Matt 24 Watch, 66: Lessons from Poland's forgotten holocaust

One of the revealingly all- but- "forgotten" dimensions of the Nazi holocaust is the fate of one-fifth of Poland's population in the aftermath of Hitler's invasion of September 1 1939, which sparked off the Second World War.

Observe, for instance, how the reliably politically correct online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, presents the relevant information, in its article on Poland:

The Sanacja movement controlled Poland until the start of World War II in 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded on 1 September and the Soviet Union followed on 17 September. Warsaw capitulated on 28 September 1939. As agreed in the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Poland was split into two zones, one occupied by Germany while the eastern provinces fell under the control of the Soviet Union.
Of all the countries involved in the war, Poland lost the highest percentage of its citizens: over six million perished, half of them Polish Jews . . . The main German Nazi death camps were in Poland. Of a pre-war population of 3,300,000 Polish Jews, 3,000,000 were killed during the Holocaust.

The telling gap in the above -- who were the other half, please? -- is aptly exposed and stingingly indicted by Polish descendant and Jewish convert, Terese Pencak Schwartz; in her online site, holocaustforgotten.com:

Why the Polish Holocaust is rarely recognized by American media and wire services or mentioned in Holocaust literature has baffled Polish Americans and Poles, especially since so many books and articles have been published about the Holocaust . . . The World Almanac and Book of Facts. The relevant sentence reads, “During the war, some 6 million Polish citizens, half of them Jews, were killed by the Nazis.” But note the nuance of the wording -- it is as though the words “three million,” “Polish Christians,” and “dead” cannot be mentioned in the same sentence in anything written about the Holocaust. Even direct mail pieces from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum cannot acknowledge the Polish dead -- their annual direct mail piece reads, “You see, the Nazis tried to wipe out not only the Jews but also the physically and mentally handicapped, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, Gypsies, Soviet POWs and people who didn’t agree politically.” No mention of three million dead Poles . . . .

When Holocaust Remembrance Week was approaching this year, the first news release ("Israel Re-Examines Holocaust Story" 4-29-00; 12:24 p.m. EDT) from the Associated Press read, "The new Yad Vashem museum will also deal with the persecution of other groups targeted by the Nazis, including Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others." Again, there was no mention of three million dead Polish Christians who, by the way, vastly outnumbered the combined number of dead Jehovah’s Witnesses (2,000), Gypsies (400,000), homosexuals (10,000 at the most, according to Peter Novick in The Holocaust in American Life), handicapped, etc., usually cited in Holocaust literature. Are these three million Polish Christian souls not worthy of honor at Holocaust remembrance ceremonies and in Holocaust literature? Hath not Poles eyes? Hath not Poles hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? If Poles are poisoned, do they not die? [Emphases added.]

Worse yet, the same site reports that the disproportionate magnitude of Poland's losses in the war was actually a calculated Nazi genocidal policy, one announced by no less a figure than Hitler himself:

“The destruction of Poland is our primary task . . . . Kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need.”

In short, the same demonic, genocidal racism that led Hitler to seek to wipe out the Jewish nation also led him to target the Polish nation at large for destruction. As a result of this, one fifth of that nation perished, half being Jews [90% of the Jews of Poland], and half being overwhelmingly Catholic Christians. These three millions being up to sixty percent of the commonly estimated five million non-Jewish victims of the holocaust. All, horribly foreshadowed through the chilling Darwinism-inspired twisted worldview expounded in Chapter XI of Hitler's infamous Mein Kampf, My Struggle:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish ["Celts"], the Scots and the English ["Saxons"] in Ch V of Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man -- which should be understood in light of the chilling do-nothing English policy in response to the peak of the Irish Potato famine], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

But, the lessons we need to remind ourselves of go further than just that Hitler's agenda was racist and that that racism was in significant part Darwinist-inspired, in a context that had dismissed the restraints imposed on German culture by the ethics of the Gospel, as Heine warned on in the 1830's. For, the commonly met, repeatedly emphasised itemisation of relatively minor, mostly politically correct victims while being silent on the second major group of victims of the Hitlerian Holocaust proper, is telling about our own times -- and about the extremely dangerous Civlisation-wide trend of rising anti-Christian bigotry.

This bigotry, of course, now routinely comes out in the best-selling writings of the so-called New Atheists. There, it can be seen in how readily long litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom [which admittedly, sadly, are legion -- as are those of any other major, longstanding cultural movement of humans: i.e. us finite, fallible, fallen, too often ill-willed sinners] are trotted out; even as the major positive contributions of Christians to the development of civilisation are suppressed or even -- too often, in the teeth of reasonably accessible evidence to the contrary -- falsely attributed to other forces or agencies in history. But, this is not just a matter of a few unbalanced men who hate or rage against God (often, as a stand-in for the fathers they equally resent . . . ).

