Amos's River of Justice

Author: Sheila Marler

  • James 1:18

    This entry is part 12 of 12 in the series The Epistle of James
    He of his own wish begot us by the Word of truth, for us to be a kind of firstfruits of his creation. (James 1:18)

    Adamson says the beginning phrase, Of his own wish, is rather emphatic. He includes Hort’s1 suggestion that in the previous verse, James 1:17, the word ‘shadow’ was followed by ‘he’ in the Greek text. Hort thought it was a false reading and left it out. However, Adamson thought it was correct and he disagreed with Hort’s decision to leave it out of 1:18.

    Consider the resulting translation we have given: He of his own wish….He (God) is the author of our Christian being and purpose, a being which is endowed with truth, and a purpose which is to be holy as firstfruits. In contrast to man’s “desire,” which begets spiritual death (1:13ff), God’s deliberate purposive will is gracious, choosing to initiate and to beget new spiritual life. (Adamson, p. 75-6)

    James Emphasized the Omnipotence and Benevolence of God

    Adamson argues that the emphatic he emphasizes the omnipotence as well as the benevolence of the great Father. Furthermore, this emphatic use of he is common in Greek and in Greek grammars. As he often remind us, no New Testament writer is more Greek than James.

    The Idea of a God Who Can Beget Would Have Been Familiar to the Rabbis

    The idea of a God who can beget would have also been familiar to the rabbis: “I made thee (Israel) a new creation as a woman conceives and brings forth.”

    In Jewish tradition God is sexless. Divine birth-giving can be figuratively applied to God as easily as the concepts “Father” (Ps. 68:5; 103:13; Matt. 6:9), or “Mother” (Isa. 66:13; cf. “breasts of Son and Father,” Odes Sol. 8:16; 19:3). Even “birth-pangs” could be applied to God the Father (Deut. 32:8).

    James is Preaching Christianity, Not Just Humanity

    Several scholars hold the view that the quote above that begins, “I made thee (Israel)…” refers to the creation of man. Adamson considers their arguments on page 76. However, he disagrees with this interpretation.

    If God is said to have begotten everyone by the word of truth, it would mean that he gave man priority over the ‘brute creation’ in his capacity and appetite for truth. In that case, James would be saying in effect, “Therefore, having this potential for truth bestowed on you in the creation of (human beings), use it, be swift to hear, slow to speak, and open your hearts and minds, not to strife and other vile passions, but to the innate Word of God-given reason.”

    There is a problem with this hypothesis in Adamson’s view. He argues that James is telling Christians to behave like Christians, like he did in verses 3:13 and 4:10. The alternate interpretation as stated above would merely be telling people not behave like the beasts. Here Adamson quotes Ropes2:

    The objection which seems decisive…is that the figure of begetting was not used for creation…whereas it came early into use with reference to the Christians, who deemed themselves ‘sons of God.'(p. 166)

    Adamson adds: “In fact, human knowledge of good and evil, which is tantamount to the gift of truth, came through another channel (Gen. 3:22).”

    The Idea of Begetting and the Idea of the New Birth

    According to Adamson, the idea of divine begetting and of the entrance into Christian life as a new birth has its roots in Greek not Jewish thought. It came to Judaism via Hellenism.

    In James’ time, the Rabbinic notion of the new creation was different from the Greek notion. It did not include the New Testament concept of moral renewal as a part of Christian rebirth. He cites Elliott-Binns3, who said, “James knows nothing of any ‘new’ creation (in Christian theology).” That understanding came later.

    …but it is known in Eph 2:10 and the Fourth Gospel, which (John 3:3 and John 3:7 like James 1:17) has the word for “from above”: this remarkable coincidence suggests that in both these sources we have evidence of yet another verbum Christi (word of Christ). (Adamson p. 77)

    First Fruits

    The firstfruits of body or field were sacred and were often offered to God. The Greek particle often indicates a figurative use of the term (kind of or “as it were”). The figure is used of Israel in Jeremiah 2:3, but it’s not as common in Jewish thought as it is in Greek thought. “Firstfruits” was used not merely of that which was first in order but of that which was first in honor.4

    The Noun Creation

    The biblical use of the noun creation (1 Tim. 4:4; Rev. 5:13; 8:9) follows from the Jewish use of the verb and its derivatives in this sense, a sense in which “creation” is not found in secular Greek. (Adamson, p. 77)

    1. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i. 1-iv. 7 (1909) ↩︎
    2. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
    3. “James i. 18; Creation or Redemption?” NTS 3 (1956-570, pp 148-161. ↩︎

  • Trump Challenges God

    A court has unsealed the affidavit that allowed the administration to raid Fulton County County’s election office. Legal experts are shocked. They cannot understand how any magistrate would allow it to go forward based on the information in this document. I agree. But while this is an interesting mystery, it’s not the one I’m interested in. I want to know how we came to this place. This is a place in which, In his constant efforts to reverse the 2020 election, Trump challenges God.

    In this article I will explain how Trump crossed the line in his latest attempt to discredit the 2020 election. This is different from the recent plot to steal elections in blue states. Trump’s struggle with Fulton County began immediately after that election, and it was caused by religion. I believe that when the Christian nationalists told us Trump is the Messiah they destroyed his equilibrium.

