Realmscapes

Distinctions

"We have not been willing to put our priorities properly. We have not been willing to say ... "Hey Russia, we won't expand NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia, right next to your borders, if you cooperate with us on Iran." ...

I think Iran and Israel are a hell of a lot more important than expanding NATO to Russia's borders. Why should we? What do we need it for? So let [Russia] invade Georgia. It's right next to them. Would we tolerate a foreign--a Russian army in Mexico? Which is more important to us Georgia or Israel, frankly?"   --Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

I am so tired of Democrats blurring the lines between good guys and bad guys. (And yes I am going to pick on them because they are the ones constantly doing the blurring--all the way back to the Civil War.) Frankly any American politican who can find similarities between Russia's motives and those of NATO's--while taking a passe attitude towards the sovereignty of said NATO allies--needs to be kicked out of office on the sheer basis of either their ignorance or arrogance.

NATO is a defensive coalition NOT an invading force--so hell yeah it should be supported and strengthened! Remember...

Russia is the (former) communist nation.
Russia is the one who plundered eastern Europe.
Russia is the one who decided to make a power play resulting in the Cold War.
Russia is the one who has hurt its own cause by invading Georgia and threatening Ukraine.
Russia is the one working with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba to develop those countries' nuclear programs and/or military arsenals.

Russia is the country that needs to prove to the world that it is one of the good guys, not NATO members. 

This is what happens when a world allows too many shades of grey to saturate the spectrum of its politcal ideology.

The Race Card in 2008

Politically speaking, I am angry. Because I am a conservative, a Lutheran Christian, and a Republican, I am thus--by default--a racist, and potentially a fanatical threat. That's it--no other questions asked.

To anyone who knows me, that is a LOL kind of joke. Unfortunately though, that is how the leading media liberals in print and broadcasters on cable TV are portraying frustrated and angry conservative Republicans at recent McCain/Palin rallies. Democrat Representatives in Congress are taking that view as well. Assuming what is reported is true, no one on that side considers that a handful of liberal activists might have infiltrated the rallies or that it was simply made up by an Obama-supporting broadcaster.

Just me protecting my side? Perhaps. Thankfully there are still major media types willing to expose the farce, but the damage is usually already done to the regular American citizen who gets ten minutes of news on the radio, and everything else at the company water cooler. But also look at the history of the Democrat Party when it comes to race in this country--a history often that is conveniently allowed to be buried and ignored by those calling themselves "journalists" and "experts".

If the Democrat Party was so supportive of the black community in this country, why did it slander Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, a known conservative, during his confirmation hearings in the 90's? Why does the liberal community lampoon Secretary of State Rice? Or try and talk down comedian-actor Bill Cosby? Would these same people happily vote for a Michael Steele or a Lynn Swann? (And yes, that would be the HOF receiver from the famous Steelers dynasty in the 70s.) Why do liberal Democrats continue to hold back or malign anyone who attains success outside the liberal ideology?

But the race-baiting doesn't end there. There is an indirect notion being purported that a vote against Barack Obama translates to racism. Based on this logic, could I not technically acuse those Americans of racism? How else is someone to interpret it when so many black Americans say they are voting for Obama simply because he is a "fellow brotha" and for no other reason.

A vote must be cast on knowledge and sense. I will disagree with you, but if you think socialism is the way to go, then vote for the candidate that supports that view. That is a far better vote in the spirit of the democratic process than ANY vote--yay OR nay--cast based solely on race. 

Burke: The Day the Universe Changed - Part II, In the Light of the Above

In this chapter, James Burke follows how the discovery of lost Greek and Roman knowledge during the Reconqusita of Spain helped change the way law was used in Europe, and eventually led to the institution of the "university".

One thing that I can tell about men such as Burke is that their loathing of the Christian Church of the time comes directly from the way the Christian militaries bulldosed their way through land, caring very little for the cultures and the ancient knowledge they possessed. "Knowledge" to James Burke et al. is everything whereas increasing the tithing faithful was everything to the church.

Perhaps it isn't fair for a Christian to side with the intelligencia, but on this issue they certainly have a legitimate beef. The behaviour of the Roman Catholic Church in those closing centuries following the first millennium is hardly something that I am proud of--and led to even worse behaviour in the centuries that followed. In some ways, humanism is a direct result of the Church's attitude towards things like knowledge. Rome was less frightened of the Earth being round than the "consequences" of a literate and rationalising mass.

