Lord, Liar, or Lunatic

There's an argument levied against those who would entertain the idea that Jesus was a great wisdom (moral) teacher. Lewis' Trilemma.

C.S. Lewis called it Lord, Liar, or Lunatic, suggesting that you only have 3 options as to what you believe Jesus could be.

In chapter 2 of The Alpha Course Manual, the author attempts to establish Jesus’ status as God by appealing to human reason and using logic. He does this by quoting C.S. Lewis,

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher” he’d either be insane or else he’d be the “devil from hell”. “You must make your choice,” he writes. Either Jesus was and is the Son of God, or else He was insane but, C.S. Lewis goes on, “Let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” The Alpha Course Manual, pg. 10

The Alpha Course begins this process of educating by offering up logical possibilities as to Jesus’ status.

What this point really is saying is the same thing that Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four:

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

My problem lies in its methodology (and even possibly in its potential of manipulation).

They are appealing to our logic to accept the only possibility left – no matter how incredible it may seem to the modern mind, while deliberately sidestepping an equally possible answer. That the gospel stories themselves could be opinions or partially fabricated stories by unknown authors, or written as response to other wittings, or even influenced or tainted by previously established doctrines.

Like Sherlock Holmes said, once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (or undesirable), must be the truth.

Although the Alpha Course is attempting to educate or teach, what it is beginning is the process of indoctrination; teaching what to think rather than how to think. I don't believe it is intentional, but I do believe it is a byproduct of Bible-worship; the bible being believed to be unquestionable.

The books of the Old Testament are listed chronologically. However, the books of the New Testament are not. The four gospels come first, followed by the Pauline Epistles and other shorter letters. I've wondered why. The fact of the matter is that all of Paul's letters chronologically occur first and therefore outdate the gospels. One conclusion I've come to is that Christianity as we have it today is based upon a Pauline construct. I believe Paul made Jesus Christian. However, Jesus (Yeshua) preached and taught“the Kingdom of God”, but what he got was the Church. The gospels (not only written significantly after Paul's letters and the beginning of the established orthodox doctrine, but even after his death) may very well have been tainted by this Pauline Christianity. There is significant evidence of editing and additions and tampering, possibly for doctrinal purposes. (1 John 5:8, the endings of Mark, etc.). But, again in the spirit of fairness and open mindedness, it is also possible that they were not.

I am left only with the idea that the truth of the Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth is so enmeshed and coddled as to be inaccessible, hidden and even unknowable. I am fully aware that many Christians will argue that the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction and that any perceived contradiction is the fault of the reader who doesn't fully understand...
... there's not much to say to this. This is a statement of belief, not fact. It is also an admission to the abandonment or lack of objectivity and willingness to learn.

(Excerpt from Oct. 4, 2009's Above and Beyond Christianity: a summation)

Economic Business Model

I think "church" should be who we are and what we do more than where and how we do it.

I believe when somethings become an industry their core principle and purpose becomes compromised. I believe the institutional church has become an industry.

I don't believe church should be based upon an economic business model, and I believe "church" as we traditionally/generally understand it today is. Church has been based upon an economic business model. Church has ceased to be what it's original purpose was and has become an industry. One key element in any viable industry is that it must be self-supporting or self-renewing.

I've been accused by some of taking the easiest way - the path of least resistance- of following a belief-system yet not committing to the burden and responsibility of a church and the obligations that go with it. Kinda like going out with a girl but not committing to marriage - trying to have the best of both worlds.

But I would disagree. In fact, my path leaves me very vulnerable and is far from the path of least resistance. Since I haven't supported that church I shouldn't rely upon it's services. Since I haven't invested in that church I shouldn't become one of it's services' consumers.

I run another real risk because I also know how supportive a caring community can be in difficult times. I am also aware that if or when those times befall me and my family (and I pray they won't) that I can expect little or no support. After all, I chose not to pay into this system - I chose not to pay my "spiritual insurance premiums". Is that why we're to go to and support our local churches? Is it really nothing more than a disguised insurance company? I know it shouldn't be.

I believe in the business of church.
I just don't believe in Church as Business.