    The Messiah Thing Was Not Even Trump’s Idea

    This obsession is particularly revealing considering Trump was merely playing a part in the 2016 election. The Messiah thing was just something to impress the conservatives in Congress and win the evangelical vote. It wasn’t even his idea.

    The bottom line is that powerful people wanted Trump to ruin Bernie’s chances and he was in no position to refuse them. So he did his job. But he won. This was not what he signed up for. He did not expect to win the election.

    Then in 2020 he lost and he has been inconsolable ever since. The evidence is his obsession with 2020 after he already won 2024.

    Did Trump See His Loss in 2020 as a Rejection by God?

    Who could have foreseen the drama that ensued when Trump lost? This must be the biggest irony in election history, but it may not be surprising. Imagine finding out you’re not the Messiah by losing an election, and when being the Messiah wasn’t even your goal in the first place. The messiahship was hung around your neck like a prize bull at the fair.

    Finding Out You’re Not the Messiah is Not the Same Thing as Rejection by God

    It goes without saying that finding out you’re not the Messiah is not the same thing as a rejection by God. But when it’s connected to a popularity-contest/election and you’re Donald Trump, maybe that’s how it feels. Again, it’s not that he thought he was the Messiah. It was his gig. It became weirdly important only when he lost. What else can explain his irrational attempts to reverse that election?

    At first Trump tried to patch up his failure in the only way he knew how, but Fulton County wouldn’t help him out. Because for Fulton County and the rest of us it was a real election. The only one for whom it wasn’t real was Donald Trump.

    If this all sounds far too understanding, it is not at all what I intended to write. But how would any of us know if it’s too understanding anyway? Trump was the first person to run as the Messiah and yet he played it like the guy he is. Among his crowd everything is cynicism and posturing. And then you lose.

    Unfortunately, there are consequences. The cynicism that motivates his supporters has fostered a tarnished emperor and a dark golden age. And currently, Trump is running the United States in the only way he knows how.

    The Facts Surrounding the Affidavit

    Here are the facts surrounding the affidavit as explained in the video linked above:

    The statute of limitations will have expired on any crime that might have taken place in the 2020 election. In addition, the affidavit does not list a person or theory of a person as the culprit. Even so, Trump might still appear rational if he can produce evidence of a crime, but there is no such evidence. And to complete the inexplicable weirdness, the magistrate allowed the raid to go ahead.

    If he can capture Fulton County, maybe he can save 2020.

    My conclusion: Trump challenges God in spite of himself.

  • The Holy Spirit is One

    In the article, Trump’s Use of Alligators, I said that I hadn’t previously talked about the importance of the alligator because I didn’t know where it fit in the Christian tradition. I only wrote about it at that time because I had received the message that it’s not Christian. This message assured me that my experience doesn’t imply anything about Christian beliefs. However, I think I have found a more accurate analysis.

    The Importance of Asking the Right Questions

    Often, we don’t find answers to our questions because we don’t know the right questions to ask. For example, there is a problem I’ve been mulling over in the last few weeks: “Is there a separate anointing that oversees society in transition?” It was a struggle to get to the point where I knew what to ask. I was trying to figure out what my role is. And not only my role. I know I’m not the only one with this question.

    I started by asking if there is a separate office for those who oversee the changing of an age and its influence on people. That led me to the information I am going to share with you now.

    A New Anointing For a New Season

    Apparently, it is not an office. It is an anointing. The term for the changing of an age and its influence on people is ‘a society in transition’. So, yes, there is a separate anointing. It’s also called ‘a new anointing for a new season’. In other words, it is a new anointing for changing circumstances.

    It is Not a Different Spirit

    The notion that this anointing is a different spirit is a common misconception. The terms ‘new’ or ‘different anointing’ refer to a new outpouring or a different application of the Holy Spirit’s power. Its purpose is to meet the specific, immediate needs of a transition. Theologically, the Holy Spirit is one. It is not a different spirit at all.

    New Anointings in the Old Testament

    There were Old Testament figures who had this anointing. Micah is thought to have received it. The verse cited in my research is Micah 2:13: 

    The one who makes a breach goes
    up before them;
    they make a breach and pass
    through the gate;
    Their king shall go through before
    them,
    the Lord at their head.

    Jeremiah 23:29 is also cited:

    Is not my word like fire--oracle of
    the LORD--
    like a hammer shattering rock?

    The Breaker Anointing

    I’m uncomfortable with this title considering what’s being said and done today in the name of Christianity. Calling this anointing a Breaker seems to be asking for trouble. One writer actually encourages believers to “release the Breaker anointing.” That terrifies me.

    I am also mystified about how an anointing would work under this scenario. I don’t think it’s something one releases. As I understand it, the purpose of the new anointing is to break through the fear and hesitation that keeps a believer from saying or doing what needs to be said or done.

    But the word is actually used in the Bible.

    One of God’s names in the Bible actually is the “Breaker.” A breaker anointing is a catalytic deposit of the Holy Spirit where eternity breaks through into the natural realm. It is a holy invasion where the gates of heaven are opened! (The Breaker Anointing by Jill Austin)

    • The Breaker Anointing is to shatter every chain that kept you bound.
    • It is for Kingdom-oriented reformation.
    • It’s a “New” Anointing for a new season.
    • It is associated with kingdom administrators or “cultural architects”.