For, even in the most educated circles, it is too often often forgotten that Modern Liberty and Democracy owe much to the Reformers and other Christian or materially Christian-influenced thinkers on civil government, such as Locke, Blackstone or even Jefferson and Madison. Similarly, the major contributions of the Christian faith to the rise of modern science are often suppressed or dismissed in the haste to project an imagined age-long war of Christianity against science, with a distorted account of Galileo's fate being exhibit no 1. In the Caribbean, the role of Gospel-inspired, Bible-believing Dissenters [i.e. Evangelicals] in the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and then that of chattel slavery [cf here, here and here, and here, for instance] is too often not only dismissed but denigrated. (And those who try to correct the record, sadly, are too often slandered.)

But, perhaps the most telling instance I can find is the following abuwsive transfer of terrorism from one entire faith to another by use of that ever so handy smear-word, "fundamentalists", by the Rev'd Dr Roderick Hewitt, and published in Jamaica's leading newspaper only a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks in the United States:

The human tragedy in USA has also served to bring into sharp focus the use of terror by religious fanatics/fundamentalists. Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith . . . They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]

But in fact, there is little or no material parallel between Islamist radical terrorist suicide bombers and the members of our local Bible believing churches across our region. And that should have been obvious to any reasonably educated person, much less a leading, doctorate level theologian in Jamaica; not to mention, the Editors of Jamaica's leading newspaper!

In short, the bigotry is real, widespread and potentially extremely dangerous.

What, then, must be done?

1 --> First, we must remind ourselves of aspects of the past that we dare not forget. For, as Santayana and others remind us, if we refuse to learn from history we are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.


2 --> Next, we must do everything possible to make sure that we have a fair, objectively true and balanced view of the past.


3 --> That means we must indeed recall the sins as well as the contributions and triumphs of Christendom.


4 --> In so doing, we must in particular remember the reforming and cleansing impact of the Gospel and of those who sought to live by it.


5 --> Similarly, when we celebrate the contributions and triumphs of science, we should also remember that science and worldview agendas supported in the name of science have not been blameless in our history.


6 --> In particular, we should learn the lines of influence from Darwin to Hitler, and from Darwin to Stalin and co. So, we will learn that not all that is labelled science or is based on what is so labelled is blameless. Science is -- and must always be -- accountable before the bar of ethics and morality.


7 --> Thus, too, we must restore a sound basis for ethics and morality, in the teeth of the acid that eats away at the foundation of ethics as a limit on public policy and personal behaviour in contemporary culture: evolutionary materialism.


8 --> Here in the Caribbean, we must stoutly resist the pressures that are now mounting up to push us away from the tested foundation for ethics in our culture: the Gospel and its biblical framework.

Perhaps, then, some balancing remarks by Prof Bernard Lewis in his famous essay on The Roots of Muslim Rage, are soberlingly appropriate:

. . . revulsion against America, more generally against the West, is by no means limited to the Muslim world . . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst . . . .

Slavery is today universally denounced as an offense against humanity, but within living memory it has been practiced and even defended as a necessary institution, established and regulated by divine law. The peculiarity of the peculiar institution, as Americans once called it, lay not in its existence but in its abolition. Westerners were the first to break the consensus of acceptance and to outlaw slavery, first at home, then in the other territories they controlled, and finally wherever in the world they were able to exercise power or influence -- in a word, by means of imperialism . . . .

In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. [Kindly follow the link and read on. By the way, I recently read Samuel Eliot Morison on the southern voyages of exploration, which brings out the many sins of the explorers and conquistadors with great force, the more effectively for being given with a measure of sympathetic judgement on these men as great but greatly flawed men, not mere one-dimensional "blue-eyed devils." Perhaps, it is not too much to hope that our region's historians could emulate such a maturity of tone?]

Will we learn? Can we do better? Let us hope -- and pray -- so. END
_________

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims discussed above],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here.

Matt 24 Watch, 65: Some nearly forgotten Lessons from History -- Darwin, Hitler and the Holocaust

Early this year, Ben Stein released his documentary film on academic persecution of the Intelligent Design movement in the United States, Expelled.

In May this year, Israel celebrated its 60th anniversary in a world in which many now routinely compare and in some cases even openly equate the Jews of Israel to the Nazis. This November, Americans will go to the polls to elect a new President in the midst of multiplied concerns on global warming, a controversial global war on terrorism and fears of economic chaos. Next February 9th, many will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin.

The four events are subtly but deeply interconnected in many ways, and they are pregnant with lessons for us here in the Caribbean as we move deeper into the 21st Christian Century. (This, in turn brings to mind George Santayana's cutting observation that history teaches two key lessons: first, those who refuse to learn from it are doomed to repeat its worst chapters; second, by and large we refuse to learn from it.)

The key connexion lies in the line from Darwin to Hitler, which is (understandably) sharply contested by many enthusiasts of Darwin.

Indeed, it is now a principal -- and in some cases intentionally distracting -- objection to the movie, Expelled, that it was dishonest to draw such a line of historical influences. (This is related to the so-called Godwin's Law, by which anyone who draws a parallel from Hitler to a current situation may be dismissed as outside the pale of civil discussion.) But, while there are of course always going to be inappropriate parallels drawn as a way to smear opponents -- such as the easy equation of the Zionists and the Nazis that is now all too commonly seen -- Santayana reminds us that sometimes, history does have some sharp and perhaps painfully pointed lessons to teach us.

