It will not have gone unnoticed by the small cadre of folk who still bother to follow this eclectic and eccentric blog that my productivity has waned of late (? fate). In mitigation, I have been distracted and, frankly, overwhelmed by a host, nay horde, of personal issues that are none of your concern. Consequently, I have not been able to put forth the mental effort required to craft my essays. With all that said, I have managed to put together several fragments, rough and unfinished as they are. Hopefully, within the next few months I will be able to find time to complete and publish these fledgling posts for the delectation of the folk who have the wit and patience to see beyond the written word.
Due to considerations beyond the ken of man, I have declared a hiatus from the follow-up post regarding the generalship of Pyrrhus. Do not despair, gentle reader. I have started the post; however, it requires extensive editing. Pyrrhus' tactical application and deployment of the diverse troops under his command deserve commendation. In this regard, Pyrrhus is a worthy successor of the Alexander tradition. Sadly, Pyrrhus lacked Alexander's famed luck and strategic genius. All this will be discussed in the post to come.
Today's topic concerns my accumulated thought process, obtained over many years of concerted contemplation diligently acquired. I will begin by offering the usual caveat: I am in no way a biblical or ancient historical scholar; my expertise lies elsewhere. I'm an enthusiastic amateur devotee. Take this post as you will. Also, I invite serious and considered comments from my readership. In particular, I am interested in thoughts and contributions from Christians. Although I consider myself a critical atheist, I am not of the rabid persuasion. I do not proselytise nor am I interested in converting Christians to my brand of disbelief. What a person believes is of no interest to me, and I respect an individual's right to believe in whatever religious doctrine they choose. I never raise the topic amongst peers or casual acquaintances. But God help the hapless street preacher who accosts the flaxen-haired one as he perambulates the fair streets of NZ, minding his business. They, once of their own volition engage, are fodder for my brand of penetrating debate; no quarter will be given or asked for.
Initially, this post was a one-off, self-contained entity. However, it grew with the telling, and I quickly realised that my screed would exceed the accepted word limit for the blog format. Consequently, I have split the topic into two manageable posts.
Over the years, I've been quizzed by several individuals concerning my preoccupation with Jesus, especially as I'm an atheist. Personally, I see no conflict. My fascination is born out of the reality that Jesus of Nazareth has exercised a powerful influence on Western historical and cultural development like no other. For good or ill, Jesus' impact has been profound across many areas of societal progress and regression. To be fair to the man, none of this is Jesus' fault. I suspect that if we could resurrect the man and bring him into the modern age, he would be completely confused and confounded by Catholicism and how the Christian religion, in its myriads of guises, has evolved and coalesced over the intervening centuries.
His message of universal compassion and adherence to Jewish Law has been transfigured and subsumed into the travesty we observe today. Be that as it may, Greek philosophical add-ons, realpolitik, and a lust for political power and gelt were the inevitable result. I suspect that the reanimated Jesus would be none too pleased. Jesus' insistence on plain living and the eschewing of unnecessary adornment was the first of his teachings to be discarded once the church gained ascendancy and power. The Vatican and the bejewelled wretch called the Pope represent the palpable manifestation of Catholicism's raw, unmitigated avarice, deep-rooted in corporeal worldliness. Tis an interesting observation that once Christianity became accepted as the mainstream religion in the Roman Empire, it quickly adapted and exercised its newfound muscle with glee. Pagan religions were suppressed, and temples dedicated to the elder pantheons were appropriated, cleansed and dedicated to the one true God. Once established and thoroughly intertwined within Roman society, ambitious and wealthy men took charge to further their own agenda- it has always been this way with religious institutions. Regardless, there were always going to be fanatics and pious fools that actually believed the nonsense. Those who seized the moment and took hold, exploiting the masses' devotion, could utilise these crazed devotees to promote the cause as long as they obeyed the ruling tenets and decrees. If they became too troublesome in their realised and heartfelt devotion to the extent of causing unrest in the simple believer, trumped-up charges of heresy were easily meted out. The unrepentant and foolish zealot could be judicially whisked from this life to the netherworld that they ultimately craved. Spirituality is just a word preached to the uncomprehending masses by those who understand the power of a Word.
From its inception, Christianity instantly appealed to the poor. In this regard, the new religion was unique, especially compared with polytheistic pagan religions of the Mediterranean region. Their gods were a reflection of the ruling elite with all their merciless immorality and excess, but writ large(r). Whenever did the patrician, of any society, or age have truck or genuine compassion and concern for the poor lumpen mass?
Once the religion became popular with the people and widely adhered to by many, it became expedient for the ruling elite to exploit this useful 'tool' for the furtherance of power and societal control. Even though life was hard, unfair and brutal, the mantra was simple. Obey and keep the faith, and you will receive a thousandfold in eternal bliss. Those that did not keep the faith, and/or did not pay fealty to those who oppressed and controlled their fate, faced eternal pain. Those who did not tithe and pay the guilt debt were presented with incorporeal fates of eternal fire. Those prone to disrupt or challenge the established social cohesion that underpinned the power of the 'righteous' few were doomed throughout eternity. Christianity was the perfect apparatus for restraint, as 'The People' willing applied the invisible fetters with abandon and relish. Never mind that Jesus never taught this simple duality of infinite pleasure versus pain. Power lay with interpretation and only the few that controlled the many could read the Greek/Latin scripture, and interpretation remained the key. Poor William Tyndale translated the Greek bible to English. Vernacular access passed the key from the few to the many. English merchants, waxed fat by trade, could pay to school their children to read in their own language. The chest of interpretation was now laid bare. Church leaders recognised that the 'spell had been broken' and horrified by the stark significance of the New Testament's reveal, burned the hapless Tyndale at the stake for his revelation; it did no good. The age of personal scriptural interpretation was upon us, and Christianity's secular power was on its inevitable and long decline.
The second post in this series will describe my quest to unravel the life and teachings of this remarkable man called Jesus. The theological accretions of theology/philosophy are of no interest to me, at least in this series of posts. Maybe, if it rains on some future Sunday morn, I will put forth the effort to examine the Man/God of theological development. The next post will seek to illustrate an historical portrait of this remarkable and very human man, called Jesus. It will be more focused and less prone to my tendency to present my thesis in florid form. I want to strip Jesus of the accrued theological patina of the centuries. I want to see what modern historical scholarship can say, with varying degrees of certainty, about this first-century Jewish prophet. Don't be angry, be amazed!