Burke makes a pretty good point that if the Church had not retreated into monastaries with much of the world's knowledge, then perhaps the Dark Ages would not have needed to be so dark. In one sense this "cutting off" is very similar to what Israel did to the world pre-Christ ("God was for the Jews and nobody else", was their belief). In any case, Burke blames St. Augustine and his City of God for initiating all this. I have not read that work (yet) so I don't know if that is a fair assessment. I would not put it past the Papacy to have taken Augustine's work and spun it. But if Augustine did in fact advocate that men should not bother with the world or knowledge, then it is something I vehemently disagree on with this noble church patriarch.

Thus, the only other culture with the West's knowledge were the Arabs. It is with them that James Burke unequivocally sides against the Christian community of the time, building up that culture for several pages as the epitome of civilisation and class against the Christian "barbarian". I have to believe that this view is more out of spite than anything given the sanctity in which "knowledge" is held by the pure scholar. In fact, the irony is striking in that Rome held sway over the Western world for nearly 1500 years, yet ever since Darwin it is the secular humanists who are the ones exacting the same institutional influence and intellectual tyranny that they suffered under the Medieval Church.

Some additional thoughts on Burke's chapter, "In the Light of the Above"...

Burke: The Day the Universe Changed - Part I, The Way We Are

James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed has always been one of my favourite academic journeys into the history of knowledge in the Western world. I know that Burke, being a journalist and a member of the academe at heart, is usually critical of the role the Christian Church has played in that history. Believe it or not I agree him a lot of times because the "Church" he is criticising is the old Catholic Church, which was is serious need of reform long before Martin Luther took action.

Where we don't agree is in his respectful jabbings that people of faith are not wholly rational all the time. Burke is intelligncia through and through: things need to be taken apart and explained rationally. And if it can't be taken apart, then it should be queued for abandonment.

Still, I like Burke and the way he presents things. I don't really know if he is (or was ever) a man of faith, but that doesn't really affect the excellent journey he takes us through history. And of course, there are things in his book/series that I feel compelled to comment on. Beginning with his first chapter, "The Way We Are", he begins the journey essentially with the Ionians, a Greek spinoff whose insatiable curiosity and MacGyver ingenuity would pave the road for the way we live here in the West...

Accepting the Nature of Islam

Rush interviewed Andrew McCarthy on his show yesterday. Andrew was the leading U.S. attorney in the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the villain behind the 1993 WTC bombing.

The interview reminded me of an important issue--and frequent misconception--surrounding the religion of Islam. Being a Christian, I obviouslly believe my faith to be "the one". But the Islam religion is very different in the pantheon of faiths. Since 9/11 we have heard many times over that the Muslim jihadists (or "Islamofascists" as I prefer to call them) have hijacked the Muslim faith. This in fact is not true. I know this is not politically correct to state, and I can see a conservative Christian such as myself being accused of sabre-rattling, but the facts are the facts; and the fact is, the nature of this 1500-year old religion is often emasculated by the media and "experts".

MCCARTHY:  Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and [an] informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness, so I spent, you know, quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also, you know, having to do the other odds and ends that you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the [Sheik Rahman] decided to testify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't do but that didn't mean we didn't have to prepare for it.  And that was an eye-opener.  In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me.  I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine.  But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.

... There's no other way of putting it.  And it shouldn't have been a surprise.  I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt.  Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.

So the truth is, when Iran's president or the leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaida, admonish the Muslim community for being traitors or soft when helping the West combat terrorism--the truth is they are correctly rebuking their fellow Muslims according to their scriptures; Muslims who practice their religion as a peaceful faith are really the ones hijacking Islam (in the eyes of the greater muslim world). Take this exchange:

RUSH:  We live in the United States of America, and the people who live here, many of them have not traveled abroad; and as a result there are many things that they take for granted and one of the things I think a lot of people take for granted is that we're pretty much like the rest of the world, except they're very impressionable and they're told that the rest of the world hates us. They despise us because of our affluence, because our productivity, because we are a small portion of the world's population and we use a majority of the world's resources. All these things, and the education system labels guilt throughout our society.  You mentioned these people in the fourteenth century.  One of the things I constantly try to tell people is that -- to demonstrate the true greatness of western democracies, representative republics and a western civilization, a culture. We are all born as little savages.  If we were not raised by parents -- if we were not instructed in right and wrong, morality and so forth -- we would turn out however we did.  These people remind me of just that.  They're being raised to behave and think as they do.  I'm talking about the jihadists, this culture that's 1400 years old.  Human beings are not by instinct, not by nature good.  That has to be programmed into them, it has to be raised in them -- and these people of course have a different definition.  They think they are good, they're doing everything in the name of God, and yet their crimes are against humanity.

MCCARTHY:  You know, Rush, that's exactly right.  It actually brings me to another memory of the dynamic between [Sheik Rahman] and the community, which was an eye-opener and a frightening one to me.  We had very long defense case in the case. It actually went on for about two months; and during the course of it, any number of moderate people came in -- and they really were authentic moderate people.  There's no way on God's green earth they ever would have crossed into terrorism activity. But every now and then when they were on the stand, a question of theology would come up, of doctrine. You know, "What does jihad mean? What does this concept mean?" and at least three different times, they answered, "I wouldn't be competent to say. You'd have to ask someone like [Sheik Rahman] about that."

Andrew added this important point at the end of the interview:

"Even if you don't agree with why we went to Iraq in the first place -- and, you know, say we should never have been there --the fact is that the worst thing we ever did was pull out of Lebanon in 1983 when the Marine barracks got hit.  The next worst thing we probably ever did was pull out of Somalia when that got ugly.  These people -- and when I talk about "these people," I mean people like Bin Laden and [Sheik Rahman] -- if used to a fair thee well as a recruiting tool this notion that they're the strong horse, we're the weak horse; and if they make it ugly enough and bloody enough for us, that we will pull out.  It's like when a very strong team plays a very weak team in sports.  The strong team can never give the weak team a sniff, because the minute you do and they start to think they can win, and they start to believe in themselves, they become much more efficient. It becomes much more easy for them to recruit, to raise money, to do all the things they have to do to take on a superpower.  What they have going for them that we don't, is they have basically eradicated our threshold idea of what is civilized behavior.  They are willing to do anything to win, and they're absolutely sure that history is on their side.  Unless we become more sure than we are now that we're right, and that we have a need to show them that however long it takes, we're going to do what has to be done to win; you know, we can't rely on the fact that we're a super power and that it's inevitable that we'll win this thing."

Even a brief walk through history reveals that the Muslim world exists today through its military conquests and sectarian world-view. Do you think it a coincidence that the war between Islam and the West is almost as old as Islam itself? The first real step towards combating Islam is first understanding that at its core it is not a peaceful religion. Its followers are not brain-washed lemmings, but zealous followers of their teachings. Talking about them in this fashion makes Christians such as myself sound extreme...like we are calling for a crusade of our own. Ironically that is exactly what they like to hear because it justifies their inhumane actions.

I am not calling for a crusade, but we do have the right to defend ourselves and support our allies who desire to live in a world of freedom. This we should do without the veils of political correctness or ignorance, and with the firm conviction that we are right in doing so.

Gov. Mitt Romney: Faith in America

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, gave an inspiring speech on religion and American culture while on his Presidential campaign trail. It is rare that we hear such words in current American politics, and from a high-profile Presidential candidate no less. Even though I am a (Lutheran) Christian and have not yet chosen to support a specific candidate for the Republican nomination, I am posting this speech in its entirety on my weblog because it is informative, heartfelt, and true insight into the role religion should play in the governance of a nation (and the role Christianity has played in the governance of ours).

You can also view the speech via Governor Romney's website (it runs about twelve minutes).

I also encourage you to read Rush Limbaugh's follow-up commentary to the speech, which is just as informative and inspiring.

Rush: The Difference Between Vietnam and Iraq

There's a series of differences. In the first place, Vietnam, that was a war started and run by Democrats. Iraq was started, of course, by the terrorists.

The A-Bomb: A Christian Perspective

I quoted a Marine about his experiences post-Nagasaki. And yet the dropping of the A-Bomb is a tough question to ponder in the mind of a Christian.