Lessons we forget at our peril.

So, let us begin with Chapter 6 of Darwin's second major book, the 1871 Descent of Man, in which he drew out the ways in which the theory of evolution he laid out in the epochal 1859 Origin of Species, applied to man. In short, after he and his allies had won the general scientific debate (and, debate is about persuasion, not necessarily proof . . . ) he now spoke to the implications for us of the now increasingly dominant theory and its associated worldview. So, let us now excerpt and emphasise:

Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . .

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Thus, the following excerpt from a now somewhat notorious letter of July 3, 1881 to a certain Mr William Graham, is not to be dismissed as a tossed off, momentary, ill-considered thought:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

In short, Darwin, plainly, was a foundational Social Darwinist, and coolly drew out -- without serious compunction -- that his theory explained and predicted genocide between the diverse races/species of man, as a way by which more or less “natural” selection would work to improve the human race.

This gives very pointed focus to the fact that it was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who, impressed by the theory of evolution and its implications, pioneered the eugenics movement. Indeed, in the next generation, Darwin's son Leonard, led the movement. This is in itself troubling, as the modern Social Darwinism-based eugenics movement has been associated with serious abuses such as racist targetting of “inferior” breeds, groups and classes of man to be reduced or eliminated, and with giving “scientific” credibility to racial and social discrimination.

Generally, such now discredited ideas are often viewed as illegitimate extensions of the science, but in light of evidence such as the above, we can no longer accept such attempts to distance Darwin from such extensions of his thought.

Things get worse, sadly worse, when we look at a key passage from Chapter XI of Hitler's notorious Mein Kampf (which I refuse to link):

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

Some have objected that [a] Hitler's racism was more rooted in, say, Luther's vitriolic antisemitism than in Darwin's theories, [b] that he was a Creationist (and even a Christian) not a Darwinist, and [c] that he was extending animal breeding principles to humanity. They have therefore suggested that it is incorrect, improper and even dishonest to draw out any causal or historical links from Darwin to Hitler.

But in fact, it is quite clear that Hitler was no Christian (propagandistic stump speeches notwithstanding), and that in the above he is drawing out his ideas from Darwin's ideas of natural and sexual selection in the struggle for existence and the resulting preservation of favoured races in that struggle [this last is actually the subtitle for Origin!], not from the Creation-anchored ethics of the Bible.

Also, while Luther and other Christians who indulged in vitriolic anti-semitism have no excuse (and helped set up a climate in which men like Hitler would gain a hearing), such a view of Jews can find no biblical warrant. Indeed, we must never forget that our Saviour, as touching his human descent was a Son of David!

Also, it is often overlooked that by the 1920's to 30's Germany had long been in a state of increasing apostasy under the impact of highly destructive hyperskeptical Bible criticism, so much so that by the 1840's Marx had observed, following Fuerbach, that criticism of religion was the premise of all criticism, and that in Germany, that criticism was largely complete.

A decade before that, Heinrich Heine in the conclusion to his Religion and Philosophy in Germany, prophesied chillingly as follows:

Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

… Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …

At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [HT: Commenter, Tribune7 at UD.]

Further to this, we must note the grim implications of how Hitler in Mein Kampf hints at the premise that the more advanced races/species of man should in his view act, as the fox to the goose, or the cat to the mouse. The way this echoes and amplifies ideas already present in Darwin's corpus, and foreshadows the sad events of the 1930's and 40's, should give us pause.

All this, of course, also reeks of Nietzsche's will to power ethics, the associated idea that might makes right, and that philosopher's notorious contempt for the Christian ethics of compassion and protection of the weak. Thus, we may quote a key cite from Nietzsche's posthumous Will to Power:

The biblical prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life's own "Thou shalt not" issued to decadence: "Thou shalt not procreate!" —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no "equal right," between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!

The direct echo of the struggle for existence ethics above is plain.

What a contrast do we find to say Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, which Locke cites as a key authority in his second essay on civil government, Ch 2 Section 5, to ground principles of natural law based rights and justice:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

So, we must first understand the implications of moving away from anchoring our view of man in our sharing in the common image of God our Creator, to the Darwin-inspired image of the ape.

Therefore, as we move towards the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we plainly need a more objective appraisal of his ideas and their consequences.

The onward link of the above to the postwar UN Mandate to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, and the resulting Arab invasion of Israel (on a declared intent to wipe the Jews out) and resulting survival of Israel, refugee crises -- both Arab and Jewish -- and struggle to this day are also in many ways fairly obvious. For, while there is not an explicit Darwinian component, it is plain that a world shocked by what antisemitism led to, was for a few years far more inclined to hear the plea of the Jews and other oppressed peoples than has historically usually been the case. Indeed, this is a key root of the movement towards national independence across the world in recent decades.