    Conclusion

    This is important to me on at least two levels. It helps me understand the meaning of the courage and sacrifice of citizens who are now in the depths of the physical struggle. The societies of the United States and the world are in transition, but there seems to be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to meet the immediate needs of the transition. We also see new political leaders who are willing and able to guide our communities through these changes.

    For me, personally, the idea of the new anointing is freeing. I know now that it happens, and it has happened for centuries. The miracles we see around us serve as evidence in this time that God is active and that he cares for the marginalized. He remains present, powerful and merciful.

  • Minnesota and Ancient Egypt

    What does Minnesota have in common with ancient Egypt? Both countries have a great river at their center. They may also have a political connection thanks to the mythology of Freemasonry. Keeping this in mind, ICE’s extreme focus on Minnesota takes on an unwelcome significance.

    Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

    Table of contents

    Home » Archives for Sheila Marler

    After reading my argument, some might decide the significance is debatable. However, I think it makes sense in light of the proposals coming out of Washington D.C., not to mention the ongoing attacks on citizens. Rational explanations can’t explain any of this.

    This article is a Traditionally-minded analysis. It’s justified by the American administration’s Traditional madness. However, I could be completely wrong. In that case, you could consider it an entertaining diversion.

    Differences Between Egypt and the United States

    There are some important geographical differences between Egypt and the United States. In ancient Egypt, the River belonged to the entire country. The Nile was Egypt and Egypt was the Nile. But in the United States, the Mississippi River defines the country in a different way, mainly through commerce.

    The River is crucial to American shipping and transport. However, the majority of Americans rarely think of it in a strategic sense, or in any sense at all. Here I would like to focus instead on the River’s political meaning.

    I base my analysis on what I know about Ancient Egypt’s reverence for the Nile, as well as the ancient world’s reverence for the great rivers of antiquity.

    What Does Ancient Egypt Have to do With American Politics?

    The Mississippi flows south along the entire measure of the United States. Likewise, the Nile travels the entire length of Egypt. Unlike the Mississippi, the Nile travels from the south of Egypt to its delta in the North.

    All of the land within the boundaries of ancient Egypt was related in some way to the River. However, the banks of the Mississippi only relate to a few states in the center of the country.

    That may be part of the reason we don’t theorize about its influence. Also, we have no spiritual or religious relation to the Mississippi. As far as I know, no one in the modern world understands rivers like the ancients did. The Freemasons might be another matter, but that remains to be seen.

    The interesting point in this particular analysis is that all but three of the states bordering the Mississippi are red, politically speaking. There are only three blue states at the River’s beginning: Minnesota; Wisconsin; and Illinois. Minnesota is especially honored. It is the home of the Mississippi’s headwaters.

    The United States’ Freemasonic Tie With Egypt

    In Freemasonic thought, the tie between Egypt and the United States is deliberate. Freemasons are taught that their organization existed in antiquity and they have a share in Egypt’s wisdom and lore. It is well-known that Freemasons made up a majority of America’s founding fathers. The layout of our capitol is evidence of their influence, and perhaps of their intentions for the country.

    Egypt Was the Center of the Ancient World

    Ancient Egypt was considered the geodetic center of the known world because of its advanced geodetic and geographic science. It was common for ancient empires to locate cities and temples at a distance of round figures and simple fractions from either the tropic or the ‘prime’ meridian of Egypt. Such capitals as Nimrod, Sardis, Susa, Persepolis and even the ancient Chinese capital of An-Yang were located in this way. Washington D.C. is approximately 15 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer.

    Mormonism, which has been called the American religion, also claims a kinship with Egypt. The Mormons believe Jackson County, Missouri will be the New Jerusalem. The location designated for a temple in Jackson County is situated on the bank of the Mississippi, slightly to the west of 90° W . If I count from the western axis of ancient Egypt,(29°50’0″E), the location of the planned temple in Jackson County is 195 degrees west of that axis..1 The plans locate it at the same latitude as Washington D.C.

    Is Minnesota a Proving Ground for a New Kind of America?

    Is it possible that our current ruling class has an ulterior motive for its focus on Minnesota? I’m not forgetting that Illinois, another blue state on the River, was attacked by ICE first.

    When the American Empire feels threatened it’s common for it to treat individuals like citizens of a rival foreign power. But the attack on Minnesota has been extravagant in its violence and destructiveness. Also, it seems to go on forever.

    Is there a sense of ownership of the Mississippi River behind Trump’s attack on Minnesota? Is the attack territorial?

    How would we know the difference? A political takeover is as close to a territorial takeover as a democracy gets, isn’t it? It’s hard to say. Donald Trump does not think like a democrat.