The institutional church needs to abandon the Economic Business Model.

What are some of the more practical and mundane “tools of the trade” (for pastors/church leaders)? A cell phone, a computer with Internet, an email account, a telephone, an office, and a vehicle. What would the monthly expense for these things be? How do you afford these things? (And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that you also need to pay your mortgage and feed your family). In a word, parishioners. There exists a very real, very practical aspect of church today that necessitates a Business Model. It’s a simply fact of economics. Bills need to be paid. Money needs to be made. Take away the money and the bills don’t get paid. Take away parishioners and you take away the numbers. Take away the numbers and the money goes away.

I find this disturbing. I hear talk about trying to emulate church leadership after the New Testament times with its pastors and elders, and presbyters, etc., but what I repeatedly see is the Economic Business Model. I don’t believe Jesus and His Disciples’ ministry was based upon this model.

Before we can even begin to entertain how church is “done” and before we can begin even asking the question, we must first look at changing how the most basic, practical, and mundane issues of how it is managed is done. How do we pay the rent? Or, maybe, even that’s asking the wrong question. Should we even be paying rent? The church does not need a roof over her head. The church is a Corporate Entity, but it is not a person like you and me.

But church, as this Corporate Entity, has a roof over her head while individual people are left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness. And I don’t believe this is what the Lord had ever intended.

Jesus said that He had sheep of other folds (John 10:16). He also repeatedly told Peter to “Feed my lambs”. “Take care of my sheep”. “Feed my sheep”. (John 21:15-17). So the question begs to be asked: Why does the church have a roof over her head while there are people left out in the cold of a spiritual wilderness?

Previous Blog-site posts

Previous Blog-site posts

Three Syntheses: A Confession of Faith, of Sorts

Although I am going to present this an an "academic" conclusion I've arrived at, this isn't really the case. It is true, to a degree, that I have "intellectually" worked my way to this point of making some sort of belief or mental assertion. However, the greater truth lies within my own honesty.

We all, as Christians, know the squirrel-answers, those cookie-cutter beliefs we are supposed to, and expected to have. But when I honestly looked past these external expectations, when I stopped my quasi-deception, when I seriously looked into my heart of hearts, this is what I discovered. But I cannot easily nor accurately explain with words that kind of realization. So, if you'll forgive me and allow me to explain it in the context of an intellectual assent, an academic conclusion, I'll continue:

In Postdenominationalism I talked about a denominational-paradigm and how it comes to explore, collect and understand the truth. The denominational-paradigm begins the process with the truth and ends the process with the truth. It begins with the assumption that their truth and thesis is synonymous: that their truth is whole and complete. It stands to reason that anything added to this truth can only produce a non-truth, or at best, a watered-down truth.




When we add anything to this truth the result can only become a stained version of it's former pures self (as the pure white line turning pink shows). The antithesis added can only yield a synthesis that is not truth.

Okay. Alright, I get it. I understand the concept. If we follow it to it's logical conclusions, the more that is added, or "absorbed", can only lead us on a journey farther and farther from the truth. The more we assimilate and incorporate into what was once pure and white, the more unclear and muddy our perceived truth , our synthesis, becomes.

With this process, it doesn't get better or clearer, it only ever gets worse. Eventually we will find ourselves at a point when we don't know what the truth is.




I can't argue with this logic. It has to be be theoretically accurate. But when I look at Protestantism and it's 23,000 denominations (and this number only goes up if we include Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox) I begin to wonder. This denominational-paradigm works in theory, but fails miserably in practice. How do we come to terms with this? How do I come to terms with this? (Outside of boldly saying that I'm right and everybody else is wrong)?

The denominational-paradigm begins with an assumption; that the whole and complete truth is synonymous with the thesis. As a solution, I had offered a postdenominational-paradigm in which this assumption wasn't made; that the truth (or at least a closer understanding of it) was arrived at only in the synthesis. But the problem is that even this bases itself only an assumption. The only real difference between these two is whether or not we do indeed have in our possession a whole and complete truth.