The links to the current US election cycle lie in a less well known story, that of the rise of Hitler as a messianic political leader in an era of chaos, confusion and painful struggle to survive.

For, in the aftermath of the First World War, a defeated, demoralised Germany was in chaos. By 1923, it had seen a major Red uprising [e.g. the Spartacists of 1918 – 19], an attempted Nazi putsch, and hyperinflation that destroyed its currency and wiped out the savings of the middle classes. Private armies of the left and the right stalked its streets, and the military became dependent on one of these private armies, the Brownshirts or the SA, for the required reserve in the face of especially the Red threat. So, as the 1930's dawned, the Nazi party and its semi-autonomous SA were the largest single bloc in the much divided Reichstag and the key unofficial manpower base the Versailles Treaty-limited army would have to count on in time of peril. So, the fatal “lesser of evils” compromise was struck, in which a coalition between the Nazis and parties of the right was made, and Hitler was given the Chancellorship, despite the concerns of many that he was little more than a dangerous guttersnipe and ruthlessly manipulative charismatic demagogue. (Indeed, the aging President Hindenberg refused to see him except in the presence of a more “acceptable” Minister.)

In short order a half-mad Dutch Communist youth burned the Reichstag in an ill-considered act of protest, and Hindenberg died. Hitler took advantage of the first to ram through an Enabling Act that gave him power to rule by decree in the face of the crisis. After the second, he in effect unofficially took over the reins of the Presidency in addition to the Chancellorship. His economic policies began to restore prosperity, and his repudiation of the Versailles Treaty received widespread acclamation.

But then, on the excuse [based on false information] that the SA was plotting to seize power, a bloody “counter-coup” was launched, and Germany suddenly found itself in the grips of a demonic, ruthless dictator. The rest, as we may say, is history: 60 millions dead and a devastated continent worth of history.

History that should serve to warn us that if our region walks away from the Biblically anchored understanding that we are all made in God's image and so we all have a duty of neighbour love to one another that leads to justice and caring, it may have terrible consequences. Similarly, we must remember that the “lesser” of two evils may be utterly destructive, so we must insist that those who we support for high office, even in times of crisis, must be men ands women of highest character and proved track record. Third, political messianism and associated blind following of political leaders, is an utterly wicked and destructive idolatry. Fourth, as Romans 13:8 - 10 warns, politics cannot safely exempt itself from the basic civil duties of justice and decency. Fifth, we must realise that not all that calls itself “Science” or based thereupon is either right, or beneficial. Finally, in this hi tech, scientific age, we need to look very, very soberly at the implications of the still rising tide of evolutionary materialism -- which likes to view itself as “science” -- in our culture.

So, God willing, let us take a little time to further explore such themes. END
_______

F/N: KF Blog sub-Series on the Holocaust and its history of ideas roots, Mt 24 W 65, 66 [note the significance of the 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims],  67, 68; cf also video lecture here.

Matt 24 watch, 64: A 'Lost Christianities' Course -- Dan Brownism meets Jesus Seminarism in academic robes

A few days ago, I chanced to borrow the just arrived July 2008 PC World Magazine from our local public library.

I was shocked and saddened to see, on p. 53, an advert for a course by a certain Dr Bart D Ehrman -- a professor and chair of Dept of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill -- which is being promoted and distributed on DVDs as an exceptionally instructive course for life-long learners, by The Teaching Company.

The opening remarks in the advert will suffice to bring out why I am so appalled:

In the first centuries after Christ, there was no New Testament. However, books of Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses were widely read, and were fervently followed by groups of early Christians. But they would not be among the books that formed the New Testament.

From the many different scriptures then available, Christians held beliefs that would today would be considered bizarre: that there were two, 12, or as many as 30 gods; that a malicious deity, rather than one true God, created the world; that Christ's death and resurrection had nothing to do with salvation -- others insisted that Christ never died at all . . . [Emphasis added.]

Then, on going to the web site and finding the course page, I found a highly significant change to the opening claim: "In the first centuries after Christ, there was no "official" New Testament." [Emphasis added.]

By that key inserted word hangs a long and very revealing tale indeed.

For, first, it tells the alert and informed reader that what has happened here is that, now that skeptics such as the Jesus Seminar have publicly denigrated the C1 history and NT record of the foundation of the Christian Faith, Gnostic heresies and documents are being treated by at least some professors of Religion as if they are an authentic witness to the origins of our Faith.

That is precisely what noted NT scholar John Wenham warned against:

. . . Conclusions [of many contemporary theologians] are the result of a long process of critical study whereby the authority of parts of the gospel text has been eroded bit by bit till nothing dependable is left. The end result is a downgrading of the canonical gospels which may ultimately put them in the category of Christian romances or merely on a level with the Gnostic gospels [as the Jesus Seminar has done with its The Five Gospels]. This means an abandonment of the belief that the gospel-writers were competent witnesses of the events they relate. But to depart from this belief is to depart from historic Christianity into something quite other . . . [Easter Enigma, 2nd edn (Paternoster, 1996), pp. 11 – 12, emphases, parenthetical notes & link added. Cf. my discussion on a case in point in the Jamaican press several years ago, here.]