The Fourteen-century Threat of Militiant Islam, and counting

Like Thomas, I found this essay by Orson Scott Card about the consequences of pulling out from Iraq, to be exceptional. But the warning at its heart concerning the Islamo-fascists' war on the West via Europe is not new. Tolkien and CS Lewis, both well-renowned authours and respected academics, also warned of this southern threat--most notably in their famous fictional works from Middle-Earth and Narnia. But talk about this threat to Europeans (or Americans) and you'll get nothing but scoffing and estranged looks.

To much of the Muslim world, the Crusades are a current event. Here in the States, many poke fun that in some parts of the deep South the Civil War is still being fought. But the threat from Arab extremists is nothing to joke about. Watch Muslim scholars on the History Channel and see the fire in their eyes when they speak of their role in kicking the Christians out of the Holy Land. In the minds of most Westerners, the Crusades were the beginning and end of the Muslim/Christian wars, and all of those people would be wrong:

• 636: Muslim Arabs under Caliph Abu Bakr (student and the successor of Islam's Muhammad) take Damascus from the Roman Empire in the Battle of Yarmouk; this battle was the first Muslim conquest outside of Arabia (which includes present-day Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates) and culminated with the taking of Jerusalem in 637 following a siege
• 732: Charles Martel halted a strong Muslim incursion into southern France at the Battle of Tours
• 1087: the Almoravid Muslims conquered half of Spain before El Cid, recalled from exile, finally stopped them
• 1371: the Islamic Ottoman Empire takes its first European nation (Macedonia); the military expansion continued for over three hundred years and reached as far as Austria until King Jan III of Poland halted the Muslims' northern push at the Battle of Vienna in 1683; the Muslim empire isn't officially defeated until 1918 with the help of T.E. Lawrence
• 1936: leading up to World War II the Muslims attempt to re-establish their place in the world through a series of revolts and a (failed) alliance with Adolf Hitler
• 1947: Muslim Palenstinians commence terrorist attacks on Jewish citizens in Palestine leading to the Arab-Israeli War and the subsequent Muslim attacks on Israel and its allies throughout the rest of the Twentieth Century
• 2001: Muslim extremists destroy the World Trade Center towers in New York City, resulting in the current War on Terror

Whatever individual Muslims believe, the Muslim religion is being used by fascists and tyrants to make war on the West. And with Western Leftists spread throughout Europe and North America, the Islamic extremists have found a new weapon with which to make war: Politics. Through politics the Muslims have been able to immigrate in droves to the West, grafting themselves into our culture and succeeding in emasculating our defenses.

Don't believe me? Remember, the UK has recenty decreed that they will cease to teach the Holocaust and the Crusades out of "respect" to Muslim students; liberal-American political leaders are meeting with tyrants in their terrorist states to talk "peace" and fighting for terrorists to be tried as criminals instead of killed as military enemies; Leftists everywhere are demanding that U.S. and British troops pull out of Iraq. The last time Britain pulled out of the Holy Land in 1948 the result was hardly peace and in fact the world has now had to deal with the Muslim terrorists who were left to their own devices when the last Western soldier exited the region.

If the Muslims really want to live in peace they need to take charge of their culture and help Western forces to capture the militiant extremists that poison their faith. Iraq is the example that the West wants democracy and freedom, NOT imperial rule. The history is out there for anyone to read who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Shrugging off the evidence because it might make someone feel bad, voting in Leftist politicians, and not protecting our own culture by allowing porous borders only promises the inevitable.

A Beautiful Day

On this day God, who manifested Himself into the very flesh He used to create man at the genesis of the world, gave Himself up in a perfect sacrifice so that Satan Lucifer could not win the final battle of the great war between Heaven and hell.

Whether you believe in Him or not, God died so that you might live.

What a miraculous and beautiful day.

God's Skeleton Found?

If you have never read the best-selling book by Paul Maier, A Skeleton in God's Closet, it is a story in the guise of a Dan Brown thriller that puts forth this scenario: What would happen if the bones of Jesus Christ were found?

An intruguing question that a new BBC documentary is now actually trying to bring to claim is no longer fiction. Apparently the name of Jesus has been found on a first-century ostuary. Other names on the ancient coffin include the children and what is believed the wife of this Jesus--you guessed it Maria, which the documentary's producers and scholar's are quickly claiming is "Mary"...or Mary Magdalene.