    1. Peter Tompkins, Secrets of the Great Pyramid with an appendix by Livio Catullo Stecchini. Harper & Row, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1971. pp. 181-183. ↩︎

  • The New Age and Gender Rights

    It’s beginning to look like the New Age was created by a committee of the political establishment. This might explain why they are so determined to protect their reign in Washington DC–they are true believers. The establishment’s ‘ownership’ of the New Age is especially glaring in the video series Changing of the Gods, a slick presentation of the last 60 years which showcases the counter-culture revolution of the 60s. It showcases Gloria Steinem, and her magazine, Ms., among other events. It soon becomes clear that the New Age was going to include trans-rights, regardless of what anyone might say. This article will explore the phenomenon of combining the new age and gender rights.

    The New Age and Gender Rights

    An article in Ms. Magazine illustrates how the liberal establishment has used trans-rights, to equate women’s issues with unrelated issues. This article by Alexandra Wilson-Mcdonald combines concerns about attacks on reproductive freedom with LGBTQ-rights. It also criticizes far-right politicians in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland who from 2015-2022 opposed gender studies as an academic discipline. Wilson-Mcdonald laments that similar policies are sweeping across the U.S. today.

    Apparently, attacks on gender equality are to share the limelight with attacks on democracy. In addition, gender equality and democracy are on equal footing with anti-racism. By citing Ron DeSantis’s Don’t Say Gay bill, the author lumps the issues of slavery and racism with gender ideology.

    But some of us respect the new age enough to know that it can’t be harnessed for a particular ideology. Combining the new age and gender rights is one example of this attempt.

  • The Divinity of Jesus Christ

    Arianism is the issue that led to the Council of Nicaea. It is one example of a doctrine that questions the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Arius (c. 250 – 336) believed that Jesus was just a man. His doctrine is now called Arianism. “Arianism affirmed a created, finite nature of Christ rather than equal divinity with God the Father.”

    Arius’s views were eventually denounced as heresy, but not before they divided the Church’s bishops. They caused so much turmoil in the early Church that the Emperor Constantine called a council to reconcile the factions. The final decision about this doctrine was composed at the council of Nicaea.

    I’m Against Re-litigating Arianism

    It is surprising to find that the divinity of Jesus is currently being litigated on YouTube as if the Council never happened. For reasons I will explain here, I am against re-litigating Arianism.

    But it is important to state at the beginning that this debate is connected to another important topic: the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In this article I will use Thomas Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth, to add the information that I wasn’t allowed to add on Wikipedia. Boslooper’s account indicates that Christian scholarship has a long history of skirting the topic of the virgin birth.

    There is Power in Christianity

    There is power in the Christian religion. Many people have testified of this. Based on my own experience, people of faith are not bothered by a critical approach to the virgin birth. However, a certain editor on Wikipedia was bothered so much that he became a thief. Then he bullied me and told lies about me for daring to write about it.

    Sincere objections can usually be overcome. However, on Wikipedia the insincere party has the ability to block anyone it disagrees with. This makes reconciliation, not to mention real understanding, impossible. I think it implies either a lack of faith or the desire for a public spectacle.

    Here on my own blog, I am at least able to write without interruption. The question remains as to whether anything I write will get through to anyone. And yet, I keep writing.

    My Cautious Approach to the Scholarship

    Before I begin, it is important to remember that the The Virgin Birth was published in 1962. Religious leaders have had more than thirty years to consider or make changes based on Boslooper’s arguments and criticisms. So, some of the criticisms may no longer be justified.

    I have noticed while studying James B. Adamson’s commentary on the Book of James that Christian theologians must be familiar with the findings of biblical scholars. Apparently, when they agree with those findings they are willing to make changes. What else can explain the omission of this phrase from the Lord’s Prayer, ‘And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil’?

    Boslooper Cites the Failure of Biblical Scholarship

    Boslooper was convinced that biblical scholarship had failed to present the kind of analysis of the story of Jesus’ birth that would serve as the basis of a satisfactory interpretation. He was mainly inspired by Oscar Cullmann’s1 disappointment when he could not find a single book on the virgin birth that presents a historical approach to the subject. The purpose of this book was to fill this need in biblical critical scholarship. The Virgin Birth is a history of interpretations of Jesus’ birth.

    Thomas Boslooper’s Introduction Summarized

    The subject of the virgin birth brings with it an entire history of interpretations. Christian communities have always taken different views on this part of Jesus’ story. There is also a history of responses from the non-Christian community.

    Beginning with Ignatius and continuing through Origen, the virgin birth was at the center of the Church’s controversy with the non-Christian world. The exact point of disagreement differed with every non-Christian community.

    The Debate With Jews and Gentiles

    With the Jews, Christians struggled to demonstrate the relationship of the virgin birth to the Old Testament. With the Gentiles, the discussion centered on the relationship of the virgin birth to other religious traditions.

    Meanwhile, within early Christianity itself the virgin birth had a positive effect over all with the development of Marian theology. A theology of Mary developed at the same time as a body of extra-canonical literature to support it.

    Protestant Christianity

    In Protestant Christianity, two main factions developed around the story of the virgin birth, supernaturalists versus naturalists. The supernaturalists considered the virgin birth historical. For them, it was an indispensable support to the whole structure of Christianity. The naturalists on the other hand, thought the virgin birth was unhistorical and therefore, unimportant.

