know truth is subjective and one mans oranges are another mans lemons but don’t you think there’s far to many sour-pusses out there pushing yellow oranges onto people in the vain hope that you will have faith in their belief and not upset the apple cart.

I can foresee the criticism, I’ve used to many fruity metaphors and made a cocktail out of it when I should be sparing because there’s a lot of fruitcakes out there already, but you would have to admit it’s better than a ‘Rusty Salmon’ mornay. Anyway, the next time someone comes to your door handing out believer tracts, try taking the lie out of it and tell them to make beaver tracks or better still, go suck a lemon.

That was exactly what they did and leaving behind the castle they virtually ran out towards the long, flat and wide driveway just in time to see a small jet plane appearing appear over the hills, landing in spectacular style and pulling up right were they were standing. The hatch popped open and Sir Hamish was there ushering them in with a loud “all aboard.”

By the time they were settling themselves into their seats Hamish was back beside his co-pilot and taking off, this time they stayed low, very low. This time they were slaying under the radar.

“Where are we going?” asked Nat

“We will be crossing the coast of France and without entering their air space, following the border between France and Spain, through the Pyrenees Mountains and into the Mediterranean to pinpoint a villa on the Riviera that used to belong to Sadam Hussain. It has its own air strip even though it’s a bit overgrown now, since he hasn’t been using it lately, but it should serve our purposes adequately.”

“And what is our purposes, just out of curiosity?” asked Nat

“We will be interviewing a man who was the last man we know who saw your father Ms. McHale, before he jetted off to see you in Australia.” Replied Laurence

“So might he know something about the breastplate as well?” asked Buzz

“And why weren’t we told about this before?” asked Nat

“Yes and we have only just managed to track him down to this very villa.” Replied Laurence

“Does anybody else know about this place?”

“Oh yes, it was searched just like our castle is being searched right at this minute.” He replied

“Did they find anything?” Buzz continued asking

“Many priceless artifacts that they considered stolen by the Hussain family, Iraq’s heritage; they confiscated anything that seemed of any value and left the place a mess, it has been idle for sometime.”

“Will there be anyone else there?”

“Only us, it was our security forces that were given the job after the Yanks and that was how Joe McHale got on the job.”

“So there could be some important piece of evidence there that could help us solve this mystery and help get my father back.”

“Exactly Ms McHale, exactly.” Finished Laurence

The small jet came in low over the water and had barely crossed the coastline when the wheels touched down; it taxied towards the overgrown villa and pulled up right behind it, just like parking a car. As they alighted, a crumpled man appeared at the back door and waved a semi-friendly wave towards them. Laurence waved back in what was more of a salute, rather than a wave and then proceeded to enter the villa without any visible luggage. They all ended up in a Mediterranean style kitchen that must have been magnificent in its day.

----------------------

Gabriel wasn’t sure how much time had passed since he had finished his coffee; when he clapped his hands together, leapt out of the chair he had been sitting in and started running in the direction of the room he had left Natalie in. He burst through the door, startling her and almost yelled “He’s left us a map.”

“What?” Questioned a still startled Nat

“I think I can work out exactly what he was working on when he left here by following the notes and the method being used to catalogue. That’s got to tell us something about where he disappeared to and what it’s got to do with the breastplate.”

“Excellent, now you must listen to what I have learnt.”

“Go ahead I’m all ears.” Said a settled Buzz

“Remember when we first started doing this, we travelled back in time to Noah and the flood and the place we alighted at was called Nin-nar-mah or what we assumed was Nineveh; that place became the capital of the Assyrian empire. Ninmar was always their main deity, she and the two brothers Enki and Enlil split the world up between them, Enki had the south, Africa or Kish as they knew it back then and Enlil had the north ruling out of Nineveh. Ninmar was always going to fluctuate between the two; when she resided in the south Egypt flourished and when she resided in the north Babylon did.

The Breastplate was the symbol of she who carried that authority; some people have always been aware of that fact while others haven’t or have forgotten. In the past the rulers of Egypt knew it, the Babylonians did too. The sea peoples called Phoenicians knew it and the Greeks found out about it when Homer wrote of the search for the Golden Fleece.

When Troy was in its prime that’s where she and her breastplate resided, when Helen of Troy moved to Grease they went on to become world leaders. When Julius Caesar wanted to rule the world he moved to Egypt and married Cleopatra V11, a Greek Ptolemaic Queen who ruled from Alexandria. You can bet she had the Breastplate because she certainly had the appropriate temples, first in Alexandria with Julius and then in Jerusalem with Mark Antony.

The broad spread of information that has been made accessible to me has the power to overwhelm; the clarity that comes from focusing on one period is like a pressure release in a boiler that has been fully primed. Tempted as I am to leap forward to solve our problem, Mr. Izzard, I think what we have to do is focus on what is right before our eyes. Here we are thousands of kilometres away from home sitting in a modern day Mesopotamian despots abode surrounded by artifacts and fragments of the very past that we have been exploring. We have done the hard yards, we have studied the facts of the job at hand but what we have neglected is the heart of the matter. By seeking the actual breastplate of authority we have limited our end to being in a particular place and by concentrating on my father we have bowed to time constraints. What we have learnt already is sufficient to understand the association between the breast plate and ultimate physical power regardless of what time or place it is in. I assume it is not a magical power and that it is subject to the normal laws of physics. A rational explanation of the phenomenon is required if we are not going to slip into primitive superstition and that is precisely what I intend to devote my time to.”