I like what Irshad Manji said in her book "The Trouble with Islam Today". She said that only God fully understands the truth of anything and that only God can punish the non-believer because only God knows what true belief is.

I agree. And if only God fully understands the truth in anything then only God's truth is synonymous with the thesis. (And by implication our "truths" are all antitheses).

So why the 23,000+ denominations? In a word, Tribalism. We have not overcome our tribal natures. We have, somewhere mixed and half hidden in our mud, the truth. but we are not content with only the truth and contaminate it when we add our subjective versions of our truths and our beliefs either instead of, in condition of, or along side of God's truth.

I believe it when Jesus said He Himself was the Truth, but I don't believe it when we simply assume that carries over and applies to us by necessity when we evoke His name.

I believe that the heretical Jewish Rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth was - somehow - God limited, but incarnate in flesh. I believe that His crucifixion, death and resurrection somehow healed and made whole and complete the world; that He brought soter to it. But beyond that? Well...

My Confession of Faith is that of , what I'll call, the Three Syntheses. I believe, over the centuries, over the millennia, the truth had been, to some small or large degree, compromised.

I still do believe that any addition to a pure, whole and complete truth can only lead to a muddy and unclear (indeed, veiled) perception of what is and isn't.



The difference is, I don't believe man ever had it in his possession. I believe that Moses (and by implication, Mosaic Law) was a blend of divinely ordained laws and truths and of man-made laws and "truths".

I believe that the Apostle Paul inadvertently gave birth to a Pauline Christianity. I also believe what Paul spoke of in the epistles was a blend of divinely ordained and inspired laws and truths along side with man-made laws and "truths".

I also believe that God spoke to the Prophet Muhammad. Like it or not, there is truth and wisdom in the Qu'ran. But on the same note, I also believe it's "pure divine truth" has been made unclear and muddied by man's tribalism.



I believe that Moses blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Mosaic Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Judaism.

I believe Paul blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Pauline Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Christianity.

I believe Muhammad blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Muhammadan Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Islam.

I believe in the Three Syntheses.

I also believe there are scripture that supports and confirms these things. Although I am tempted to list them, I won't. It is not my intent to prove my truth, or to make my "tribalism" a necessity.

After "coming to this conclusion" (in truth I think I've believed this for a very long time, I've just now being honest with myself), I realize there are some implications that I'm going to need to explore and work through. I'm not overly interested in people trying to convince me why I'm wrong, or that my "interpretational methods" - my hermeneutics - is faulty. I need an environment which allows me to work through this. I am not nor never have been "religiously" set in my ways, but it is where I find myself. and I need to accept that and work from there. Anything else is simply me lying to myself. I just fear I won't find any help or even allowance in this endeavour; just assault, criticism, or (worse of all) silence.

The Chronological Order of the Qu'ran

The books (Surahs) are organized by length (for the most part). They are generally organized from longest to shortest, but this is not a' hard and fast rule'.
The Qu'ran is not presented in chronological order as it was not meant to tell a chronological story like the Old Testament of the Bible was.