    Examples of How Modern Historians Dealt With the Virgin Birth

    The story and doctrine of the virgin birth are treated as almost invisible by modern historians and contemporary theologians. They all tend to follow the naturalistic interpretation and attach it to a single historical or theological idea. Many of them treat the virgin birth in the narratives of Matthew, chs. 1 and 2 and Luke, chs. 1 and 2 as unrelated to the main story of Jesus. Boslooper gives several examples of historical treatments:

    • Harnack thought the virgin birth should be understood as the outgrowth of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
    • Lobstein proposed the view that the virgin birth is a myth created by popular devotion to explain the divine Sonship of Christ.
    • For Percy Gardner, the narratives of the virgin birth represent two separate attempts to give a date for the divine origin of Jesus.
    • Soltau saw the story of Jesus’ conception as an attempt at the end of the first century to reconcile the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the one hand, with the earlier tradition of his origin in Nazareth on the other.
    • Conybeare understood the virgin birth as a legend adopted by the Catholic Church to reconcile the Ebionite and Docetic parties.
    • Charles Guignebert argued that all the stories of the miraculous birth were a solution to a Christological problem that arose in the primitive community. This problem had to do with the conflict between the terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’.

    Contemporary Theologians

    According to Boslooper, Emil Brunner, Nels Ferré, and Paul Tillich oversimplify the problem of interpretation. They underestimate the significance of the virgin birth by linking it to the early Christian doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. This association was not a positive development in their opinion. They thought it stood in the way of a true understanding of the incarnation.

    For Brunner and Ferré, the virgin birth obscures and obstructs the fact of Jesus’ true humanity.2 For Tillich, it represents one of the New Testament’s rationalizations. He thought it changed a positive religious concept into a negative form.3

    Positive and Negative Aspects in the Interpretation of the Virgin Birth

    On the negative side, the history of interpretation has been a history of error. The Old Roman Catholic Church maligned the Biblical narratives by transferring the chief emphasis from Jesus to Mary and from marriage to virginity. Following the Protestant Reformation, the rationalistic naturalists underestimated the importance of the narrative through their a priori judgments against miracle, and the theological supernaturalists by attaching the virgin birth to the deity of Christ and by insisting on the ‘literal historicity’ of the story removed Jesus’ origin from the context of history. Historical critics, by being obsessed with the compulsion to demonstrate what was the source from which the Biblical narrative was ‘derived,’ tended to deprive the church of the significance of the content of the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. (Boslooper pp. 20-21)

    But the history of interpretation has also had positive effects. Boslooper argues that it has provided insight and contributed to our understanding of the Biblical narratives.

    The Roman Catholic Church preserved the relevance of the virgin birth to personal morality. The naturalists have helped the church recognize the true moral character of the narratives and helped curb the abuses that appeared through apocryphal tradition. The supernaturalists have insisted on the importance of the story of Jesus’ origin and demanded that the church take the doctrine seriously. Historical criticism gave a proper literary classification to the virgin birth. It eventually recognized its true role in the world and provided the basis for understanding the content of its message. (Boslooper p. 21)

    The Crux of the Problem (In Boslooper’s View)

    Boslooper argued that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions took the virgin birth in the gospels as literal history. In this way they weakened the thrust of its morally redemptive message.

    The Catholics produced a Docetic theology of Mary, questioned the sanctity of sex, and idealized virginity. The Protestants used the virgin birth to prove the deity of Christ and to set forth a moral idealism attached solely to the person of Jesus. In these approaches the original message was lost. The original message was that moral order is to be established within the marriage bond.

    Boslooper’s Objection to the Literal Historical View

    Boslooper argued that ‘The virgin birth is ‘myth, in the highest and best sense of the word’. He thought both Roman Catholics and Protestants were wrong to insist on the ‘literal historicity of the narratives’. For him, the universal message of Jesus’ origin is the important thing. The ‘truth’ in Boslooper’s opinion, is found somewhere between the Roman Catholic tradition and the Protestant tradition.

    My Conclusion

    I will point out that Boslooper goes beyond presenting a history of interpretations of the virgin birth when he tries to explain the purpose of the story. It seems to me he exceeded his stated purpose with mere speculation.

    Why do I say this? The statement that the virgin birth is myth ‘in the highest and best sense of the word’ is one thing. Defining its purpose and limiting its influence to the attestation of the humanity of Jesus and the sanctity of sex and marriage is a bit high-handed. For one thing, even assuming it is myth, the inspirations or motivations behind the story can’t be known.

    However, the main problem might be that the question of Jesus’ divinity has been forgotten entirely. In what way is he divine? How might this divinity be possible for a human born to a woman?

    The Perspective of Faith

    The faithful who experience his divinity probably don’t need an explanation for it. Maybe that’s why so many scholars have treated it as unimportant or detachable from the rest of the story. The most I can do at this point is acknowledge that the virgin birth really is a difficult subject. One might argue whether it is a myth in the best sense of the word, but the virgin birth is definitely a mystery in the best sense of the word.

    1. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Sun and the Umbrella (1953), pp. 28-29. ↩︎
    2. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (1957), pp. 126-127, 149. ↩︎

  • Isaiah 43:19

    Isaiah 43:19: Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?