----------------------------------

Gabriel finished his conversation with Laurence and after they had gone over some more of the intricacies he excused himself and began to make his way back to the library, hoping to meet up with Nat, sure enough when he got there she was busying herself with the items he had left on the desk for her.

“What do you think any ideas?” He asked

“It’s certainly systematic.” She replied

“I was particularly impressed with his connecting assumptions about the breastplate and the Parthian's.”

“Do you know much about them?”

“Just that they were occupying Iraq around the time of Christ; they were an empire in their own right and an opposing force to the Roman Empire who fought them for hundreds of years. There were women who married into the royal families of the Parthian Kings as well as the Roman nobles and the Ptolemaic Greek dynasties were interbred with the Egyptian, Jewish and Syrian ruling classes. It seems as though the Parthian nobles had infiltrated all the cultural groups that we have been discussing around this time period and that they may very well be the ones that offered protection to Cleopatra V11 when she was in exile.”

“This is what I was talking about last night, the interconnectivity of this line of investigation passing through so many cultures that we risk upsetting many different religions. Some of the revelations I have been having in my dreams seem so heretical to most religions that I want to go through them with you and explore the spiritual ramifications.”

Buzz pulled up a particularly well padded chair, propped himself up with a couple of cushions that happened to be at hand and indicated that she should proceed with her current line of thought with the words. “Please expound you have my total attention and I couldn’t be more interested in what you have to say.”

Comments by Ken Brown after I posted on his Blog Site at:

c-orthodoxy.blogspot.com in reference to David Wenham’s quote on the relationship between Jesus and Pauls teachings.

November 7, 2008 3:36 PM Ken Brown said. ..

Wayne,
I certainly do not "unquestionbly accept" the claims of the New Testament writers, but there is in fact an aweful lot of good historical evidence that they cherished and passed along the words of Jesus as best they knew them. As for your speculations about the rise of Christianity, I don't know of any concrete support to back them up.
The truth is, we wouldn't know anything at all about Jesus if it weren't for Peter, Paul and the other early apostles who remembered him and shared their memories (and hopes) with others. Without a doubt, the church that grew out this has done some horrible things (as people all over the world have done horrible things for all sorts of reasons), but Christianity's admirable emphases on grace, trust in God, self-sacrifical love, and living in imitation of Jesus owe as much to Peter and Paul as to anyone.
Why be hatin'? ;)

November 7, 2008 4:00 PM Wayne said...

Dear Ken,
I think you misunderstand me. Firstly; I like your blog and your open invitation to discuss things. I don't hate Paul, I just think he was one sick puppy. We are students of Theology, brothers in arms if you will and the Bible has been my constant companion for forty years, but I gota tell ya, the more I learn the more I question the legitimacy of Orthodoxy in that they have sold a lot of pork pies over the years and lived well on the proceeds.
On the question of "without peter and paul we would never have known Jesus' teachings"; I disagree, the early church fathers canonized one version of events and did their best to eradicate all others, maybe we would have got a better version if it wasn't for 'Saint'Peter and his successors.

November 7, 2008 4:55 PM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
No worries, I do indeed enjoy such discussions! But I'd like to see some facts to back up your accusations. For instance, there is certainly evidence that the later imperial church sought to eliminate "unorthodox" accounts of Jesus, but I don't see how you can blame Peter and Paul for that, nor is it at all clear to me that the apocryphal works they destroyed were actually authentic. After all, we've found a significant library of this material at Nag Hammadi, and very little of it has any chance of being original (probably a few parts of the Gospel of Thomas, and perhaps a bit more), buried amidst a whole lot of gnostic thought which surely has even less in common with the teaching of Jesus than orthodoxy. To be sure there is a great deal about Jesus that has been lost to history, but as far as I can see that is despite the church's efforts to preserve his memory, rather than because of them.
I do agree with you, however, that the entrenchmant of Orthodoxy (and often an "orthodoxy" that has little connection even with the Bible's own emphases on love for God and compassion for the poor) as the test of salvation has caused a great deal of harm. But I'm certainly not as willing to throw out the church as a whole simply because it (like all human institutions) has often been abused. That's just life; you take the bad with the good or you'll end up with neither.

November 7, 2008 6:59 PM Wayne said...

The arena of what the church has destroyed over the years is certainly worthy of investigation, although I don't know how anything concrete could ever be ascertained as the saying goes "the evidence has been destroyed" but my comments on Peter and Paul's legitimacy as the rightful heirs to Jesus' legacy, still stands and is backed up by very substantial evidence.
In his own words Paul admits to being the number one persecutor of Jesus and his followers. Jesus Himself is quoted as saying "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me", now my question to you is; if "Hitler had of been imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and whilst imprisoned for them, decided to write a third testament because he said he had seen the light, would we be obliged to accept his authority to do so, just on his say so, as was the case with Paul?

November 7, 2008 10:49 PM Ken Brown said...

You're comparing Paul to Hitler? Really? Did Paul pack up the early Christians and send them off to be slaughtered? Did he raise an army and wage a war against the populations of neighboring countries? He was a persecutor of the earliest followers of Jesus (perhaps even the most active one for a few months or years), but the whole point of his conversion was that he rejected that old persecution, and all of the rest of his life (including all his letters) reflect a very different view.
In fact, the whole of Paul's subsequent life is centered on a gospel based on God's grace (offered to all people, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, male and female; cf. Gal. 3:28). Compared to this, Paul considers his old way of life "a bunch of crap" (rough translation of Phil 3:8). All of which is to say, the very violence and heresy-hunting you reject, Paul also rejected, as part of the old way of life from which Christ had redeemed him.