But, for instance, as Paul Barnett reports in his now classic Is The New Testament History?, p. 33 ff, if we were to simply look at the first circle of writing Church Fathers, AD 96 - 112 or so: Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius; we could easily see that twenty-five of twenty-seven of our NT books are cited or alluded to by them, and in a way that makes no doubt that hey were viewed as authoritative, authentic scriptures. Indeed, the two that are omitted, happen to be two of the shortest. And, these documents continue to be cited and recognised as God-breathed writings in an unbroken chain down to our day.

By sharpest contrast, so soon as Gnosticism surfaced as a challenge to the Christian Faith, it was confronted by church leaders as destructive heresy. Indeed, it is said that when Marcion had come to Rome bearing a handsome gift to the church leaders, when they learned of his views, teachings and agenda, they returned the gift!

Further to this, much of what we know about Gnosticism comes from the many refutations written by eminent church leaders.

Worse, yet, we are in our day increasingly aware of the hebraic roots of the Christian Faith; the recent Gabriel stone story being simply illustrative of that. By sharpest contrast Gnosticism is a mish-mash of all sorts of influences, with a strong strain of Greek philosophy, as comes out in the blasphemous concept that the Creator God YHWH is an inferior deity, the demi-urge of some Greek thought, who made what was viewed as the evil material world. Gnostic "salvation" therefore, in simple terms, largely consisted in finding hidden knowledge that allows one to escape the spiritual powers in various realms as one's spirit flees the prison of the body at death.

This utterly contrasts with the publicly proclaimed, resurrection-anchored facts and hopes of the Gospel of salvation:

1CO 15:1 . . . I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1CO 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1CO 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep . . . 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

This directly cuts across the web of ideas and themes of Gnosticism, and it comes from the eyewitness lifetime record of the official testimony of the 500+ witnesses of the resurrection, dating to the mid 30's. Indeed, we may note that given the shame and disgrace that attached to a crucified person in pagan thought, and the Jewish view that to be hanged on a tree was a sign of being utterly accursed of God, only the strength of the testimony to and power of the resurrection could have got the Christian faith going in such a cultural matrix.

So, let us note in passing Frank Morison's still unmet, nearly eighty year old challenge to the skeptic:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

For further instance, we can readily see many challenges to Gnostic-style influences in the prologue to the Gospel of John:

JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

JN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it . . .

And, in Paul's epistle to the Colossians:

COL 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

COL 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation . . .

In short, the issue is not just one that minority views were suppressed by the dominant clergy of the emerging Roman Catholic Church, as say one would infer from a too trusting read of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Instead, the Gnostic claims simply were without historical authenticity and were correctly rejected as an oil-water blend of incomaptible and confused claims, only lent a superficial smearing of plausibility by a veneer of Greek ideas, learning and philosophy. So, once the credibility of the NT records was acknowledged, they could not stand. Unsurprisingly, that is precisely why -- now that the C1 records have been hyperskeptically, unjustifiably denigrated in many quarters -- the Gnostic claims are once again surfacing.

Further to this, though, as I searched the Internet, I became very aware of just how much ill-informed opinion and teaching is out there. Even, modern attempts to revive Gnosticism! (Come to think of it, there is a declared Gnostic church near River Road in Bridgetown, Barbados.)

That brings me back to the current initiative: one of the reasons we urgently need to found a solid cyber college that can work with churches, parachurch ministries, UCCF, ISCF etc is to equip Christians across our region to confidently respond in an informed, confident way to the many de-Christianising forces that are just a Google or Yahoo search and a web click or two away. Worse, some such claims are doubtless creeping into our College and even High School classrooms.

We ignore the surging tidal wave from the North at our peril. END

__________

PS: There was a partial dome collapse and 40,000-foot sub-plinian eruption here in Montserrat, over the last week or so, apparently triggered by fresh magma moving up into the dome that has been sitting there for a year and a half or so. We are based several miles north of the danger zone, behind the next mountain edifice, so there is minimal risk. Prayer for wisdom and endurance for Montserrat's long-suffering people and our leaders is of course welcome!

Matt 24 watch, 63: Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's UFO revelations -- whose report do we believe, why?

This week, 77 year old US Apollo 14 Astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, made some remarks on UFO's -- Unidentified Flying Objects -- that have hit at least a few headlines around the world.

In the UK Telegraph's report, we may see that:

Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of several UFO visits during his career, but each one had been covered up . . . . [he] said sources at [NASA] the [American] space agency had described aliens as resembling "little people who look strange to us".

Dr Mitchell told Kerrang! Radio that human technology was "not nearly as sophisticated" as theirs and had they been hostile, he warned: "We would be been gone by now" . . . . "There's not much question at all that there's life throughout the universe, we are not alone at all. I'm most assured about that.

"Have we been able to identify where the other planets are? No, certainly not in our Solar System but we have been able to identify quite a number of planets that could be life bearing planets.