    I think of this verse whenever I hear someone say that Jesus was at work in the world before the Christian era. If he was always here, how can he be a new thing? This is important because of the promises Jesus has given Christians. It is also important because there is another entity who has been here at least since the world was created: the prince of this world.

    In this article I will expand on Isaiah’s revelation of ‘the new thing’.

    The following is the entire passage from Isaiah 43:16-22.

    16 Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; 
    17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow. 
    18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. 
    19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. 
    20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. 
    21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise. 
    22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. 
    (Isaiah 43:16-22  KJV)

    Political Theology

    When I wrote Justice of the Rupture, I was inspired by an article on the Political Theology Website. The article seemed to agree with my understanding that the birth of Jesus was a new thing in this world.

    Was Jesus a New Thing or Has He Always Existed?

    As I understand it, the claim that the Christ has always existed has two distinct sources. It can refer to a teaching of Hermeticism or to the decision of the First Council of Nicaea.

    The following is the decision of the First council of Nicaea:

    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [τρεπτὸν in Greek; convertibilem in Latin] — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

    First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)

    My Paraphrase of the Decision and a Request for Correction if Necessary

    I understand this decision to say that Jesus was begotten of the substance of the Father. He has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Therefore, it is not correct to say there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he did not exist. Or that he is made of a different substance or essence from the Father.

    I’m not a theologian and normally I would not attempt to analyze theology. However, an understanding of the Council’s decision has bearing on who and how we worship. I could be wrong, but the decision doesn’t seem to be explicit about Jesus’s pre-Christian working in the world, independent from the person of the Father.

    The Christ of Hermeticism

    One problem I see with Hermeticism’s claim that ‘the Christ’ operated in the world from the beginning, is the effect it has on our view of pre-Christian religions. If the Christ has always existed and he has taken part in the world from its creation, pre-Christian believers in those religions were wrong or evil. On the other hand, if Jesus was truly a new thing the ancient people were not at fault. They couldn’t be expected to conform to our understanding of the Christian religion. It is likely they were pressured to conform to the demands of another deity.

    Ancient Egyptians Were Compelled to Obey Their Gods

    The burial practices of ancient Egypt suggest that the Egyptians did not love their god or gods the way we love Jesus. Their deities compelled them to perform certain rituals in order to gain eternal life. And they found ways of hedging their bets.

    For example, it is interesting that the ancient Egyptians disguised the gender of women in their burial ceremonies. It was apparently the only way women could attain eternal life. If those deities had their way, women would not have been allowed in at all.

    In the ancient Egyptian mindset, only male divine beings such as Atum, Osiris, or Re had access to the powers of creation or resurrection (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). Goddesses were believed to be protective vessels.1

    The Egyptians clearly knew what their deities demanded and yet they defied them in behalf of their women. I propose that those deities represented the prince of this world. If I’m correct about this identification, the prince of this world does not like women.

    I would argue that the Egyptian deities represent a hostile and indifferent cosmos; the same cosmos that was hostile to Jesus.

    The Baptism of Jesus

    According to the first chapter of Mark, something remarkable happened at the baptism of Jesus.

    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

    In the Political Theology article cited above, J. Leavitt Pearl argued that when the heavens were torn open it was an apocalypse. The voice from heaven had to burst through the cosmic order for the Spirit to descend on Jesus like a dove.

    Wikipedia’s Struggle Over the Virgin Birth Article

    When I wrote about my work on Wikipedia’s Miraculous Births article I concluded that Wikipedia’s editors must have an unspoken agreement that the Virgin Birth article should remain empty of content. Maybe they think such an article would be offensive to believers. (Wikipedia now has a separate article entitled Virgin Birth of Jesus. But the article, Virgin Birth, is still empty.)

    In my opinion, it is not necessary for Christians to deny virgin birth stories from other cultures. Those stories might resemble the pattern of the Christian story but their heroes are not comparable to Jesus. They belong to the ideology of earthly empires and have a different character. More importantly, they are not opposed to the prince of this world.

    The West’s Dalliance With Empire

    In this light, it is ironic that the West is currently being presented with the bellowing of empire-minded officials. It is especially revealing that their ideology comes complete with the denigration of women. Fortunately, their error has been carefully defined by scholars such as Robert Eisler.

    It seems our current ideologues have mixed up the metaphors not to mention the religions involved. They apparently don’t have the empathy shown by the ancient Egyptians. They have taken the side of the prince of this world.

    Orpheus the Fisher

    In his book, Orpheus the Fisher2, Robert Eisler had this to say about the development of Christianity:

    …I have certainly been deceived in my expectations of discovering early extensive and important Pagan influences on the initial formation of Christian ritual and cult symbolism. In 1908 I was still under the illusion–which I am afraid is even today cherished by many students of comparative religion–that primitive Christianity was, to a great extent, a syncretistic religion. In particular I had been strongly impressed by the statement of Eichhorn and other scholars, that we must look out for a pagan or, more exactly, an Oriental prototype for the Eucharist, since a sacramental, not to speak of a theophagic rite is unknown to the Jewish cult-system.(Eisler, Preface p. v)

    Here Eisler is telling us that due to the scholarly influence of his time he mistakenly connected the sacramental eating of fish and bread by Jesus’s disciples, with a hypothetical ritual of bread and fish-eating in pre-historic Canaan. But when he gave a lecture on this hypothesis he was criticized by a scholar named von Dobschutz-Strassburg. After further study, he came to the conclusion that the criticism was correct.