November 7, 2008 11:14 PM Wayne said...

In answer to your questions. Yes Saul did round up followers of Jesus and imprison them before sanctioning their murder as in the recorded case of Steven and yes he did raise and army and invade a neighboring state. What do you think he was doing on the road to Damascus?
His campaign of terror lasted ten years and because Jesus didn't believe in the death penalty he was kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthian's of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them.
So I'm sorry this offends you but my point is; just because Paul turned over a new leaf didn't mean he had the authority to write as if he were God.

November 8, 2008 1:01 AM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
This is preposterous. Paul was present at (not even an active participant in) one murder. Hitler organized the sytematic extermination of 6 million people. Paul organized a brute squad and set off for Damascus (a single neighboring town) but, by all accounts, abandoned the mission before he arrived. Hitler built a massive military-industrial complex, invaded, bombed and deported neighboring civilian populations with the goal of world domination. Paul recognized his error early on and spent the rest of his life declaring the very faith he once sought to destroy. Hitler never repented of his actions and committed suicide when his plans failed. I can't believe you seriously think the two even remotely comparable.
Or do you think repentance itself is inherently illegitimate, that only those perfect from birth can be genuine followers of Jesus? I think Jesus himself would have disputed that, seeing as his whole message was summed up as "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news!" (e.g. Mark 1:15). Jesus counted former prostitutes, tax collectors and zealots among his closest followers; I think he would have welcomed a former persecutor like Paul.
As for the rest of your "facts," they are anything but. There is no evidence that Paul perseucted the church for 10 years, most think he converted within a few months or years of Jesus' crucifixion. And this notion that he was "kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthians of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them" is pure nonsense. Jesus, of course, was already dead, so Paul surely was not his prisoner (!), and in any event, Paul spent most of his life travelling throughout the Roman empire preaching about Jesus. He was eventually arrested and sent to Rome, not in Damascus but in Jerusalem, and not until 25 or more years after he became a Christian. Moreover, his arrest appears to have been based on his disregard for the Jewish law, but it was certainly not based on opposition to Jesus! Where are you getting your information?
Paul did indeed "turn over a new leaf," but he did not "write as though he were God." I'll grant that he did have a bit of an ego, and sometimes got carried away (especially in Galatians). He certainly wasn't perfect, but his whole life was built around God's love as shown in Jesus, of which--he recognized better than anyone--an old persecutor like him did not deserve. To compare him to Hitler is the height of absurdity.

November 8, 2008 12:30 PM Wayne said...

Settle petal,your slip is showing.
The basis of our faith is that Jesus was resurrected (not dead), how can you stand up for Paul if you don't even believe his own accounts of his trip to Damascus and the meeting with Jesus. The Parthians had very real treatise with Rome and had done so since the time of Augustus. The war against them was run out of Jerusalem and was waged for Three hundred years eventually ending up in the complete analyzation of their trading capital Palmyra; check your history books.
Now, I agree with you that Paul never reached the heights of depravity that Hitler did, I don't think I vaguely suggested he did. I will tone down my comment that he thought he was God and just settle for Apollos but their are a lot of people who treat his writing as if they were the actual words of God.
I am sorry that you and your sources think that Paul converted shortly after he and his mates crucified the Christ but I am confident that if you bother to check it out, the evidence is in Paul's actual accounts that he spent many years in the desert and was a prisoner of Jesus before he started his "missionary work" as an old man. So your assertion 'he spent most of his life preaching the word of Jesus' is the "absurdity".
I am a big fan of repentance and do believe it was a corner stone of Jesus' teachings but as I search the New Testament, I fail to find the place where Paul actually says he is sorry and continually get the impression he is in denial; focusing mainly on his doctrine of Salvation by believing what he did to Jesus was for a good reason.
As any good criminal psychiatrist will tell you, that's a problem when it comes to admitting crimes and a classic symptom of deluded prisoners of which Paul was one at the time of writing his Epistles.
Once again I am sorry if all this upsets you, maybe we should get off the subject of Paul. How do feel about the implication that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene?

November 8, 2008 5:17 PM Ken Brown said...

Heh. This nonsense doesn't upset me; it makes me laugh. By all means, let's talk about Paul, but how about offering some actual sources to back up your outlandish claims. Preferably primary sources, though at this point I'd even accept a reference to a specific secondary source.
How about Galatians 1 and 2? Here Paul admits his previous presecution of the church, but that on the road to Damascus (actually, he never says where he was when it happened; this detail is drawn exclusively from Acts), he recieved a revelation from Christ and a call to preach to the Gentiles. This was when he converted, and it was after this that he spent three years in the desert, then visited Jerusalem briefly, then spent fourteen years preaching the Gospel before returning to Jerusalem for another short trip (it is unclear whether this trip was that recorded in Acts 15 or a previous one), but regardless Paul was certainly not persecuting the church (let alone waging war against Damascus!) during this time. At the least, it is certain that he was already doing mission work, planting churches and preaching Christ well before he wrote Galatians, which is dated to the late-40s CE(at the earliest) and the mid-50s CE (at the latest).
Even if we accept the late date, that still leaves nearly 10 more years before he was killed in Rome, and yes he did indeed spend that time (if not also much of the previous 17 years), founding churches and writing letters, all the while preaching about the love of God in Christ.

November 8, 2008 6:45 PM Wayne said...