I am a Christian. I make no secret of this fact and I make no secret that I do everything I can to promote the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ in every aspect of my life and at every oppurtunity. I guess this makes me biased when it comes to critiquing this kind of archaeology. The problem I have is that I (and many others like me) am thus accused of having an agenda, as if the non-Christian producers and scholars and scientists and politicians and religious leaders (etc etc) do not. Some of these can even be catergorised as actively anti-Christian, such as the producer of this "Jesus" documentary, the Hollywood director, James Cameron (Terminator series, Titanic).

I don't mind that Cameron and his army of anti-Christian professionals have an agenda to disprove or discredit even the most sacred of Christian beliefs. I do mind that they are spineless enough to promote their agenda to the masses as "objective scholarship and science".

The Bible and Egypt's Book of the Dead

I can't understand why it's such a big deal when scholars find another culture expressing similar moral themes as the Bible.

For example, on a recent History Channel doc about Egypt's mythic Book of the Dead it is discovered that the book contains a code known as "the Forty-Seven Negatives"--which basically boils down to a moral checklist-report on the deceased. Within these "Negatives" are several that are also found in The Ten Commandents. And for about ten minutes the scholars express their excitement that the Book of the Dead--since it is dated pre-Moses--may have influenced the Bible.

Okay. So a culture outside of Israel believed that murder and adultery was a moral sin. ... ... Maybe I'm missing something here, but why am I supposed to be impressed? Why is it so important that scholars try and establish that the Bible is a copycat (and even a plagirist for some)?

This is just another example of scholars misinterpreting the purpose of the Bible. The Bible is not claiming that Israel is the first nation to ever adopt an official moral code. The Bible is not purporting itself to be a world historical document.

The purpose of the story of The Ten Commandments is for us to know the Official Moral Code of God. It establishes The Ten Commandments as the Law of God so that the world can understand why the saving Gospel of Christ is so essential.

As long as the secular Bible scholarship continues to try and separate God from history they will continue to misunderstand the Bible, and Bible scholarship will continue to be handicapped.

DVCS: The Circle

The circle has got to be one of the most oft-used shapes in humanity and no religion--alive or dead--can claim exclusivity to it.

To the Christian, the circle has always represented God--perfect and eternal. Aside from that, the circle pretty can represent anything eternal. The gold band in Luther's seal (see below), for example, symbolises Heaven and thus eternal life.

The Da Vinci Code draws further attention the apparent uniqueness of the Templar churches due to their circular layouts. Building on the foundations of "the circle religion" that is ancient feminine paganism, the story connects the Templars to paganism. A more practical purpose may be that the Templars built their churches to resemble their Jerusalem surroundings. Or to serve as a kind of business advertising.

There are also interesting theories that the Templars may have been adept in geometry and science, and built their churches circular as a kind of calendar. Templar churches in Scandinavia offer several clues in support of these theories. (However, I do not subscribe to follow-up theories connecting the Templars advanced scientific knowledge--if they had any--to non-Christian symbolism or practices, or to the Masons.)

DVCS: The Rose

In The Da Vinci Code the rose plays a prominent role in the story's line-up of "sacred feminine" and pagan symbols tied to the Holy Grail. But the rose is just as strong in Christian symbology, and its inclusion in churches should not be viewed as unusual.

First, one of Jesus' Messianic titles is "The Rose of Sharon", which is an actual flower found in Palestine's green valleys (and referenced in the Old Testament book, Song of Solomon 2:1). This rose (or lily) has puzzled scientists and scholars alike. You can view the parrallels of this enigmatic rose with the person of Christ at this very interesting website.

Second, the rose is prominent in the seal of Reformation founder, Martin Luther (and thus throughout Lutheran symbology). This seal has come to represent the Protestant movement started by Luther and could have been a way for a church to mark itself as being of that line of thinking.

DVCS: The Last Supper

Alright. The claim is that the figure to Christ's right is none other Mary Magdalene, Faithful Disciple. Furthermore, Da Vinci supposedly put her in the picture in support of the secret knowledge that Jesus and Mary were a married couple, or at the very least, "an item". The Church, in order to cover this up, instead labeled the figure to Jesus' right as an effeminite St. John, the Gospel writer.