"I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real.

"It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.

"I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes – we have been visited.

"Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit." . . . .

Now, if this is true, it would indeed be earth-shaking news, not only that "we are not alone," but that there would have been a decades long conspiracy across several major governments to conceal the truth from us.

But, should we believe the claim?

Why, or why not?

That is a far more interesting issue, and brings to mind my recent devotional reading from John 8, just after Jesus had routed those who wanted to use the incident of the woman caught in the act of adultery to pose a dilemma to discredit or even destroy him:

JN 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

JN 8:13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

JN 8:14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one . . . . "

JN 8:23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

JN 8:25 "Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26 "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

JN 8:27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

So, we come now to the underlying issue of the trustworthiness of testimony: Whose report do -- or, should -- we believe, why?

Dr Mitchell's story gives us a first clue:

"[he] said he was aware of several UFO visits during his career, but each one had been covered up . . . . [he] said sources at [NASA] the [American] space agency had described aliens as resembling "little people who look strange to us."

In short, he acknowledges that he was not himself an eyewitness, but is reporting at second or third hand. Hearsay. (By contrast, observe the John 8 account: Jesus here says he was speaking at first hand from personal knowledge of the facts, which makes his testimony valid as testimony.)

We can go further.

It turns out that Dr Mitchell is a long-time UFO aficionado, and according to for instance so humble a first quick look source as Wikipedia, he has long had new age leanings. Similarly, in a world of the guesswork-based Drake equation and the recent wave of discoveries of extra-solarsystem earth-like planets, the idea that there are a lot of inhabited worlds out there is a commonplace. So is belief in UFO's, at least among enthusiasts -- and indeed this author as an enthusiastic High Schooler had a brief "UFO sighting" experience in the early 1970's.

However, plainly, before taking such statements of testimony or even experience at face value, it would be wise to get some corroboration.

A subtlety lurks -- and this is where my own interest has been sparked.

For, in the case of the citation from John, we are dealing with an ancient source [so that the eyewitnesses are long since dead], and one that is often hotly disputed or even coolly dismissed as anything but credible testimony to anything that happened on the ground in Judaea twenty centuries ago.

So, we must ask: how do we set about sifting wheat from chaff on matters of disputed testimony and claimed records of such testimony?

This is not so easy, but Simon Greenleaf, the justly famous C19 Harvard Law School Professor and a founding father of the modern theory of evidence has summarised some significant courtroom principles that will help us greatly:

1] THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS RULE: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [p.16.]

2] Conversance: In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. [p. 17.]

3] On Inquiries and Reports: If [a report] were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned" it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25.]

4] Probability of Truthfulness: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.]

5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 - 9.]

6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29]

7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.]

8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 - 4.]

9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.]

10] Marks of false vs true testimony: a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false. [pp. 39 - 40.]

11] Procedure: let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances.[p. 42.]

12] The degree of coherence expected of true witnesses: substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. [p.34. All cites from The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995).]

In the case of John 8, of course, we have the Rylands codex [book-form] papyrus fragment from Egypt, ~ 125 - 150 AD, hundreds of miles from the probable place of composition in or near Ephesus, Asia Minor. This early publication in codex format strongly supports that the Gospel, one of the last NT documents to be written, is indeed a C1 document -- and indeed, the very first circle of writing Church Fathers, AD 96 - 112, cite or allude to it. An unbroken, continent-wide chain of custody takes the document thereafter right down to the invention of printing. Fraudulent or inadvertent material distortion of the record is simply not on the cards.

That is, it is effectively morally certain that the document records a C1 Christian account of Jesus.

But, is it likely to be an eyewitness account, and is it likely to be valid and trustworthy?

For many, immediately as they see the element of the miraculous, they dismiss: we "know," scientifically, that miracles are impossible -- laws of nature get to be such, only because they are exception-less.

However, this begs the question, whether at the gross level of inferring from finitely many fallibly observed cases to what "must" be, or at the more subtle Humean level of asserting that any other explanation than accepting the reality of miracles is to be preferred; as we know of no exceptions to the laws of nature per universal experience of such laws. (But in the face of abundant contemporary testimony and massive record across the ages to the contrary, how do we know -- without begging the question -- that all of these accounts are and must be false?)

In fact, we may make no proper exclusion of the miraculous based on finite and fallible observations of what usually obtains -- miracles, by definition will be exceptional and to stand out as signs that point to something beyond nature, would have to exist in a context where there is a usual, orderly and predictable course of nature. Miracles would be invsible in a chaotic, disorderly world in which anything can and does happen willy nilly. (And reesponsible choice would be impossible in such a world too, i.e morality would evaporate, as would knowledge and reason.)

So, existence of generally observed natural law is simply not sufficient to rule out the possibility of miraculous "exceptions" to the general pattern. or, better stated: what is an exception to a narrower pattern, may well be an instance of a wider one. For, if God has made an orderly natural world, he may have good reason to act in it from time to time in extraordinary ways.