Orthodoxy hates to be challenged and considers it's position on all topic's as the only one, all other explanations are ridiculed. It patronizingly takes the position of one who knows the truth and has to convert the unwashed. Without a "Primary" or "Secondary" reference, most people instinctively know that Orthodoxy has all it's arguments boxed and categorized with reams of information gathered to support it's case and puts everything else in the "unauthorized" basket. So when dealing with dissenters, the flat earth society has traditionally given a "fair" hearing to the "nonsense" of one who dares to challenge their established views. Only then do they burn them at the stake even if later they take on the new truth.
In my case I have given the primary source as the very words Orthodoxy has purported to be the "guardians" of, purposely steering clear of any "unauthorized" sources, but you refuse to deal with those points that are completely verifiable in the New Testament documents, choosing instead to pretend they have no validity because they differ with your interpretation.
My choice to converse with you on these maters is not conditional to your acceptance of my interpretation. It is not my job to educate you nor give you specific answers to your questions like you are my inquisitor. If you choose to research what I am saying or not makes no difference to me but If you wanted to, I would recommend that you reread the material like you actually have an open mind towards what I am saying and then make of it as you will.
If you ever come to the conclusion that what I've been saying about Paul has some place in the evolution of Jesus' Church of Truth, then you might find some of my secondary sources useful; but some how I doubt it. Never the less here's a beauty, "The Bible is full of texts which take up previous biblical ideas and modify, extend, or call them into question." Ken Brown (What does it mean to trust the bible.)

November 8, 2008 8:54 PM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you can't expect these outlandish theories to be taken seriously if you are unwilling to offer proof. I'm a historian; I want to see evidence. I have little patience for bald assertion, whether in defense of orthodoxy or heresy, but especially when it comes to unconventional theories. Yet when I ask you for evidence, you claim that it's my job to find it. That makes it kinda hard to have a meaningful conversation.

November 9, 2008 9:34 AM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
We agree that the Bible should not be accepted unquestioningly. Don't you agree that speculative historical reconstructions deserve equal scrutiny?

November 9, 2008 9:45 AM Wayne said...

What is this outlandish theory you speak of? All I have tried to say here is that Peter and Paul (Alias Simon and Saul) were of dubious character and totally unqualified to be advisers to the modern world. I have backed this up with Quotes and reference points from the most reliable sources but you seem to be incapable of dealing with it, choosing instead to manipulate the conversation away from the subject at hand and create dispersions about my legitimacy to make such assertions.
You are the one who makes it difficult to have a serious conversation. You have discredited yourself by demonstrating your basic misunderstandings of the tenets of Jesus' Resurrection and go back on yourself via a mish mash of misunderstandings of the road to Damascus incident.
I really don't think you know anything about the Parthians and their long struggle with the Greek speaking Romans from Jerusalem (of which Paul was one) but that is were you could come up to speed if we were to bother. There is plenty of information on the Internet easily accessible for your convenience.
www

November 9, 2008 12:15 PM Ken Brown said...

"What is this outlandish theory you speak of?" How about these:
"After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today."
I'm curious: If Paul didn't convert until he was an old man "rotting in jail," how did he manage to found Christian churches in Galatia, Corinth, Philadelphia, Thessolonica, and throughout Asia Minor? Or is he "deluded" on this point?
"if Hitler had of been imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and whilst imprisoned for them, decided to write a third testament because he said he had seen the light, would we be obliged to accept his authority to do so, just on his say so, as was the case with Paul?"
Comparing Paul to Hitler is about as outlandish as it gets. Where is your evidence that Paul was a "mass-murdering, maniac"?
"His campaign of terror lasted ten years and because Jesus didn't believe in the death penalty he was kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthians of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them."
This sounds like you're saying that after his resurrection, Jesus didn't return to the Father but stuck around for 10+ years, imprisoned Paul (after the "Damascus faction" arrested him? Is this your interpretation of the Damascus Road incident?) then extradited him to Rome (forgive me but my math doesn't add up: Jesus died in the 30s CE; Paul died in the 60s. If Paul persecuted Christians for 10 years, what about the other 20?). Perhaps this is not what you mean (I sure hope it's not!), but I find it ironic that you are accusing me of "basic misunderstandings of the tenets of Jesus' Resurrection." Which tenets would those be?
"I am sorry that you and your sources think that Paul converted shortly after he and his mates crucified the Christ but I am confident that if you bother to check it out, the evidence is in Paul's actual accounts that he spent many years in the desert and was a prisoner of Jesus before he started his "missionary work" as an old man."
Where is your evidence that Paul was complicit in the crucifixion of Jesus? And how do you explain Galatians 1-2, where Paul claims his call to minister to the Gentiles in the name of Christ came fully 17 years prior to the writing of the letter (only 3 of which were spent "in the desert")? And when do you think Galatians was written, anyway? More to the point, even if you are right that Paul persecuted the church for 10 years (which you have given no reason to accept), that still leaves at least 20 more years until Paul's death; what was he doing during that time, if not missionary work? Which of Paul's accounts do you have in mind, anyway?
Frankly, you've made a whole lot of assertions, but provided zero evidence. You claim you have backed up your claims with "Quotes and reference points from the most reliable sources" but other than referencing Matt 16:23 and 26:34 in the first comment, I cannot find among your comments a single quote or reference to any source, reliable or otherwise. Perhaps you can point some out to me.
Yet when I ask you for evidence or challenge your assertions, you claim I am the one "manipulating the conversation away from the subject at hand." I fail to see how I have done so, considering "the subject at hand" is how much Paul knew about Jesus and his teachings. To be honest, I don't see where you have even addressed "the issue at hand."
You claim Paul's own letters support your claim that he spent most of his life exterminating Christians (and waging war against the Parthians?), but you have not provided a single reference to support this contention (whether to Paul's letters, another primary source, modern scholarly literature, or even a website). Instead you accuse me of patronizing, changing the subject, ignorance, and misunderstanding. And you say I'm the one making it difficult to hold a meaningful conversation?