The Quran in Chronological Order The Early Meccan Surahs 1 The Clot (96) 2 The Pen (68) 3 The Enshrouded One (73) 4 The Cloaked One (74) 5 The Opening (1) 6 Palm Fibre (111) 7 The Overthrowing (81) 8 The Most High (87) 9 The Night (92) 10 The Dawn (89) 11 The Morning Hours (93) 12 Solace (94) 13 The Declining Day (103) 14 The Coursers (100) 15 Abundance (108) 16 Rivalry in Worldly Increase (102) 17 Small Kindnesses (107) 18 The Disbelievers (109) 19 The Elephant (105) 20 The Daybreak (113) 21 Mankind (114) 22 The Unity (112) 23 The Star (53) 24 He Frowned (80) 25 Power (97) 26 The Sun (91) 27 The Mansions of the Stars (85) 28 The Fig (95) 29 Winter or Qureysh (106) 30 The Calamity (101) Middle Meccan Surahs (618-620) 31 The Rising of the Dead (75) 32 The Traducer (104) 33 The Emissaries (77) 34 Oaf (50) 35 The City (90) 36 The Morning Star (86) 37 The Moon (54)  38 Sad (38) 39 The Heights (7) 40 The Jinn (72) 41 Ya Sin (36) 42 Criterion (25) 43 The Angels (35) 44 Mary (19) 45 Ta Ha (20) 46 The Event (56) 47 The Poets (26) 48 The Ant (27) 49 The Story (28) 50 The Children of Israel (17) 51 Jonah (10) 52 Hud (11) 53 Joseph (12) 54 Al-Hijr (15) 55 Cattle (6) 56 Those Who Set the Ranks (37) 57 Luqman (31) 58 Saba (34) 59 The Troops (39) 60 The Believer (40) Late Meccan Surahs (620-622) 61 Fusilat (41) 62 Counsel (42) 63 Ornaments of Gold (43) 64 Smoke (44) 65 Crouching (45) 66 The Wind-Curved Sandhills (46) 67 The Winnowing Winds (51) 68 The Overwhelming (88) 69 The Cave (18) 70 The Bee (16) 71 Noah (71) 72 Abraham (14) 73 The Prophets (21) 74 The Believers (23) 75 The Prostration (32) 76 The Mount (52) 77 The Sovereignty (67) 78 The Reality (69) 79 The Ascending Stairways (70) 80 The Tidings (78) 81 Those Who Drag Forth (79) 82 The Cleaving (82) 83 The Sundering (84) 84 The Romans (30) 85 The Spider (29) 86 Defrauding (83) The 28 Medina Surahs 87 The Cow (2) 88 Spoils of War (8) 89 The Family of 'Imran (3) 90 The Clans (33) 91 She That is to be Examined (60) 92 The Women (4) 93 The Earthquake (99) 94 Iron (57) 95 Muhammad (47) 96 The Thunder (13) 97 The Beneficent (55) 98 Time or Man (76) 99 Divorce (65) 100 The Clear Proof (98) 101 Exile (59) 102 Light (24) 103 The Pilgrimage (22) 104 The Hypocrites (63) 105 She That Disputeth (58) 106 The Private Apartments (49) 107 Banning (66) 108 Mutual Disillusion (64) 109 The Ranks (61) 110 The Congregation (62) 111 Victory (48) 112 The Table Spread (5) 113 Repentance (9) 114 Succour (110)

Chronological Order of the New Testament

Although there are some discrepancies to the chronological order of the books of the New Testament, generally, the following is commonly accepted:

James
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Matthew
Philemon
Colossians
Ephesians
Gospel of Luke
Acts
Philippians
1 Timothy
Titus
1 Peter
2 Timothy
Hebrews
Jude
Gospel of John
1 John
2 John
3 John
Revelation

Although not all agree with this exact order, what cannot be contested is that the order the books appear in the bible are not chronologically correct.

Generally, the letters of Paul precede all others. The Synoptic Gospels follow the bulk of the Pauline epistles with a scattering of other letters, and sometime significantly later, the New Testament is rounded out with the Gospel of John, his 3 letters and his book of Revelation.

What the pattern would seem to be, are stories of a miraculous miracle worker and wisdom teacher (Yeshua of Nazareth), referred to in the Pauline epistles.
What follows are the filling-in of the origins of this miraculous wisdom teacher (almost like a modern-day prequel). What should be noted also is after both Mark and Matthew's Gospels is followed the Gospel of Luke and its sequel, the book of Acts (which in all likelihood was penned by Paul, or at least Paul's companion, Luke) - almost suggestive of a corrective footnote to Mark and Matthew. (But the authorship of Like/Acts is only a tangent in this line of thought).

What is significant is that the entire of the Johannine works follow. (Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) and lend and extreme mystical flavour. It is also where we see clearly Yeshua become deified, concretely.

Regardless of what these things really mean or are meaningless, one thing cannot be argued.
Reading the New Testament as presented in the bible vs. reading the New Testament chronologically paint two very different pictures.

The Chronological Old Testament

I don't pretend to be an Old Testament expert by any means, but to my limited knowledge the categorizing method of organizing the books of the Old Testament is chronological for the most part.