    By the time Orpheus the Fisher was published Eisler no longer believed in a connection between the Canaanite ritual and Christianity. He admits that there were later developments into a mystic theophagy and these had Pagan parallels, but pagan influences were not at work in the initial stage of Christian origin. Instead, the source of the Eucharistic rite is a purely Jewish ritual.

    Eisler went on to modify his views on similar problems. For example, he explains that although the deities of the mysteries seem to be similar to the Christian fisherman, those deities are cruel and unforgiving. Therefore, they do not resemble the character of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

    Jesus was not cruel. He was Isaiah’s ‘new thing’.

    1. Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney, Gender Transformation in Death: A Case Study of Coffins from Ramesside Period Egypt ↩︎

  • The End of the Line for This Regime

    I heard today that ICE has caused at least two women to miscarry their babies. Another woman was forced to give birth in detention and two days later her baby was taken away from her. After everything else they have said and done, this is the end of the line for this regime. These people have offended mothers and babies and tainted the entire world. They must go.

    Donald Trump is now enlarging his bunker under the East Wing. He obviously plans to hide in it like a troll and govern us for all eternity. This is not acceptable. We do not deserve to be governed by such people. The world we envision will not humbly bow its head and wait for Trump to give it permission to come forth.

    I declare that the Trump administration and the people who prop it up belong in the trash heap. It is a travesty for them to continue to make their plans like free men and women.

    Every individual who agreed to this regime is responsible for these crimes. First in the dock are members of the political establishment. Then the ignorant voters who supported Trump. Next in line will be the people who marry and celebrate holidays and birthdays while this repugnant administration is lording it over us. Let us instead initiate a period of mourning for the sad plight of the American Republic.

    I say to the poor excuses for human beings in the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, get out! It is painful to see you. It is sickening to hear your voices. Get out!

  • Trump’s Use of Alligators

    At last it’s time to write an article about Trump’s use of alligators. This is the article I really wanted to write when I was getting bogged down in the last post. I wrote the article about Wikipedia first because I suspect its editors may be responsible for my difficulties with readership. That fear made me worry that this more important article would not be noticed. Not that I think writing about it will solve the problem of readers, but this worry was on my mind.

    I’ve also been a little worried about presenting this idea here. It has the potential to annoy both the Left and the Right. It could even ruin whatever credibility I have. This concern has put a lot of pressure on me, but these are desperate times and I believe these things are important for me to say.

    The Alligator

    For about fifteen years I’ve known that the alligator is sentient. She can acknowledge and respond to the kindnesses we perform in her behalf, or in behalf of the earth, and she can bestow spiritual gifts. (I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the alligator herself is as dangerous as ever.)

    I’m saying this now because I believe this knowledge can be a source of hope, and because I believe I have a responsibility to announce her presence.

    Why Now?

    I haven’t given you this information before now because I didn’t understand how it fit in the conversation. Strangely enough, it was after I was told that the alligator’s gift to me is not Christian that I began to understand.

    How is that helpful you ask? When I thought it was a Christian gift it made me very nervous. I didn’t know where it fit in the Christian scheme of things. However, if it’s not Christian it doesn’t imply anything about Christian beliefs.

    Again, how is that helpful? Likewise, the idea that it is not Christian does not worry me because I’m not talking about an ideology or a system of beliefs. I’m talking about something real. The gifts of the earth and her creatures, like the alligator, are as real as the Holy Spirit.

    Am I’m suggesting a new belief system? No, I’m not. I’ve done a little reading about Pantheism and I have learned that humans are natural theologians. They easily spin new systems of beliefs and pit them against other systems of beliefs.That is not what I’m talking about. And it is not necessary.

    How Might This Help With Our Political Chaos?

    I hope this can help us see reality. First, it might help our leaders by assuring them that their drastic, destructive plans are not necessary. And if it guides their behavior, it would help the rest of us. On the other hand, if their necessity stems from their determination to rule, they are currently in peril.

    But the most urgent reason for this message is the realization that this understanding will put America’s cultural peculiarities into perspective. For example, if the well-being of the alligator is primary, what does it say about someone who envisions the alligator as an inanimate token for his cruel detention center in Florida? How sad is that? Trump’s use of alligators represents the worst sort of poverty.

    The Alligator is Ancient

    Trump's Use of Alligators

    The Alligator is ancient. The distinct genus has been here about 37 million years. And it will be here long after the human race destroys itself, God forbid.

    The broader lineage of crocodilians is much older. It’s 80-200 million years old.

    Don’t Forsake the Holy Spirit

    However the reader responds to this message, it is important to maintain ones connection to the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit found me before I received this understanding of the alligator. I probably would not have discovered one without the other.

    Again, I can’t tell you how you should respond to these things. I can only offer the hope this spirit can serve as an additional source of strength in this strange time.