November 9, 2008 9:42 PM Wayne said...

Well done Ken,
Now that I have you attention and you have actually stated what your concerns are, we can go through them step by step, if your up for it.
First on the agenda "Saul and his mates"; I know what I think of them but I am unsure of who you think that they were. The Sadducees, you must agree, were the ones who Jesus was continually referring to as a brood of Vipers (or do I have to back that up with a quote, pending your condemnation as an outrageous theory),were the main sect in control of the Temple at Jerusalem who formed the Sanhedrin, of which Saul was a member (as above), to stone people to death (as above).They were the ones who insisted that Jesus be crucified(as above) and even though Pontius Pilot washed his hands of their deluded, murderous, mania (and again I am sorry if this offends you but I am sure most decent people would agree with me) Complied with their request for fear of the ramifications of denying them.
Now before I go any further do you have a problem with my "theory" so far.
Wayne

November 10, 2008 6:27 AM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
That's a good start, but yes, I would prefer if you gave exact sources; generalizations are too easily manipulated and difficult to nail down. Thus:
The Sadducees, you must agree, were the ones who Jesus was continually referring to as a brood of Vipers (or do I have to back that up with a quote, pending your condemnation as an outrageous theory), were the main sect in control of the Temple at Jerusalem who formed the Sanhedrin...
I don't know about "continually" (there are only four references to "brood of vipers" in the gospels, two of which are quoting John the Baptist: Matt 3:7 and Luke 3:7), but certainly Jesus was at odds with the Temple authorities, including the Sadducees, and sharply criticized them. No argument there. Here however:
...of which Saul was a member (as above), to stone people to death (as above). They were the ones who insisted that Jesus be crucified(as above) and even though Pontius Pilot washed his hands of their deluded, murderous, mania (and again I am sorry if this offends you but I am sure most decent people would agree with me) Complied with their request for fear of the ramifications of denying them.
You're gonna have to back this one up. First, the purpose of the Sanhedrin was not to stone people to death. That may have sometimes happened (as in the case of Stephen), but it was not their purpose in existing, nor was it even within their legal right to do it. Most stonings seem to have been conducted by angry mobs, not officially sanctioned by the Sanhedrin (indeed, this is even true of the stoning of Stephen; and it is certainly true of the several times Jesus was almost stoned).
Second, where is your evidence that Saul/Paul was even a member? He was not a Sadducee but a Pharisee (Phil 3, Acts 23), and that was a large group, only a small portion of which were members of the Sanhedrin. Paul appears at the Sanhedrin twice according to Acts: in ch. 7 at the death of Stephen, where (I have already admitted) he was present, though it is unclear in what capacity. This is the only murder to which he can be specifically tied, so if you've got evidence that he was also complicit in Jesus' death, you're gonna have to be explicit about it (and give references).
As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that he was a member of the Sanhedrin itself, but even if he was I fail to see how that would prove him a "mass-murderer," nor how his (surely you agree: former!) membership would disqualify him as a follower of Jesus. After all, we know of at least one man who was explicitly identified as a member of the Sanherdin (Nicodemus; John 3:1) who, if John is to be believed, was welcomed by Jesus and later became a disciple. The question, of course, was not what he had done, but whether he would turn and follow Jesus.
And of course, according to Acts, it is shortly after the death of Stephen that Paul had his Damascus Road experience and rejected his previous life (Acts 9; or do you dispute this?). Thus, the only other time Paul appears in the context of the Sanhedrin is in Acts 22-23, where he is certainly not a member but a prisoner. While there, he specifically declares himself a Pharisee over against the Sadducees, who are accusing him of defiling the Temple (much as they previously accused Jesus). And of course, between Acts 9 and 22, Paul has had a complete transformation from persecutor to missionary. He has travelled throughout the eastern half of the Roman empire planting Christian churches (and suffering his own persecution for it), and preaching the very same self-sacrifice as Jesus taught. In fact, the only reason he is back in Jerusalem at all is to bring an offering collected from his Gentile churches "for the poor of Jerusalem" (Romans 15:25-27). It is this Paul who we meet in all his letters, not some "mass-murdering maniac."
Therefore, yes, I find the notion that Paul was a "mass-murderer," culpable for the actions of the Sanhedrin, outlandish. He wasn't even living in Jerusalem for the last 20-30 years of his life, let alone participating in the actions of its ruling council.

November 10, 2008 11:07 AM Wayne said...