Moreover, in a Christian context, we have twenty centuries of testimony to the miraculous through the name of Jesus, not just in remote areas or times, but in the lives of many in today's world; including many of the most sophisticated and educated. Such testimony in aggregate carries weight, serious weight.

Most important of all, to explain the otherwise inexplicable, life-transforming and wonder-working power of that name in prayer, we have the resurrection of Jesus, as testified to by over five hundred eyewitnesses, and recorded as early as 55 AD within 25 - 30 years of the event, in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. Up to twenty of those witnesses are named or identifiable, and NONE of them were ever shaken in their testimony, not even in the face of the most horrible threats, tortures and deaths.

A conspiracy or mass hallucination to propagate such a story is simply even more incredible than the resurrection of Jesus.

Coming back to John's account, for just one instance, the way in which he casually, artlessly, and naturally refers to many geographical, cultural and historical scenes and facts in pre-AD 70 Judaea and Galilee, is a point on which he can be and was checked in details. A point that he would not have anticipated being checked on, as the idea of Archaeology is a most modern one.

The reporter in John, as it turns out on checking, is right, which in a context where there was a massively destructive war AD 66 - 70+, speaks to the authenticity of the claim to be eyewitness, truthful testimony.

As Warren E. Berkley nicely summarises:

The author was a Jew. He understood and quoted from the Old Testament (12:40;13:18; 19:37). He knew and understood Jewish customs (2:1-10; 3:25; 11:55; 11:38,44; 19:40). He knew and understood the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah (1:19-18). He was aware of the religious differences between Jews and Samaritans (4:9,20). The writer was a Jew. A Jew from Palestine. He knew the pool of Bethesda had five porches (5:2). {Archaeologists have unearthed the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate. Among many scholars who were not asked to participate in the Jesus Seminar, there is a new consensus of confidence in John due to these recent discoveries. Some have even asserted that John's record is more reliable than the synoptics (Smalley, quoted in THE EVIDENCE FOR JESUS, by France, p.#131)}. But further, he knew that Bethany was only fifteen furlongs away from Jerusalem (11:18). He knew that Ephraim was near the wilderness (11:54). He knew that the Garden of Gethsemane was on the other side of the brook Kidron (18:1). He knew that there was a paved area outside of the praetorium (19:13). He was aware of the region of Samaria and that Jacob's well was located in Sychar (4:5-6), and that it was deep (4:11). Again, archaeologists have found this well. He knew about the sacred mountain of Samaritan worship (4:20-21). He was aware of Galilee (1:44,46; 2:1,2). Another interesting feature of John is that, when compared with the Synoptics, his Gospel consistently gives more references to chronology, geography, topography, and the like. As recently as 1961 an inscription was discovered in Caesarea, providing for the first time extra-biblical corroboration of Pilate as Judea's prefect during the time of Christ.

Also, the writer was an eye-witness of what happened. He does not state his name, but there are traces of his own hand in the gospel. "We beheld his glory," (1:14). He knew the number of pots used at the wedding at Cana (2:6). He knew the value of the anointing perfume (12:5). He was at the crucifixion (19:33-35). He knew the distance from the shore of the apostles boat and the number of fish caught (21:8,11). "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true," (21:24).

So the writer was a Jew from Palestine, who was an eye-witness and he was a master of accuracy in chronology, geography and history. Also, an apostle, "whom Jesus loved." . . . . if it is true that he was an apostle, and one of the inner three, and he was not Peter, or James [cf the details in the linked], then he must have been the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee.

So, we have good reason to infer that John was written by the traditional author, John Zebedee, the beloved disciple and the only one to live to truly old age and die a more or less natural death.

So, this brings us right back to the key challenge: whose report will we believe, why?

Should we believe Dr Mitchell's hearsay account, or the recorded, carefully transmitted eyewitness testimony of John Zebedee?

Again, and again (with our souls potentially in the balance), why, or why not? END

Matt 24 watch, 62: Prager's remarks on homosexualists' fallacious analogies to objections to inter-racial marriage

The well-known American talk show host and commenter, Dennis Prager [a conservative Jew], has published a very important "food for thought" column today, "On interracial and same-sex marriage."

He begins:

The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter . . . .

But the equation is false . . .

In discussing why that equation is an instance of the fallacy of unwarranted [im]moral equivalency, he notes that:

1] Race and sex bear no equivalence, as skin colour does not mark the same level of innate difference that sex does. For instance -- and indirectly rebuking an astonishing recent court ruling in Colorado -- "Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not."

2] Racism -- being based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour or shape of facial features or hair texture etc -- is plainly a moral aberration, while objection to the attempted "redefinition" of marriage to include men "marrying" men and women "marrying" women, is based on a longstanding moral consensus of great civilisations and religions around the world; not just that in Western culture.

3] So, implicitly, there is a serious "who is more likely to be right?" question that must be faced:

advocating same-sex marriage . . . advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.

4] Of course, however improbable, it is logically possible that that is indeed so. But do we see the required case being patiently made, step by persuasive, and convincing step? Sadly, just the opposite:

Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

5] Prager therefore throws down the gauntlet:

Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.