Historical Background
- Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of extraordinary talent and intelligence. Not many historical figures can claim being a labeled a genius in both art and science by posterity. In fact, I can't even think of one. His love of art and science also put him at serious odds with the Church, who he didn't think much of anyway.

- The Catholic Church in the 15th century is a firmly masculine organisation. The Catholic Church is as arrogant as ever. And the Catholic Church is as corrupt as ever.

My Thougts
Fine. The figure could be a woman.
Fine. The figure could be Mary Magdalene.
Fine. I'll even buy the letter "v" possibly being in the painting as a nod to Da Vinci's feminism.
Am I supposed to be upset about all this by now...?

The Last Supper is a painting by the hand of a man who at the very least enjoyed pressing the Church's buttons and at best had a full fledged agenda. For me, if it is true that he painted Mary to stick it to the Church, then I'm disappointed that Da Vinci lacked the integrity to paint what he was being paid for and leave it at that (since there was no saying "no" to Rome back then). At the very worst, the painting drops some places down on my list of respected Christian art because its historical accuracy is in question. But beyond that, it doesn't bother me in the least that she may be the one in the painting (or with Jesus in any other pieces of art). Mary Magdalene was just as important a disciple as John the Apostle and let's move on.

I'll also add this: If the Church commissioned a painter who already gave them a piece they weren't at all happy with (Madonna of the Rocks), what are they doing commissioning him again? Especially someone with the wit of Da Vinci? The Church got what it should have expected.

Also, accepting that the figure may indeed be Mary Magdalene, the fact that the Church covered up the figure's identity is hardly reeking of conspiracy. As mentioned, the Church--heck society--was completely dominated by men. And on top of that, Mary had been labeled a prostitute and thus "a most disgusting sinner". Of course they would have covered up the identity!

So the story The Last Supper tells us is one of complete arrognace, stupidity, greed, obsession, vanity, prejudice and slander on the part of Rome. The Catholic Church's non-Biblical rejection of "the woman" is the reason for all this controversy we have now with The Da Vinci Code. And not just the book, but also the modern day sexual scandals. Wherever the Church got the idea of absolute chastity for its priests and church workers, they did not get it from the Bible. But of course, they had the luxury of illiterate believers. The whole theological history of the Papacy is a tragedy, for Christians and non-Christians alike.

And Leonardo was no fool. He knew where to hit the Church where it hurts. I might even believe that, in his genius, he knew the result of the Church's incompetance would reverberate for centuries to come. And it has.

The Verdict
No conspiracy here. Just the typical The Vatican versus The Renaissance battle. The real loser here is Da Vinci, who cannot defend his work. If you're a Gnostic or someone who believes in the "divine feminine" well then my guess is that Leonardo is easily one of your patron saints. But in the end, it's a painting and it can be interpreted to mean (and now depict) just about anything the human mind wants it to. That is the double-edged sword that is art.

The Da Vinci Code Symbology (DVCS): Introduction

It is my intention to explore selected symbology found in The Da Vinci Code offering a Christian perspective. The novel gives a feeling that its interpretation of Christian symbology is "finally the real interpretation" behind Christian symbology and its motives. There is more to Christian symbology than the average person may be aware of.

My intention is NOT to prove or disprove the novel's interpretations. But I feel this journey is necessary given the first page of the book that so bluntly (and falsely) states that everything within its pages is fact. There is much beyond the codes and symbols used in the book that is not historically or Biblically accurate, and I will leave these to the numerous Christian-written books already available (such as the one written by Dr. Paul L Maier).

In the end, symbols are symbols. And where the Christian faith seperate itself from the rest of the world's religions (and even Catholic theology and tradition) is that eternal salvation does not lie in human interpretations, but in the Truth of God's Word as written in The Bible and the death and resurrection of Christ. These are real actions and moments in history, not symbols or allegory.

Micro-analyzing the Templars Downfall

As fun as it is for conspiracy theorists and New Age religions to taint the legacy of the Templars (if only to bring them down a level so they can call the Templars their own in the case of the latter), the historical record just makes it all too clear.