Dear Ken,
A simple "no" would have sufficed but I appreciate all the assistance you have provided and the Quotes are really handy. So back to the task at hand.
Now that we have agreed on the fact that the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin in particular, were not a very nice bunch of men, we can move on all the way to the next controversial outrageous theory of mine that "Saul (Paul) was a member".
Sadly, I can't find out weather he actually paid his Union Dues that year, as they had a little problem with the records department when Rome Leveled the place, but then again all we really have to do is ascertain that he was known to be hanging around with the more radical types who were prone to stoning people at a moments notice.
Luckily, we have some excellent evidence in the N.T(Acts CH:7)when after Steven eloquently tried to explain to them some basic truths at an oficial "fair" hearing he was "stoned to death" because I think burning at the stake was out of fashon that year.
As you so wisely point out, Paul was just doing an impersonation of a coat rack at the time and as you point out it was just one tiny little murder.
So how am I doing? Can we move on to the next point yet or would you like an hours dissertation of the distinction between a Pharisee and a Sadducee (personally I don't see much difference seeing they were rarely not mentioned in the same breath)?
Wayne

November 10, 2008 3:28 PM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
You are welcome to move on to the next point, but I do not consider such details unnecessay. After all, look how they have changed the picture. Compare your last two comments with the first one you left on this thread: You go from calling Paul a "deluded, mass-murdering, maniac" and true forebear to all that has ever gone wrong in the Church, to admitting that we have no direct evidence of his involvement in any but one murder, and even there his precise involvement is uncertain (he was present and approving, but there is no evidence he actually committed the deed). Perhaps it's just me, but there seems a pretty significant difference between the two positions. The first, I maintain, is outlandish and unprovable, the second is not. Can we agree?
In any even, please note that my point is not, and never has been, to absolve Paul of guilt. As 1 Timothy 1:12-15 (likely pseudepigraphal) rightly puts it, he was "a blasphemer, a persecutor and a violent man" but the emphasis there is (rightly) on the past tense: that is what he was before Christ, but everything changed when he experienced Christ's "grace" for himself. I am certainly not suggesting that Paul's involvement in Stephen's death (or persecution more generally) should be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. I am merely challenging your earlier comments that violence and murder characterized his life as a whole, rendering even his later apostolic ministry suspect. Please, reread your first comment on this post and tell me it isn't over the top.

November 10, 2008 9:27 PM Wayne said...

Thank You Ken for allowing me to move on to my next point."Saul (Paul) a deluded, mass murdering maniac".
I can see where you need to have every little point clarified and please excuse my broad vision, when I should have realised tunnel vision was what was required. Properly expressed, with all that we know now, it should have read; Saul (Paul) who was known to hang around with deluded mass murdering maniacs, was a Blaspheming, Persecuting, Violent man and an author of outrage by his own admission in 1 Tim 1:13.
This was before he raised a "Brute Squad" and headed off for Damascus as stated in Acts 9:1-3 "Saul, with every breath he drew, still threatened the disciples of the Lord with MASSACRE; he went to the High Priest (Head Sadducee)for letters of commendation to the synagogues at Damascus, so that he could arrest them all, every man and woman belonging to The Way, and drag them back to Jerusalem."
Where, according to his profile on wikipedia, he centered his life for the rest of the 30's before he started his missionary work in the 40's.
Is that better,
Wayne

November 11, 2008 1:27 AM Ken Brown said...

Wayne,
That, at least, is not "outlandish," though I would still have some serious objections to it (for starters, you left Acts 9:3 out of your quote, which is a pretty significant omission!).
Unfortunately, at this point I am going to have to beg off the conversation. In the next week I need to finish a term paper (on, as a matter of fact, Paul's knowledge of and attitude towards Jesus' life and teaching) and get ready for a conference, and I have a great deal too much to do for both. Perhaps we can take this up again in a couple weeks?
God bless,
Ken

November 11, 2008 5:11 PM

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Here we are poised on the brink of, yet another, New World Order with its particular problems, solutions and policy slants. While we can be ecstatic about getting rid of the ones who got us into our present dilemmas, it is understandable that people are nervous about the incoming regime. For Australian's the Bush-Blair-Howodd years came with a certain narcotic effect, pleasantly numbing one's sensibilities to the inevitable cost of empowering money hungry, unecological war mongers and now we are not sure whether an Obama-Rudd coalition of the willing, are going to be able to pull us out of the mire.

Maybe the change we should be looking for is not a new order to the old system but a new system of order? One that is more applicable to the constant changes of modern life in the Twenty first century; not an out dated, dictator producing, paper shuffling bureaucracy that seem to produce an ongoing supply of stumble bums who eloquently brainwash us into what a good job they are doing.

Never before in the history of this planet have the peoples of the world had the opportunities that we have today to initiate and endorse a system that is run for the people, by the people; yet we continue to prop up a style of government that tends to favour the ones that run it. An educational based Internet voting system could provide us with the tools we need to participate in the decision making process that determines how we operate as a society. Any attempt to deride that possibility is an attack on the concept of real democracy; although people I come across continually allude to the 'fact' that the masses aren't intelligent enough to really participate.

This conundrum stands before us like a monolithic obscurity, towering in its potential yet ignored because of its implications. More than any other human trait, bravery stands head and shoulders above all others in shaping that which we all admire in the achievements of our species and maybe, yet again, the quality needed to take the quantum leap forward towards a future we can all contribute to.

There is no valid reason why, with the technology at hand, mankind cannot seize the moment, take the reins and proceed towards a form of self government that could leave anything we have ever had before sadly lacking by comparison. If we actually took this step it would not be without its pitfalls and difficulties, in application ,but as with all things worthwhile its overall value could be directly proportional to this factor and in itself. should not be a reason for inaction.

Now I don't pretend to have a consummate formula to solve the worlds problems but that doesn't negate the premise that just because the whole, perfected program doesn't exist at the moment we shouldn't pursue the ideal. Only when a committed, sustained, combined effort has been attempted would a feasible alternative emerge and with the enormous potential on tap, it would be a shame if our young talent wasn't give the encouragement to at least attempt a prototype.