Bear in mind that very few of the dates these books were written are absolutely known:

The Pentateuch:

Genesis (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Exodus ( c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Leviticus ( c. 1445 – 1444 B.C.)
Numbers (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.)
Deuteronomy (c. 1407 – 1406 B.C.)

The Historic Books:

Joshua (c. 1380 B.C.)
Judges ( unknown, c. 1000 B.C.?)
Ruth (c. 1375 – 1050 B.C. ?)
1 Samuel (unknown, c. 1000 B.C. ?)
2 Samuel (c. 1050 – 970 B.C.)
1 Kings (c. 562 B.C. ?)
2 Kings ( c. 562 B.C.)
1 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 1000 – 960])
2 Chronicles (430 B.C. [referring to events c. 970 – 586])
Ezra (430 [referring to events c. 538 – 430])
Nehemiah (420 B.C.)
Esther (c. 470 B.C. ?)

Books of Poetry:

Job (unknown, est. 2000 – 1800 B.C.)
Psalms (c. 1440 – 586 B.C.)
Proverbs (c. 960 B.C. ?)
Ecclesiastes (935 B.C. ?)
Song of Songs (960 B.C. ?)

Major Prophets:

Isaiah (700 – 681 B.C.)
Jeremiah (627 – 586 B.C.)
Lamentations (c. 586 B.C.)
Daniel (c. 535 B.C. [referring to events c. 605-535])

Minor Prophets:

*Hosea (c. 715 B.C. [referring to events c. 753-715])
Joel (835 – 796 B.C.)
Amos (c. 760 – 750 B.C.)
*Obadiah (c. 586 B.C.)
Jonah (785 – 760 B.C.)
Micah (742 – 687 B.C.)
Nahum (663-654 B.C.)
Habakkuk (612 – 589 B.C.)
Zephaniah (640 – 621B.C.)
Haggai (520 B.C.)
Zechariah (520 – 480 B.C.)
Malachi (430 B.C.)

With the apparent exceptions of Hosea and Obediah I would say it is in chronological order.

Why is the New Testament not in chronological order?

Bibliolatry

Bibliolatry is the worship of a particular book. In the case of Christianity, the term bibliolatry is used in a derogatory sense toward those who either have an extreme devotion to the Bible, or hold to a high view of biblical inerrancy However Historic Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible itself, as worship is explicitly reserved only for God Himself. Also Biblical authority is derived from God the author of the text, not the text itself. So the term is not a reference to an actual belief, but is often used as a pejorative term to negatively label perceived practices of theological opponents. The groups to whom the term is most often applied are Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background who hold to Biblical inerrancy and Scripture as the only divine authority. So most of those who level the charge either reject Biblical inerrancy (such as much of mainline Protestantism does) or uphold divine authority that includes Apostolic Tradition in concert with Scripture rather than Scripture alone (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, many within Anglicanism, & the vast majority of Christianity worldwide).

Mu

In English it is more famously used as a response to certain koans (A koan is a story, question, or statement generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet may be accessible to intuition. “Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?” is a good example) and other questions intending to indicate that the question itself was wrong.

"Unasking" the question

The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both right and wrong.

In Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero." That's silly! Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu state.[20]

The word features prominently with a similar meaning in Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach. It is used fancifully in discussions of symbolic logic, particularly Gödel's incompleteness theorems, to indicate a question whose "answer" is to

• un-ask the question,
• indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or
• reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.[21]

"Mu" may be used similarly to "N/A" or "not applicable," a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality.

Anti-theory

A theory may only ever be proven wrong. The potential for it being proven wrong always remains.

An Anti-theory may only ever be proven correct. It is based upon evidence not yet discovered, known, or found. It is perpetually waiting for the “final evidence”, regardless of whether it will ever be found or not. It is based upon a yet undiscovered evidence that will actually prove itself. This is simply a poor and self-serving methodology.

Waiting, as a perennial solution to a given problem, becomes an Anti-theory.

The Anti-theory can never be proven wrong, while the Theory can only ever be proven wrong.