The Templar hierarchy was wiped out by a greedy King Phillipe IV (who wanted their riches for his bankrupt French empire), and a jealous Catholic Pope Clemente V (who craved their power, for he was just a puppet to the French king). And on top of this, it seems obvious that there was a growing resentment among most of the nobles and royals of western  Europe, and of course the Church, towards the Templars, who probaby believed (and fairly so) that it was corrupt Templar leaders who had lost the Holy Land to the hated Muslims. Hardly a proper "thank you" for all of the perks and luxuries that the Templars had enjoyed for over two hundred years.

And so, the Templars needed to be destroyed. Going after them militarily did not seem like a very good idea. Afterall, the Templars were an elite fighting force, easily comparable to the Army's Rangers. So ironically, the King and the Pope decided that it would be charges of heresy. It was easy really, what with all the Templars high secrecy and supposed secrets. Even the peasents would buy into it. Afterall, who could fight the Church anyway?

It's interesting that it was mostly the French and English who dropped the hammer on the Templars. In other parts of Europe--Spain, Italy, Scotland, and Germany especially--the Templars continued to enjoy support. Although Templars were put on trial, they were quickly acquitted.

I don't disagree that the Templars grew arrogant from their seemingly endless wealth and power, and some were certainly corrupt or abusive. But as noble as the Order was, they stand as a testament to Jesus preferring that his followers not pursue wealth or political power or be a member of high profile religious organizations. Both of the formers have been the bane of the Catholic Church since its inception, even moreso realised in this modern age of science, religious freedom, and feminism. And the latter, the bane of the Jewish religion in Jesus' own time.

In this, as sinful men, the Templars failed. They bit off much more than they could chew. But heretics they were not.

The gospel of Judas

As a Christian, the finding of a "new gospel" isn't necessarily a reason to flinch. But when the USA Today misleadingly touts the headline "Long-lost gospel of Judas recasts 'traitor'" all over the internet (along with the rest of their media colleagues and similar headlines in major international publications) and National Geographic treats the find like that of the Rosetta Stone or King Tut, then as a Christian I must act.

First, a piece of quick historical background concerning this manuscript. It is considered a "gnostic gospel". A gospel of this genre has significantly more mysticism to it than you would ever find in a Biblical gospel, or any of the Biblical books. They focus on the salvation through one's secret knowledge rather than on the death and Resurrection of Jesus. Gnostic gospels, interestingly enough, also offer convenient or relative viewpoints of the events surrounding Jesus' life and ministry.

For instance, Judas is cast as a villain. Here we have a gospel that not only makes him a hero, but a misunderstood and learned hero--and the media is viewing him as such. In another popular gnostic gospel, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, we have a supposed account of Jesus from the view of the New Testament's second most influential women. Very encouraging for the modern world where feminism runs rampant in the public sector.

Unlike Judaism or Islam or the religions of the Orient, Biblical Christianity does not have sacred mystic texts that allow for a higher path to Heaven. As you will read from the articles I have posted at the end of this, there were early religious sects who considered themselves "Christian" and subscribed to gnosticism. These sects are not unlike the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses of today, or the Cathars of medieval France, or the Celtic Druids of the ancient world.

This should all be kept in mind as we are bombarded by the scholarship surrounding this newly discovered manuscript. And as Professor Bainbridge aludes to in his short (but informative) weblog, it's inetersting how this is coming out now, the weekend before Easter and a little over a month before The Da Vinci Code hits theatres worldwide.

As I'm sure you have read the AP articles and will watch the National Geographic specials, I encourage you to also read the following articles.

Expert Doubts Gospel Of Judas
by Richard N Ostling (AP), with James M Robinson, Professor Emeritus (Claremont)

'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication
by Bruce Chilton (NY Sun)

The Gospel of Judas: Peddling Gnosticism
by Stephen Bainbridge, Professor of Law (UCLA)

God and War

Here's a quote from a reviewer reviewing the book, God and George W Bush:

All in all, I think the Author achieves what he sets out to do, however I disagree with his premise because if GOD was truly the guiding hand in Bush's life as the President, I just don't think the big guy would've been any part of so many stupid decisions, after all we are talking about God here, so I say no way, the President made those stupid choices ALL ON HIS OWN. God is never part of war or killing, in the book I read that doesn't happen because he doesn't Ever condone that kind of thing under ANY circumstances.