  • Meltdown

    I published an article yesterday that later I realized was not fit to publish. It was a meltdown about Wikipedia. And not a good one. I realized it was a mess last night and deleted it. Then I stayed up all night trying to make sense of it. This is especially annoying because I didn’t consider it an important subject in the first place. It was just something I wanted to get out of the way so I could talk about a more important topic. But I learned something that I want to tell you about.

    In this post I’ll explain what I learned from this mistake and I will try to rewrite it after more careful thought.

    The Lessons

    The first lesson I learned is that I should have discussed my experience at Wikipedia many times on this blog. Instead I politely mentioned it once or twice because I assumed everyone understood what happened to me there.

    I knew I didn’t deserve to be blocked at the time, and so I didn’t feel the need to explain anything. And when I was suddenly confronted by its importance, I experienced the betrayal and injustice like it was yesterday.

    The second lesson that comes to mind involves my impatience while writing this article about my time at Wikipedia. My impatience was based on the belief that it is a trivial subject.

    It is not trivial. It’s important to set the record straight, if for no one else but myself. It also needs to be set straight for anyone who is influenced by editors on Wikipedia. This needs much more thought than I have given it.

    A Meltdown Pandemic?

    A meltdown is what happens when you are treated badly and you have no recourse. There’s no one to complain to and so you just continue on without a resolution. Then one day, 15 years later, everything spills out.

    What really worries me is that I thought that article was fit to publish. I’ve heard there’s a lot of that going around. Some are calling President Trump’s most recent speech a meltdown, not to mention some of his staff’s interviews. It might be a good idea to avoid important interviews and speeches this week. Just a thought.

    Wikipedia’s Editors

    Overall,Wikipedia was a miserable, thankless experience. But the real hell of it was the absence of supporting voices.

    I am aware that worse things are happening to people now. They are made to feel powerless in all kinds of terrible ways, including imprisonment and physical abuse. But no one ranks these evils when they appear. They are all terrible in their own way.

    Wikipedia’s Cowardice

    In my case, it is painful to realize that Wikipedia not only got away with what they did to me, but apparently the editors have continued to argue their case online at my expense. It never occurred to me to check on them. I would have thought they would be too ashamed to continue with this. Now, after it’s too late to dispute their claims, I have to wonder what effect it’s had on my progress here.

    The word ‘cowardice’ is important with respect to Wikipedia. The editors and their allies remain anonymous. This is shocking considering their ability to delete contributions they don’t agree with and even deny access to the authors of those contributions. And the cowardice doesn’t end there. Even if we do discover what they’re doing to our reputation in secret, we don’t have the ability to dispute their statements.

    Nameless, Faceless ‘Scholars’

    My first experience on Wikipedia was the Patriarchy article. Working there was like combat. So, when I experienced something similar with the next article I thought it was normal.

    Many people had been trying to edit the Patriarchy article before me but were held off by a few determined editors. You can see the current version here with contributions from many people. It’s much better than it was.

    The main editor at that time claimed to be a college professor. I sincerely doubted it. I couldn’t imagine that a college professor would say traditional women walk a few steps behind their husband.

    Even so, I thought the article just needed more information. He did not want information and happily deleted everything. I would not have accomplished anything with that article without the help of another editor who stuck up for me. That is the only way you can get anything done there.

    The Dramatic End of My Wikipedia Job

    When that article was complete, I decided to work on the Virgin Birth article. I didn’t start that article. It was already set up, but lacked content. All I planned to do was add information I already had. However, I got pushback right away.

    It wasn’t long before everything I wrote was moved to the Miraculous Births article, without notice. Then the editor who moved it claimed he wrote it. It was all downhill from there.

    Are They Doing Religion or Writing an Encyclopedia?

    I didn’t know it at the time, but I stepped into a landmine. After the fight in the Patriarchy article I thought I knew how to proceed. However, I see now that the Virgin Birth article was not open to negotiation. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that the subject is too delicate for believers. I didn’t put this together until recently. Last week I discovered that the Virgin Birth article still has no content.

    It has also occurred to me that maybe English was not the editor’s first language. Or maybe he’s a religious authority. I couldn’t be expected to know that because the editors use pseudonyms, but it might explain his authoritative manner.

    Since I didn’t have the help of a referee, Miraculous Births continued to be a constant struggle. I would have liked a real discussion about the editor’s objections but that never happened, and I was eventually kicked out of Wikipedia without warning. This took place before 2011.

    I still don’t understand why the material in Miraculous Births is less offensive than it would be in the Virgin Birth article. The majority of the information I added was from Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth.

    A Pattern of Discrimination

    I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me. If they will explain the problem I will fix it. But first I need the explanation.

    A disagreement is logical. Its words and phrases actually relate to what the last person said. However, I was not dealing with a disagreement. I don’t even know the name of what he was doing, and no one ever addressed his problematic demands.

    A large part of the problem seems to be that no one is paying attention. My struggle went on for a long time without interference from a helpful editor. It ended with me being blocked permanently.

    Again, no one objected to what was happening, not at that time and not since I left. And in the end, another editor was allowed to make personal use of the Miraculous Births material that got me kicked out.

    Wikipedia wronged me in many ways and used up much of my time in the process. It didn’t seem unintentional to me. It seemed malicious and personal.

error: Content is protected !!