Sobering words, and an invitation to serious discussion on matters foundational to our civilisation and its moral underpinnings.

A serious discussion that must address the point that it is self-evident that maleness and femaleness are complementary and fundamentally so in a way that maleness and maleness or femaleness and femaleness are not.

So much so, that as our Lord observed about creation order on being challenged about easy divorce and remarriage:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'^[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'^[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Footnotes:

Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27
Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24

If this is so for easy divorce and remarriage, how much moreso is the implication that marriage is embedded in the Creation order for humanity relevant to an attempt to say that Adam and Steve -- or Eve and Sue -- are equivalent to Adam and Eve? END

Matt 24 watch, 61: The Gabriel ink-on-stone tablet

A few days ago, the news reports on the recently announced Gabriel Stone Tablet -- apparently, discovered in Jordan a decade ago [which, BTW, underscores the often overlooked fact that the historic land of Israel was on both sides of that well-known River . . .] -- were brought to my attention.

As is now sadly usual, the news reports have breathlessly announced yet another "undermining" of the authenticity of the New Testament.

This time, on novel grounds: based on interpretations of lines with lost or faded text regarding the thought of an obscure C1 BC Jewish sect, the NT's report that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, was allegedly simply copied from Jewish thought of the day:

. . . Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days . . . .

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” . . . .

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus.

The obvious problem?

The 500+ eyewitnesses and the record of such within 25 - 30 years, leading to a worldwide movement over the past two thousand years that manifests the supernatural, liberating, life-transforming, healing power of that resurrection:

1 Cor 15:1Now, brothers, I [Paul] want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance^[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,^[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:3 Or you at the first
2. 1 Corinthians 15:5 Greek Cephas

Here are my thoughts, in response to the ever-alert reader I:

____________

1] Isaiah 53 speaks of a suffering Christ, who rises from the dead, 700 BC. [The idea of a suffering servant messiah who dies for the sins of the people and rises, bringing salvation to those who believe his report, as well as healing and deliverance was there all along, for at least 700 years!]

2] Jesus, in speaking of three days to rise, used the analogy of Jonah in the belly of the beast of the sea for three days. [So, indeed, the idea of such a rising messiah in three days was part of Jewish culture, from the days of Jonah.]

3] Jesus clearly had to address the issue of the political messiah, who would overthrow Roman rule on analogy of the Maccabean revolt. Indeed, the confrontation in Gethsemane with Peter trying to behead one of the arresting party distinctly echoes1 Maccabes 1 - 2 -- in the circle of disciples, no less. The difference is Jesus' rebuke, which is telling in light of the fate of 6 of 7 Hasmonean brothers: those who take up the sword will perish by it. And, of course he ducked the crowds who would make him king by force, and he told Pilate et al that his kingdom was not one of this world, or his followers would fight.

4] In short, the climate of being a part of the messianic trend of Judaism, but also deliberately distinguishing himself from the politicised messiah is plainly there in the NT. THAT is the key difference! (Including, Jesus distinguishing himself from sects that may have seen the political messaiah slain then rise. That is in the end -- given the texts such as Isaiah 53, and the general climate of yearning for "Maccabes Uprising II" -- not particularly surprising.)

5] Thus, we can see the deep flaw in:

. . . Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days.

He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful descendant of King David.

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” . . . .

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

--> First, that there should be a variant on the usual desired/expected/ candidate political messiah where he is slain [the usual fate of leaders of uprisings under the Romans!] but rises, even in three days is rooted in the OT expectations.

--> Thus, it is unsurprising in the end to see such a correlation as is now in view; but that is not grounds for inferring to cause in any sense that undermines the authenticity of the NT teachings. (There is a dubious higher critical principle that in effect disputes the autheticity of anything in the NT that reflects the hebraic context of C1 Palestine. Usually, it is read as ruling that a saying of Jesus is inauthentic; here, it seems to be used to infer that Jesus's teachings are simply derivative of that context.)

--> What is underscored, here, is the distinctive emphasis of Christ on spiritual transformation and a messiah whose work is primarily spiritual: dying as the lamb of God sacrificed for our sins [cf John the Baptist's "behold the Lamb . . ."], rising as our Lord and Saviour.

--> And, of course, precisely which of these would-be political messiahs rose from the dead in three days, with 500+eyewitrnesses and resurrection power in a church that has gone to the world of lost sinners -- one soul at a time -- with the gospel that saves, heals and delivers?

--> Thus, we see a strained twisting of evidence [in part somewhat scanty and based on reading missing or half-erased words] to find an anti-Christian interpretation. That says more about Mr Knohl and his ilk than it does about the NT and the gospel.

_____________

So, in the end -- and as Pastor Sam Green of Grace Missionary Church, Constant Spring Jamaica, so strongly reminded me five years ago -- we come back to the still telling force of the Apostle Peter's theological last will and testament:

2 Pet 1:12 . . . I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."^[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So, then "whose report will we believe" -- why? END