This is not true. God is never a part of war? How about when he stopped the sun so that Joshua could fully defeat the Amorites at Gibeon (Joshua 10). God is never a part of killing? Have we forgotten the final plague on Egypt's first-born?

In the eyes of the 21st century, I suppose it seems I am on dangerous ground. But I assure you that I am not condoning the kind of warfare such as the Romans used, or the kind that extremist Muslims currently wage on the Free World.

God is not on the side of the conqueror or the mass terrorizor or the tyrant. It is never correct to say "God is on America's side" in the sense of patriotic zeal. God is not on the side of any nation, but on the side of Right. Thus the war that America and Britain wages on Al-qaeda and similar nests of evil is a Right war. We are not seeking to conquer nations, but to restore them to their God-given freedoms. When war breaks out because a people is defenseless or honour is attacked, we can be sure that God is with those soldiers.

When Crusaders marched to the Holy Land to reclaim Jerusalem, were they wrong? No! The mission was just and many took up this mission with purity of heart and love of God. But many of the leaders and men had evil intent in their hearts, and their thoughts were of murder, greed, wealth, and power. And so the Crusades failed because God's glory was not the true focus of the majority.

This world is God's world. It is His to do with as He pleases. We--the Right--can go forth in war in His name, but must do so with clarity of mind, wisdom, honour, Faith... and for His glory and purpose if we are to emerge Victorious.

The Great Judaeo-Christian Divide

The July/August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review includes a fascinating article about the whereabouts of the Temple Menorah, a Biblical relic housed in the Great Temple of Jerusalem built by King Herod and believed stolen by the Roman Empire during the sacking of Jersusalem in 70 A.D.

According to the article, Jewish religious leaders believe that this priceless artifact is being held hostage by the Catholic Church, and is somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican. The Holy Roman Church (of course) insists that they hold no such relic, and in other articles the Vatican calls laughable any theory that says they have secret chambers full of treasure from antiquity. Sure...and there are no nuclear weapons active either in the U.S. or Russia (wink).

There is of course, much more under the surface of this issue than just the return of a pricless Hebrew artifact. In fact, at the heart of the Menorah debate is only one issue: anti-Semitism. Now here's something that I've not often understood as a Christian.

First, any Christian that proceeds to blame the Jewish people for the death of Christ, is in serious need of review of the Gospels. For any Christians who harbor anti-Semitism for this reason and may be reading this, check out the oft quoted John 3 and understand that the Jews, Judas, and Rome were simply actors in a passion play long planned by the Lord God himself. Our sin is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. God allowed his son to be the ultimate sacarifice because that is how it had to be. Add the presence of the Triune God and you will fully see the poeticism and awesomeness of this self-sacrfice.

On the Jewish side of this issue, is perhaps many  things. The first that the Jews of old believed God to be theirs and no one else's. Also, the Jewish people of Biblical times sorely wanted a warrior-king, such as David or even Saul.. someone who could give the world their due and fully establish God as a ruling force to be reckoned with, with the Tribes of Judah his swordarm. Under more peaceful times, perhaps the Jewish relgious leaders would have accepted Jesus. But if faith in Christ were that easy, then the world wouldn't have endured the likes of the Crusades, and the Eastern lands would have had no need for Confucious or Buddha.

I have several very good Jewish friends. Spritually, I see them as distant cousins--of the same seed, but in the end different trees. It is my hope that they and the rest of the Jewish people will embrace the truth of Jesus Christ. I say this not arrogantly, but with deep love and respect. For the Jewish traditions are a part of Christian heritage, and their Old Testament is the same as the Old Testament I own in my Bible.

Anti-Semitism is nothing more than a great misuderstanding between misguided Christians and mistaken Jews. No Christian or Jew should look upon the other with jealousy, hatred, or shame. Instead, we Christians need to bring the assurance of Christ as the Promised Messiah to the Jewish faithful. And the Jewish people need to impress upon Christians the importance of their Hebrew roots. Perhaps this process can be started by Catholic Church returning to Israel the Menorah and any other artifacts that belong to the Jewish community. Afterall, what does it matter if artifacts of God reside in Rome or Jerusalem?