My plea, in attempting to rattle the cage of our existing system, is that you don't dismiss a possible improvement in Democracy by the use of Cyber techniques just because the ones who are perfectly happy with the flawed version we are stuck with now, don't want change. Expand your horizons, broaden your mind, allow the room for improvement to permeate your tendency to leave well enough alone. If we all settled for near enough is good enough then you'd still be driving a model T and the landlords would have wedding night rights to your matrimonial bed.

“And what will we be doing?” asked Nat

“Waiting,” replied Buzz “waiting for the trap to spring and see who will be left holding the bag, in that bag should be your father and our treasure.”

“Brilliant.” Commented Nat

“That what I thought, now tell me more about this Queen of Sheba of yours. I’ll set the scene with what I know and then you can take over.”

“Once the Hebrews had escaped the clutches of a corrupted Egypt and placed themselves in Gods hands away from the sweeping arm of an expanding Babylon, they began to prosper again. Joshua’s forces had established themselves in the Holy land under Asher in the north and Judah in the south, the Ark of the Covenant remained at the Rock of deliverance. There were reports of constant fighting between the tribes and squabbles over who would be king; this kept them separated from the peaceful people of god who were continuing to grow as a great trading nation in Sheba. Eventually when Solomon the wise consolidated the wealth at the newly refurbished temple at Jerusalem and had the Ark placed at the center of worship, the Queen came to visit them.”

As he finished speaking, Natalie’s demeanour changed and a regal look appeared in her eyes. She stood, began gesturing with her arms and recalled the following events. “It was a glorious day when she finally sailed up the eastern fork of the Sinai Peninsular on the Red Sea, the pride of her fleet. Her entourage was quite small considering her importance but as she was entering by the front door of the stabilized kingdom of Solomon, the wise and just ruler, she felt they would be safe and welcomed; which they were. She had brought with her much treasure to lie at the feet of Solomon and had cautioned her whole caravan and guard to be constantly on alert as they were entering a brood of vipers. If they all played their parts well, they would all leave alive and with a treasure greater than the one they were carrying.

Although Solomon had heard of her journey to meet him and had sent men and envoys aplenty to assist in expediting her safe arrival, she insisted in moving at her own pace and camped outside his gates one final night before presenting herself and her delights to him the following day. His kingdom was at a time in history that would never be overshadowed, all was at order and all was in its place, his rule was never to be bettered.

The Hebrews had carved for themselves a place in the grand scheme of things; they sat squarely between two empires, not to be out done by either. Solomon was intent on displaying it to the world and the world was coming to him, by the time she walked into his presence, he had polished everything within his reach. Everyone who served him had done their job well; the palace glistened like a diamond set in pure gold and all the tribes were lined up in order of importance. Twelve tribes and a priestly caste presented themselves with Solomon at their center and he seated her at his side, on that giant stage.

She began the dialogue loud enough for all to hear, asking questions that were designed to allow him the space to display his wisdom, of which she praised at every opportunity. Every word and every gesture was like a part in a scripted masterpiece worthy of a Shakespearian epic. They parried with the expertise of two master swordsmen putting on a display for an adoring public, each cut and thrust crafted not to injure but to allow the opponent the opportunity to wow the crowd. The pandering and opulence went on for days and nights, what with gifts to exchange, banquets to be savoured, artists to be admired and beauty to be swooned over there was hardly a moment for them to share alone. Finally that moment arrived when Solomon dismissed all the others and had her totally to himself.

He wooed her like no woman had ever been wooed before and after he had known her for some time, on a balcony overlooking the temple; he proposed the concept of joining their nations together in Holy alliance. She deferred the moment suggesting that she would like to give him her answer in front of the Ark, alone before God. This stopped him in his tracks, for as far as he knew no woman had ever entered the Holy of Holies, he didn’t know how the head priest would respond to that request. Given a moment to think and not wanting to appear weak or restricted in his own kingdom, he reluctantly agreed.

Later that night, after he had removed all the people from the temple and its surrounds, he sent for her to come alone into the temple.

He met her outside the two massive doors that barred entry to any one who wasn’t sanctified. She was wearing a red cape and he was attired as only a king was allowed, they walked hand in hand through the empty temple and slipped passed the veil that protected Israel’s most precious sacred item from the prying eyes of all but the elite. As they stood there in awe at what they were looking at, he began to recite for her the words that would be recorded in the Song of Solomon.

By the time he had finished his recital, she had slipped off her red cape and was standing in front of the Ark wearing nothing but the astoundingly beautiful breastplate of Noah’s wife. Sparks flew and the sacred chamber immediately filled with lights of many colours as the Beloved of God was lifted up by light and held as if pinned by twelve shards of Technicolor above the Ark. Solomon passed out and by the time he had awoken, she had gone and so had the Ark. He wasn’t sure how long he had been out but he had left orders that they were not to be disturbed and they weren’t for what turned out to be a very long time.

As he left the temple his head guard ran up to him asking for instructions, he managed to indicate that no one was to go in there as he made his way into the palace and summonsed his personal advisers. After they had sufficiently yelled at one another for an appropriate amount of time, they managed to come to the agreement that Solomon was far to wise to be ripped off by a woman and that sending out spies to quietly to access the situation was the way to go. When they finally realized they were getting nowhere with their inquiries, they covered it up and it wasn’t spoken about again.”

                                                                      ------------------------------------------

“What do you think?” sparked up Natalie, now in the grand old library of the castle.

