the hunt for the 'historical Jesus'

Sometimes the latest theories about "who Jesus was" or "what he did" sound more like Enquirer stories than anything remotely resembling history. In my mind they appear much like the following:

  (Note: neither of these are actual Enquirer covers - I modified them to make a point)

my Jesus

so this is what we wanted to prove Jesus through our intellect to show that He met up to our standards of historical science we tried to have God on our own terms then we realized that history is not a science and neither is science because we are not scientific and neither is God

--------------------

but by then it was too late we already had the Jesus seminar and the historical Jesus movement which were essentially glorified predecesors to the Da Vinci Code historical fictions without the history as if such a history would satisfy our souls were it even possible

--------------------

we wanted a personal Jesus no, I wanted a personal Jesus not you, not we, because there is no 'we' we, i mean i, cannot prove a 'we' and yet i write to you who isn't because i don't know you scientifically, that is

--------------------

and so i want a personal relationship with Christ my Jesus, my way my documents, my pictures, my videos or at mcdonalds my fries, my drink, my shake my forbidden fruit my Jesus, my homeboy

--------------------

maybe if He's really mine maybe if he's really mine i don't need him to be Other after all, i can't prove the Other scientifically

--------------------

so he is a god, is he? but he's my god because i have a personal relationship with him just me and i can prove him scientifically i mean historically it doesn't really matter my intellect, my way he was a man like me i showed you that or at least i showed me that historically scientifically

--------------------

our stars, our gods they're not so shiny they're not so holy they fall, like you and me they die, like you and me he died, like you and me he fell, like you and me

or like me i think because i don't know you or he just me scientifically, that is

--------------------

we're really all the same if there were a we because all of you all of he is really me we all fall i fell

--------------------

maybe we're all gods maybe i'm a god, i mean maybe i'm the God 50 cent is my god because he makes me feel like God at least he admits he's fallen the rest i have to drag down oh, they'll fall eventually, obviously they'll die but not fast enough for me

--------------------

the deader they are, the more alive i feel the faster they fall, the more god-like i feel

--------------------

i am what i am sounds familiar isn't that from the bible somewhere? it must've been talking about me after all, it's only a book i could write a book i practically wrote it myself that's what my history says

--------------------

so i can't get away from you whoever you is my fear is that you are an indication of a He but maybe if i pretend that you are not an indication but He, but he then i can pretend that i, too am He, am he

--------------------

then we can rejoice in our humanity

and sing hosannas to ourselves until we fall, until we die until i fall, until i die

--------------------

my reoccuring nightmare, though my only dream is that when i fall, when i die, there will be a He a He that died for my fall but a He that rose again historically scientifically for me but...

satan's shackles

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.  (Job 1:6- 12)

In an age where postmodernists (modern skeptics) and moral relativists are more plentiful than jackrabbits in spring, it is necessary to recall this story from the book of Job. This world has a Prince, a Prince who is the Father of Lies. Oh, how cleverly the serpent weaves his webs of deceit and iniquity! How subtly he phrases his ever-changing lines. "Did God really say?" he asks, and changes that which is into that which is not by a mere hiss and a linguistic magic show. 
 
What must always be remembered is that Satan has no authority save that which has been given to him for a time. We live in a world that is perceived through doubt and unprovability. Since coming to know good and evil, but still being unable to do control the world-plan, humans in-the-image of God who think they're gods have struggled to see the natural fall reconciled with the intellectual fall by trying to use scientific methodology to get to the heavens. As Karl Popper would say, all any scientific theory needs to be disproved is one more piece of data. It can be falsified but not verified. One can never have absolute proof if he or she is caught up in the world. In the same way, one is never able to reconcile one's bloated logical, moral knowledge to ever-changing empirical reality if he or she tries to begin with himself or herself.  

Yes, Satan is the Prince of this world. But we always have proof that he is shackled to the Good and to the Eternal. Evil, as a privation, can always only point to the Good. If everything was 'evil,' then we would have no knowledge of it, for there would be no good to compare it to. Of course, then it wouldn't be evil since evil requires an idea of good to be contrasted with. If everything (from our perspective) was good, then we would have no knowledge of evil. Instead, because there is evil, there must be a Good to be its standard, and we must always know this Good in order to know that the evil is not it. 

Truly, evil runs rampant in this world ruled by the Prince. But even the Prince is ruled by God and will face judgment one day. In the same way, any philosophy that asserts no right or wrong asserts that the only right is that there is no right or wrong and the only wrong is claiming that there is, and so they are already always wrong by their own standard. Also, any philosophy based on the intent to deconstruct, tear down, or disprove, is always subject to the charge of constancy of change. If they wish to maintain that there will always be something that comes up to disprove a stated truth then this itself is a stated constant truth that will be disproved. On the other hand, if they state that only some things will be disproved then they have relinquished their pessimistic insistence on the lack of absolute grounding.  

Thus, in both morality and logic, Satan is already always shackled to God, no matter how much we might wrestle with evil in the world or with our inability to settle on some clearly and distinctly provable idea.

serpent servant serpents Sergeant sergeant Edit... Revert to "serpant"

deceit receipt decent despite despot Edit... Revert to "deceipt"

unprovable Edit... Ignore all Add to dictionary

disproved disprove disproving disproves Edit... Revert to "disproven"

ones Ono's owner's en's In's Edit... Ignore all Add to dictionary

disproved disprove disproving disproves Edit... Revert to "disproven"

proof

Something to think about:

"You think you've figured something out? You run over here all pleased with yourself because you changed your mind? Now you're certain? Hal, you don't know anything The book, the math, the dates, the writing, all that stuff you just decided with your buddies, it's just evidence. It doesn't prove anything." "OK, what would?" "Nothing. You should've trusted me." -from the movie Proof (2005)

speaking from silence

Secrecy and silence is often the best to express oneself. Kierkegaard wrote Fear and Trembling under the psudeonym Johanne de Silentio. He wrote as a poet, as one who claimed to have no faith, writingabout faith. He used the old Socratic technique of claiming ignorance. Ignorance is always safe to claim. Usually it's the one thing we're right about.

It often seems as though speaking from the silence of the grave is often the only expression one gets. Think of the Count of Monte Cristo, who was only free to live his life and get his bitter-sweet revenge after he was considered dead. Think also of Huck Finn, who killed a pig and spread its blood on the floor, making it look as though robbers had killed him in order to begin a new life away from his psycho father. I would prefer to speak while alive. I would prefer to live my life while alive, and not wait until after death to live. I have much better things to be doing when I'm dead.