Gabriel was furiously flicking through the pages of brick like text books, when he raised his head and said “I don’t know what to say, I’m, I’m awestruck, just continue, I mean please continue, if you can, if your all right with that.”

“Yes,” replied Nat “get me going again with what you know.”

“Well, it wasn’t long after the death of Solomon that the kingdom fell into disarray eventually being divided into the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin, led by Jehoshaphat and The northern tribes led by Ahab. The Phoenicians had become great and powerful at that time because of their ability to dominate the oceans of the world. They had brought back to their home in the Mediterranean, treasures from the four corners, spices from Java, precious stones from India, gold from Africa and even cocoa products from South America. Their main trading items were cedar and hashish from Lebanon and of course olive oil. They were a highly cultured people whose daily trading script gave us the alphabetical style of writing that we still use to this day. Their man in Lebanon was King Hiram whom had made available tradesmen and materials to Solomon, so he could furbish his temple.

Their Goddess and Queen were known to them as Eli and her image was carried on all of their vast fleet of Arabian style boats in the form of brass statuettes. The thin woman’s image has been dug up by archeologists all over the place. They were a ferocious people when it came to protecting what was theirs and their kingdom extended as far as Ethiopia and India. Their warships were figure- headed by the warrior Goddess, the war cry was Eli, Eli, Eli repeated over and over and if you heard it you ran in the opposite direction as fast as you could. The Polynesian’s claim to be their modern day descendants and I wouldn’t want to argue with them about it. They have been around since the glory days of Egypt and have participated in the building of all civilizations at some level.

Jezebel or Yeshubel was a princess to the Phoenician’s, her mother the Queen of Tyre had been a monarch in the Syro-Phoenician Empire for longer than most could remember. She was much loved by the Syrian people, who occupied most of Arabia and Mesopotamia, but she was despised by the mountain dwelling worshipers of Yahweh who saw her as the evil Babylonian goddess Ashtoreth. Her father was lord or king over the Syro-Phoenicians and honoured as the deity Baal. Jehoshaphat, the leader from Judea and his priests of Yahweh were dedicated to their extermination.”

Natalie started speaking and took over from Buzz in such a smooth way that it was hard to tell were he finished off and she began.

“Ahab, Asa’s or Asher’s other son, who was king of the northern tribes of Israel wanted peace more than his brother; when it was suggested that he could stabilize his kingdom and therefore dictate terms to Jehoshaphat by marrying Jezebel he willingly agreed.

Little did he know the trouble it would cause and the extremes that the priests and prophets of the southern tribes would go to in their war against Baal!

Jezebel had grown up in the privileged surrounds of the purple clad ruling class of a vast empire but her loyalties belonged to the religious cast.

She considered herself to be a priestess in the time honoured religion of her Matriarchal forbearers and desired nothing more than to unite all peoples under one god, the god of her mother and father, but to the mountain men from Jerusalem that made her their number one enemy.

She had prepared well for her journey into the poor, dusty kingdom of her betrothed and had received from her parents a caravan of riches to supply her and the hoards of beautiful young priestesses that she was taking with her from her father’s coastal city of Sidon. If she was going to rule these backward, poverty stricken people then some colour was going to be brought into their gray lives and with a company of well trained soldiers to protect them, she intended to tour the land of Israel and introduce herself to them personally.

They parked their caravan of delights outside the walled cities of the lowlands, setting up like a modern day rock concert drawing the people out to see her and her entourage perform music, fine arts, light shows and semi-naked belly dancing. Most were suitably impressed but the priests of Yahweh always managed to have a representative there yelling out abuses, generally degrading her and her religion. Eventually Ahab heard what she was doing and realizing how it must have been offending Jehoshaphat, rode out of his fortified city of Samaria to plead with her to stop what she was doing and come with him into the safety of his home where they would be married and live. He was not well prepared for this task and when he arrived dirty and unshaven from his hasty journey, was arrested by the impressive guard she had surrounding her camp. He was brought before her for sentencing and when he had finally convinced her who he was she ordered that he be taken away, bathed, shaved and when suitably attired be returned to her presence where they would begin discussions on their future.

This was done and over dinner, before the evening was out, his initial concerns were put to rest and although he was falling totally in love with this goddess from Tyre he was flabbergasted by her intentions.

Not only was she planning a feast for their wedding but proclaiming a public holiday for the celebration of the wedding of her goddess Ashtoreth to his god Yahweh. What she didn’t explain to him was that this would be a reenactment of the old Egyptian tradition of Isis wedding Osiris.

Nobody said that it would be easy, the known world was about to erupt into war. The Mede’s, Persians and mighty Assyrians were pushing in on the North and North-Eastern front, Egypt and Judea would be attacking them from the South. Their prophets and priests were to be murdered by Jehoshaphat, her parents people were pulling out of Tyre and moving to Libya to begin building Carthage and although they managed their rule for forty years Ahab and Jezebel where destined to go down in history as a failure. Eventually the whole area was swamped by the awesome might of the Assyrian Empire as it established it’s domination over all and ruled from Babylon with an iron fist. Not only did they defeat the Jews and take the Ark and all the Temple Items back to their headquarters, making all pay homage, but they overran Jezebels temples and took for themselves the ultimate prize of the goddess her self and her beautiful breastplate. She was taken as far as the Assyrian Kings home town of Susa, near the Persian Gulf, where she became known as Esther to her enslaved peoples and Scheherazade to Arabs. The tales of a thousand and one Arabian nights were about to begin along with the Jewish tales of a woman from their stock who went on to rule Nabuchodonosor’s Babylon.